Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I agree, "verifying" would have been a better choice of word than "debunking". Consider it retracted, bye.

.99

Thanks Poynty Point.  Very much appreciated. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Very Interesting paper, and results are even more so.

I can't offer any opinion yet, as there is a "Lot" more going on than just simple switching.  IT might be valuable to check out the information on "Switching power supply instabilities" that is available, as these two concepts have certain effects in common.

I Must re-read and study this for a while to really wrap my head around it.  Good or bad, the data does show that "Something" is going on.....

Hi Loner.  I missed this post of yours.  Glad you find it interesting.  As you're into 'theory' you may want to concentrate on the abstract and certain statements in the introduction.  And if you're still interested - I could point you to the thesis.

Let me know if you find anything 'amiss' in the that presentation.  It's never been reviewed and I think they dropped the topic like a hot potato - precisely because they could not find errors.  I actually believe they would have preferred to 'reject' the paper after review - but then they'd have to justify that rejection and I rather fondly believe that they couldn't find due reason. 

You'll note that the analysis points to a COP>4.  It's actually COP>7.  It is my opinion that one of the collaborators was trying to sabotage the paper to prevent publication.  And he depended on putting in erroneous analysis to achieve this.  But I inserted a sentence - prior to submission - which stated words to the effect that the analysis was deliberately averaged to present a conservative value.  Which put paid to that objective.  It is a truth that one of our collaborators was actually anxious to prevent publication rather than otherwise.  He managed to trick us all.  You may see now why it is that I'm wary of who post and what's posted. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

By the way - here's a faithful account of that 'sabotage effort'.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

edited

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys, for those who are in the slightest bit interested in that 'time' question - I think the argument is nailed in standard physics.  Distance is the sum of the space between two or more points.  Velocity is the measure of the amount of time taken to cross that space.  But that leaves us with the question as to what is time.  If we use it to measure velocity - then it implies that there's a 'standard time' somewhere that we're sort of depending on to make that sum valid.  And I think what Einstein was showing us is that that 'time' relates to light speed and not the rate at which we circle our axis or the sun.  But I also think that Pirate's take is right.  What about 2C or greater?  We may have a standard in light speed - but I'm not sure that it's the actual standard.  But I'm also inclined to think that we share a standard time in our axial spin and in our annual solar orbit.  So.  Maybe time is localised, never variable and potentially greater than light speed?

Then.  To take this one step further.  If the actual standard time is greater than light speed - then it implies that it precedes us - which puts us in its 'wake' so to speak.  That would imply that the future is somehow 'carved out'.  Like a road that we follow.  Anyway.  I personally find it very interesting.  But I realise that I'm probably just talking to myself.  And since it's way off topic I'll drop the subject.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, I've been waiting around for news about our scope.  Apparently it's arrival at the point where I can collect it will be Monday morning.  Delighted that it's en route - a little disappointed that it's not here for the weekend - but hey.  It's just around the corner.  I'll give you all copious photos when it's to hand.

I'll post more on the progress of those numerous oscillators? that the guys are putting together - later on today.  I hope Poyny Point notices that I'm using some really appropriate terminology there?   

And more on our magnets.  We've got to get a different size together - something bigger.  I'm going through to our supplier later on today.  I'll see what options are available for working on.  I think our 'designer' also needs to work of an actual size.  At this stage he's just discovered the ratios needed for that construct.  No mean feat I might add.  It's not that easy organising the 'fit' as those pentagons diminish in diameter.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, there must be some mistake. I don't know anything about skepticism, free energy, or critical thinking, but I do know this much:

When I click on the scribd reference you frequently give that links to a paper you and some others wrote, I immediately see the IEEE banner, and I see the IEEE journal name on every page of the paper.
Yet, I have heard from others that the IEEE journal(s) have rejected this paper, as many as 5 times, and it has definitely NOT been accepted for publication.
Hence, the mistake. It seems to me that EITHER the paper HAS been accepted, and thus your continuing use of IEEE in the link and on the paper is legitimate and legal and not a violation of IEEE copyright --- OR my other informants are correct, the paper has NOT been accepted, and thus the use of the IEEE initials and so forth is ... a mistake.
But everyone who clicks through to that paper is likely to believe that IEEE has endorsed it somehow, since you are using their initials AS IF they had actually accepted it for publication.

Is that right?

TK.  If you're going to follow me around this forum with this one sad little observation - then let me answer it here - and have done. 

If and when I claim that I have had a paper PUBLISHED at IEEE then you are free to insinuate or accuse me of a gross and fraudulent misrepresentation which self-evidently, is your objective.

Meanwhile I reserve the right to reference our submission of a paper at the IEEE, at TIE and the IET as often as is practical and as often as is required.  It serves the dual function of being a faithful record of the experiment and the thesis that preceded it.

Regards,
Rosemary

Very weak TK.    Have you lost your teeth?

BTW - http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS