**UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Regarding #4 Has anyone found a difference between Her Thesis and Ed's Thesis?

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502)


Truthbeknown

Interesting point Truthbeknown.  I'd LOVE to be associated with Leedskalnin's genius.  What a pleasure. 

BTW - where's that delightful little ditty gone?  Did you get shy?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Compare the above reference to my work about the duty cycle of the Quantum article with this much more current post from Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262082#msg262082

And once again, just build the circuit and see for yourselves. Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue? Just what is the TRUTH about the Quantum circuit duty cycle? It involves what, seven dollars worth of parts and a light bulb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

Some Fluke0Scopy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM

TK I've answered this nonsense on your previous post.  You really need to do some real power analysis but you first need to find that resonating frequency.  It seems it entirely eluded you - else I rather suspect you'd be digging up the kind of analysis that Harvey is trying for. 

Regards,
Rosemary

[truthbeknown]

Interesting point Truthbeknown.  I'd LOVE to be associated with Leedskalnin's genius.  What a pleasure. 

BTW - where's that delightful little ditty gone?  Did you get shy?

What are YOU talking about?
LINKS...LINKS...LINKS      LOL!
Now go back up to my reply #94 and clickety on the link. I can post it in your thread also if you would like. Then it can be there for POSTERITY.

Lets see now...Ed's thesis was written in 1945 and yours in when? You must be very proud.


J.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here it is again just for the record.

Always nice to hear from you.  But you're getting tediously repetitive and I'm not sure that I'm prepared to let these spurious comments of yours dominate this thread - as much as you may require this.  I am very well aware how your particular brand of 'trollmanship' requires the monopoly of my time by answering these entirely false allegations.  The intention is to distract me and to take the attention away from the theme of this thread.  If I'm obliged to keep answering you then you will indeed be wasting my time.  Clearly your objective.

I'm of the opinion that you,  like Harvey, would prefer it that I do not elaborate on the thesis which is why you are both now 'elbowing in' - so to speak.  Self-evidently you also see the need to repeat this complaint of yours on no less than two threads - twice on this and once on that - and God alone knows how many times on the COP>17 thread at EF.com and your own thread here.  But this, like ALL your allegations are pure fabrication.  We both know that Joit in fact reported that he'd DISPROVED YOUR POINT.  Unfortunately his post was not clear. Here's the link.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-17.html#post60251
Neither I nor Donovan could work out what he was trying to say so I simply gave you the benefit of the doubt.  Here's that link.
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html
Whereupon Joit answered me here
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html
where his opening statement in that post is as follows

it only prooves, that you are RIGHT and Tinselkoala is WRONG, and all his discreding and debunking Post here and at OU.com.

He never DID support your findings.  I notice that Glen very carefully prevents anyone actually reading his links in context.  He relies on this as he could not otherwise continue with his allegations any more than you could.  But where you take this to dizzy new dimensions is that your own allegations are ENTIRELY UNTRUE.  The proverbial 'bald faced lie'.  Where Glen 'alleges' you simply go for the gullet and FABRICATE.  LOL.

And it is not only a lie but it is NONSENSICAL to state that the basis of our claim depends on the duty cycle.  Our claim is based on close analysis of the voltages measured across the shunt resistor.  Go read our Quantum paper.  It'll may help.  That would NEVER have been published without the editor being fully au fait with the data required - albeit it was too cumbersome to publish.

And TK if you persist in dominating this subject with historical irrelevancies then I'm afraid I will need to delete your posts.  So.  If you like Truthbeknown - want to preserve them for prosterity  LOL I'd advise you to copy them and post them where they belong - which is on Glen's thread.  For God's sake discuss something new.  I am happy with discussions.  I am absolutely NOT happy to have you rake up those sad little tests that you performed - NOT ONCE getting the required resonance - NOT ONCE doing a detailed wattage analysis.  I'm not sure that you even knew how to.  Neither I nor anyone was EVER in a position to access the data and do an independent analysis.  Notwithstanding your access to enough instrumentation to bury us all in actual experimental results.  I have never in my life seen such a parody of attempt at a replication.  Frankly  my own opinion is that either you did not know how to to those dumps or you did not dare.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

What are YOU talking about?
LINKS...LINKS...LINKS      LOL!
Now go back up to my reply #94 and clickety on the link. I can post it in your thread also if you would like. Then it can be there for POSTERITY.

Lets see now...Ed's thesis was written in 1945 and yours in when? You must be very proud.


J.

You really are not the brightest of people Truthbeknown.  If you even understood my thesis you'd see that there's only a passing similarity in the concepts.  Leedskalnin depended on a two way flow of monopoles.  I argue that such cannot be sustained in a field condition.  I have proposed a bipolar particle - to enable a flow in one or other direction.  But this had NOTHING to do with Leedskalnin's insights.  The man is a genius but his explanations here have defeated everyone in the world - including me.  Wish that I knew one tenth of what he must have known.

My thesis was developed on the concept of current flow comprising the flow of magnetic fields.  In fact I propose that all energy is sourced from magnetic fields.  I don't think that has any similarity whatsoever to Leedskalnin's thinking.

Rosemary

Edited.  Corrected 'flow of magnetic monopoles' to 'flow of monopoles'.