Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Interesting questions Stefan.   

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Poynty - how many times must I say this?  The demo - the report schematic - excluded that eccentric FET postioning.  But for that test the ground of the signal generator was 'behind' the CSR as shown on that schematic.  Not good.  I KNOW.  But.   NOW.  Listen up.  We put it there because we were running two SCOPES.  Therefore there was no 'space' for the ground from the FG.  But I didn't mind WHERE I put the ground of the FG.  Because it MAKES NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTS - THERE OR WHERE IT SHOULD BE.  Voltage across the shunt is GLUED to that negative value.  And that's all we needed to show.  But I'll show you this when I FINALLY get my PC back. 

Again, kindest, and I trust you're enjoying all that sunshine.
Rosie

Rose,

It is still unclear to me. Could you please answer this simple question?

Are the "results" and claims made from the video demonstration and before, still valid?

"YES"
or
"NO"

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Rosemary,

why don´t you do this ?

1) All COP > INFINITY device information in one place in one post not spread out over ninety (90) pages.

All our results are COP INFINITY.  And they are NOT spread over 90 pages.  Add them up.  They'd barely cover 5.  The rest of the pages are answers, questions, discussions and sundry.  Is this not allowed? For some reason I may not enter into dialogue with the readers and members?  That's a bit onerous Harti.  It's certainly not the rule that you apply to other contributors.

2) A accurate circuit diagram of the claimed COP > INFINITY device .... there are five (5) at least that I know of .... and "AGAIN" the one on your blog is incorrect (FALSE) http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/04/109-simulated-circuit.html#links

I only know of 2 appropriate circuits and the one on my BLOG is NOT FALSE.

3) All sequenced oscilloscope screen shots and data dumps from the day of the test not days before or after for over a minimum of one hour at 6 minute intervals for a total of eleven (11) verified recordings of the COP > INFINITY device.

What?  It doesn't matter one little bit if I post the same minute the same day or the same month.  Those shots are dated and timed.  And are you asking me to post a series of 11 shots over an hour at 6 minute intervals for proof?  What is this 6 minute requirement?  It seems rather arbitrary.  I've never taken series of downloads at set intervals.  But I've certainly taken multiple sequence shots.  My downloads taken at temperature variation as that's all that's appropriate.  The screen shots are that repetitive.  But.  As mentioned.  Very happy to oblige.  I have them all on file.  I can do this retrospectively - CERTAINLY.  Be happy to oblige.  Just hang ten.  It'll follow.

4) The complete parts list of all the components used to do a scientific replication to verify the results in a verifiable scientific manner of the COP > INFINITY device

You are NOW asking me to publish my report here?  That's a new one for the books.  What you ACTUALLY advised me was that I WAS NOT ALLOWED to post my report here.  Just the link.  If you'd rethought this then I would most certainly have done so.  Wish you'd told me that you'd changed your mind and that this was now REQUIRED.

5) All the settings of the Function Generator in Hz or Mhz .... including ....  the setting of the DC offset switch ( -10 VDC to + 10 VDC )

You do not NEED the settings of the functions generator in Hz or Mhz or anything else.  You can determine the frequency from the screen shots. Surely?

6) A complete photographic image set available for verification and review including the top and bottom of any circuit board of the COP > INFINITY device at the time under or during test .

This has been provided and has been further clarified by Poynty.  Why must I do it again.  And in any event I can't.  Not until I get my computer back.  You may recall.  It's been hacked and I still haven't got it back.

To get scientific approval you NEED to do these scientific test and exact report documents.

Still not with you.  Are you offering scientific approval?  To what end?  That you will then endorse these results and then we'll be immediately accredited throughout the scientific community.  That would be nice. If so, then I will most CERTAINLY attempt to do whatever it is that you require.

As you have done it with mixed up circuit diagrams and mixed up scope shots from different mixed ups testings , where one does not know,which scopeshot belongs to what test, is not scientific.

Well.  This is the first time in the history of these forums where a moderator first demands that I DO NOT publish my report and then proceeds to advise me that I may ONLY write a report.  I have many.  I'll download them all.  Just was hoping for permission.

Before I opened your account and before your demo you promised to release alldata in an open source format and well presented, but what you did present was only all mixed up and shuffled data so nobody can really see, what it is all about or if there weremeasurement errors done and then you suddenly had a wrong circuit diagram, etc, etc....

Not actually.  Before you RE-OPENED my account you made absolutely NO stipulations on how that data was to be presented other than that I was NOT ALLOWED TO PUBLISH THE REPORT.  But what you most certainly undertook was that I would not again be subjected to the FLAMING that has been my unhappy lot.  I'm not sure which of the two of us are in breach of undertakings here.  But I do not think it is me. 

So maybe you should quit for a while, do again some more testing and then document it the way shown above very exactly.....? Otherwise you will be again ridiculed and laughed at and ignored by the scientific community..

Regards, Stefan.

WHAT???  To the best of my knowledge there is no academic who has EVER offered ridicule.  That is hardly an appropriate reaction EVER.  They may be somewhat incredulous, so much so that the the entire claim is dismissed. In fact, what our experts have done is avoided looking at the evidence.  But I have every reason to believe that that is about to change.  And I can assure you that NOT ONE OF THEM  have offered ridicule.  I would not have been working at a respected academic institution for nearly a year and a half - if their attitude was one of scorn.  What an appalling insinuation. 

So.  Stefan.  Until this post of yours I had always assumed that the purpose of these forums was to enter into a dialogue with your members to advance the evidence and the knowledge as best we could.  I was not aware that members first had to submit that evidence in the form of a publishable paper as required for a scientific treatise.  I had no idea that you were offering a kind of 'review' for publication and then offering final approval of that claim or otherwise.  And I find this difficult to marry this requirement with any other work AT ALL that is submitted here in your threads.  In fact - if this is the requirement then I am not sure that any of your current threads would survive.  Certainly YOU DID NOT DEMAND THIS OF ROMEROUK.  Why me?  Why our technology?  It seems somewhat partial - with respect.

But in any event.  I'm delighted that you're now asking for fuller reports and I will be most happy to oblige.  Hold your horses.  During the following days I will post reports that will exhaust you with their detail.  Can't wait.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose,

It is still unclear to me. Could you please answer this simple question?

Are the "results" and claims made from the video demonstration and before, still valid?

"YES"
or
"NO"

.99

Poynty - OUR RESULTS - as shown.  OUR CLAIM related to the results - as shown.  The circuit excluded the eccentric MOSFET config.  The Ground of the functions generator - which I KNOW is what you're asking - IS AS SHOWN. 

The water to boil test - we PUT THE FG's GROUND as I explained earlier. 

Regards
Rosie

[hartiberlin]

Hi Rosemary,
why don´t you post ALL data you have in a ZIP file
or on your own blog in an resonable presentation, so one could
follow it easily.

On your blog you only have a few pages about the tests and then
so many other pages about other "fighting topics with other forum members"

It is all so confusing, so to really see what you did is hard to follow.

Maybe you should do another blog with just the technical information
so one could follow it much easier or do it all in a ZIP file
and upload it to www.multiupload.com

I think the maximum file size is 400 or 500 MBytes there.

So you can include many scopehots and many pictures and also
videos with it in the ZIP file.

Regards, Stefan.