Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2012, 12:08:33 PM
I'll continue to avoid looking at your thread. 

R

So are you confirming that you haven't read the thread and so don't know what the terms are?


Do you have something against efforts to cure breast cancer per-se?


One sentence from you that reveals no personal details results in a donation. Why would you refuse it? What conclusions would reasonable people draw about your motives and behaviour?

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2012, 12:05:52 PM
You have NOTHING.  NOTHING AT ALL.  All you can manage is ALLEGATION and INSINUATION.  And you're not even aware of the fact that NO-ONE believes you. 

Contrariwise, I have nearly 4 gigabytes of your bloviation and other data that supports every contention I've made, and I'm willing to show it to anybody. In fact I am in the process of posting it all, publicly, on the internet.

Quote
This is RUBBISH.  You have PROVED NOTHING.  NOT ONE SINGLE ENERGY MEASUREMENT ANYWHERE EVER. 

More lies, Ainslie. I've shown more and better energy measurements on both Tar Baby and Altoid, than you have EVER shown. It's too bad that you can't understand what I'm showing. Many other people do.

QuoteAll you do is show that you can replicate a negative wattage and then you SPIN that it MEANS NOTHING.  And then you PRETEND to endorse this by utterly irrelevant reference to numerous posts that I've made that can BARELY be read and that are INTENDED TO IMPLY THAT THEY ENDORSE YOUR SPIN.

Not actually, lying Ainslie. The negative wattage does not mean NOTHING and I've never said that it does. It means that your are not doing your measurements ACCORDING TO STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS, which have been pointed out to you many times but you REFUSE to use them, claiming FALSELY that you are using "standard protocols" when you are not doing so at all. And my images of your forum posts are PERFECTLY READABLE by anyone with competency with computers--- something you are known to lack. They certainly are NOT intended to imply that they "endorse my spin" you liar. They are intended to preserve your lies, ignorant claims, bad math, and insults and threats for all to see, and to illustrate the immediate points I make, like showing you to be a liar using your own words.

QuoteAll of it spin and wind.  NOTHING of force and effect.  Just another technique that is also a rather absurdly redundant attempt at diminishing our claims.

Yak Yak yak.

Quote
NOT ACTUALLY.  We are ENTIRELY satisfied that with the application of standard measurement protocols there is unequivocal evidence of a negative wattage.  That NUMBER - the importance of which you've been trying SO HARD to diminish is AN ANOMALY.  BY ALL RECKONING.  It is - all by itself - MORE THAN ENOUGH to re-evaluate MUCH in the standard model. 

You are a sad, desperate liar. Many people over the years have told you the same thing: you are not measuring properly, and the errors you are making are well understood and easily modeled. What do you think Altoid is, and why does it work? You are simply lying again every time you claim to use "standard measurement protocols". And you don't even know what the Standard Model is, much less have anything that can compete or inform it. Why do you think that a simulator can model your oscillations? You are truly cognitively challenged.

QuoteLeft to you it would have been brushed under the carpet.

As it should be, but it should be corrected first, something that you refuse to do.

Quote
What exactly do you mean when you say IF the laboratory is HONEST?  Are you that steeped in dishonesty that you assume that registered laboratories are likely to LIE - about RESULTS?  And there is no PAYMENT involved in this research.  You silly little man.  The research is to be funded by the laboratory.  Are you now trying to imply that they're being paid to LIE?  WHAT an absurd - horrible little man you are.

R.

I mean that I doubt your story of a laboratory completely, and I know what will be found on testing your apparatus IF it is done honestly. I care nothing about in which direction funds are travelling; all I know is that you have lied before about what you do and it is extremely suspect that you are not revealing the name and contact details of "your" laboratory. What have you got to hide, Ainslie, except the truth? I will gladly show everything I've got to this laboratory... and let's then let THEM decide. Shall we?

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 22, 2012, 11:48:46 AM
YES there's a reason they won't come forward.  The mere fact that this thread is UTTERLY ACTIONABLE - FROM BEGINNING TO END.  The fact that the players here - those 'contributors' to these disgusting posts - are UTTERLY immoral and UTTERLY immoderate.  You guys just don't get it.  This forum is becoming a cesspool of really pretentious science with nothing to redeem it by way of good science.  You've got TK's videos that are obscure - badly filmed - badly proved - badly argued.  The best he can manage is innuendo.  Clarity of argument is UTTERLY void.  You've got picowatt rambling through obscure arguments that are bad science precisely because they're badly articulated.  You've got MileHigh indulging in propoganda that would have embarrassed even the best efforts of Russia during the cold war.  You've got TK indulging in invective that properly belongs to the sewer.  No-one would want to associate with this thread.  They only reason I do is because there would otherwise be NO voice of reason. 

