I wonder what the wager would be?

That a function generator can't pass, sink, or source current?

That a 'scope must be AC coupled to read the FG levels properly?

That +12 volts is not being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3?

That an indicated negative mean power measurement means a circuit is COP=infinity?

That your batteries never run down?

That you have discovered a new phenomenon akin to room temperature superconductivity?

Just what is it you are claiming?  I don't think anyone really knows any more...

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 28, 2012, 01:36:26 AM
How much Magsy?  I'll wager here - gladly.

Rosie Pose

Wager on "what " exactly?   lol   As of late, and seeing you turn on me over something you misread(clearly) , and yet when clearly pointed out to you that it "isnt" as you say you interpreted it, you ignore and continue on, as if you are never in error.

It wasnt only you and I that could read all that stuff.

So no. I cant trust you to be involved in a wager with you.

And what if I say $5000. What then? You want my email address? Then I can be worried that you would post it around the internet? Or just threats of it?

Your description of your circuit, its components, the equipment used, has many holes in it. Not just 1 or 3 or 10!!!!    I see this now. Its all there to see.

Mags

TK said:

Quote5.9 megaJoules. You are a joke, and it's your own bad attitude that makes me so angry about you and your lies. As I have said many times, had you simply corrected your ridiculous math and acknowledged your errors and retracted the ridiculous claims made based on them, I would not have gotten involved with your current nonsense. YOU brought my "malice" or rather wrath upon yourself by your overweening arrogance and boundless ignorance.

And Ainslie said:

QuoteWHAT A JOKE.  Not only has this been retracted - it's been done so publicly.  BUT - should you acknowledge this then you'd lose 100% of the excuse required to FABRICATE all that absurd MORAL INDIGNATION.  Coming from the base of an ALLEGED academic - it's as laughable an allegation as that ASSUMED accreditation.   You seem to forget that we're not all as stupid as you hope.

Yes, you are even more stupid than you look, actually, Ainslie, liar. All you did was edit out the offending sentence or two from your forum post. YOU DID NOT RETRACT ANYTHING. In the "official" "publication" of your "paper" in Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" blog forum, YOUR FALSE CLAIM STILL PERSISTS. But it appears that nobody cares about your claims, because it's been many days since anyone has mentioned it in the comments. They are intelligent enough to see, after the first reading, that it's a bunch of illconceived garbage.

You have not retracted anything, you liar. A retraction consists of more than just "vanishing" the lie. YOU MUST EXPLAIN why you retracted that CRITICAL CLAIM from your bogus manuscript.

Ah... but why do we bother. Ainslie doesn't read words, she just looks at shapes, and she cannot OR WILL NOT properly display the images I continue to post that prove that she's a liar and a fool. She's like a senile little girl who has just been told there is no Santa Claus and who refuses to believe it. Even when Christmas comes, she'll still be there at the hearth, waiting for a fat jolly bearded man to come sliding down the tube and carry her away from all this plain old zipon-free reality.

Today's screenshot of the continuing lies in the "official publication":

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2012, 06:41:32 AM
Um.... let's see... I have been profoundly criticised by you and your sock puppets in the past for NOT using the IRFPG50... remember how astonished you were when I reproduced your results using IRF830a, a dollar and a half mosfet? Remember Wilby harping on me for YEARS for using a 2sk1548 instead of a PG50 for a few days in my work on your earlier circuit?
And just who is it that is using a single 2n7000 transistor RIGHT NOW to make your negative mean power product and a negative energy integral FOR ANYONE ON DEMAND USING NO BATTERY AT ALL?
You are accusing me of "spinning" something that you are desperately trying to spin in your favor, when everyone knows that you have insisted that the mosfet used have the same high voltage and internal diode and other features of the IRFPG50. You have never shown the use of any other mosfet, I HAVE. You have never compared the performance of different mosfets in your circuit. I HAVE. So spin on this, you arrogant ignorant spinning liar.

On the contrary, I am more qualified to comment on your work than YOU are. So are Picowatt, .99, MileHigh, FuzzyTomCat, humbugger, and even Stefan Hartmann. You, on the other hand, don't understand your "work" or your circuit at all.

You don't even know how to do the calculations! You don't even know how to clean up your own messes, like all the different versions of your manuscripts that contain conflicting schematics, false claims and outright lies, like "bringing water to boil" when you did no such thing, and your 5.9 megaJoules joke.

And you've tried to suppress your own data. Shame on you, you lying hypocrite.

Again TK your spot on regarding the International Rectifier IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET that has been specified in every magical schematic in existence created by Rosemary and the NERD RAT's she has "NEVER" given any other mosfet as a substitution for it .... because it's the magical one.

She's even went into another thread with her expertise on the magical IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET arguing with Poynt99 ..... Ghazanfar Ali Generator - Utlilizing trapped energy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.overunity.com/11961/ghazanfar-ali-generator-utlilizing-trapped-energy/msg311761/#msg311761   Reply #55 on: February 05, 2012, 11:36:41 PM

Quote from: poynt99 on February 05, 2012, 09:03:52 PM

Some MOSFETs are "avalanche rated" meaning they can tolerate a certain degree of avalanching in the body diode (the IRFPG50 is an example).

Regards,
.99

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on February 06, 2012, 02:36:41 AM

No.  No MOSFET - least of all an IRFPG50 is DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A DEGREE OF AVALANCHING.  Golly.  Whatever next?  Avalanching is the undesirable product of paralleled transistors.  And that applies to them all. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's pretty obvious with the attachment image of the International Rectifier IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET and what the manufacture states about it's avalanche rating. 

Ive noticed lately that following Rosemary's postings now are like looking at a gross slime trail from a large snail or slug and shes getting more desperate even loosing the child like talent of a lie on a lie about a lie from a lie to create another lie to cover a lie. Then there's no discussion at Rossi's BLOG site or her looser forum about her magical mosfet device with foreign language spam postings. Now Rosemary's hiding and refusing to publish all her data of oscilloscope screen shots and accompanying data dumps for each screen shot to support her claim(s) it's down to a few of Rosemary's cherry picked ones she chose to make her ongoing fraud look more credible if that's even possible now.

FTC

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2012, 06:41:32 AM
Remember Wilby harping on me for YEARS for using a 2sk1548 instead of a PG50 for a few days in my work on your earlier circuit?

LMFAO   talk about spin... actually it was a couple months not "a few days". you're a liar, and the record demonstrates.
furthermore you troll, i haven't been harping on you for YEARS for using a 2sk1548... i have been harping on you for the mea culpa you owe me over your asinine claim that there would be no performance difference between the two mosfets (2sk1598 and irfpg50). that, and you know, correcting your asinine daffynition of 'replication'...   

so spin on that, you arrogant ignorant spinning liar.