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

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie  (Read 643565 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2700 on: November 30, 2009, 06:13:37 AM »
Have been advised by Poynty Point that he does not - under any circumstances - whatsoever - want any mention of any involvement in any work associated with me or my 'affiliates'.  Golly.  Is our Poynty also letigious?  I think I'll simply post his picture there.  EDIT #
Correction. I'll post my picture of him!!!!   ;D

And MileHigh?  You too?  I'm feeling quite hurt here.

LOL
 :-*
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 09:25:54 AM by witsend »

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2701 on: November 30, 2009, 06:29:08 AM »
Have been advised by Poynty Point that he does not - under any circumstances - whatsoever - want any mention of any involvement in with any work associated with me or my 'affiliates'.  Golly.  Is our Poynty also letigious?  I think I'll simply post his picture there. 

And MileHigh?  You too?  I'm feeling quite hurt here.

LOL
 :-*
well, that certainly is an interesting turn of events. after all their posts telling you how it should be done, after all that assumption, conjecture and speculation day in and day out, after all that chest pounding and ego tripping they want to remain anonymous...  imagine that. i do wonder what the point of all that was if they are not willing to stand by their opinions...

if i am ever up around ritchie park in edmonton, i'll have to veer a block or two south and drop in on poynty, bring him a pint and cheer him up a bit.

Peterae

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2702 on: December 01, 2009, 01:52:57 PM »
Wilby, what are you trying to prove by posting information about poynt99? Have you been cyber-tracking him? Did he give you permission to post private personal information about him? That info is not public, how did you get it? Is this type of internet activity not criminal? I'd say you may have put Stefan in a precarious position by doing this. Please remove or have Stefan remove this info.

Obviously you have been going out of your way to get information aobut him. To what purpose?

Evidently, you have also sent him a fake overunity.com PM notification to his ISP email address, which very few people have. What does that say about your purpose at this forum?

Peter

WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2703 on: December 01, 2009, 02:48:02 PM »
Wilby, what are you trying to prove by posting information about poynt99? Have you been cyber-tracking him? Did he give you permission to post private personal information about him? That info is not public, how did you get it? Is this type of internet activity not criminal? I'd say you may have put Stefan in a precarious position by doing this. Please remove or have Stefan remove this info.

Obviously you have been going out of your way to get information aobut him. To what purpose?

Evidently, you have also sent him a fake overunity.com PM notification to his ISP email address, which very few people have. What does that say about your purpose at this forum?

Peter
what are you trying to prove with your baseless accusations? what personal information about poynty have i posted? did i post his street address? his phone number? his real name? his email addresses? you are out of line.

assumption...

this last statement of yours is a complete falsehood. i have done no such thing. prove it or withdraw your ridiculous accusation, or i may take further action.

Yucca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2704 on: December 01, 2009, 06:46:42 PM »
WilbyInebriated, do you like George W Bush or do you dislike him, I'm just curious because you have his picture as your avatar? I'm not fond of him myself.

broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2245
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2705 on: December 01, 2009, 07:02:08 PM »
You see rosemary, pointZERO has been thrown off this forum, so he might be a little soar from it. I think if milehigh keeps his armchair too warm he might follow the same road.

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2706 on: December 02, 2009, 12:15:15 AM »
Hi everyone,

Here is the release of the submitted "open source" paper to the IEEE ....

Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems   (link)

I must thank everyone for there patience, efforts and help in compiling this document.

Fuzzy
 :)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2707 on: December 02, 2009, 02:43:33 AM »
Hi Guys

Paper's in and I'm enjoying the novel experience of a life without a deadline.  Will have to find a new project somewhere.

I saw your note broli.  Not happy that our Poynty Poynt has been forcibly evicted.  Real decorative value there - even if he tends to pendantry.  Hopefully Stefan is simply giving him a period to try and temper some of that arrogance.  LOL 

And Wilby - I hope you've seen the latest posts at EF.com.  You need to take a read of the paper.  Such excitement.  Now we'll have to wait and see what our reviewers will do.  Last time it was rejected by consensus and I think it was something in the order of 0 in support 5 against.  At least this time we had Harvey to add the required professional touch - and Fuzzy's excellent - impeccable - uniquivocal - extraordinary - amazing - and somewhat obsessive? experimental skills.  AM HOPELESSLY INDEBTED GUYS.

And TK?  Eat your heart out.  That goes to all those in that orchestrated attack in the early chapters of this thread.  But we've got a way to go yet.  Our little experiment was, of necessity, confined to 'small values' so that we could give mainstream unequivocal proof.  There's a limit to what the average DSO can manage - even one in the class we were privileged to use.   It's now up to you guys to find out how to get this applied with force and effect.  If this is really dark matter from dark energy that we're tapping - then the sky is not the limit - the universe is.  That's got to be exciting. 

I see Fuzzy published my model on the internet together with our paper.  So the links are there.  I'm going to ask Stefan or Fuzzy to post key para's from the paper directly to the thread.  But will do so when I've caught up on some sleep. 

Thanks to all those who supported us.  Actually and thank you to those that didn't.  Through strange and mysterious paradoxes - it all seemed to help.

 ;D

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2708 on: December 05, 2009, 12:24:27 AM »
Rosemary:

Poynt and I briefly discussed your paper and we both give it a big "thumbs down."

It's actually baffling because you make a claim of COP > 4 and provide no measurement data in the paper to back it up.  It makes no sense.

Links to Glen's postings on the EF don't advance your proposition at all.  We can't figure out what all the celebrating is about, it is like you are all in denial that the paper provides no substantive data.

The language in the first few paragraphs will disqualify any possible submission to an IEEE journal, not to mention again that you provide no data.

