another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie · January 28, 2012, 09:16:02 AM

Quote from: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 09:12:01 AM
I've not seen YOUR test results with this. On your circuit this test would not be possible with LED's in place of the bulbs, as they would burn out in an instant, or at least one would anyway.

And there it is again. The open accusation that I'm a LIAR. I AM NOT LYING. I DID NOT SAY THAT WE TESTED THIS ON OUR CIRCUIT. We tested this principle on a separate circuit. You were FULLY INFORMED. Evidence is in that hate blog to which I referred previously. It was posted around the 10th November or thereby 2010. It is ONLY INTRIGUING by virtue of the fact that the current appears to be running in both directions through the one rail. WHICH is evidence that there is a path in both directions. Which is consistent with the thesis. Which is detailed in the 2nd part of that 2-part paper.

Kindest regards,

Edited. I added more to this rather short post. Sorry. You may need to refresh the page.
Rosie

poynt99 · January 28, 2012, 09:18:55 AM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 09:16:02 AM
And there it is again. The open accusation that I'm a LIAR. I AM NOT LYING. I DID NOT SAY THAT WE TESTED THIS ON OUR CIRCUIT. We tested this principle on a separate circuit. You were FULLY INFORMED. Evidence is in that hate blog to which I referred previously. It was posted around the 10th November or thereby 2010. It is ONLY INTRIGUING by virtue of the fact that the current appears to be running in both directions through the one rail.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Since you've NOT tested this on your RAT circuit, you can not presently know what the result will be. Woopy did not perform this test btw.

Rosemary Ainslie · January 28, 2012, 09:24:03 AM

Quote from: poynt99 on January 28, 2012, 09:18:55 AM
Right, and since you've NOT tested this on your RAT circuit, you can not presently know what the result will be. Woopy did not perform this test btw.

So? We did NOT perform this on our RAT circuit. We could not. As you pointed out those lights would BLOW. And woopy actually showed us his own LED that stayed bright - curiously. But admittedly he used a transformer as opposed to the inductance from an element resistor. I'm SURE that this will entirely OBVIATE the relevance of his tests as far as you're concerned. Fortunately you're not the adjudicator. Else we'd be in the rather fragile position of allowing YOU to determine anything at all. As I mentioned in that paper. We need experts.

Regards,
Rosie

poynt99 · January 28, 2012, 09:28:24 AM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 09:24:03 AM
So? We did NOT perform this on our RAT circuit. We could not. As you pointed out those lights would BLOW. And woopy actually showed us his own LED that stayed bright - curiously. But admittedly he used a transformer as opposed to the inductance from an element resistor. I'm SURE that this will entirely OBVIATE the relevance of his tests as far as you're concerned. Fortunately you're not the adjudicator. Else we'd be in the rather fragile position of allowing YOU to determine anything at all. As I mentioned in that paper. We need experts.

Regards,
Rosie

Soooooo, don't imply that you DID perform the test on your circuit, when in fact you didn't. Yeah, you DID imply it...read your reply again:

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 09:07:55 AM
We've done that test. NOW. Replace those bulbs with LED's. Then. THE ONE RAIL WILL STAY LIT - the OTHER RAIL WILL STAY DARK. The oscillation persists. With fine tuning the measure of wattage is that 'D-RATTED' negative number. No need to speculate.

And once again Woopy's LED test is not even remotely related to the test outlined in the schematic I just posted.

And again, until you DO perform this test (with bulbs, not LEDs) on your RAT circuit, you can not and will not know the results.

Rosemary Ainslie · January 28, 2012, 09:34:49 AM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on January 28, 2012, 09:07:55 AM
We've done that test. Cast your mind back to the post by woopy. It was certainly made within the last two days - so it's not that far back. You may recall? Or not? There may yet come a day in our lives that you actually show proof of ever reading anything at all that I write. NOW. Replace those bulbs with LED's. Then. THE ONE RAIL WILL STAY LIT - the OTHER RAIL WILL STAY DARK. The oscillation persists. With fine tuning the measure of wattage is that 'D-RATTED' negative number. No need to speculate.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

LOVE the new name, by the way (BTW). Brings to mind the 'rat pack' and a really interesting period in our history. Also runs parallel to those early insights related to the need for 'missing energy' - now widely referred to as 'dark energy' and still in line with Einstein's preferred term 'Aether'. Perhaps you could advise MileHigh about this. He's hopelessly - or maybe 'hopefully' confused about the physics required in support of the evidence of all that dark matter. lol. Or as he puts it lolololol

WHERE in this post did I say that we applied that test to our circuit? I SIMPLY SAID THAT WE'VE DONE THAT TEST. And we most certainly have. It is all the more significant PRECISELY because it was a replication of the oscillation on an entirely different circuit. Don't get picky Poynty Point. It serves nothing. WE HAVE TESTED THE PRINCIPLE. The evidence suggests that the current flow is enabled through both directions of the circuit 'drain rail' or battery positive - and that is certainly in line with the thesis that relates to the charged property in current flow. Else in one or other direction - there should be NO current flow.

Again,
As ever, Rosie Posie