Poll
Question:
Which selection best describes your thoughts on this topic?
Option 1: I have an applicable technical background, and I'd say Rose has presented a clear solid case from day 1. I am convinced she really has something.
Option 2: I have an applicable technical background, and I find the evidence Rose offers to be confusing, inconsistent, and generally unconvincing of her claims.
Option 3: I would like to replicate her apparatus, but I am confused about the information she has provided, and therefore I can not with any confidence do so at this time.
Option 4: There is nothing to this device and there is no "technology" here. Some people are learning though, and that is a good thing.
Option 5: I am completely undecided about this device and about the evidence offered to support the claims.
Option 6: I don't know much about electronics, but I am amazed at the things Rose says. I am really convinced that she must have something real.
Option 7: Right now, everything is just a fog. I think it would be of benefit to everyone if Rose would answer all of the questions put forward to her.
Option 8: I am an electronics expert and what Rosie is doing appears to be very interesting.
Option 9: I am an electronics expert but, I do not have enough information to say if Rosie's device works or not.
Let it be known what you think. The votes are anonymous of course.
a popularity contest?!? not exactly science now is it... ::)
Out of 7 questions, one is positive, one is neutral, and five are negative. This looks like a CNN poll about Busch.
Bill
By all means, make suggestions for additional selections if you feel there is one not already well represented. I will add it if it is sufficiently different than what is currently there.
Thanks,
.99
How about:
"I am an electronics expert and what Rosie is doing appears to be very interesting."
"I am an electronics expert and I think Rosie really has it."
"I am an electronics expert but, I do not have enough information to say if Rosie's device works or not."
This poll could have been done, not that it needed to be done, with 2 simple questions. This topic has an agenda which is plain for all to see.
Bill
In the last two years that I have followed Rosie's work to get her circuit accepted I have only seen a small number of replications done,
the most recent member on this forum was Woopy and about a year ago Gotoluc and in the early days TinselKoala. Now if they can't make this circuit do what Rosie claims then I have no chance.
The more this drags on and the more the blame game is played then it is more likely this circuit will not work or ever did to the extent that is claimed.
(those of us who have been here long enough have seen it all before)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=Rosemary+Ainslie+circuit&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&suggested_categories=28&page=2
I admire Rosie's determination very much but in less she comes up with some new and astonishing self running circuit then it will all fade away.
The best bit, it is all very educational and entertaining ,free energy I think not.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 04, 2011, 02:09:33 PM
How about:
"I am an electronics expert and what Rosie is doing appears to be very interesting."
"I am an electronics expert and I think Rosie really has it."
"I am an electronics expert but, I do not have enough information to say if Rosie's device works or not."
This poll could have been done, not that it needed to be done, with 2 simple questions. This topic has an agenda which is plain for all to see.
Bill
1 and 3 will be added, 2 is a repeat.
Please explain Bill, what "agenda" it is that in your opinion is "plain to see".
.99
I don't want to but in over on her thread but this looks like a good spot to make some comments, if you don't mind.
I really don't understand why it is taking so long to find out if her circuit is OU or not. Can't she just drain a bit off the batteries and run the circuit for a week or so. The batteries will either be charged up or drained. With the size and capacity of the batteries she is using, running it for a couple of hours or so won't prove anything. If she could run the setup continuous for a couple of weeks, there would be no need for measurements, as far as I'm concerned. If it is discovered that it is OU, then yes, you would need to take measurements to see exactly what and why it is happening.
I give Rosie credit for sticking with it but I'm not very impressed with her attitude as of late. In a way I don't blame her, I may be the same way put in her boots. But, she needs to be a little more professional in her words and actions if she want to come across as a professional.
From my point of view, I really don't think that Poynt is picking on her. I feel that he is only trying to get to the bottom of it. Rose has said all along that she has very little background in electronics yet she is arguing with someone who does.
Until an extended run of her circuit is accomplished, I really do not think it will be resolved one way or the other. Even if Poynt has solid proof, she will never agree with it.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on May 04, 2011, 11:35:27 AM
Out of 7 questions, one is positive, one is neutral, and five are negative. This looks like a CNN poll about Busch.
Bill
Bill, my interpretation of the selections comes out somewhat different than yours;
2 pos.
3 neg.
2 neut.
I am referring to the selections
before I added the last two entries you requested.
Regards,
.99