Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 13, 2012, 12:11:43 AM
Here you go Little TK.  Something to give your thread some relevance and gravitas and INTEREST.  Go read that updated article and then comment.

Rosie Pose

Logorrhea, plain and simple.

You do not know your subject well enough to discuss it coherently.

And you do not know how to reason correctly either.

Can anyone tell me what this idiot fool Ainslie is talking about?

List of misdemeanors? I'd love to see it. And I'm sure everyone else would too.

Photographic evidence of TK "flaming the environment"? What could that possibly mean? Seen through the disguise? WHAAT?

Flames our threads... she doesn't even know what "flames" means, and I've never posted on what she calls "our" threads at all.

See, she can't make a post without lying about something or other.



And she mentions the "pickle" again... how fascinated she is about my giant pickle. She wakes up in the night, craving giant pickles, in a cold sweat. It's probably been decades or more since she's seen a pickle up close and personal like.

I was not going to gratify her with another pickle image... but since she insists... don't ever let it be said that I won't give a lady.. even a troll lady... what she so fervently asks for.

This is the Quantum 555 timer that I built a few minutes ago and the scope trace from Pin 3 output. I used the EXACT component values specifed in the Quantum schematic except that I used 1n914 diodes instead of 1n4148. Would anyone like to argue that my results are due to this diode substitution?

How, then, can we explain gmeast's claim that ... after working with the circuit all afternoon.... he was able to get a 3.7 percent HIGH output from his timer... USING THE SAME COMPONENT VALUES as specified... or maybe not.

I just put it together as the schematic specified, and it worked the first time, just as I SAID IT WOULD, with a long ON duty cycle.

OF COURSE I could change component values around and arrive at the "claimed" short ON duty cycle ... it's easy to calculate the timing resistors and cap values to give any specified duty cycle within broad limits... but that is changing the circuit.

If it doesn't have the same component values, gmeast... it's not the same timer circuit as she used. Or at least that is PUBLISHED under her name as having been used.

Just in the general but dying hopes of keeping this thread on topic CLICK HERE....

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg2592.html#msg2592

Rosie Pose

You have no idea what the topic of this thread is, Ainslie, and YOU are not selecting the topics of discussion. In fact YOU are spamming this thread with your unwanted links to your honeypot forum that is full of your lies and pseudoscientific misconduct.

EVERY WORD that is released under your name, AINSLIE, all those "manuscripts" that you have "published"... YOU are responsible for every word, every image, every little scratchmark on the paper, because YOU are the principal author. YOU CANNOT BLAME ANYONE ELSE for the errors, lies, false claims, WRONG SCHEMATICS and so on.... YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY BIT OF IT.
The data deletions, the edited images where trace baselines have been removed to hide data.... EVERY BIT OF IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY and you cannot blame anyone else for your errors.

You claim to use SIX batteries for a trial where it is very clear FROM YOUR SCOPE TRACES that you only used 4, for just ONE single example that has come to light in the past several days. This alone invalidates the entire manuscript.

For the present discussion involving the old COP>17 claims: I used, above, the EXACT schematic that YOU have published and linked to many times. The fact that this EMBARRASSING schematic is OMITTED from the EIT "paper" is another telling omission on your part. The schematic AS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED will make your heat profiles.... and DID. But clearly anyone who builds it EXACTLY will discover what I did.... and instantly realize what happened and that your claims based on the duty cycle are invalid and refuted. SO YOU LEAVE IT OUT....... just as you have more recently with your 5.9 MegaJoule howler that you have removed without comment from your Forum's edition of the "paper" but which STILL REMAINS TO THIS DAY in the official "publication" on Rossi's JNP blog.
And if someone changes component values and struggles for a day and finally makes the CLAIMED duty cycle... using a DIFFERENT 555 circuit... well, that rather proves my point, doesn't it: YOUR ORIGINAL SCHEMATIC DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO YOUR CLAIMS.

However, I can use YOUR EXACT CIRCUIT with the EXACT COMPONENT VALUES SPECIFIED, and EASILY make both the CORRECT  and the INVERTED duty cycle at the same time, by adding a single component and its connecting wires. And it took me less than an hour to construct the entire timer AND my addition that fixes your "mistake".