Quote from: MileHigh on July 13, 2012, 12:25:18 AM
The sheer brilliance of it all....

Thank you MileHigh.  I knew you'd approve - being as you are an arch defender of the principle that evidence trumps theory.

Kindest as best as ever,
Rosie Posie

added 

A dose of double-sarcasm does not help Rosie Posie up the learning curve.

The little engine that couldn't.

Quote from: MileHigh on July 13, 2012, 12:30:36 AM
A dose of double-sarcasm does not help Rosie Posie up the learning curve.

The little engine that couldn't.

Are you implying that you were being SARCASTIC?  Surely not.   

again,
Rosie Pose
aka 'the little engine that couldn't...'

@FTC: The EIT "paper" contains a schematic that DOES NOT INCLUDE the details of the 555 timer used, it only contains THIS STATEMENT:

QuoteAt the junction of the diode and the inductor is an N Channel power MOSFET, (Q1), connected, in
turn, to a 555 switching circuit with variable duty cycles and frequency adjustment.

Since the experiment described is the SAME ONE described in the Quantum article which DOES give the 555 timer circuit.... but does NOT show the recirculation diode..... Well, what are we to believe. Once again, the report CLOSEST IN TIME to the actual experiment... the Quantum article.... has got to be considered the primary source. Especially since the 555 timer As specified in the Quantum article does produce the claimed heat profiles. ... but no other setup will, unless it also makes a LONG ON-TIME DUTY CYCLE.

Is it possible that Ainslie does not realize that as the principal author of all those manuscripts, SHE HERSELF ALONE is responsible for EVERY DETAIL, jot and tittle, in those papers? Well, she is, and she cannot blame others for what appears UNDER HER NAME.

The manuscripts must be retracted, as they are full of errors, inconsistencies, and downright FALSE STATEMENTS.... like the schematics claimed to be used in the experiments.

QuoteAnd so it goes.  We apparently have yet another need for yet another glove.  Here’s the thing.  We all know that if electrons were the actual ‘particles’ transferred from our generators by our utility supply sources, then those generators would need to supply an almost inexhaustible amount of electrons that somehow turn into photons that also somehow light whole cities â€" all of them linked, as is often the case, to a single supply grid.  That’s a whole lot of work.  Which calls for a whole bunch of electrons.  And the obvious problem? No utility supply source would be able to access that many.  There aren’t any spare electrons manufactured in those great big nuclear generators â€" or indeed, any generators.  Again.  No matter HOW skilled our scientists are, they cannot manufacture electrons on demand.

This is a load of crap. The EARTH is an inexhaustible source of electrons, Ainslie.

GOOD GRIEF.

A lot of the components in your COMPUTER, AINSLIE, are manufactured by a process known as electron beam lithography. A BEAM OF ELECTRONS IS DELIBERATELY PRODUCED AND MANIPULATED TO ETCH PATTERNS ON STONES, and these patterns, built up in layers, are what makes your computer work.

https://www.google.com/search?q=electron+beam+lithography

I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH A BEAM OF ELECTRONS, ON DEMAND, at any time, at virtually any power level you like... given the apparatus necessary.

MY OSCILLOSCOPE makes and manipulates a BEAM OF ELECTRONS.

Did I make the electrons? No. Where did they come from then? THEY CAME FROM THE EARTH, and there are so very many of them that you cannot possibly imagine the quantity, and the puny amount that we use in all our generators and utility grids is such a tiny fraction of the total in the EARTH that we can borrow and return them and the EARTH never even notices.

You really need to stop believing in fairy tales and start to think things through. YOU WOULD NOT HAVE A COMPUTER, or many of the other conveniences of life, if electrons worked the way you think.

The next time you go for an airplane ride..... ask the pilot if his flight instrumentation works by electrons ...  or zipons.