another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And to round off the example - here's a diagrammatic presentation of the actual connections around that Q-array.

Kindest again
Rosemary

[powercat]

And as for this.  It seems that Powercat thinks that IGNORING Glen Lettenmaier's multiple half-page posts indicates some kind of obsession?   

Yes it is an obsession of yours we have seen many times over the years, You keep saying that Fuzzy support your  claims,  he denies it, you ignore him, so you get from him multiple half-page post, so don't try to make out it's something new, it's been going on for years and it is on record

And there are MANY who support our claim.  How can they not?  It's been demonstrated - widely.  Not only this new circuit but the previous. 

I am sure you believe that, So where are the many supporters of your claim ? It looks like most of them have deserted you a long time ago.
Just because you have demonstrated something doesn't make it any more real, In the same way that a magician does .

I've listed the number.  And they include very substantial players, including BP, ABB Research, SASOL, SPESCOM - and on and on.

Receiving a standardised response letter from big companies is not difficult and you have already given your excuse for not publishing them......... How convenient
so we get back to Fuzzy as the only one (you say) supports your claim.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Yes it is an obsession of yours we have seen many times over the years, You keep saying that Fuzzy support your  claims,  he denies it, you ignore him, so you get from him multiple half-page post, so don't try to make out it's something new, it's been going on for years and it is on record

I say nothing of the sort.  Glen Lettenmaier - aka Fuzzytomcat advises us all via his scribd account - that he WHOLLY supports our COP>17 claim.

I am sure you believe that, So where are the many supporters of your claim ? It looks like most of them have deserted you a long time ago. Just because you have demonstrated something doesn't make it any more real, In the same way that a magician does.

Then you must accuse Glen Lettenmaier of this.  Not me.  Our accredictors took the trouble to REPLICATE the tests for themselves or were 'hands on' in their own applied measurement parameters.

Receiving a standardised response letter from big companies is not difficult and you have already given your excuse for not publishing them......... How convenient

When does a company produce a standardised response to say 'yes you may use our names as accreditors of your experimental evidence'?  What would be standard about any such reply - assuming that ever was the reply? 

so we get back to Fuzzy as the only one (you say) supports your claim.

I do not claim anything of the sort.  AGAIN  Glen Lettenmaier states that he has replicated our COP>17 experiment.  Nothing to do with me.

How many ways do you want this stated powercat?  I'm happy to try them all.  Because every time I do so then they remind our readers about Glen's replication.  And it cannot be said too often.  I've already said this.  Your contributions to this thread are invaluable.

Rosie Pose

[powercat]

How many times Rosemary, time for a repost.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"

May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

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.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

How many times Rosemary, time for a repost.

Quote from: fuzzytomcat on March 12, 2012, 09:52:02 PM

Rosemary your a lying sack of dog do do .....

1) If I actually did a scientific replication of your DEVICE I demand you show proof of your bogus claim of your device including any and all device photos , images and data files of the replication, as you stated in many postings on many forums that you have all this in your possession and refuse to show to anyone in the open source community.

2) I have never claimed your piece of junk as a discovery of mine ..... as I stated in many posts in many forums "SHOW PROOF" of a link in a posting or anything where I claimed this .... you cheep excuse for a liar 

3) So I did testing to throw the results off .... you better have proof of this you ..... I'm sick of your lies and so is everyone else.

4) The scribid file is a optional electronic preprint that was released prior to the submitting of the paper to IEEE and is "NOT THE SAME CONTENT, TEXT OR FORMAT AS THE FIVE TIME REJECTED SUBMITTAL"

May I remind everyone ( ROSEMARY ) again ...... and again .... what is a replication !!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_%28scientific_method%29
Reproducibility is the ability of a experiment or study to be accurately reproduced, or replicated, by someone else working independently. It is one of the main principles of the scientific method.

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.

I am well aware of this reference.  It is a perfect example not only of the level of Glen Lettenmaier's lack of profressionalism but your endorsement of this lack.  I rely on this evidence. Like I said earlier - this thread is over populated with trolls.  Would that there were a brain between you.

Rosie Pose