Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 585306 times)

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2715 on: December 06, 2009, 07:46:20 AM »
Fuzzy, you are so weak-kneed that you had to delete my posting?

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2716 on: December 06, 2009, 08:02:55 AM »
Fuzzy, you are so weak-kneed that you had to delete my posting?

MH, The IEEE document is one that comes from 6 months of work from testing mostly from my replication, never have I made any claims of performance other than giving all the data available from my testing ..... and I am not being or have been arrogant in any way shape or form and have been insulted by your comments concerning the work done and Tektronix.

Also you have and never will be involved in what Tektronix is doing and need to be corrected that the DSO as you keep referring to is called a DPO and is reflected as such in our submission to IEEE for a possible publication and by Tektronix.

Please refrain from posting here again unless you have something productive to say.

Glen

Offline Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2717 on: December 06, 2009, 11:56:42 AM »
@ Paul

I'll ask again the method of testing you are proposing is it a approved testing method that has been used by some university, government or accredited testing agency on a method of measuring where there is reference material, a document, PDF or text showing the procedure in detail that was used and which has been published.

If so please produce these documents now for consideration of these testing methods, if the testing method is one of your own creation please indicate in complete details why it should be considered on this circuit ...... if you cannot or are unwilling to produce what has been requested now several times ..... postings of the same comments over and over will be considered "SPAM" and dealt with accordingly ......

Fuzzy
Can such a skilled and talented consortium not come up with a proper control experiment?
Are you now going from a questioned COP<17 to a COP<4 claim, again to be published, and again without convincing evidence? What is the POINT of that? If you lose factor 4 again next time, there won't be any overunity left to be clamed!
Put the whole circuit including battery in a container that will allow submerging in water. No-where to escape for the produced heat than to warm up the water and the inner container, right?
Operate with a remote. The water will obviously be placed in a highly insulated container itself, to get better heat reading. Have critics design some basic heating circuits that have nothing to do with advanced tuned oscillations or resonations. Like, some resistors in series as well as in parallel. Some basic heating coils, and some other means of electro>thermal converters. You need to better those first, before claiming any <1, IMNSHO.

I've asked something along this line months ago : how much tea can you make with the advanced circuit, compared to an off the shelf water boiler?

This circuit has been claiming time and attention of some really great researchers (as well as armchair nitwits like yours truly). You owe it to them to do this properly. Not to come up with nice-looking scope shots and a revised claim, but to do proper testing this time. This audience all wants this to be real. Who doesn't want to make tea for 170 in stead of 10, for the same amount of input?
If the testing would be inconclusive, you could spare yourself and many other serious researchers 3 months of time, to be invested in other possible COP<1 technologies.

How hard can it be, really, to heat some water? If there is real excess heat, it WILL be transferred. If it's just heat that appears and is re-used in the circuit somehow, you have a nice anomoly going.

I really would like to learn what the point is, here. It seems from my armchair that more reputations are being destroyed than built here.

If you can get this published without proper proof, you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem, as unveiled in climate gate. Peer reviewed magazine, for now, have lost their credibility completely. You need to be part of the club to get anything published, or have a job in progressive science at all. Is publication the goal itself, or convincing others to take this to the next level?

After reading these discussions for months on end, I am left deeply disappointed. I hope I will be able to let my hopes go this time, and learn more about other constructive research on these forums. Really, use all your talents for being part of the solution. Try somehing else, rather than trying to dig up more gold on a site where there never was such a find. There is so much out there, that WILL work.

This heart-meant post will probably get me banned, for being a troll and an obstruction of the free energy prophets.
Seriously, if you can't even convince me (I'm as gullable as they come), you need to get your story shorter, and clearer. I am not properly educated in any way, but my sense of logic is highly developed, and it is itching like crazy here. Something's not right, and you'll need to set it right.

No more ego's, just giving to humanity. No unjustified taking.

Good luck.

J

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2718 on: December 06, 2009, 05:35:48 PM »
Following quotes from Cloxxki

Can such a skilled and talented consortium not come up with a proper control experiment?


Why would we need a control? 

Are you now going from a questioned COP<17 to a COP<4 claim, again to be published, and again without convincing evidence? What is the POINT of that? If you lose factor 4 again next time, there won't be any overunity left to be clamed!

You probably mean COP> 17 and >4?  Sorry you don't find the evidence convincing.  Personally I wouldn't argue with data from that DPO any more than I'd try and argue with God.

Put the whole circuit including battery in a container that will allow submerging in water. No-where to escape for the produced heat than to warm up the water and the inner container, right?