MileHigh

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2709 on: December 05, 2009, 12:48:55 AM »
Hello MileHigh.  Nice to see you're still posting here.  It seems Poynty Poynt's got himself banned? 

Always thought my language skills were good?  And if you're objecting to the lack of data and that's your only complaint - well then.  Neither objections amount to much.  The data is in.  The language is good. 

But 10 out of 10 for sticking to your corner here MH.  For reasons that entirely elude me I actually believed that - deep down - you wanted to be convinced on the hopes of zero point energy.  Shows how naive I am.

By the way - I'd be glad if this thread could now 'fall off a cliff' as you put it. I think we've more or less concluded this topic.  We can re-evaluate when and if we get comments from our reviewers.  How's that for a compromise?

And what are you going to do for company?  Dig up the dead trolls and mutter long into the nights?  ;D  I'm intrigued to see how many of you will join that unholy cabal.  Incidentally I plan to redraw the victory jig and see if I can squeeze Poynty's ego onto that same page. It'll be challenging but I'm up for it.  This time I'll give you some hair.  LOL.  I miss you both - in strange and perverse ways.  Thank goodness.  My real challenge at the moment is to try and get normalcy back into my sleep patterns and some semblance of a life away from this keyboard. 

 :-* :)

Peterae

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2710 on: December 05, 2009, 06:15:27 PM »
A Post from Poynt99

Rose,

After skimming the paper, I actually decided not to comment (the paper speaks volumes on it's own).

Good luck with your future tests on the circuit, Fuzzy I'm sure will make ample use of the scope once again.

.99

PS. Perhaps you've not heard, but there is a new forum site in the works. It might be ready to go live by the end of next week. You, Fuzzy, and Harvey are more than welcome to join, so consider this an invitation. Of course MileHigh, along with many others will be there as well.

Send me an email to poynt99"at"overunityresearch.com if you are interested. We'd like to have you there.

Cheers,
.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2711 on: December 06, 2009, 02:52:34 AM »
LOL  If you, Poynty - are the partial owner, administrater and monitor of a new forum - then what earthly hope for our freedoms of expression?  I'm rather partial to keeping this as liberated or as uunshackled, as is humanly possible.  And we already know how trigger happy you are with that delete button.   ;D  And what about Wilby?  Who will be there to protect me from all that critical excess?  Will his input be accepted? 

And another concern.  Mainstream argument is not only dull witted, ponderous, illogical, convoluted, obscure, tedious, fallacious and dreary - it is also really, really well known.  What on earth will you guys discuss?  I think there's an upper limit to the number of times you express your smug delusions relating to archaic paradigms - and yet retain a readership.

So. If it's just another medium for you and MIleHigh to 'darken' the light of new physics - then why would I want to get involved?  And if it's an opportunity for TK et al to knock all experimental explorations into the Unity Frontier - then why would I want to get that depressed?  And if it's yet another forum to fight the corner of ancient, and old age physics - then why would I want to get that bored? 

You need to sweeten this pill Poynty Poynt.  Thus far the new forum sounds like a foray into Hell - populated with trolls - and coloured by prejudices that are already all over the place.  I suppose if MH is there - and you - then there's the outside hope of an intellectual challenge to convert you guys.  At the moment I see it as having that 'abandon hope .... ' number that Dante saw outside the gates of Hell.  Not that exciting Poynty Poynt.  LOL

 :-* ::) >:( ;D

EDIT
 :-*   
2ND EDIT
Of course I'll join.  How could I resist?  Just not sure how active I'll be as experimental physics is really not my thing.  But who knows?  Perhaps you'll get some contributors interested in theory?  Definitely up for that.  Thanks Darren - Poynty - Poynt99 - Poynty Poynt.  So many identities.  Golly. :-*
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 03:54:23 AM by witsend »

Gobaga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2712 on: December 06, 2009, 04:03:25 AM »
Has this paper been accepted by IEEE yet?

I found all of the links to various thing rather irritating.  This makes it impossible to print it out and read it later.  You have to print an entire ream of paper to get all of the supporting information.  Couldn't you summarize, dissect and condense all of this into the paper presented?

Talk of a "new physics" is rather pretentious.  Dozens of physicist with far more to show than hot coil won't talk of "new physics" until they have exhausted the current physics, and even then they are apprehensive.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2713 on: December 06, 2009, 04:22:47 AM »
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.

fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2714 on: December 06, 2009, 07:08:50 AM »
Has this paper been accepted by IEEE yet?

I found all of the links to various thing rather irritating.  This makes it impossible to print it out and read it later.  You have to print an entire ream of paper to get all of the supporting information.  Couldn't you summarize, dissect and condense all of this into the paper presented?

Talk of a "new physics" is rather pretentious.  Dozens of physicist with far more to show than hot coil won't talk of "new physics" until they have exhausted the current physics, and even then they are apprehensive.

Hi Gobaga,

The document "Open Source Evaluation of Power Transients Generated to Improve Performance Coefficient of Resistive Heating Systems" that is referenced at Scribd

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

Is the manuscript for Electronic Preprints which is allowed at the IEEE http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/policies.html under Section 8.1.9 Electronic Information Dissemination   Part B. Electronic Preprints which has the same document context but using a single column width manuscript and will be withdrawn from Scribd and replace with the proper format document at the time of approval with the two column format used in magazine editorials which was submitted as per IEEE requirements .... the information in both manuscripts is basically the same now but may have some additional edits required for publication if excepted.

Normally there isn't any pre-release publication done at all, but the authors of the paper being were all "Open Source" felt the need for some type of document for the community to see prior to any possible publication using the "Electronic Preprint" exception in it's present released manuscript form.

Fuzzy
 :)