Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[hoptoad]

Hello MileHigh

Back in attack mode?  I was determined to ignore your earlier one but can't seem to sit on hands while this attack persists.  I was heartened to see you concede that you're 'wrong wrong wong' and that it's pure spinning.  And that gaining scientific knowledge through open source will possibly happen with a required shift in paradigms.  But I'm constitutionally a plodder and I then realised you were being sarcastic.  I had a giddy hope for a wild and fleeting moment - that you'd reformed.

I trust that our paper will eventually get reviewed and published.  The circuit definitely produces extra heat.  And if you have 'jumped off' the roller coaster ride - it's not apparent - else why are you still posting?  I wish this thread would collapse under it's own weight of negative energy.

MileHigh there's a difference with this claim.  We're asking academics to check it out.  On the evidence available we have heat signatures that do not conform to expected parameters.  But my actual question is why do you keep posting here.  Aaron, Harvey et al have given up on this thread.  I only lurk to keep reminding - what I'm sure is a dwindling reading public - that these type of posts are misleading and counterproductive.  And like Jibbs, I wonder why you persist?  It gains nothing.  And I think readership has dwindled to just the two of us

I'm glad Poynty concurs with you.  At least you're not entirely on your own.  Poynty's also frantically attempting to ignore the implications here.  But this new 'break through' is history now - reasonably and unequivocally proven on tests that are also available for inspection.  My own first claim could be questioned as our proof was not as available for public consumption as is Fuzzy's.  Now - to continue to deny the evidence with a burgeoning flush of replications - is, frankly, rather absurd. 

My own take is that you don't 'dare to hope'.  I can't believe that you're simply that negative.  And - for Goodness Sake - read up on Dark matter - dark energy.  It's possibly the 'theoretical' justification for this new energy source. 

And more to the point - when is that new blog going to get launched?  I keep hoping.

Rosie

Dark energy and dark matter are just another theory. The theory/s for them existing were developed in order to help explain why gravity is not working as expected.

Instead of first acknowledging that the known rules of gravity are probably incomplete (in our understanding of them), and therefore our basic formula's may be wrong or in need of refining, it is sexier and more interesting, to claim that the observed variance/s in gravity at large scales (observed by hubble telescope) is due to some whole new type of matter and energy.

A whole new range of matter and energy may require a whole new branch of science and scientists - at least that's what many funded scientists might claim as they scramble for more research dollars.

The jury of scientific consensus is still deliberating on the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Much more data is required.

The anomoly of gravity shown in our own solar system (which is miniscule in cosmic terms), by deep space exploration satellites, shows good reason to further examine our formula's, and perhaps search for more answers at the atomic level to better explain gravity at the macro level.

In any event, accepting one particular theory while ignoring other possible theories seems to be typical human behaviour. We are all guilty of "information filtering" to varying degrees.

Cheers

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi hoptoad.  No.  Dark matter - dark energy definitely mathematically required.  And yes, I'm not sure that gravity is anything but a partial theory.  But it's nice to live in such times.  I'm interested to see that MileHigh is genuinely expecting a paradigm shift.  Not sure why when he discounts the reality of dark energy. 

My model is something on the lines of dark matter.  In the same way as it is seen to 'bind the galaxies' I see this 'something' as binding all amalgams or identifiable material.  In effect the atom is at it's lowest energy state when it is also unbound.  Bind it in an amalgam or in molecules and it has a higher energy state.  The energy added is not to the atoms but to the material or zipons, binding the atoms.  Unbind that material - friction, fire - whatever and you degrade the material through various levels of fatigue that eventually bring it back to its unbound state.  That's the release of the energy - zipons - that held them bound.  And that's also what I claim are fields of zipons.  Easy really.  But the argument to get there seems to be elusive.  Can't think why.  It seems quite logical to me.

It certainly gives a more coherent explanation for the flow of current than anything classical physicists have dreamed up.  And it is also experimentally evident - now that Fuzzy's done his trick with replicating.  In any event - it explains the extra energy and it was required in terms of that model.  So if it's wrong it's not that far wrong - is my take.