Feel free to do this Cloxxki.  Boil oil would be even more encouraging.  But we need to keep the data within the measurment constraints of our DPO.  6 watts from the circuit is just about all it can take on this test as the voltage spikes are already upward of 500 volts.

Operate with a remote. The water will obviously be placed in a highly insulated container itself, to get better heat reading. Have critics design some basic heating circuits that have nothing to do with advanced tuned oscillations or resonations. Like, some resistors in series as well as in parallel. Some basic heating coils, and some other means of electro>thermal converters. You need to better those first, before claiming any <1, IMNSHO.

Golly.  More nonsense.  We must get rid of the evidence and and we need to claim a co-efficient less than 1? 

I've asked something along this line months ago : how much tea can you make with the advanced circuit, compared to an off the shelf water boiler?

LOL  Feel free to ask. 

This circuit has been claiming time and attention of some really great researchers (as well as armchair nitwits like yours truly).

Indeed - But only benefitted by the former.

You owe it to them to do this properly. Not to come up with nice-looking scope shots and a revised claim, but to do proper testing this time. This audience all wants this to be real.

What audience? 

Who doesn't want to make tea for 170 in stead of 10, for the same amount of input?

I for one.  That many for tea?  I'd definitely pass.  Way too much work.

If the testing would be inconclusive, you could spare yourself and many other serious researchers 3 months of time, to be invested in other possible COP<1 technologies.

Golly.  This obsession to reach such modest results?  We always aimed at COP>1 and even had evidence of OU. 

How hard can it be, really, to heat some water? If there is real excess heat, it WILL be transferred. If it's just heat that appears and is re-used in the circuit somehow, you have a nice anomoly going.

You need to ask Glen the degree of difficulty.  Cloxxki - at least from now on - I'll know not to take your opinion seriously.  I used to think you knew whereof you spoke.  Such a mishmash of nonsense.  I'm beginning to understand why Stefan's readership is plummeting when contributors like you come up with such absurd - illogical ramblings.

This heart-meant post will probably get me banned, for being a troll and an obstruction of the free energy prophets.
Seriously, if you can't even convince me (I'm as gullable as they come), you need to get your story shorter, and clearer. I am not properly educated in any way, but my sense of logic is highly developed, and it is itching like crazy here. Something's not right, and you'll need to set it right.


You don't need explanations - for that you'd need to first understand.  Just scratch your head.  It may help.

No more ego's, just giving to humanity. No unjustified taking.

LOL.  WHAT are you giving to humanity?   ;D

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2719 on: December 06, 2009, 05:52:59 PM »
Rosemary:

I bookmarked this YouTube clip that is very thought provoking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Poynt suggests that you and the EF crowd have a look.

MileHigh

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2720 on: December 06, 2009, 06:10:02 PM »
Rosemary:

I bookmarked this YouTube clip that is very thought provoking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Poynt suggests that you and the EF crowd have a look.

MileHigh

Hi MileHigh.  I missed that deleted post?  Thank goodness.  Tell Poyny Poynt he needs to show that video to our academics.  I'm looking forward to their explanations.  Golly.  This is the first time I've actually enjoyed all this trolling.  Usually it just depresses me.  But I need to get some fresh air now and then.  The tone is just so stale.  LOL.

Are you keeping well MH?  And more to the point - are you joining Poynty's new exclusive club?  I'm an honoured invited.  Such prestige!!!  And you'll notice that Poynt's not compromising the standards.  But I'm afraid of that delete button and suspect he'll get insufferably monotorial.  I'll need some written assurances before I risk posting.  LOL

Offline Gobaga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2721 on: December 06, 2009, 06:19:14 PM »
Hi Gobaga.  17 pages is not a ream.  And you're absolutely not required to print any of it.  And NO.  I can't summarise it.  Nor will I try to.  It's summarised in the abstract.  And I am not talking 'new physics'.  Dark matter and dark energy were identified by Hubble.  That was some years ago.  And fortunately I am not like 'dozen's of physicist(s)?' That would represent a minority. 

It's always an enormous relief to find that the antagonists to the paper are also such stridently demanding and objectionable people.  I'd hate to think that reasonable, kind hearted, decent, fair minded, considerate, polite and and thinking scientists - would also not support our hard faught efforts here.  And such people would - I suspect - also take the trouble to be courteous.   

If I were to indulge in your register I'd say 'go take a jump' or 'go to blazes' or something like that.  Fortunately I'm in the 'reasonable, kind hearted ....' group. 

