Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 26, 2012, 02:22:53 AM
Thank you for this Bob.  It is truly the most courageous statement that has EVER been made on these forums.  There is a propagandising technique applied to the JEWS in Nazi Germany - where all and sundry were encouraged to report on allegations of their sub human habits, which, among other things progressed from killing Jesus Christ to - at its zenith....killing their own children.  It was found to be a technique that polarised opinion AGAINST those Jews that then warranted their extermination.  It required nothing more demanding than the repeated and unsupported allegation where the moral ascendancy could remain with the victimisers who were then permitted to do anything that they required up to and including the outright theft of their property and the intended extermination of that entire People.  In the same way I have variously been accused of supreme ignorance, mendacity, false test representations about our claim, stupidity, mental instability and sundry social eccentricities related to my looks and even to an alleged preference to wearing pygamas in public.  Harti and Poynty et al - have taught you all to disregard my postings and to treat me with the kind of disrespect that would not even be appropriate applied to a criminal - through the simple expediency of denying anything that I write and addressing me in the most abusive of manners.  I am of the opinion that Harti ONLY ever invites me back to the forum to again 'scoff' at the claims - that he ignores or he rejects on grounds that we have comprehensively addressed in every paper that we have ever written.  And while he does not personally engage - ON ANY LEVEL AT ALL - he permits the likes of TK and Fuzzy and a host of willing 'trolls' to do his dirty work.

This flaunted disrespect includes but is in no way limited by nor confined to a denial of the significance of an oscillation that defies any known explanation within the standard model.  I won't here go into the history of this related to that replication fiasco.  It would take too long.  I have worked TIRELESSLY and at my OWN EXPENSE to promote this knowledge related to switching circuits that were PREDICTED in terms of a modest thesis based on a revision of Faraday's Lines of Force.   I am widely accused on doing NOTHING but furthering a THEORY where  I REPEATEDLY advise that I have none.  Nor do any of us.  We have ONLY referred to the standard model. YET I am accused of 'self promotion'.

All of which has inclined the most of our members to IGNORE my comments outside of my own thread - and to apply a level of scorn and contempt in their address of me in my own thread that - at its KINDEST can be construed as a BREACH of forum guidelines.  And instead of applying the required checks Harti positively encourages input that will DETRACT from the claim and DIMINISH the results.  And his ONLY excuse to do this is IF he can claim that there are measurement errors.  Which is WHY he REPEATEDLY advises you all that there ARE measurement errors.  The final and insufferable evidence is here again - where he asks LUC to check our results off a 555 timer where we ALREADY HAVE THESE RESULTS which we have done and MADE PUBLIC.  Meanwhile the ABUSE continues off forum and  I do not have the option of starting a new thread to address this abuse. 

And FINALLY.  We have engaged Poynt.99 AND Professor Steven E Jones in our rights to do a test that would represent conclusive proof of our over unity claim - where we would otherwise qualify for their prize. And that challenge is IGNORED.  And the joke of it is this.  I didn't DARE include Harti in that challenge because then I KNEW that he'd have locked my thread much sooner than he did.   But frankly - RIGHT NOW - I propose that this post can be a challenge to him as well.  For some reason - that I cannot understand - it seems critically important that OUR CLAIM - more than any other - IS DENIED.  AND I PUT IT TO YOU ALL IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE THESIS THAT SUPPORTS THAT CLAIM.  Once that is understood - then you guys will KNOW how to do your own fishing.  AND that will FINALLY put paid to any CHANCE of EXPLOITATION by ANY MONOPOLIST EVER AGAIN.  Frankly, I'm not sure that this sits comfortably with the intentions of these forums.  Which is the ONLY possible explanation for this inappropriate response to our claim.  For some reason the 'lead out lead in theory' - the radiant energy theories - all those ill defined and inexplicable explanations are preferred OVER our simple evidence that uses nothing more exotic than INDUCTIVE LAWS.

All of which is ONLY my considered opinion.  But - unhappily - it's also the only way to make sense of this EXTRAORDINARY attack that our technology warrants.  I'm not at all sure how long this post will be allowed to stay here.  I'm copying it and also putting it on my blog.  I'll post a link hereafter.  If you lose it then just google Rosemary Ainslie.  It's there.  Together with that HATE BLOG against me which is heavily subscribed to not only by Poynty and Laurel  among others - but by someone called MOOKIE who works for ESKOM - our local utility suppliers who are also proposing to EXPAND their nuclear facilities.  Go figger.

Regards,
Rosemary

I have worked TIRELESSLY and at my OWN EXPENSE to promote this knowledge related to switching circuits that were PREDICTED in terms of a modest thesis based on a revision of Faraday's Lines of Force.   I am widely accused on doing NOTHING but furthering a THEORY where  I REPEATEDLY advise that I have none.


AND I PUT IT TO YOU ALL IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE THESIS THAT SUPPORTS THAT CLAIM.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 09, 2012, 03:02:20 PM
Hi Poynty - I've only just seen this post.

