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

Custom Search
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 189   Go Down

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 652260 times)

LarryC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #300 on: July 12, 2009, 02:52:08 AM »
@allcanadian, you're right it is futile, but this post from you on 9-24-08 was so excellent that I had to save it for future events such as this:

Quote
I would like to make a point about skeptics, skepticism to a point can be a healthy thing but you should understand where this path leads.Take a look at this website and read the posts for a while and you will get the picture.---http://forums.randi.org/
These guys must be the most self rightious, egostical bafoons I have ever had the displeasure of talking with. They are hard core skeptics who believe reason and logic must dictate everything as such they cannot imagine how "there" logic could be flawed in any way,so they continually degrade and humiliate each other. In essence there logic concludes that 99.99% of the people on this planet are misguided, delusional or stupid relative to them. But there logic has a flaw, the individual, there logic cannot explain the wright brothers airplane, goddards rockets or Teslas alternating current. Because at that time all these technologies were "unproven" to the skeptics the key word being "unproven", the skeptic needs concrete proof before he will believe anything as such he believes almost nothing which is why I have yet to hear of any true skeptic accomplish anything that could be regarded as beneficial to society in any way.
I usually simply ignore the skeptics as they have absolutely nothing to offer me in the way of understanding, they come to degrade and humiliate to make themselves feel superior----that is there nature.

Regards, Larry
Logged

IceStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #301 on: July 12, 2009, 03:00:44 AM »
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 12:15:57 AM
LMFAO, will you be using the correct fet this time? like you should have done from the start if you were at all concerned with good science.

If you look at energeticforum.com , Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195

Logged

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #302 on: July 12, 2009, 03:17:21 AM »
Larry
Thanks for sharing that post
Chet
Logged

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #303 on: July 12, 2009, 03:40:36 AM »
TK
PLEASE don't get banned !!
Your contribution is more important then rubbing Mary's nose in her "Article"

Please take a breath [count to ten ,bite your lip etc...]

Chet
Logged

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #304 on: July 12, 2009, 04:16:16 AM »
Quote from: IceStorm on July 12, 2009, 03:00:44 AM
If you look at energeticforum.com , Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html#post59195

are you suggesting that when attempting a 'replication' one should use whatever parts they can substitute rather than the specified components? is that your idea of good science?
Logged

IceStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #305 on: July 12, 2009, 04:50:03 AM »
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 04:16:16 AM
are you suggesting that when attempting a 'replication' one should use whatever parts they can substitute rather than the specified components? is that your idea of good science?

No, i dont mean to use whatever part but in same time that dont invalidate the result that TinselKoala and I got, Rosemary already said that the Fet is not a critical part and she used other fet's too. When you take a circuit who should use 3.7% ON duty cycle and finaly you find that in reality its 96.3% ON duty cycle, that kind of thing can invalidate all the circuit, if the 555 part is erroneous, can you trust the rest of the circuit ? no.

Think about that, if you was "CLAIMING" to have a OU Device, and in same time you want to share it with the rest of the world, im sure you will take GREAT care to make the schematic exactly the same as what you used, no ? you will not burn your name on something that is not what you created, and you will be "THE MAN" to explain exactly how it work and why you choosed each parts of your circuit and what can be used if X part is not available.

Dont get me wrong , i whish it was a OU device, the world need that right now. But when i see people unable to answer clearly to any simple question, that make me think its BS, and when lab test testify its BS , then its ...

Best Regards,
IceStorm
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #306 on: July 12, 2009, 06:27:48 AM »
Quote from: allcanadian on July 12, 2009, 02:32:14 AM
@TK
I started writing a reply and half way through understood how futile it was, LOL. I can only be thankful I do not live in your little world where one can never be wrong.
Regards
AC

I am quite willing to be PROVEN wrong, and I will be grateful when it happens, because that is the only way I will be able to learn.
So if you think I am wrong about ANYTHING, please provide some evidence that supports your position. Whenever I say that something is wrong, you will note that I always provide some support for my position.

Come on, PROVE ME WRONG about something.  In this thread, please provide some evidence that I am wrong about anything that I have posted about the Ainslie circuit. So that I may correct it. Because I, unlike some others apparently, do not want my name or identity attached to something that is clearly in error.

Now, if you want to read some posts from someone who actually does fit your description, please take a look at Ainslie's thread on nakedscientists.

Thanks in advance.
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #307 on: July 12, 2009, 06:34:28 AM »
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 04:16:16 AM
are you suggesting that when attempting a 'replication' one should use whatever parts they can substitute rather than the specified components? is that your idea of good science?

What part of "Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part" are you having trouble understanding?

Is your idea of good science identical with trolling? You are making the same post over and over, a point which I happily conceded many pages, many days ago. That is a textbook definition of trolling.

Especially since your point has no longer even the slightest trace of validity, if it ever did. Because you see, I've been using the IRFPG50 mosfet for some time now, and if I didn't tell you which one I was using for any particular test, you would not be able to tell the difference with any instruments you might know how to use. Like a hammer.