EDIT  - AND NO - the paper has not been accepted for publication.  There's a process involved that usually takes up to three months - or longer.  How can you not know this?  Especially in the light of you knowing those 'dozens of physicists'?  Golly.

You are really something.  Trolls just "troll" for information, constantly asking for more, but you are different.  I have heard that various government and special interest "factions" support "diversions" to lead people astray and keep then "busy" with dead-end research.  I have never run across such a successful one.  Kudos to whoever pulls the strings.

The whole "publish a paper" thing is classic.  Whoever thought of that one deserves a promotion.

I am aware that it take a degree of time after a paper is submitted, and I never said that I knew "anyone", just that people with "more" have and dose of humility to go with it.

Anyway, when you rewrite the paper, do the reader a favor and condense it into one article without all of the links.  Even at 17 pages, the reader does not have to go and get the rest of it.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2722 on: December 06, 2009, 06:31:03 PM »
You are really something.  Trolls just "troll" for information, constantly asking for more, but you are different.  I have heard that various government and special interest "factions" support "diversions" to lead people astray and keep then "busy" with dead-end research.  I have never run across such a successful one.  Kudos to whoever pulls the strings.

The whole "publish a paper" thing is classic.  Whoever thought of that one deserves a promotion.


Gobaga - my goodness.  I've had the best laugh in ages.  Are you suggesting that I'm a Government agent to divert and distract serious researchers?    TK WOULD be pleased.  So would MileHigh.  Golly guys.  It seems I'm doing a better job than you are?  Poynty - you can also take a few lessons from me it seems.   Just wish someone would pay me for my efforts.   ???

Well Gobaga - it seems I've profoundly offended you.  So we're quits.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2723 on: December 18, 2009, 05:33:01 AM »
Just a comment or two across the great divide about the EF Ainsley discussion.

Aaron said:

Quote
I tried it with this heater circuit with mixed results. There are really a lot
of possibilities of using capacitors in this circuit. But if the front side power
supply sees the recovery capacitor, then the recovery will be sabotaged.

With capacitance discharges. If you connect the positive and dump the
cap by switching the negative side and have increased resistance there
at the negative point, you will amplify the negative energy. With positive
connected, the destination ALREADY has the positive potential sitting it in
and doesn't have to get there. So it is just an extension of the diode that
the cap is acting like. The e-amp effect seems to be very real because I
always had stronger battery charging effect by switching on the negative
with the inverted circuits and having a resistor there at that point.
I see that it is completely true that a positive potential is dissipated by
resistance but a negative potential is amplified by resistance. The
experiments show this to be the most likely case every single time.

Aaron's comments above are complete nonsense.  Just in case some of you weren't aware.  Aaron has been playing with scopes and power supplies for ten years, but he can't utter more than six sentences about electronics without making a mistake.

If you are a real beginner to electronics, filter out crap like this.

MileHigh

Offline hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2724 on: December 18, 2009, 12:43:48 PM »
Rosemary:

I bookmarked this YouTube clip that is very thought provoking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Poynt suggests that you and the EF crowd have a look.

MileHigh
great link

Cheers

Offline jibbguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 352
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2725 on: December 18, 2009, 08:04:26 PM »
Listening to Milehigh is like enduring a broken record stuck on the grove playing "It will never work!" forever.. Like we were sent to Hell and that is our hideous punishment ;)

Ad hominem nonsense aimed against those who actually DO STUFF won't change the data, Milehigh. You are just pissed off because you were proved WRONG countless times here, and no one listened to you in your "holy quest" to get this technology stamped out and to burn Rosemary at the stake for even suggesting that Maxwell may not have been entirely correct 150 years ago (...lol before the advent of even Atomic Theory).

Folks, look through this thread, and wonder for yourselves why a person would literally invest HUNDREDS of man hours posting negatively here day in and day out for months.. For free (and after being proved wrong over and over)? Is he doing it for pay? We will probably never know; because he refuses to tell us his name... And only attacks others behind his comfortable mask of internet anonymity.

Those that so love to attack others here, should go to this link and Search for the term "Zero Point Energy", and tell us why all the HUNDREDS of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers there discussing energy sources that HAVE NO CONNECTION to the Laws of Thermodynamics are "full of it" too ;)

http://arxiv.org/

...the Los Alamos National Labs Physics Archives, hosted by Cornel University.. You know, those "nutty free energy kooks" ;).

