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

[WilbyInebriated]

Rosemary, I just sent an e-mail to prof Gaunt asking him as to whether or not he has confirmed your experimental claim for obtaining more energy out than in. I'm rejecting the idea that electric current isn't due to flow of electrons entirely, in view of the simple experimental facts which definitively prove that it is, and I have no further interest in that part.

Couldn't find Professor Tapsen's e-mail address. Maybe @WilbyInebriated can help. He's good at that.


P.S. My e-mail address is koooyyy@hotmail.com

holy buckets of no comprehension batman!
omni, rosemary already told you that none of them confirmed anything, they didn't even witness the experiment. you can read can't you? go read what she EXPLICITLY said, they stipulated the protocols...

yeah i can help you... can you help yourself? the email is in the link i posted previously.

edit: my bad, i didn't post the other link. funny though, it was about as hard to find as gaunt's...
http://www.eleceng.uct.ac.za/people/jct.php
are you going to ask him if he has confirmed rosemary's experimental claim even though she has already told you he has not?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, I just sent an e-mail to prof Gaunt asking him as to whether or not he has confirmed your experimental claim for obtaining more energy out than in. I'm rejecting the idea that electric current isn't due to flow of electrons entirely, in view of the simple experimental facts which definitively prove that it is, and I have no further interest in that part.

Couldn't find Professor Tapsen's e-mail address. Maybe @WilbyInebriated can help. He's good at that.


P.S. My e-mail address is koooyyy@hotmail.com

This is a different issue.  If I based my measurements of proof on transients then I would not have sufficient proof.  Our measurements were empirical and the protocols stipulated by experts in the art. The problem was that those same experts would NOT attend a demonstration - lest they were then required to accredit those results. I really don't AGAIN want to detail that protocol.  It's all clearly defined in two papers.  This is EXHAUSTING me Omnibus.  Have pity.

Regards,
Rosemary

In the light of the above - may I impose on you to explain why it is that you're asking Professor Gaunt to confirm whether he's attended a demonstration or not?  And by the way Omnibus - if you signed yourself Omnibus in that email it is unlikely that Professor Gaunt will answer you.

In the first instance I only disclosed his name that you could verify that he was aware of the applied protocols as being sufficient.  And in the second instance I expected a certain amount of circumspection in the manner of your address to him.  It seems that you do indeed have as little restraint and decency as I suspected from the tenor of your posts.

Rosemary

[WilbyInebriated]

In the light of the above - may I impose on you to explain why it is that you're asking Professor Gaunt to confirm whether he's attended a demonstration or not?

i can rosemary. it is part of an orchestrated use of logical fallacy, he will do something similar to what he tried to do to mr. kaku. that is to say, attempt to undermine credibility with logical fallacy...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

i can rosemary. it is part of an orchestrated use of logical fallacy, he will do something similar to what he tried to do to mr. kaku. that is to say, attempt to undermine credibility with logical fallacy...

Hi Wilby.  I will be entirely embarrassed by that communication from Omnibus as it will imply that I've been making public announcement of academic accreditation when I've gone to some considerable efforts to state the exact opposite.  And there is nothing can be done to correct this general impression unless Omnibus is man enough to apologise to Professor Gaunt and redress the focus of his question.  My concern is that this much character is lacking - precisely in as much as he impetuously demands verification as he has explained.  Fortunately - right now - Professor Gaunt is probably asleep.  And I will certainly be able to reach him to warn him of this letter and route him to this thread.  But it's been a salutary reminder to me to treat members with much more circumspection.  Omnibus has here shown himself to be irresponsible and entirely unreliable.  I at least know more of the nature of the beast - so to speak.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[WilbyInebriated]

Hi Wilby.  I will be entirely embarrassed by that communication from Omnibus as it will imply that I've been making public announcement of academic accreditation when I've gone to some considerable efforts to state the exact opposite.  And there is nothing can be done to correct this general impression unless Omnibus is man enough to apologise to Professor Gaunt and redress the focus of his question.  My concern is that this much character is lacking - precisely in as much as he impetuously demands verification as he has explained.  Fortunately - right now - Professor Gaunt is probably asleep.  And I will certainly be able to reach him to warn him of this letter and route him to this thread.  But it's been a salutary reminder to me to treat members with much more circumspection.  Omnibus has here shown himself to be irresponsible and entirely unreliable.  I at least know more of the nature of the beast - so to speak.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

indeed. my apologies for sussing out the links.