another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I assure you that this circuit represents a gross misrepresentation of the NERD circuit that supports our claim.  But I realise why you rely on it. I just hope that everyone else does.  If you want to refer to the correct circuit then refer to our paper.

To the best of my recollection you are completely incorrect.   What I seem to recall is that the circuit diagram presented in your paper is itself a gross misrepresentation.  That because you believed that your accidental miswiring of the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs was "something special" and you wanted to keep that a "secret."

Then Poynt carefully watched your clip and reverse-engineered the circuit and discovered that you were not showing the correct diagram in your paper and as a result the "secret was revealed."  You then confessed and admitted that the diagram in your paper was false.

That is the reason why Poynt drew up a new diagram to properly reflect the actual circuit that you tested for the paper and for your demo video clip.

That is the reason when Poynt made that circuit diagram he put a label on the current sensing resistor that stated, "Position of the CSR as per the "as-built" apparatus shown in the demonstration video."

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.  Rosemary, I don't believe you could possibly forget this big event that transpired within a few weeks of your releasing the paper and the associated video.  Will you please come back to reality and at least show some integrity?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys

I was going to take the trouble to answer these posts.  It's too tediously repetitive and frankly I haven't got the stomach.  I have FINALLY seen that the video was indeed available.  Sadly.  Equally sadly it was the ONLY thing that TK would use as he knows it referenced the wrong circuit.  And he was relying on exposing that fact.  I was also wrong about that tektronix reference.  I see that now.  I couldn't work out how he showed the shunt trace without the negative voltage - but I get it.  The example was related to the point we stressed in the second test of the first part of our 2 part paper where the integrated values show a negative wattage notwithstanding the positive sum of the voltages across the shunt.

I will not be able to encourage any academic to engage while TK is allowed to post on my thread.  They will not want their involvement associated with that level of engagement.  He is ill mannered and utterly unprofessional.  His science is appalling and his arguments represented with such a dire want of clarity that it is impossible to understand let alone refute.  And he relies on this - somewhat transparently.  And that's not even mentioning the rather sad and persistent claims by Glen Lettenmaier who is still clinging on for dear life to the hope that he can claim his replication as his own independent discovery.  TK's engagement here is most certainly funded - eatenbyagrue.  He is required to prevent this test reaching its fruition.  I will not engage in that definitive test without the full endorsement of the results and the applied protocols.  That will, inevitably require the involvement of academics.  TK's mission here was to ensure that they would never engage.  If you are inclined to believe it's anything else than I've grossly overestimated your perspicacity.  He has presented this thread address with an embarrassment of riches in slander and invective.  And such is hardly the grounds for academic involvement.  He's well aware of that.  And it appears that Harti is not about to apply the required editing or moderation to correct this.

And that you describe his and Glen's motives as 'good' and 'ultruistic' and 'self funded' - is further proof to me that even you are fooled.  And therefore this mission is not likely to succeed.  Which is a shame.  Because it's actually public interest that is being compromised. 

Regards,
Rosemary 

 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, just as a reminder.

TK has been very careful to NOT reference our actual claim as detailed in our papers that Poynty made available to us all.  Instead he must have done some extensive search to find any evidence of that film on our demonstration - and then made THAT the theme of his so called 'debunk' - where - to date he as STILL not shown us his results. 

Our claim is wholly and entirely associated with our paper and NOTHING ELSE.  And when and if TK engages on a discussion of that and on the replication of those tests - then INDEED he may be able to assert that he's replicated anything at all.  He is on record here as dismissing our papers as a 'word salad' - which contradicts the rather meritorious assessment from more than one highly esteemed academic who commended it for it's clarity.  Perhaps TK prefers it that we present our proof with the entire want of clarity associated with his so called 'debunk' where he has not even given us a comprehensive report of any kind but rather a mishmash of badly filmed nonsense that imply and infer and suggest - all.  Which is in defiance of good science and good experimental practice. Hardly a 'standard' to be emulated.

So.  Go figger.  Why did he need to rustle through the internet to find any extant evidence of that video?  When the papers that describe our claim are so freely available?  One does not need Einstein's intellect to work that one out.

Regards again,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And eatenbyagrue,

Just look again at Wilby's contributions.  The guy has NEVER come out in support of our claims.  What Wilby manages with unerring exactitude is to point out when posters get rather carried away with bombast or with patent and willful misrepresentations.  And he does this with remarkable skill.  Frankly his contributions are gold.  And he does not 'side' with anyone or 'anything' at all.  He simply tries to keep the record straight.  And that certainly does not make him a troll.  But again -  for the record - he does NOT side with me or with you or with anyone at all.  So why then should he replicate? 

Regards,
Rosemary

[MileHigh]

I think the "guys" are pretty much a figment of your imagination at this point in time Rosemary.  Seriously, it's become like one of those "world's thinnest books" jokes.

Anyone that is reasonably astute in electronics and has had some time to quality your circuit and you yourself in terms of your level of electronics knowledge and personality idiosyncrasies recognizes this for the ongoing farce it has been for a long time.

TK on the payroll to prevent your circuit from "going public?"  That merits a LOL.  There are 93,000 reads of this thread alone.  Such bondage!  If you only understood how you would be received outside the forum bubble Rosemary.  You claim academics have endorsed your paper?  You have to be either kidding or deluded or they were referred to you by Sterling Allen.