Can't you come up with something constructive, or at least not so damn monotonous?
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #308 on: July 12, 2009, 07:15:57 AM »
I've uploaded a couple more videos. I see that one of my fans has already assigned a "one star" rating to #4.

In the second one (#5) I show an effect that I found interesting. I'm not sure of the explanation. Perhaps some of the actual scientific thinkers on this thread can give some kind of explanation.

I'm sure the trolls will have their opinions too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0wQJrc9To
Logged

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #309 on: July 12, 2009, 07:36:47 AM »
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 06:34:28 AM
What part of "Rosemary said that the Fet is not a critical part" are you having trouble understanding?

Is your idea of good science identical with trolling? You are making the same post over and over, a point which I happily conceded many pages, many days ago. That is a textbook definition of trolling.

Especially since your point has no longer even the slightest trace of validity, if it ever did. Because you see, I've been using the IRFPG50 mosfet for some time now, and if I didn't tell you which one I was using for any particular test, you would not be able to tell the difference with any instruments you might know how to use. Like a hammer.

Can't you come up with something constructive, or at least not so damn monotonous?

she said that long after you used the incorrect fet. my point still has the same validity it always did. which is, substituting what you have on hand while attempting a 'replication' is not good scientific method, even if it turns out later that the part may be acceptable. why do you have such trouble understanding that? nice try at the misdirection though. too bad you don't know the textbook definition of exactly, identical or replicate. ::)
Logged

IceStorm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #310 on: July 12, 2009, 07:46:19 AM »
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 07:36:47 AM
she said that long after you used the incorrect fet. substituting what you have on hand while attempting a 'replication' is not good scientific method, even if it turns out later that the part may be acceptable. why do you have such trouble understanding that? nice try at the misdirection though.

I hope you do understand that there a world between "1 part not identical" and "Circuit not doing what it should be". Personaly if i was not getting the effect Rosemary was claiming with all the circuit working, i will think that maybe the fet make realy a big difference, but when the circuit dosent work at all like it should be from start... i hope you do understand that the FET part make no difference at all.

Best Regards,
IceStorm
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #311 on: July 12, 2009, 07:48:37 AM »
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 12, 2009, 07:36:47 AM
she said that long after you used the incorrect fet. substituting what you have on hand while attempting a 'replication' is not good scientific method, even if it turns out later that the part may be acceptable. why do you have such trouble understanding that? nice try at the misdirection though.

No, she actually said it long before--years ago. I suppose you will read the material, eventually. And I'll put my scientific method up against yours, any day of the week.

Done much classroom teaching at the university level? Got any credentials from universities? Got a job in a scientific field? Got any publications in major peer-reviewed scientific journals? Good, I'm glad. Because I have, and I do, too. I still get about a dozen reprint requests a month, and it's been nearly ten years since that particular paper was published.

Nice straw man, though.

Now, will you ffs change your tape?
Logged

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #312 on: July 12, 2009, 07:48:50 AM »
Quote from: IceStorm on July 12, 2009, 07:46:19 AM
I hope you do understand that there a world between "1 part not identical" and "Circuit not doing what it should be". Personaly if i was not getting the effect Rosemary was claiming with all the circuit working, i will think that maybe the fet make realy a big difference, but when the circuit dosent work at all like it should be from start... i hope you do understand that the FET part make no difference at all.

Best Regards,
IceStorm
have you read my posts re: the fet where i said i agree with him? (mostly) ::)
Logged

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #313 on: July 12, 2009, 07:52:15 AM »
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 12, 2009, 07:48:37 AM
No, she actually said it long before--years ago. I suppose you will read the material, eventually. And I'll put my scientific method up against yours, any day of the week.

Done much classroom teaching at the university level? Got any credentials from universities? Got a job in a scientific field? Got any publications in major peer-reviewed scientific journals? Good, I'm glad. Because I have, and I do, too. I still get about a dozen reprint requests a month, and it's been nearly ten years since that particular paper was published.

Nice straw man, though.

Now, will you ffs change your tape?
you didn't know that at the time. nice misdirection though. the point remains, you used a circuit diagram which specified a irfpg50 among other components and you substituted whatever you felt like. and then proceeded to use words like identical and exact and then compared your hack to good scientific method. that's what i have always had an issue with, 30 pages running now.

as i said before, i don't care what you did on who. it's irrelevant.
Logged

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #314 on: July 12, 2009, 07:53:24 AM »
If you fkn agree, mostly, and if I have long ago conceded your point, then why in the world do you keep on harping on it?
It's getting to be quite ridiculous. You seem fairly intelligent for a troll, and it might be nice to actually discuss something substantive with you, if only you would change your meds or something.

Oh, I get it--you are a paid lackey of the Free Energy Gurus In White, and you are keeping me uselessly distracted on this thread, answering your inanities, while everybody else is happily developing their gravitymagnoSECgenerator, without skeptical interference.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 189   Go Up
« previous next »