[jibbguy]

Milehigh, usually i just ignore your comments, they are only about taking this technology, and this entire forum, DOWN any way you can think of: That is apparently the totality of "you", from everything you have shown us.  Apparently that is your "job". It was only your latest sneering ad hominem attack on Aaron, for at least the 40th time, quoting him out of context and FROM ANOTHER FORUM, that prompted my post.

Regarding your personal question about me: I had a long career in electronics & Test and Measurement Instrumentation, from which i learned a great deal about hundreds of applications and industries... I traveled all over the world, met onsite with several hundred Customers in Industry, aerospace, and medical research. From time to time, the problems my Customers faced, and were using our equipment to troubleshoot, were quite strange and did not fit with any textbook description of what electricity "should be". I also had a few Customers that used their instruments to study anomalies somewhat similar to what we see in this thread. Those were "eye-openers" to the reality that what i learned in school about electronics/electricity was not always so... And it prompted me to begin researching WHY.

What i found was that we have been blatantly lied to about electricity for over a hundred years now.

But that is all you get out me until you tell us YOUR name. You think you can just sneer and piss on everything that comes long... and you and people like you bank on the fact that most folks won't even bother to challenge you, because they just don't want the hassle and spilkus of getting into endless arguments with jerks who DO NOTHING but spew venom at anything that challenges their world view, and who think nothing of slinging ad hominem's at those who simply disagree with them... As a method of bullying others to keep their mouths shut and so manipulate these important discussions. That disgusts me, and if it was my choice, you would have been banned out here months ago... This is not a playground to show off your "superior intelligence" to others... at the cost of doing proper science and research. 

The fact is, you have been WRONG so many times here (proved over and over by reading the posts on this very thread), that it is a PATHETIC EMBARRASSMENT. And the reason you so have been so wrong, over and over, is because of your motives: You are NOT looking to do good science, you are simply looking to attack this any way you can get away with. But unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us; using the arcana and obscure technical terms of electronics to bamboozle the readers here in a cynical attempt to dissuade us from studying this effect... HAS FAILED.

So frankly, we find it hard to seriously listen to anything you have to say now.

Fuzzytomcat's and Aaron's data captured by the Tektronix DPO's clearly shows anomalous energy; and were extremely well recorded and presented. This is clear to those who can read it; and to those who haven't wrapped-up their entire self-worth and ego into a crusade to tear it down.

To those that may be new here, please note that because of the unwarranted and constant ad hominem attacks from the people like this "Milehigh", most of the reported data can be seen only at the Energetics Forum, which has a little stricter rules for that sort of thing; yet still allows and invites HONEST skepticism. It's not Stefan's fault that these shills use the sacred tenets of Free Speech against the rest of us in their attempts to stop the Open Source movement by the only real method they have left: Convincing us to stop study ourselves.

I am calling it for what it is, Milehigh: You are hopelessly biased here, and cannot give an objective opinion. This has been shown over and over by your own words. To be honest, i find this situation highly suspicious and think you are probably a Paid Shill deliberately attempting to disrupt and poison this research any way that presents itself, as i cannot imagine ANYONE spending this much time on the negative position "for free" (..especially after being proved wrong so many times). But that's just my opinion

"You Damned Dirty Ape!"

There's some "Charlton Heston" for you, hehehe (just kidding).

[MileHigh]

Jibbguy:

You are a fool as far as I am concerned.  Your characterization of me is way off and what you say about me is in fact not backed up by what I have posted.  I have tried to help people understand what their experiments are really doing.

You can rant all that you want and try to portray me as your skewed mind sees me, I don't care.  What I post is the truth, and sometimes I can be a bit harsh, but very selectively.

"Ad hominem?"  I don't think so.  I talked about the content of Aaron's posting, not Aaron.  When you exaggerate and spin you just dig yourself into a hole.

What Aaron said in his little "electronics" treatise was absolute nonsense, sentences that simply don't exist in the real world when people discuss electronics.  Aaron wouldn't last more than five minutes in an electronics lab in the real world.  You should have enough brains in your head to realize this.

MileHigh

[ramset]

I gotta say
I would love to hear TK's take on this

Chet
[Oh well off to the Blizzard]