@RA

If your science was 1/100th as competent as your doggerel, you'd have saved everyone a lot of wasted time and expense years ago.


You are at the point where even you don't believe what you're claiming, but yanking chains has become your sport. Who cares how many well intentioned erstwhile allies you piss off along the way? Certainly not you.

We need a break!

Some insects called the human race...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk9EBOOAYiU

We are just drones inside a giant torus within a torus within a torus.

Mice are running the whole show.

Quote from: MileHigh on June 23, 2012, 02:20:07 PM
We need a break!

Some insects called the human race...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk9EBOOAYiU

We are just drones inside a giant torus within a torus within a torus.

Mice are running the whole show.

Clever folks those mice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPWnitDyIOw

Ainslie thinks that posting her comedy of errors on Rossi's JNP vanity blog consists of "publication".

Well, her "publication" still contains -- as of right now -- the claim that 5.9 megaJoules were dissipated by her circuit during the 1.6 hour test described along with Figure 7.

So what is it then, AINSLIE?  Are you still claiming that you did this 1 kiloWatt power level for 1.6 hours, or have you withdrawn that claim?

WHICH VERSION OF YOUR REPORT ARE WE TO TRUST, Ainslie, the one that you consider to be the "publication" or the one that you've posted and corrected on your new forum?

You've removed a critical claim from the latest edit, but you've not posted that edit to Rossi's blog nor have you published an erratum notice on Rossi's JNP, have you, Little Miss Mosfet, with an explanation of why that claim has been removed. And so the 5.9 megaJoule claim, along with the dangling "battery capacity" sentence remains.

The latest image from the version that is right now up on Rossi's blog, which Ainslie considers the "publication":
The 5.9 megaJoule claim sticks out like a sore thumb.


And isn't it interesting... no matter how many generations of compression, uploading, downloading, whatever.... you can still easily see those baseline indicators on Figure 7 for the math trace and the gate drive trace.

They are always there no matter how much I compress and expand, upload and download .... except for that one incident of strange "compression" where they ... just those two... disappeared from Ainslie's manuscript. And they would have remained missing... deliberately edited out, I still believe ... if someone with a critical eye had not noticed them.

Rosemary:

Just that one single page contains enough errors and irregular and nonsensical usage of technical terms and concepts to discredit you and your proposition completely.  In other words, if that was the first page of your "paper" and I was an academic reading it, I would put it down after reading that page and dismiss your entire "paper" as junk.

Yes, it really is that bad.  Just like the current flowing through the function generator issue kills your credibility completely.  Just the fact that you are attempting to analyze a circuit where the current is actually flowing straight through the function generator kills your credibility completely.

You are promoting junk Rosemary.  But that won't stop you!  If you get back negative results from the alleged test lab then you will be dismissive of them and disassociate yourself from them.  Just like Steorn!

It's crazier than a barrel full of monkeys addicted to crack and in withdrawal!

MileHigh