another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

Dear 3 readers of this thread,

Since there is no way to add a poll to an existing thread that I did not start, I must impose this poll-type question here:

Should poynt99:

a) engage in further debate as Rosemary has requested?
or
b) leave Rosemary to indulge in her endless monolog?

Note: a lack of response to this poll question will be taken as a "b)"

Thank you.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Anyway Guys,

IF these points are STILL refuted by Poynty Point et al - then they will need to justify their 'quarrel' by variously PROVING

.  that this transistor can conduct current from a supply source without accessing it's own Source Legs
.  that the current from the battery supply can flow through Q1's Gate leg notwithstanding an applied negative signal at that gate
.  that the resulting waveforms across the switch would show PROOF of a voltage commensurate with that 'alleged' current flow

In the absence of which PROOF - then I take it that this has now been 'put to bed'. 

Kindest regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

All 3 readers of this thread,

Since there is no way to add a poll to an existing thread that I did not start, I must impose this poll-type question here:

Should poynt99:

a) engage in further debate as Rosemary has requested?
or
b) leave Rosemary to indulge in her endless monolog?

Note: a lack of response to this poll question will be taken as a "b)"

Thank you.

.99

Hello Poynty Point,

As ever it's a comfort to see that you, at least, are one of the three readers here.  And since I'm another - then between us we make up a two third majority.  So.  If my math is even marginally better than yours - which while somewhat 'improbable' still seems to be very much on the cards - then I think we could settle your 'poll' between ourselves.

If I had my 'druthers' I'd recommend you let me 'rabbit on'.  That way, God willing, I'll conclude my strong arguments against your weak counterclaims - without too many distractions.  And then too - who knows - I may conclude this thread this side of December 21 2012.  Failing which, there's the strong possibility that we'll go around and around - in ever smaller and more irrelevant circles.

However.  Your input is MUCH REQUIRED ONLY for your 'green light' on our battery draw down tests.  That will put all arguments to bed.  But here you need to rally a couple of academics.  I've not heard from Professor Steven E Jones.  He seems to be ignoring this challenge of ours with the same level of commitment as do you.  Are you in correspondence with him?  On this?  Do let us know.  I get the distinct impression that you're as 'thick a thieves' as the saying goes.  And I think he could certainly prise a couple of those learned and revered away from the ivory towers - to evaluate these test criteria.

But on the whole, - if you do exercise your rights to freedom of expression and put in the occasional 'objection' as is your 'wont' then I, for one, can do nothing about it.  I'm not allowed to 'monitor' my thread - for some reason.  I think Harti would be sorry to give me that advantage.  Which means that you may indulge your crass bad manners to your heart's content.  I know how you rely on all that freedom of expression.  Even if it's only your testosterone that speaks so articulately - yet with so little reason.

Kindest regards,
Rosie Pose.

[poynt99]

That's a good "safe play" on your part, wise move.

I doubt there will be any responses other than your own, so it is settled then. Great!

Have fun talking to yourself. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

That's a good "safe play" on your part, wise move.

I doubt there will be any responses other than your own, so it is settled then. Great!

Have fun talking to yourself. 

Ta muchly - Poynty Point.  It's not that I don't welcome your input.  God knows.  It's always 'grist the mill' as it's said.  And please see if you solicit Professor Steven E Jones to evaluate our battery draw down test.  FOR THE RECORD.  We are willing and able.  And - frankly - I'd be DELIGHTED to do that DEFINITIVE TEST.  I'd see to it that it was continuously on video that everyone could engage - and I strongly suspect that it may go some way to advancing this over unity study of ours.  Wouldn't you say?  One way or another it will establish these outlandish claims.  And I'm sure we'd ALL like to think that you're seriously researching this possibility.  Because right now - I'm inclined to think that the most of us are inclined to believe that you DON'T support it.  Or maybe you're just NOT willing to cough up that prize money.   

BY THE WAY (btw) PLEASE.  If there is anything that I write that you can actually 'refute' then FEEL FREE.  Do your thing.  INDULGE.  I'd hate to think that you're holding back any kind of argument that actually can be brought to bear on this subject.  LOL.  That would NOT be in the interests of good science.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie posie