You deserve nothing but the contempt that you have so often and so skilfully earned. You lie, distort, misappropriate the work of others, attempt to cover up and hide your own "open source" data, you mislead everyone who deals with you and even now, nobody knows just what the TRUE schematic is for your device. You have no outside checkable references for any of your claims and you cannot refute me or PW or any one of us with demonstrations, data, and especially MATH.

Your "response" is another logorrhea, a word salad that betrays your amazing lack of understanding, not only of physics in general but QED in particular.... even to the definition of the term "quantum" and just what is meant by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. We need fear not: anyone who has ever completed even a freshman physics class, or who ever has tinkered with an electronic circuit, will be able to discern that you, Ainslie, dolt,  have no clue about what you attempt to discuss, whatsoever.

In short, you, Ainslie, are a willfully ignorant, overweeningly arrogant amateur, not even a proper aficionado, who actually gives "dilettantism" a bad name.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 20, 2012, 02:40:02 PM
Guys I realise that the most of you are bored to tears with theory.  And God knows that TK's handle on theory is somewhat tenuous.  But I've attempted to answer some of this nonsense in this link.  And I feel that I deserve some hearing to discount the entirely spurious objections that picowatt and TK are posing against our thesis on this.  Also - it may at least serve to alert those of you who need it - to the absurdities of QED per TK and picowatt.

Regards,
Rosemary

Here's the link
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2322.msg2729.html#msg2729

And another quote:


"And while I'm at it - for picowatt's consideration.  IF my test battery outlasts the control - then I take it he realises that will FINALLY disprove his absurd interpretations of quantum theories.  And related to my knowledge of electronics.  It is SPARCE - AT BEST.  But I am NOT talking electronics in this really simple apparatus.  I am TALKING PHYSICS PRINCIPLES - taht subject that they dare not discuss except as it relates to TK's somewhat ridiculous version of QED.  He is satisfied that we will not exceed the control's performance.  I've already tested this.  WE WILL.  BY A LONG SHOT.
"

I do not pretend to be a physicist.  Personally, I have never believed any particles actually exist.  Years from now our understanding may change drastically with regard to the present models.  Until then, we use what works and follows the math.

But I have not discussed physics, I have discussed electronics.  Whether an electron actually exists or not, or whether it should be called something else is not the point.  The current models work very well in predicting the behaviour of something we call or visualize as an electron as it is manipulated through semiconductors and conductors.

An expert in the field of electronics need no more be a phycist than a plumber needs to be a chemist or auto mechanic a metallurgist.  And I dare say that most physicists, chemists and metallurgists would be terrible electronic circuit designers, plumbers, and mechanics.  All are separate disciplines that take years to become proficient at.

You attempt to somehow apply physics to explain an electronic circuit that is fully understood and obeys the present understanding of electronics as if there is some great mystery regarding its operation.

Everything you have thus far presented can and has been fully explained regarding how and why the circuit operates.  Even your negative mean power measurement has been explained.

As to whether or not the circuit is somehow more efficient than any other circuit, no data has thus far been presented which would support any anomalous action.

Possibly you should acquire a bit of humility and just accept that regarding the electronic operation of your circuit, there are plenty of people around that fully understand its operation.  Quit your constant arguing as if you are more expert than they in a field which you have very little knowledge and attempt to learn.

As to whether your circuit is somehow more efficient than one would expect it to be, present your data.

       

Why doesn't she just take one of my videos.... How Mosfets Work 2 and 3 for example.... and tell us, by references to timestamps, just what is wrong, what I am not understanding or explaining correctly, or how it does not apply to the understanding of her circuit?

She cannot, that's why. What I show in that one video alone is completely incompatible with her understanding of her circuit and electronics in general, much less the foundations of electronics in QED. She cannot refute it, she cannot explain it under her "thesis"... so she must ignore it, or call it fake. (Which latter amuses me greatly.)

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

Or... for a slightly more complex example..... this one offers plenty of grist for Ainslie's fantasy mill. Go ahead, Anslie.... watch it, and tear it up, with timestamp references.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo

Guys, I am getting more than a little tired of the repeated efforts of TK and Picowatt et al ... you notice how their names are perpetually 'linked' to this common cause ... take the trouble to post over select passages of my own post.  They dare not simply post the link.  Lest you read the whole of the post and not those selected passages where the sense is explained in the balance of that unpublished post.  This is required for that 'perpetual spin' and is part of their propagandising techniques.  In my defense therefore, let me post over the WHOLE of that post.    I've posted it over in a couple of posts for easy reading.  Here it is...

"And this Guys is about the perpetual 'spin' advanced by picowatt and TK...et al.

