New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[TinselKoala]

So let me summarize then, before you head off, so you can correct any misinterpretations.

Really, your circuit is nothing like "hers", the unclamped inductive test circuit in the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet, is it. No driver chip in that circuit or in anything Ainslie has ever presented!

Your comments then do not really apply to either the 5-mosfet circuit or the Quantum single-mosfet circuit, then, do they?

You used different components in your 555 timer, you don't use the timer at all now, your operating parameters (500kHz @ 24% ON) are nothing like what Ainslie claimed (2.4 kHz @ 3.6 or 4 percent ON) and you state that Ainslie only shared a little information with you before she "stabbed you in the back".

And you still maintain that Ainslie does not engage in deception, only error.


Is that a fair statement of what you've said here in the past few posts? I don't want to misrepresent your position, Gmeast. If you don't care, one wonders why you bothered to post in this thread at all. If it's in response to me mentioning you a bit above ..... let me remind you that YOU mentioned ME first.

[gmeast]

So let me summarize then, before you head off, so you can correct any misinterpretations.

Really, your circuit is nothing like "hers", the unclamped inductive test circuit in the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet, is it. No driver chip in that circuit or in anything Ainslie has ever presented!

Your comments then do not really apply to either the 5-mosfet circuit or the Quantum single-mosfet circuit, then, do they?

You used different components in your 555 timer, you don't use the timer at all now, your operating parameters (500kHz @ 24% ON) are nothing like what Ainslie claimed (2.4 kHz @ 3.6 or 4 percent ON) and you state that Ainslie only shared a little information with you before she "stabbed you in the back".

And you still maintain that Ainslie does not engage in deception, only error.


Is that a fair statement of what you've said here in the past few posts? I don't want to misrepresent your position, Gmeast. If you don't care, one wonders why you bothered to post in this thread at all. If it's in response to me mentioning you a bit above ..... let me remind you that YOU mentioned ME first.

blah, blah, blah TK. I think others reading my recent posts here can decide on their own what my motive(s) are in these last posts ... that it was only honesty and clarification. They can also see you are always looking for a fight. Let it rest. Go seek help for your aggression ... find a good shrink.

[TinselKoala]

See, it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you at all. You cannot simply stick to the points under discussion and you respond to reasonable statements and questions with insults and ad-hominem attacks.

But since you don't object to anything in my summary of your points, I take it that you don't object to anything in my summary.

1. You did not replicate the claimed 3 or 4 percent HI duty cycle using the same components and circuit that Ainslie claimed.
2. Your apparatus operates at vastly different frequency and duty cycle than either of Ainslie's apparatuses.
3. You stated that Ainslie stabbed you in the back after not giving you very much information.
4. I provided you with proof, in her own words, of a deliberate and serious deception that Ainslie and Martin perpetrated in March of 2011, and I asked you if you still believed in your statement that she is not deliberately deceptive. You declined to answer and instead insulted me.

I ask you once again: is this a fair summary of the past few posts from you? If it isn't, please correct me WITHOUT INSULTING ME, you bloviating troll.

And while you are at it, give me an example of what you call my "aggression" and show how it is more aggressive than your comments imaged below.

[profitis]

wow.its refreshing to have a different point of view frm gmeast.it seems not everybody is on the attak-and-destroy-at-all-costs mission here..

[SeaMonkey]

Snooze alarm:

That's the kind of non-answer I've come to expect from you.

The bottom line is this; I'm not really interested in your hollow hints, crumbs of wisdom, opinions, speculations or philosophies. What interests me is seeing a setup and the measurements thereof, that you believe achieves something out of the ordinary or beyond what conventional science predicts.

Can you do that?

I hear a very gentle sound...
With your ear down to the ground...
We want the world and we want it now!

MH,

Aye, those who want the world are very close
to realizing their dream AGENDA.  The manipulated
turmoil in Egypt and soon to inflame all of the Middle
East does not bode well for the inhabitants of planet
Earth.

0.99,

Aye, you've restated the obvious.  The ratio seems to
be about 10:1 in that for every 10 "not interested"
there will be one "thank you, I know what to do with
that."

What has been proposed in the way of creative
innovation (tricks of the trade) to enhance performance
is well established "conventional science" in the field.  To
re-emphasize a pointer;  the electronics manufacturer's
Application Notes are perhaps the best sources of little
known esoteric knowledge which will surely nurture
profound insights into electronic circuit operations.

There are indeed technologies which are able to achieve
something out of the ordinary or beyond what conventional
science predicts, but I choose not to go there.  Those tech-
nologies are very destructive and they originate from places
which are not good.

Speaking of science;  this video is quite interesting.