You see, these subjects really are "mainstream" now... And the supreme primacy of the "Laws of Thermodynamics" in every case are DONE. Lol, they just "forgot" to tell the general public somehow ;)

Knowing that, attacking these concepts on "general principal" sounds rather ignorant. And really, when we study all you have wrote, all the suppositions you put up against it that were proved WRONG over and over: That is what it is. You REALLY DON'T KNOW if the Ainslie Circuit works as claimed or not. You BELIEVE it doesn't and threw up whatever you could think of against it... An article of "faith" (which is fine in issues of Spirituality, but this is "Science"). Not very "scientific" of you, is it? ;)

MY name is Steve Windisch. I am proud to be a very small part of one of the best documented and researched Open Source projects EVER regarding a free energy subject: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and Effect. Researchers like Aaron, Glen, Harvey, Michael, Ash, Andrew, Donovan, and Gotoluc (and Stefan for hosting us all), and dozens of other good folks here working on this and many other varied projects; are doing everyone on this planet the important service of objectively investigating controversial alternative energy technologies that our mainstream scientific community consistently REFUSES to do.

It is my pleasure to help report on the fine work of others, and to help ensure the world hears about it, a task i hope all of you out there will help with: Gaining public awareness through grass roots activism... Telling our family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers.. Writing letters to academia to urge them to knock down the stone wall they have erected around these "controversial" technologies that "coincidentally" happen to seriously compete with coal and oil, to honestly study them as they SHOULD HAVE YEARS AGO.

These threads are about GAINING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE through Open Source research. Those who cannot see that, and insist on confusing "Honest Skepticism" (...which is valuable), with the Spanish Inquisition or book-burning rallies in 1933 Germany... should consider doing us all a favor and go provide "Skeptical Analysis" to the "Sprites, Leprechauns, and Meadow Dancing Lights" forums. Maybe you might get somewhere in convincing them to accept your own private brand of "reason", and stop what they are doing.

Because you and your cohorts have failed miserably here. 

The "Hundred Years' War" against energy heresy is now OVER. Those heretics and pariahs who refused to buckle under to peer intimidation and derision tactics meant to "keep us quiet" for fear of being bullied themselves, WON.... And you, Milehigh (or who ever or what ever you really are), and your "employers" (...the concept that Energy can only be obtained from the Temple Priests praying over the Properly Approved text books) ... LOST.

« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 08:32:04 PM by jibbguy »

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2726 on: December 19, 2009, 03:29:09 AM »
Jibbguy:

And you had a long career as a tech with the Navy or something like that?  All of your discussions about instrumentation?

For me there is a real disconnect between your background and what you say.  I am wrong wrong wrong.  It's just pure spinning.  The new Ainsley paper has no numbers and not a single test has shown anything.  The only real tests so far show under unity.

Quote
I am proud to be a very small part of one of the best documented and researched Open Source projects EVER regarding a free energy subject: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit and Effect.

I don't know what planet you are on or what sea you are sailing but you have got to be kidding.  Are you really that disconnected from the real world?

Quote
These threads are about GAINING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE through Open Source research.

With a paradigm shift in people's attitudes that just might happen.

Quote
The "Hundred Years' War" against energy heresy is now OVER. Those heretics and pariahs who refused to buckle under to peer intimidation and derision tactics meant to "keep us quiet" for fear of being bullied themselves, WON.... And you, Milehigh (or who ever or what ever you really are), and your "employers" (...the concept that Energy can only be obtained from the Temple Priests praying over the Properly Approved text books) ... LOST.

Charlton Heston vibe going there Jibbguy.  I have no "employers," I am just here for some fun.

All the drama, I have "LOST"

There is nothing going with the Ainsley circuit Jubbguy and the paper will never get approved in a million years.  The whole experience was a fun crazy roller-coaster ride but I jumped off a few months ago.

The circuit does NOT produce any extra heat.  One year from now the whole thing will have petered out and will be forgotten.

Remember the free energy "rock star couple" Imhotep and Sheeba?  All the excitement with modifying a computer fan and turning it into a compact Bedini motor?  The title of the thread on the EF was something like "Free energy at last step by step a most see."

Well, Jibbguy, the title of the thread was a complete lie and Imhotep and Sheeba never for a nanosecond demonstrated any kind of free energy at all.  And for all the "Cult of Imhotep" he hasn't done anything in the last year and he is forgotten.

In one year the "big project" will be dead.  It's not exactly an EMI-friendly way to make heat anyways, is it?  I don't think the FCC or UL would look too kindly upon a "magic heater" that produces no more heat than a conventional heater.

