Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Loner - I'm actually addressing your post in Glen's thread here.  I see you giving his subject the kind of gravitas that it otherwise lacks. 

That there are emotions related to this application is only because - from it's inception - these tests of mine seem to warrant an attack that has been unprecedented in any of these forums - with the possible exception of Mylow's test that TK managed to debunk - rather skillfully, I understand.  But the facts are that it's either the claim - or my nature - or both - that seem to engender a kind of protest that I have difficulty dealing with.  My own take is that I'm probably way too pedantic for my own good.  But be that as it may.  I can only do my best.  And I do. 

I can say, relating to the original thread, that there was far more data being posted relative to "Character" than to the experiment itself.

This is required.  The data is impeccable.  The only hope is to discredit my character.  The object being to discredit the tests - by hell or high water. 

This leads to one of several conclusions, which I am sure will cause m grief just for listing them.  1) Good Data, Good "Discovery" (Which has probably been shown in other unrelated areas, but not explained...) and someone wants "Credit" for it.   2) Good Data, but there was some form of error in the overall processing.   3) Good Data, but later found to be the result of a process that has already been documented.  4) Bad data and it's being insured that certain parties take the blame.

The answer here is partly in your 1st point.  But like all things it's not the whole of the picture.  There was a 'squabble' over the paper which I initiated as an open source effort.  Very unfortunate decision here.  It led to the inevitable squabbles as there were two members who were simply out to claim the entire experiment as an independent discovery.  The confrontation was rather unbridled - the most of it confined to off forum communications - and, being 'unfettered' in their emails, they indulged in a level of communication that was entirely unprofessional - excessive in it's delivery - and abusive in it's text.  Most of those statements made are actionable - and I look forward one day to finding a forum where I can make full disclosure of that - just to alert our public as to the nature of the players involved.  The comfort is that not all forum members are like that.  The sad news is that there are even any.  I suppose the truth is that I should just forget it.  But it was so PROFOUNDLY shocking.  I had NO idea that I was dealing with such horrors.

I could list a few more, but all of them state one thing.  More work, or further development needs to be done.  I am assuming that this is in process, but if this really shows any gain, the old human nature must
come into play.  Is that what's happening here?

No.  The only work being done by Glen and Harvey is the ongoing attempt to deny the earlier evidence.  But not much of that either.  They have very little interest in their own thread and even less participation.  Thankfully, their denials of efficiency are largely discounted.  In effect, had I not PROTESTED as strongly as I did - then I have NO DOUBT that this technology would have been buried.  That was and is their intention.

Or are petty emotions and greed taking over the subject?

I can only assure you that there's nothing PETTY in these constant requirements to ward off their attacks.  And I'm not qualified to say how much is motivated by greed or pure spite.  Possibly a little of both.  I have every intention of capitalising on this technology when it's finally determined how to 'up the wattage'.  And if it is not 'upped' then nor have I impoverished anyone in trying.  By the same token I would be delighted to see others advance the technolgy where the benefits will be entirely to their own accounts.  There's NO intellectual property rights here at all.

Or is there proof of error?  (Real proof, not possible...)

If there is proof of error then I assure you that there are MANY experts who have not been able to find it.  Just look again at the list of accreditors. 

and Vice-versa, is there real proof of function?  (Beyond what I have seen.  All I have is the original hand-written sheets, which seem fine.)The technology is entirely proven to 'PROOF OF CONCEPT'  But, of course, it needs development.  We're looking to try and resolve any outstanding questions here.

Seeing that Rose is "No longer" reading this thread, I must assume she cannot respond to this, but I hesitate to put this into Her thread as, from what I can read here, the moderation seems to have an agenda, which this type of comment might not fit into.  What that agenda is, it's not even my place to guess.

Loner?  I have never objected to thoughtful critical observations.  Much required.  I think the only reason that I've been given moderation of the thread is to ensure that it's not subjected to the kind of troll attack that was evident - historically.  I have only deleted a single post from Ramset as he had an 'adults only' link - one from shrugged Atlas - which was done in error - and 1 from Spinn because it was just way too offensive.  For the rest I've either tolerated comments or reposted them on another thread.  With all that rubbish it would otherwise have buried my thead here. Also.  I try, to the best of my ability to MARK any modifications that I make to my own posts.  I NEVER modify others' posts.