The foundation of Quantum theories is based on a simple premise.  Excepting the photon, everything that can be known and measured about stable particles, their spin, their mass, their charge, is done when they are in an artificial state of relative rest.  With regards to the electron - in it's natural state this particle is never in a state of rest.  Therefore no-one knows what the electron is doing in it's orbital state.  Not its velocity - nor its mass - nor strictly speaking - even its location within the atom.  All predictions of an electron's action within an atomic abode are based on statistical PROBABILITY.  It is a study of 'likely outcomes' and it is derived in precisely the same way that our statisticians predict outcomes.  It's a dependable prediction - on a general or quantum basis.  It is never applicable on a particular basis.  Hence the term QUANTUM.  What picowatt and TK are doing, poor sods, is to try and advance that quantum physics knows PRECISELY what is going on.  Notwithstanding the acknowledged shortfall in quantum physics where all QED experts first and foremost - ACKNOWLEDGE this impossibility as the FOUNDATION STONE of all quantum studies.  The experts can and will ONLY give a prediction based on probability. They freely confess that cannot be precise.  Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle EXPLAINS PRECISELY THIS PROBLEM.

NOW.  TK is trying to describe the 'domino effect' of electrons as the transfer of current flow.  On a step by step basis - which is the only justifiable explanation of current flow.  And this because it is also the ONLY model that acknowledges that there are no extra electrons introduced that are extraneous to that electric circuitry.  But here we have the first problem.  The 'step by step' model or analogy has nothing to do with Quantum physics.  It's something else.  Possibly it's philosophy.  But then it's really bad philosophy.  It's trying to explain the particular by reference to the general.  That step by step - that domino effect - is TK's analogy to the person who by entering a room then reaches the tipping point - that maximum occupancy.  Whereupon he proposes that another occupant then leaves that room through a back door - in a precise and equal exchange.  BUT.  The thing is this.  In order for the one person to 'come in' and for another to 'go out' takes a measurable quotient of time.  And it's that time that our physicists have measured that it takes one electron to replace another electron in its proposed passage from one outer energy level of one atom to the outer energy level of another atom.  IF this were the explanation for the continuous nature of current flow  - THEN - it would take about 20 minutes for those electrons to shuffle through your average 2 - 4 meters of wire from the switch to the appliance - before that appliance would get the benefit of that 'exchange'.  Again.  It would take 20 minutes from the moment that you throw the switch 'on' to getting your kettle to start cooking - your light to light - your fan to turn - and so on.
continued / ...

Continued /...

What TK and picowatt are trying to infer is that they can explain what the electron is doing on that 'particular' basis.  It is a question that our greats themselves - those pioneers of Quantum physics - have declined to answer.  It is a question - nonetheless - that they and other electrical engineers have attempted to explain - are attempting to explain and will, no doubt CONTINUE to attempt to explain.  But to do so they first need to reach into an abuse of philosophical argument that has everything to do with wild speculation and nothing to do with logic or science. Again.  It has never been PROVED.  This model ERRS.  Radically.  It is NOT APPLICABLE TO OUR MEASURED EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. On the contrary.  The experimental evidence REFUTES this model.And yet, for some reason - picowatt and TK prefer it that I rely on their speculations related to this when our Greats themselves have declined to speculate.  And they seem to see fit to criticise ME - for not following their argument.  I will not.  And would caution you all - you SHOULD not.  It is a spurious argument based on spurious premises - that get progressively more absurd as they get more and more embroiled.  It is an example of the courtiers to the Emperor who flatter him and themselves that they can see the colours in the Emperor's New Cloak.IT IS UTTERLY AND RIDICULOUSLY INAPPROPRIATE.

And while I'm at it - for picowatt's consideration.  IF my test battery outlasts the control - then I take it he realises that will FINALLY disprove his absurd interpretations of quantum theories.  And related to my knowledge of electronics.  It is SPARCE - AT BEST.  But I am NOT talking electronics in this really simple apparatus.  I am TALKING PHYSICS PRINCIPLES - taht subject that they dare not discuss except as it relates to TK's somewhat ridiculous version of QED.  He is satisfied that we will not exceed the control's performance.  I've already tested this.  WE WILL.  BY A LONG SHOT.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Added
What our thesis does is this.  It DEFINES the material property of charge in line with Faraday's Lines of Force.  It is a self-consistent argument.  It points to an energy potential that has been OVERLOOKED - to the entire benefit of our energy monopolists.  To forfeit this model and replace it with that 'field study' will FOREVER leave us free of our grid locked dependencies.  It is NO WONDER that picowatt and TK and 'The Boss' and Sean - et al - RELY on that ridiculous variation to Quantum Physics.  I only caution you all to be alert to this."

Do take the trouble to read it.  It's critical if you're going to fully appreciate that 'AGENDA' that they have. Regards,Rosemary