Quote from: MileHigh on June 19, 2012, 12:48:03 AM
Kindest my ass, you can be viscous.  Like I said, it's about standing up for what is right.  There is a principle involved.

If a Grade Six science teacher started talking about free energy coming from pulsing coils to his or her class you can bet that I would be upset.

You are just an insignificant uneducated amateur doing a silly meaningless experiment.  That's your 12-year story in a nutshell.

If it's 'silliness' that is able to predict an energy benefit in the application of CEMF - then ROLL ON SILLINESS.  If it's 'silliness' that proves that benefit experimentally - then again - ROLL ON SILLINESS.   In my book all  that 'silliness' ROCKS.  Much preferred to the archaic mindset of OLD thinking.  You guys now quintessentially represent the OLD ORDER OF THINGS.  Thankfully it's a chapter that's about to be closed.  Can't happen soon enough.  WHAT will you do with your time then?  MileHigh? And WHO will fund you?  You'll have to get busy and build more of those computers of yours.  And then sell them to make a living. 

kindest regards
Rosie Pose

added.  And by the way (BTW) you have NOT been actively involved in electronics.  By your own admission.  You've been involved in selling electronics.  That's an ENTIRELY different thing.

Rosemary:

You make me laugh when you try to make the "new vs. old" claim.  It's simply ridiculous.  You have no proof of anything, it's all a huge misunderstanding because you are uneducated and you don't know what you are doing.

It's really about truth vs. ignorance and you are the ignorant.

You are not leading us forward into a "new frontier," you are fantasizing.  You are doing a disservice to people with your backwards ignorant nonsense and stupidity.

MileHigh

The truth, Ainslie, and what you put in your "papers"... are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. You are a liar, plain and simple. Anyone reading your paper describing the test recorded in your scopeshot SCRN0355, your Paper 1 Figure 7 would believe, as you want them to believe, that you measured WATER temperatures and you boiled water and sustained boiling long enough to dissipate the absurd 5.9 megaJoules figure you cite.

The truth of the matter is somewhat different, isn't it, Ainslie. You measured the temperature of your resistor, not the water; you did not boil the water at all, and you did not dissipate anything like 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours.

There are 5760 seconds in 1.6 hours. 5.9 megaJoules per 5760 seconds is about 1024 Joules per second.... over a KILOWATT, continuously, for over an hour and a half.

YET THE WATER WAS NOT ACTUALLY BOILING. In other words, the 5.9 megaJoule figure is, like most of your other "math", completely bogus and implausible. The strongest portable electric heaters available around here, which can warm an entire room in a Texas winter, are only 1.5 kiloWatts.

And even in your "revised" version the rated battery capacity is still left blank.... and we know why. Because it's a lot, LOT, greater than the ACTUAL energy required for any of your actual reported tests.

The blog post where the scopeshot first appears, along with a more realtime description of the event:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/118-this-was-final-step-to-take-it-to.html#links

And below, is the description of the event in the paper, including the same scopeshot.

My dear little TK

You must believe what you want.  God knows you'll get no comfort from the truth.  But keep a watch on our own tests.  They'll be rolling - SOON.  And then you'll need to close your eyes really tight.  Because you'll not like what we're going to show you.  OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

Can't wait.
Rosie Pose

Unbelievable. This is truly, truly amazing. I am astounded by the depths to which these people will sink.


Take a look at the original posting of scopeshot SCRN0355 below, and compare it to the reproduction in the "revised" paper 1 which can be downloaded from the new Ainslie forum. Notice any differences?

Where are the baseline indicators for the MATH trace and the GATE trace in the paper's version? The baseline indicators for the other traces are there.... so it's not a cropping issue.

The baseline indicators for these two traces have evidently been edited out of the image of the scopeshot in the paper's version.

These indicators are clearly present in the original scopeshot and in the old version of the paper in its Figure 7, but in the new version, as illustrated above .... these baseline indicators have been edited away, so that the viewer cannot easily determine that the gate signal has substantial positive going portions of +10 volts or more .... which is rather damning, considering that there is no current shown on the CVR at these times, as there must be if the mosfet is present and operating.


This is a clear foul. It is a deliberate cover up of the fact that this scope trace SHOULD be showing current when the gate signal is strongly positive... but does not.

The first shot below is the original SCRN0355. The second shot is how it appears in the present revision of Paper 1.