So, I guess what I am asking is, what's the real point to all of this?  Or is this whole project just a Soap Opera?

I actually think that Glen is 'bursting' for want of telling his story.  And frankly - I think he should.  It may 'clear his head' so to speak.  There's always two sides to a story and - albeit that he struggles with language - he clearly feels that he has his justifications.  I haven't seen any justifiable reason for his withholding prime data from the public which is what he invariably resorts to doing.  The subject is way too important for his personal feelings to get in the way.

I will be listening.  Clear language requested as I can read between the lines very well technically, but this social banter mystifies me..

There is no way that ANYONE can remove emotions from science - not with the best will in the world.  We are ALL inclined to support our own logic or even our own 'beliefs'.  Nothing wrong with that.  I'm entirely satisfied that even our Greats were inclined to passion.  So.  In my book all is just dandy.  I'm intensely relieved that Glen is on another thead as I would prefer my own to stay more considered and reasonable.  And I am satisfied he is incapable of any kind of emotional constraint or sensible thinking.

So.  Here's what I'm trying to tell you.  Feel free to express whatever doubts you have.  I welcome this as I can then address the issue.  Else I am not even aware of such doubts and I'd be sorry to lose out on the opportunity.  We're making some hefty inroads into some new technologies and clearly, there are such as you and Paul who were not even aware of this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary 

This couldn't all be "Troll Arrogance", could it?  (That would be me, too...)

Sorry I missed this.  If it is arrogance - then again, I really don't think I'm culpable.  I have NOTHING to be arrogant about.  Nor has Glen.  He's good at experimental work.  But that's it.

As a side note, anyone remember the SSG.  Did it work?  Does that argument sound familiar?   Some things never change.......

Have NO idea what SSG is - so can't comment.

edited the spelling of the word deleted.  LOL

[happyfunball]

SSG is Bedini's 'Simple School Girl' motor.

[markdansie]

Hi Rosemary,
you should take TK's posts as complimentry, he rarely pays attention to anything he considers not worthwhile and does not tollerate fools (proberbly why he never answered any of my mail)
Mark

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thanks for the explanation Happy.  And Mark - regarding TK's interest - there's absolutelty nothing complimentary about it - I assure you.  And frankly I've known hooded cobras with more charm than he has.  But I grant you.  He is, at least, really clever.  There's that to be said.  Just a shame that it's wasted on this mission to destroy.  LOL.  He's like a human nuclear warhead - aimed at clean green, and any old ladies that are reckless enough to get into the firing line. 



Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

And by the way - sorry Loner.  I still can't comment on the SSG.  I'd need to read up on it. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, either way, thanks for the reply.

I find the "Banter" almost as interesting as the concept.  I can offer no opinions myself, as I need to review much more before I could.

Maybe I can catch up with other things and really check in-depth, but right now, I must continue with other things.   I shall return to this.

Frankly Loner - it's better that you don't 'catch up'.  We always seem to find intermittent moments where we all shout at each other across the wide Atlantic.  And I'm reasonably certain that snarling dogs are somewhat more articulate.  But there's a lot of turbulence under the bridge so to speak - and it needs an outlet.  Fortunately Harti seems to allow this - under the general banner of freedom of speech.  So.  In principle it has my support.  In reality it allows the reading public to make up their own minds.  And in fact it does nothing but continue to remind all and sundry as to what was lost in all that data that Glen keeps hidden.

Guys - that copper thread through the armature of a spinning rotor?  There's an outside chance that this will be tested on Sunday.  It'll be interesting.  My own take is this.  IF it works then we can, at least, measure a current flow.  And even if it's nominal in these early tests - then the principle is proven.  Hopefully it'll be something that our 'motor experimentalists' will then be able to exploit.

Regarding the tests at university.  I can only apologise - yet again - for endless delays.  This time because it's exam time.  All finished by this coming Friday.  So next week?  I'm embarrassed to propose that this may yet be possible.  Certainly from Monday onwards we'll all be able to concentrate on this work almost exclusively.

Regarding the magnets?  I believe our first pyramid is due to be cut tomorrow.  They've had to reduce the size - one because the delivered cut was rather crude and imprecise.  Second because a number of them have been chipped.  They're amazingly strong. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary