Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

2) Explain and prove that the CSR was connected in the proper location for all those tests.

Poynty - how many times must I say this?  The demo - the report schematic - excluded that eccentric FET postioning.  But for that test the ground of the signal generator was 'behind' the CSR as shown on that schematic.  Not good.  I KNOW.  But.   NOW.  Listen up.  We put it there because we were running two SCOPES.  Therefore there was no 'space' for the ground from the FG.  But I didn't mind WHERE I put the ground of the FG.  Because it MAKES NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE TO THE RESULTS - THERE OR WHERE IT SHOULD BE.  Voltage across the shunt is GLUED to that negative value.  And that's all we needed to show.  But I'll show you this when I FINALLY get my PC back. 

Again, kindest, and I trust you're enjoying all that sunshine.
Rosie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And just in case anyone's missed my editing of a prior post related to RomeroUK.  I have ENTIRELY changed my mind after reading his email to Allen.  My heart goes out to the guy.  He deserved better and I'm just so sorry that he needs to apologise for anything at all.  What a travesty.  He was simply doing what he clearly does brilliantly.  And for that he's being victimised?  It beggars belief.

One really good outcome of our own claims is that no-one believes it.  Probably as well.  I assure you no-one has ever threatened any of us. lol  So.  In a way we've been advantaged by all that scepticism.  And that should be mildly amusing.  But it isn't.

Poor lad.  I hope things go better for him when all has settled down.

Regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry I'm duplicating things all over the place.

[powercat]

And just in case anyone's missed my editing of a prior post related to RomeroUK.  I have ENTIRELY changed my mind after reading his email to Allen.  My heart goes out to the guy.  He deserved better and I'm just so sorry that he needs to apologise for anything at all.  What a travesty.  He was simply doing what he clearly does brilliantly.  And for that he's being victimised?  It beggars belief.

One really good outcome of our own claims is that no-one believes it.  Probably as well.  I assure you no-one has ever threatened any of us. lol  So.  In a way we've been advantaged by all that scepticism.  And that should be mildly amusing.  But it isn't.

Poor lad.  I hope things go better for him when all has settled down.

Regards
Rosemary

It would have been very different if you had made a self-runner.  though I do agree with you it's very sad for all those concerned.

[fuzzytomcat]

THIS IS GETTING REALLY OLD !!!!!!

I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO FIND A RECORD POSTED ON THE INTERNET, IN ANY OPEN SOURCE FORUM I'M A MEMBER OF WHERE I SAY .....
that I claim ownership or discovery .... and give the exact thread and posting link to that claim.

Rosemary Ainslie's Quote -  http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/114-truth-behind-forum-facade.html#links   
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Glen Lettenmaier is on record. He claims ownership or discovery of what is widely referred to as the Rosemary Ainslie circuit.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOWHERE GUESTS AND MEMBERS WILL YOU FIND SUCH A CLAIM DESCRIBED !!! NOWHERE !!!


This is yet another attempt by Rosemary Ainslie to discredit me with "FALSE and INACCURATE" information and bury in nonsense postings the question at hand .... PROVE in a "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" your (Rosemary Ainslie) claim of a COP> INFINITY on the posted experimental device in this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29    Replication ( Scientific Method )

Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method, and refers to the ability of a test or experiment to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. The results of an experiment performed by a particular researcher or group of researchers are generally evaluated by other independent researchers who repeat the same experiment themselves, based on the original experimental description (see independent review). Then they see if their experiment gives similar results to those reported by the original group. The result values are said to be commensurate if they are obtained (in distinct experimental trials) according to the same reproducible experimental description and procedure.

FuzzyTomCat