Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

I bookmarked this YouTube clip that is very thought provoking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Poynt suggests that you and the EF crowd have a look.

MileHigh

Hi MileHigh.  I missed that deleted post?  Thank goodness.  Tell Poyny Poynt he needs to show that video to our academics.  I'm looking forward to their explanations.  Golly.  This is the first time I've actually enjoyed all this trolling.  Usually it just depresses me.  But I need to get some fresh air now and then.  The tone is just so stale.  LOL.

Are you keeping well MH?  And more to the point - are you joining Poynty's new exclusive club?  I'm an honoured invited.  Such prestige!!!  And you'll notice that Poynt's not compromising the standards.  But I'm afraid of that delete button and suspect he'll get insufferably monotorial.  I'll need some written assurances before I risk posting.  LOL

[Gobaga]

Hi Gobaga.  17 pages is not a ream.  And you're absolutely not required to print any of it.  And NO.  I can't summarise it.  Nor will I try to.  It's summarised in the abstract.  And I am not talking 'new physics'.  Dark matter and dark energy were identified by Hubble.  That was some years ago.  And fortunately I am not like 'dozen's of physicist(s)?' That would represent a minority. 

It's always an enormous relief to find that the antagonists to the paper are also such stridently demanding and objectionable people.  I'd hate to think that reasonable, kind hearted, decent, fair minded, considerate, polite and and thinking scientists - would also not support our hard faught efforts here.  And such people would - I suspect - also take the trouble to be courteous.   

If I were to indulge in your register I'd say 'go take a jump' or 'go to blazes' or something like that.  Fortunately I'm in the 'reasonable, kind hearted ....' group. 

EDIT  - AND NO - the paper has not been accepted for publication.  There's a process involved that usually takes up to three months - or longer.  How can you not know this?  Especially in the light of you knowing those 'dozens of physicists'?  Golly.

You are really something.  Trolls just "troll" for information, constantly asking for more, but you are different.  I have heard that various government and special interest "factions" support "diversions" to lead people astray and keep then "busy" with dead-end research.  I have never run across such a successful one.  Kudos to whoever pulls the strings.

The whole "publish a paper" thing is classic.  Whoever thought of that one deserves a promotion.

I am aware that it take a degree of time after a paper is submitted, and I never said that I knew "anyone", just that people with "more" have and dose of humility to go with it.

Anyway, when you rewrite the paper, do the reader a favor and condense it into one article without all of the links.  Even at 17 pages, the reader does not have to go and get the rest of it.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

You are really something.  Trolls just "troll" for information, constantly asking for more, but you are different.  I have heard that various government and special interest "factions" support "diversions" to lead people astray and keep then "busy" with dead-end research.  I have never run across such a successful one.  Kudos to whoever pulls the strings.

The whole "publish a paper" thing is classic.  Whoever thought of that one deserves a promotion.

Gobaga - my goodness.  I've had the best laugh in ages.  Are you suggesting that I'm a Government agent to divert and distract serious researchers?    TK WOULD be pleased.  So would MileHigh.  Golly guys.  It seems I'm doing a better job than you are?  Poynty - you can also take a few lessons from me it seems.   Just wish someone would pay me for my efforts.   

Well Gobaga - it seems I've profoundly offended you.  So we're quits.

[MileHigh]

Just a comment or two across the great divide about the EF Ainsley discussion.

Aaron said:

I tried it with this heater circuit with mixed results. There are really a lot
of possibilities of using capacitors in this circuit. But if the front side power
supply sees the recovery capacitor, then the recovery will be sabotaged.

With capacitance discharges. If you connect the positive and dump the
cap by switching the negative side and have increased resistance there
at the negative point, you will amplify the negative energy. With positive
connected, the destination ALREADY has the positive potential sitting it in
and doesn't have to get there. So it is just an extension of the diode that
the cap is acting like. The e-amp effect seems to be very real because I
always had stronger battery charging effect by switching on the negative
with the inverted circuits and having a resistor there at that point.
I see that it is completely true that a positive potential is dissipated by
resistance but a negative potential is amplified by resistance. The
experiments show this to be the most likely case every single time.

Aaron's comments above are complete nonsense.  Just in case some of you weren't aware.  Aaron has been playing with scopes and power supplies for ten years, but he can't utter more than six sentences about electronics without making a mistake.

If you are a real beginner to electronics, filter out crap like this.

MileHigh

[hoptoad]

Rosemary:

I bookmarked this YouTube clip that is very thought provoking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Poynt suggests that you and the EF crowd have a look.

MileHigh

great link

Cheers