In a way you've done us an enormous service.  You've all been that DESPERATE to deny the evidence - that its ended up piquing EVERYONE's curiosity.  I did warn you.  And IF you want to donate to breast cancer - THEN DO SO.  Better yet.  Donate some decent instruments to our poor members that they can PROVE what you're all DENYING.  You're ONLY anxious to prevent this technology from being progressed.  It's patently obvious.  Had there been even a modicum of sincerity in your reach - then you'd have everyone's sympathy.  As it is you've ONLY got their disgust.  And I am NOT talking about those that post here.  I'm talking about those that READ here.

You've grossly misread the effects of this horrible thread.  NO self-respecting person would EVER associate with the likes of you.  It's the silent majority that rules.  ALWAYS.  Not this sad little group of insurgents against scientific evidence.  You've NO IDEA how utterly distasteful you all are.  You're that steeped in your disgusting agenda to deny this new energy that you've lost the plot. 

Rosie Pose.

Preserved for posterity, and the Ainslie personality database.

Again, I invite anybody who is reading here to provide SUBSTANTIVE criticism of my videos, refutations of my claims, illustrations of my "bad science".
Nobody is stopping them, Ainslie. Even Wilby can't do anything more than reveal personal information and carp on tiny points of language usage.... he's never refuted, or even attempted to refute, a single point I've made in a single one of my videos.
Go ahead.... tell me SPECIFICALLY any one single instance of a "badly proved" or "badly argued" video that I've made, and how it is so. I'd like to be able to improve my presentation, or answer any questions about what I've shown or why I've shown it.

FOR EXAMPLE... take that last video I posted just above. What about it does NOT prove that your ridiculous statement about Function Generators is wrong? How does what I show not support my point and demolish your position, that you've clearly stated many times including in the quotation I appended? Give me some real criticism, not complaints about your bad eyesight. What have I shown, and how is it irrelevant to what you've claimed about Function Generators?

And "utterly actionable from beginning to end..." while she then proceeds to libel us all on this thread....
My goodness, Ainslie. You really think you can get away with anything, don't you. There will be a reckoning, perhaps not in this world, but you will be called to account for yourself eventually, that much is promised to us.

DENY THE EVIDENCE? You accuse me of trying to deny evidence?
Not ACTUALLY, Ainslie, you liar. What I am trying to do is to BRING ALL THE EVIDENCE TO LIGHT, in its full glory. That is why I've bothered to gather all your published scopeshots together; that is why I have preserved your blog posts 117 and 118; that is why I am insistent on correct math and corrected calculations and conclusions based on them; that is why I am eager to know the hidden details that you have kept to yourself; that is why I have examined many of the claims you've made and found them to be UNTRUE and I've shown how anyone can check them and refute them; that is why I continue to pursue the truth in this matter. It is YOU who are denying evidence, Ainslie.
FIGURE 3, for example. Altoid's capacitor performance. TAR BABY's negative ENERGY INTEGRAL. YOU ARE DENYING MUCH EVIDENCE that "your" laboratory really should be considering.

Guys - just to put you in the picture,

The fact is that TK et al have managed to spin their spin only because they were the 'self appointed' authorities.  They are NOT.  I have been waiting all this time to find some kind of disinterested authority to comment on our results.  That authority is FINALLY at hand.  And fortunately they do not have an agenda.  They are only interested in scientific evidence.  And they're well able to evaluate that evidence.

TK and his minions are now likely to get increasingly frantic to prevent that evaluation.  Thankfully they've blotted their copy books irredeemably - by precisely this kind of thread.  And they can do no further damage.  They realise this and will likely move heaven and earth to try and continue their harm.  But it's all of it inappropriate.  We've got the technology in capable hands.  IF there's anything in it - then we'll hear about it.  If there's nothing in it - then I'll let you know.  But I certainly WON'T be reporting on this thread.  It's disgusting.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

@All,

"And you're not even aware of the fact that NO-ONE believes you."  That's rich.  Kinda' like the pot calling the kettle black.

FACT:  Q2 is turned on when a negative voltage is applied to its source by the FG.  The FG cannot apply a positive voltage to the gate of Q2 as wired per the schematic and as RA claims.

FACT:  When Q2 is turned on via the negative voltage applied to its source, the subsequent bias current flows thru the FG. 

FACT:  During oscillation, AC current current flows thru the FG and thru Coss and Ciss.

FACT:  In the first paper's FIG3 and FIG7, Q1 is not functioning or is not connected as per the schematic as is apparent from the indicated gate drive voltage and absence of current flow thru the CSR

FACT:  Inductive and capacitive reactance is REAL.  A wire is not always just a wire...

The only "self-appointed" authority around here is RA who denies all these FACTS.

PW