Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And this MileHigh is for you.  Let me be the first to disabuse you of any of those fervent hopes of yours that the energy is coming from the functions generator.  We now do this without any generator at all. And the results persist.  Go figger!

And what's so much worse for you - Poynty doesn't need it either. 

Rosemary

typo

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@.99
You have turned it all round now, this thread was on its way out like all the others and now it's back and hotter than ever finally things might get clear and simple 
I take back any disparaging remarks I might have made in the past.
Exceptional work Sir, hats off to you.

And Cat - this post worries me more than anything that Poynty writes.  It means that the validity or otherwise of this 'effect' will only be endorsed if he endorses it?  Is that right?  Is there nothing in the evidence that speaks to you?  Am I that ineffective that nothing I present makes a blind bit of difference to your 'beliefs'?  Has that endless attack against my competence actually been that effective?  That's a killer.  More frightening than anything I've read yet.  Because I'm reasonably satisified that there is a dedicated 'reach' to denying this technology and that it's a deliberate and orchestrated denial that has nothing to do with science.  It has everything to do self-interest.  I have no idea if it's jealousy - on the ridiculous assumption that this constitutes a discovery when it does not.  Or if it's funded from interested parties who do not want to see OU progressed.  Or if denial has simply become a compulsive illogical habit - a kind of addiction - like MileHigh has.

I assure you.  There is NO WAY that one can get more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered without there being a second supply source.  That's it.  In a nut shell.  And that's what we keep showing.  But we're going to the 'heart' of classical argument because we're showing it with conventional measurement.  I suspect that Poynty's stopped arguing the evidence - because there's just way too much of it.  Now he's arguing the relevance.  And when he uses spurious argument as he did to NP and when NP also feels flattered at the answer instead of alert and cautious - then we're SUNK.  That is not what these forums are about.  We're meant to be asking questions and giving all evidence due and proper consideration.

I could bore you all by showing you the kind of objections posed thus far - that has taken us to these 60 odd pages of writing - but it would take up too much time and more wasted space.  But cast your mind back.  Look at the facts.  Try and remember what's been said.  Those denials were based on incorrect science.  YET you're more inclined to believe Poynty than our own presentations?  Why?  Because he denies the evidence?  And that's more plausible?  Golly.  As I said.  If that's the case - then we may as well close up shop - close down these forums - and just keep our findings to ourselves. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie 

[nul-points]

...
[...] and when NP also feels flattered at the answer [...]
...
Rosie

LOL i'm several decades beyond the reach of flattery now

however, it seems that i'm not yet old enough to escape protagonists from all sides getting in line to tell me what i feel or believe

i'm not sure whether to find this gut-bustingly funny or poignantly sad!

(but i'm sure someone will tell me which i think, soon)

have fun everyone

(i'll look back in from time to time, just to make sure everyone's eating properly, getting some exercise and keeping up with basic hygiene)

np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

[powercat]

And Cat - this post worries me more than anything that Poynty writes.  It means that the validity or otherwise of this 'effect' will only be endorsed if he endorses it?  Is that right?  Is there nothing in the evidence that speaks to you?  Am I that ineffective that nothing I present makes a blind bit of difference to your 'beliefs'?  Has that endless attack against my competence actually been that effective?  That's a killer.  More frightening than anything I've read yet.  Because I'm reasonably satisified that there is a dedicated 'reach' to denying this technology and that it's a deliberate and orchestrated denial that has nothing to do with science.  It has everything to do self-interest.  I have no idea if it's jealousy - on the ridiculous assumption that this constitutes a discovery when it does not.  Or if it's funded from interested parties who do not want to see OU progressed.  Or if denial has simply become a compulsive illogical habit - a kind of addiction - like MileHigh has.

I assure you.  There is NO WAY that one can get more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered without there being a second supply source.  That's it.  In a nut shell.  And that's what we keep showing.  But we're going to the 'heart' of classical argument because we're showing it with conventional measurement.  I suspect that Poynty's stopped arguing the evidence - because there's just way too much of it.  Now he's arguing the relevance.  And when he uses spurious argument as he did to NP and when NP also feels flattered at the answer instead of alert and cautious - then we're SUNK.  That is not what these forums are about.  We're meant to be asking questions and giving all evidence due and proper consideration.

I could bore you all by showing you the kind of objections posed thus far - that has taken us to these 60 odd pages of writing - but it would take up too much time and more wasted space.  But cast your mind back.  Look at the facts.  Try and remember what's been said.  Those denials were based on incorrect science.  YET you're more inclined to believe Poynty than our own presentations?  Why?  Because he denies the evidence?  And that's more plausible?  Golly.  As I said.  If that's the case - then we may as well close up shop - close down these forums - and just keep our findings to ourselves. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Hi Rosie
I don't think the conspiracy against you is as big as you think, many good people of this forum have tried making your circuit unfortunately they have not achieved the same results as you claim,
if anyone looks on YouTube for your circuit they will get 52 results posted in the last two years,
that in itself speaks volumes when you compare it with say the Bedini circuit.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&uni=3
Yes I understand your circuit is unconventional and almost impossible to measure correctly,but from where I am sitting .99 is only trying to improve the situation so that others can easily make the circuit and measure it correctly, yes you have supporters but I have yet to see their replication back up your claims.
I admire your dedication and very much it is what is needed to be successful and the other half is that people can easily understand your work and follow in your footsteps, .99 is only trying to help you in this.

[neptune]

I think that there are several aspects of this circuit that makes it difficult to replicate at this stage by the average guy , In the past , there was the problem that we did not know about the strange accidental wiring of the mosfets .It would not be wise at this stage until poynt99 shows his final preferred circuit . The simpler the final circuit , the more chance of success .Not everyone has access to a function generator or a scope .I look forward to the day when a scope will not be essential . It would seem that already we do not need a function generator .In the past , I have built radio transmitters without this test gear .So I would expect to see several successful replications soon . In the meantime , I wonder if it would be possible to simulate this using caps instead of batteries , as these are easier to obtain and cheaper than batteries .