It's too bad because somebody with your background could really help people out.  Instead you are a cheerleader for stuff that's not real, seemingly you can't see.

When myself or Poynt99 look at a "remarkable" Pirate or Gadget clip we see nothing, because there is nothing.  What we also see is that Pirate and Gadget are misunderstanding what they are looking at and jumping to grandiose conclusions.  In trying to point that out, instead of a debate you get bashed and trashed.

Almost everybody gets excited about pulsing inductors because they don't understand how they work.  They don't understand how the energy flows and are not open to discussion.

Check out where the Ainsley circuit is in Dec 2010.

MileHigh

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2727 on: December 19, 2009, 03:54:39 AM »
 ;D Hello MileHigh ;D

Back in attack mode?  I was determined to ignore your earlier one but can't seem to sit on hands while this attack persists.  I was heartened to see you concede that you're 'wrong wrong wong' and that it's pure spinning.  And that gaining scientific knowledge through open source will possibly happen with a required shift in paradigms.  But I'm constitutionally a plodder and I then realised you were being sarcastic.  I had a giddy hope for a wild and fleeting moment - that you'd reformed.

I trust that our paper will eventually get reviewed and published.  The circuit definitely produces extra heat.  And if you have 'jumped off' the roller coaster ride - it's not apparent - else why are you still posting?  I wish this thread would collapse under it's own weight of negative energy.

MileHigh there's a difference with this claim.  We're asking academics to check it out.  On the evidence available we have heat signatures that do not conform to expected parameters.  But my actual question is why do you keep posting here.  Aaron, Harvey et al have given up on this thread.  I only lurk to keep reminding - what I'm sure is a dwindling reading public - that these type of posts are misleading and counterproductive.  And like Jibbs, I wonder why you persist?  It gains nothing.  And I think readership has dwindled to just the two of us

I'm glad Poynty concurs with you.  At least you're not entirely on your own.  Poynty's also frantically attempting to ignore the implications here.  But this new 'break through' is history now - reasonably and unequivocally proven on tests that are also available for inspection.  My own first claim could be questioned as our proof was not as available for public consumption as is Fuzzy's.  Now - to continue to deny the evidence with a burgeoning flush of replications - is, frankly, rather absurd. 

My own take is that you don't 'dare to hope'.  I can't believe that you're simply that negative.  And - for Goodness Sake - read up on Dark matter - dark energy.  It's possibly the 'theoretical' justification for this new energy source. 

And more to the point - when is that new blog going to get launched?  I keep hoping.

Rosie

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2728 on: December 19, 2009, 04:04:51 AM »
Rosemary:

You're not the first and won't be the last to get excited over a pulsing inductor.

Aaron's "electronics talk" can be offensive sometimes.  It's just an insult to the profession.  So I posted.  Do you want to put a muzzle on me?

I am not being negative about your project, I am just being a realist and telling you the truth.

I don't see Glen generating any real data and summarizing it.  He is just spewing out DSO data grabs.  That is where there is such a disconnect and I don't see it getting any closer.  Generate some real power in vs. power out numbers and forget about ephemeral "heat signatures."

Forget about dark matter and simply generate some real data.

MileHigh

P.S.:  I was serious about a paradigm shift.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2729 on: December 19, 2009, 04:19:56 AM »
Hi MileHigh.  Still there?  Not often we're sharing the same time frames.  Especially latterly.  I've been trying to get to bed at night which is an entire departure from the last three months.  The changes has shocked me into overdrive.  It's quite a buzz. 

No I don't want to muzzle you.  I'd hate to muzzle anyone.  And - as a rule - I actually enjoy what you have to say.  I just wish the exceptions didn't always prove that rule - is all.

I know it's probably taxing that Glen doesn't summarise.  But he's an experimental purist.  He leaves that for others.  And when they miss the point of his experiment then he guides them into it.  It's an exceptionally respectful and courteous way of presenting data and is conventionally preferred.  There are those readers who would be offended at being told what to see and what to deduce.  Personally I'm with you here.  I'd quite like a synopsis.  And when I can I provide it.  But it certainly isn't conventionally preferred or required.

And how can you tell me to forget about dark matter when that's my thesis?  Do you want to put a muzzle on me?  LOL

Tell me more about that new blog.  I hear nothing more from Poynty Poynt and - I've said it before - I miss you all in strange and perverse ways.  I think - bottom line - I'm a reformist or somesuch.  I live in hopes that you'll all become adventurous amateur physicists  - like me.

 ::) ;D :-*

edit:  Rosie
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 04:42:50 AM by witsend »