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

[WilbyInebriated]

Glen,

In summary then, can it be said that it is your current opinion that the question of whether the RA circuit achieves COP>1 is inconclusive?

.99

poynt, i'm pretty sure he said... "I am in total agreement with you that something "good" is happening in the Mosfet Heating Circuit and can be plainly seen in the recorded videos, we just need to somehow get a streaming real time data recording."

if you are going to dance around as usual making implications, then make the proper implication. that is, that your fancy instruments are not up to the task of measuring reality. which i have been saying for quite some time...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

LOL guys.  This is history repeating itself.  And the readership here through the roof.  Harvey rattling on about positrons - and sun sports - TK demanding explanations that have been given ad nauseum - Glen trying to show contradictions in text that is absolutely not contradictory unless viewed in his rather skewed references.  And Everyone having a field day.  The one thing that is absolutely denied to any of you is to disclaim the existing test results.  Try as you all might to aver - infer - suggest - allege.  And frankly that's the only point that has any relevance at all.  And I'm not sure that I've got the time to spend answering these rather clamorous posts.  Only one thing is clear.  EVERYONE posting here is rather overly anxious to discredit the technology.  It must therefore be rather significant - is my take.  Certainly no other forum member is this closely criticised and no other technology this closely analysed.  LOL.  Sad really.  But like I said.  Any publicity is good publicity.  I'm rather grateful.  I just hope that this will add to the general interest.  And I trust that our readers here will see it for the last gasp desperation to either get me hounded off the forum - or to discredit the tests.  Whatever is discussed is interesting.  But it will have no relevance to our own tests.  Thank God that there is no longer that reliance.

Rosemary   

I might add - Glen is hopelessly conflicted.  On the on hand he wants to remind everyone about his experimental evidence.  On the other he'd rather not remind them of the significance.  LOL.  It's really all rather absurd.  And Glen.  You demand proof.  Rather spend your own time in 'disproof'.  It'll save me the bother.

[truthbeknown]

LOL guys.  This is history repeating itself.  And the readership here through the roof.  Harvey rattling on about positrons - and sun sports - TK demanding explanations that have been given ad nauseum - Glen trying to show contradictions in text that is absolutely not contradictory unless viewed in his rather skewed references.  And Everyone having a field day.  The one thing that is absolutely denied to any of you is to disclaim the existing test results.  Try as you all might to aver - infer - suggest - allege.  And frankly that's the only point that has any relevance at all.  And I'm not sure that I've got the time to spend answering these rather clamorous posts.  Only one thing is clear.  EVERYONE posting here is rather overly anxious to discredit the technology.  It must therefore be rather significant - is my take.  Certainly no other forum member is this closely criticised and no other technology this closely analysed.  LOL.  Sad really.  But like I said.  Any publicity is good publicity.  I'm rather grateful.  I just hope that this will add to the general interest.  And I trust that our readers here will see it for the last gasp desperation to either get me hounded off the forum - or to discredit the tests.  Whatever is discussed is interesting.  But it will have no relevance to our own tests.  Thank God that there is no longer that reliance.

Rosemary

Before you edit.....

[Rosemary Ainslie]

As an aside, it's funny when people distrust simulations based on conventional physics....but will accept test data that SUPPORTS THEIR CONJECTURES when taken with conventional instrumentation...but will reject test data that does NOT support their conjectures when taken with the same instrumentation at higher resolution. Cracks me up every time.

I'd also find it amusing.  But here's the difference.  If the one instrument contradicted the other then neither instrument is reliable.  I'm not sure that Tektronix would uphold that finding.  Nor would anyone.  Unless of course you all need some flimsy or any excuse to INFER that the initial test data was erroneous.  It's the need to 'infer' that gets me.  What's actually the case is that the 'preferred mode of oscillation' - or to call it what it is - that 'resonating frequency' is simply adjusted to show a loss.  It's an easy adjustment to make which I'll demonstrate for you all - in due course.  Or rather, the students will. 

And TK - I am not about to be embroiled in another saga where I must defend myself against ALLEGATION.

Rosemary

[IceStorm]

I'd also find it amusing.  But here's the difference.  If the one instrument contradicted the other then neither instrument is reliable.  I'm not sure that Tektronix would uphold that finding.  Nor would anyone.  Unless of course you all need some flimsy or any excuse to INFER that the initial test data was erroneous.  It's the need to 'infer' that gets me.  What's actually the case is that the 'preferred mode of oscillation' - or to call it what it is - that 'resonating frequency' is simply adjusted to show a loss.  It's an easy adjustment to make which I'll demonstrate for you all - in due course.  Or rather, the students will. 

And TK - I am not about to be embroiled in another saga where I must defend myself against ALLEGATION.

Rosemary

@Rosemary,

               If you want to avoid another "SAGA" you should post like Harvey do , look at his last post here.Forget your theory in trying to explain how the energy is gained for now until everybody agree there a gain because its irrelevant for now since you use conventional instrument to try to demonstrate the gain and  conventional mathematics. Your best friend here are not the one who follow you blindly , its the one who try to find flaw in what you wrote , listen to them , they are the only one with a alternate explanation that can show you real flaw or misunderstanding, at least you can fight back with a post like Harvey with a good understanding and logical explanation that everyone cant refute when you know they are wrong or look back at your data/methodology and correct what is wrong on your side.Anyway , do what you want , was just a advice.

Best Regards,
IceStorm