Bash Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And here's the actual link to Joit's reply.  And page up - you'll see adequate reference.
http://www.energeticforum.com/60292-post518.html

Glen may have the time and interest to continue this attack - but I'm under no obligation to answer him.  Else my life will be spent in this useless exercise of defending myself and getting angry because of the innuendos and lies that he promotes.  IF he requires proof of my ever having had apparatus to test - which is what he's trying to imply here - then just refer to the Quantum article - to the Newspaper articles - and to the EARLY mention of this by Professors which were posted on the internet - somewhere.  See if you can find them?  LOL

OF COURSE I had apparatus.  There are 5 public companies who attested to this and to the results.  And latterly there are even university professors who admit to having attended demonstrations.

So.  Glen.  From here on - you may ask away.  But I will NOT answer you.  It is my considered opinion that you are a liar, a perpetrator of the 'half truth' - a self serving opportunist - a scoundrel of the worst sort.  I will NOT answer your questions unless and as I please.

I see now I'll have to warn some more professors that you'll be writing to claim that I am plagiarising your work.  This time it won't work though.  They already KNOW who initiated this.  All of 11 years ago now.

AND MAY I ADD.  Our members are BORED TO TEARS with this ridiculous attack.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  Follow the example of Ashtweth.

[fuzzytomcat]

And here's the actual link to Joit's reply.  And page up - you'll see adequate reference.
http://www.energeticforum.com/60292-post518.html

Glen may have the time and interest to continue this attack - but I'm under no obligation to answer him.  Else my life will be spent in this useless exercise of defending myself and getting angry because of the innuendos and lies that he promotes.  IF he requires proof of my ever having had apparatus to test - which is what he's trying to imply here - then just refer to the Quantum article - to the Newspaper articles - and to the EARLY mention of this by Prof Gaunt which he posted on the internet - somewhere. 

OF COURSE I had apparatus.  There are 5 public companies who attested to this and to the results.  And latterly there are even university professors who admit to having attended demonstrations.

So.  Glen.  From here on - you may ask away.  But I will NOT answer you.  It is my considered opinion that you are a liar, a perpetrator of the 'half truth' - a self serving opportunist - a scoundrel of the worst sort.  I will NOT answer your questions unless and as I please.

It appears by the two (2) quotes provided to all members and guests on the statement of possession of the COP>17 experimental device that two (2) were available ......

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.energeticforum.com/59541-post322.html

I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE, FOR THE LAST TIME SHOW THE MEMBERS AND GUESTS THE COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS DEVICE(S) YOU HAVE

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, until Glen starts posting threads that allow access to the entire thread - please just ignore his references.  You'll see that at the time of claiming that I had the apparatus I had not yet dismantled it. 

@Glen.  The next time you post a link without easy access to the entire thread that the posts can be read IN CONTEXT - then I'm afraid I'll be obliged to delete the entire post.  I am tired of your half truths.  You can get away with lying about me on EF.com.  But NOT HERE.

Your problem Glen is that you assume that everyone is a fool and that you can treat them as such accordingly.  You'll find that - on this forum - people are more discerning than you give them credit for.  It's insulting.

[fuzzytomcat]

Guys, until Glen starts posting threads that allow access to the entire thread - please just ignore his references.  You'll see that at the time of claiming that I had the apparatus I had not yet dismantled it. 

@Glen.  The next time you post a link without easy access to the entire thread that the posts can be read IN CONTEXT - then I'm afraid I'll be obliged to delete the entire post.  I am tired of your half truths.  You can get away with lying about me on EF.com.  But NOT HERE.

Rosemary Ainslies "QUOTES" from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html from "ONE" year ago .....

Please note "RED" highlighted postings .......

[Rosemary Ainslie]

EXACTLY.  I REST MY CASE