I KNOW what TK's referring to.  He's trying to say that the instantaneous wattage during the 'on' period is 20 watts.  He then goes on to conclude that 20 watts would be sufficient to result in the energies evident in our water to boil test.  I am saying - CATEGORICALLY that 20 watts is QUITE SIMPLY AN ERRONEOUS COMPUTATION of WATTAGE.  If it is 20 watts for 12.5% of each duty cycle - then it's also resulting in a COOLING down of that same resistor during 87.5% of that same duty cycle.  Therefore it does not ever enjoy the uninterrupted delivery of 20 watts but only 2.5 watts.  SO.  His wattage calculation is inadequate.  And his conclusions are SPURIOUS.  Quite apart from which - NOTA BENE - 20 watts does NOT take our element resistor to the giddy heights of upwards of 200 degrees centigrade.  So even 20 watts would not explain our water to boil test.  He is attempting to trivialise our results.  And he is doing it with the typical barrage of expletive and invective - because he has NO sense of professionalism.

What a sorry little man he is.
Rosie

You once again lie and misrepresent, hallucinating words that have not been said and responding to those and not to the facts.
YOU CLAIMED that there was no power drawn from the battery during the ON portion of the cycle. I refuted you using your own data and you admitted that there was indeed 320 mA drawn FROM SOMEWHERE during that ON portion. Your entire "watts" argument from then on is a red herring, in addition to being wrongheaded and wrong. YOU MADE A CLAIM THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY YOUR DATA, there it is in black and white or rather brown and white, and you NEED TO CORRECT IT AND RETRACT THE CONCLUSION BASED ON IT.

We have not even BEGUN to discuss the heat results... which, as you note, is described a bit differently in your blog than you have been describing it lately.

Here, I thought this would help Rosemary a bit with her math:

From wikipedia regarding joules, watts, et. al.

Joule = Watt * Second
Watt = Joule / Second 
This is THE MATH.

Let's be more specific shall we?
A Watt is often written as a Joule PER Second. PER MEANS DIVIDE.
I know this can be confusing but...
This is NOT the same as a WattSecond, which is a Watt MULTIPLIED by a Second.   
Perhaps this is why you are confused on a watt and a joule being 'interchangeable'?

If you look closely, a Watt and a Joule are NOT interchangeable (directly), there is an equal sign there which means that you need to do the same mathematical process to BOTH sides of the equal sign in order for the equation to be remain TRUE. 

Put another way: (W=V*A) One Watt equals one Volt multiplied by one Amp. (i.e. Instantaneous)
A Joule is: (J=V*A*s) One Volt multiplied by one Amp multiplied by one Second. (i.e. Over TIME)
Also known as a WattSecond. (A watt is NOT a JouleSecond.)
Please feel free to correct any errors...

Perhaps this will help Rosemary 'DO THE MATH'?

Regards to the regular readers of this rubbish heh heh,
PC
Edited to switch the words 'volt' and 'amp' to represent equation
BTW, can't wait to see the 'Altiods' rig.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 03:04:25 PM
Wait a minute... it still has not been demonstrated that I am "out by a factor of 12". I think she's hallucinating again.
Show me, please, where I am out by a factor of 12, SO THAT I MIGHT CORRECT MY ERROR, if it is one.

I have no idea where the "factor of 12" comes from either, Rosemary please enlighten us with the answer.

Guys, I'm playing catchup here.  Just seen this post of TK's. 

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AM
Early promiscuity? Whaat? Personally, I have sat through many many hours of classroom instruction in the topics we are discussing, sat exams, passed them with honors, and I have degrees that call me a scientist, and my job title includes "scientist" in it. In other words, I am credentialed, and these credentials are from MAJOR research universities in the USA.

If it helps you at all TK I'll pretend to believe this nonsense. 

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AMAinslie--- a highschool dropout with not even algebra and geometry education.

I am NOT a high school drop out. We've covered this before.  I attended 2 years of university which I would never have managed if I were a high school drop out.  And I've never failed any exam that I've sat.  EVER.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AMNobody except Ainslie has "claimed" to be a genius.

I am CERTAINLY NOT A GENIUS.  Good Lord.  If I were a genius I wouldn't be here on this sad little thread.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 09, 2012, 11:26:36 AMWe are just educated, and we know how to use what we've learned, and we know how to CONTINUE learning. You are far from average, Ainslie. You are a Dunning-Kruger Effect textbook example.

The essential feature of the Dunning-Kruger Effect is that the poor sufferers are deluded into ideas of their superiority.  I have no such delusions.  Which is PRECISELY why we are asking questions in our papers - and modestly proposing answers that have already been determined by our esteemed ASTROPHYSICISTS and carefully argued by our greats.  That we're somewhat disinclined to believe your own 'claims' is that they diametrically oppose ours.  And I would remind you that you would also need to propose that all six of us poor collaborators are also suffering from this 'cognitive' distortion - as I am not alone in these our 'claims'.

Rosie Pose