Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

it would be a sorry thing indeed if we could not learn directly from the thinking of really capable writers or if we were separated from the works of those Greats in Philosophy or Science - simply because we first had to be TAUGHT what to think about what we read about.  Such a circuitous route?  Do we need someone to teach us the power in Shakespeare's work?  Or do we need to read an art critique before we could appreciate the works of Cezanne? Hieronymus Bosch - whoever?  So?  I still can't say I'm self taught.  If I were then I'd have to exclude my exposure to so many highly capable teachers.  And frankly, I'm inclined to give tribute where it's due. So think what you like TK.  But I assure you I am NOT self-taught.  Then I'd first need to be a genius.

And when you claim that I'm fabricating the facts about all those accreditors and test replicators then also know this.  I'm way too old to care whether or not you believe what I've written.  And I'm also too wise to make a claim of such magnitude if there was any chance at all that I misrepresented the facts.  Because then I could be  SUED for MISREPRESENTATION and LIBEL.  And I'm also too cowardly to take on that kind of risk.

And when it comes to the 'required' mathematical analysis of my thesis - then I'm afraid that one of the more salient features of what's been uncovered is that the only mathematical proof is in the work of our string theorists.  And that is so far out that most mathematicians can't follow it.  So for me - who can barely get my head around simple arithmetic - there's absolutely NO HOPE.  But what I can do is reconcile the mass / size ratio of the proton to the electron and I can then show some interesting solutions to many outstanding so called 'paradoxes' and 'anomalies' in classical and quantum physics - that is then resolved by proposing this magnetic dipole.  But you would never be able to get your head around the proposals TK.  It's not your thing.  You're an engineer.  It's a different mind set.

Rosie.   

[MrMag]

@ Mags
As a rule I quite like those trolls that tend to follow me around.  Very few exceptions.  But Fuzzy's one such.  And you're another.  I absolutely did NOT make any disclosures on my life for your edification.  I believe I was answering TK. 

Yeah but you did didn't rosy. I want to thank TK for telling US ALL about your qualifications and for you to further clarify it

And MR MAGS - I'm not sure you're right in advising me on anything at all.  You're grossly under qualified.  You do not have the required intelligence nor training.  If I spent the rest of my life making marmalade - as you suggest - then how would I be able to indulge my love of and talents for and interest in logic and language and physics and art.  I realise that you can't share this.  But that speaks to your own limitations.  Not mine.  I express myself very clearly.

But rose, you have no idea what my qualifications or training is. If you are trying to tell me that I needed to be a waitress, real estate agent and used car salesman to have the same qualifications as you, then maybe you are right. But until you know what my background or training is, maybe you should not be to harsh with your words. You know nothing at all about me. You may have the love of them but you surely don't have the talent or logic.

What shows me an extreme want of decency in your character is that you KNOW that my threads are not moderated.  So you indulge in this off topic excursion with relative freedom from harm.  Which effectively makes you an opportunistic, unprincipled bully.  You are to the forum what hyenas are to the wild.  No bigger coward when the top predator comes to the party.  And nothing braver than when those top predators aren't there.  And no-one noiser. 

Golly rosy, I'm not the one putting people down, telling them they are not qualified or have no intelligence. I think that if this thread was moderated for decency you would have been banned a long time ago. But, this forum is open to a degree to freedom of speech. That's why you are getting away with saying the things that you do.

Pretty strong statement when all I did was ask you to do an extended run down test. You know more then the 7.5 hour to 17 hour one. I still don't think that you comprehend exactly what my request entailed. Then when I pointed out to you that it could be done very cheaply, you started your attacks on me. This just proves that you do have something to hide. After 10 years, you have gotten nowhere with your circuit. Anyone that has tried it, had the same failures. You could of made a fortune selling that marmalade for the last 10 years!

So.  Magsy - I propose you take your fatuous observations and your rather limited intellect elsewhere.  You're incapable of contributing to anything constructively, if your advices regarding my interests are anything to go by.  And you're utterly unequal to contributing to the science if your experimental proposals are anything to go by.  And I'm not sure that you can contribute anything at all to the general health of the planet or it's population as you're also afflicted with a certain want of principle and morality.  But I would MUCH prefer it if you would stay off this thread.

Well, it sounds to me that you are in the same boat. Here we are 10 years later and your circuit is still in question. Well, I shouldn't say in question. Most people who have tried your circuit say that it doesn't even show unity. You are the only one who hasn't been convinced. Which one of us has the limited intellect? If you had the required intelligence or training you might just see the truth about your circuit. You are just to grossly under qualified to comprehend it. Just think, after 10 years hardly anyone has even heard of it. After 10 years, where are all of your followers?? After 10 years, how many successful replications are out there? After 10 years, how many different applications have you used your circuit on?

Come on rosy, the only reason that you say Poynt, TK, Humburger, ... don't know what they are talking about is because they don't agree with you. Look how you got all sweet and kind to Poynt when he said he was going to help you out with some sims. As soon as he showed you your error, he became the pompous idiot again.  I would think that their knowledge, training and experience trump your waiting tables and selling houses.

Since you have a love of literature, maybe you should write some fiction novels. You could possibly be the next Orsen Wells. But please leave the electronics to the experts as we all know that you do not have the intellectual aptitude for this field of study.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@ Mags
What?  For property developer - READ ESTATE AGENT?  For catering industry - READ WAITRESS?  What a joke. May I assure all the readers here that I have NEVER sold a house in my life other than my own.  And I most certainly have never worked as a waitress.  Both very fine professions.  But I do not have the manual or visual dexterity to manage the latter nor the interest to manage the former.  And when it comes to 'making a fortune' as you seem to think is required I've managed to keep my head above water without selling marmalade.

What a despicable little man you are. And I wouldn't be too quick to put yourself in the same category as the other contributing members.  For starters Poynty is HIGHLY INTELLIGENT and HIGHLY COMPETENT.  He's just useless at power analysis.  And I am entirely satisfied that you're useless at most things. Your technical comments are a dead give away.

R

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Anyway.  Moving on.  It seems that MileHigh's cautions on RomeroUK's motor were, indeed, valid.  I wonder if that's likely to re-instate him as a contributor at Poynty's thread.  I do hope so.  He's a really good writer.  And I'm rather sorry to see that this device has flopped - or not withstood the required proof - whatever.  I can't help thinking that the answer to this 'self runner' is to have two motors running concurrently but in anti phase - from the current generated in a third initialising motor.  But that's an expensive build and is not likely to be tested.  I personally had doubts when we didn't see more work from Lasersaber. 

Anyway guys.  We still have our own device and I assure you all that none of us are about to deny the evidence.  It's just a shame that the evidence also requires power analysis and there are no competent analysts on this forum.   

Anyway, fyi and wrt our paper - I'm STUCK.  I've been advised that the argument is NOT persuasive enough.  To make it persuasive we'll need a second sort of qualifying paper - and I absolutely do not know if I can manage the argument.  Thus far I've drawn a blank.  I'm sort of hoping for inspiration.  And right now I'm feeling rather miserable that that motor number didn't hit a home run.

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

And I'm rather sorry to see that this device has flopped - or not withstood the required proof - whatever.

It's far from flopped or done. Inconclusive at worst at the moment.

Anyway, fyi and wrt our paper - I'm STUCK.  I've been advised that the argument is NOT persuasive enough.

You don't say?   I think several, including myself have been advising you of the same for months, no, make that years.

To make it persuasive we'll need a second sort of qualifying paper...

I'm curious, a qualifying paper on what subject exactly?

.99