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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84193
  • *Latest: eirik

  • *Total Posts: 897212
  • *Total Topics: 15809
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 266697 times)

Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
I went through “Rosemary’s threads” in the energetic forum and also there through “5359-mosfet-heating-circuits”.
This provided a hint concerning “frequencies and duty cycles”.

------------------
A person called Harvey wrote:

I see that there are still some experimenting with the RA (Rosemary Ainslie) circuit and the questions regarding energy gains persist. The test of choice used to demonstrate energy gains was Test #13.

What is the frequency? That depends on what part of the circuit we look at. But generally we use the gate pulse frequency:

426.0 kHz
Rise 768.4ns
Fall 513.0ns
High 13.61V
Low -4.800V
-------------------

All tests and documents can be found here:
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater

The ominous test 13 is here (copy the whole link, ^ truncates it):
http://cid-6b7817c40bb20460.office.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/Mosfet%20Heater/Test%20^313^_11-26-09.zip

I am too dumb to understand the data; the only thing I see in Test 13 is a temperature increase from about 130 F to 138 F of the load resistor.

Test 13 was obviously conducted with the NE555 circuit shown is this thread.

May be Rosemary can enlighten us on the significance of Test 13.

For me the 426 KHz (and the duty cycle) of Test 13 represent a starting point for further tests.

Although I would not use an NE555 circuit but a signal generator or a microprocessor to generate the 426 KHz pulses (on the gate of the IRFPG50). Starting with 426 KHz one would vary the duty cycle from 1% to 99% and later also the frequency slightly up and down.

I know that this is a childish and optimistic approach, but one should start with very simple circuits as depicted in Rosemary’s patent applications in order to test the alleged effect and not the components of a rather complicated circuit.

In case the effect gives for instance 10 Watt heat surplus, I would not worry about a few Milliwatt introduced by a signal generator (or microprocessor based circuit) via the gate of the IRFPG50.

In case the best temperature increase achievable in the load resistor with the alleged effect is only about 10 F (10 degrees Farenheit), we are in trouble. This is much too little for simple temperature measurements and will convince no one (especially not me).

On the positive side, 426 KHz is easy. It can be handled with the most basic components and equipment. This encourages me to give it a try.


A remark on the tests done by Fuzzy Tom Cat (Glen):

If the effect is real, it most probably can not be "seen" by a scope, because it will be outside conventional electronics. One can only hope to "feel" it via an unexpected temperature rise in the "coil like load resistor". The scope can only serve to document the necessary square wave on the gate of the switch. The "waves" happening over the "load resistor" will be "random noise" in terms of todays electronic equipment. To "see" the effect Rosemary is talking about, one would need equipment which has not been invented yet.

Greetings, Conrad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
hi Rosemary

thanks for starting this thread so we can all try to understand the phenomena you've seen with this circuit - i hope you'll be able to stand aside from the distractions and get on with the business at hand


@Conrad
i appreciate that your intention is to clarify details, leading on to close replication of the circuit and testing of such

if i understand the context of the effect correctly, i believe that there is a subtle element of the necessary pre-conditions for this phenomena to occur - and this subtlety is not captured in the usual inputs to a circuit replication, ie. the circuit schematic & the signal timing diagrams


let me share an example of this: i've worked with both analogue and digital circuits for approx 40 years as a hobby (i have an EE degree, but work in software side of engineering) and on occasions, when using potentiometers to adjust the frequency (or even level, sometimes) of a signal, i've found that a certain (very critical) position of the potentiometer can sometimes cause a spontaneous 'oscillation' to occur

for many years i attributed this behaviour to the resistance of that particular setting of the pot causing the circuit to become unstable

however, in the last few years i'm beginning to wonder if, instead, the effect is some physical interaction between the metal wiper and the carbon track in the pot itself (eg. the junction characteristics of the materials? - or the physical dimensions/wavelength involved at that wiper position? who knows?)

the point of my illustration is this - if i now wish to share this effect for replication by others, then
- firstly, my circuit schematics and 'intended' drive signal diagrams are not going to show anything 'unusual'
- secondly, there is no 'correct' input signal level or frequency to suggest that people replicate

to try and replicate my example by using an embedded processor or a signal generator to 'recreate' the input drive signal would bypass the effect altogether!


it's possible that the whole trigger to the effect which Rosemary has observed, may be traced back eventually to the 'hand-tuned' input signal provided by the combination of the 555 timer and its setting potentimeters

Rosemary has stated the conditions under which she observed the effect - we should start the investigation from there

only if & when we find that the effect turns out to be entirely 'signal-dependent', not 'component-dependent' (or even 'user-action-dependent'?), can we move on to generate that signal by some other means (such as PICs, or sig-gens)

i agree that the process is labour-intensive, vaguely-defined and uncertain - but, in my experience, if we need to look for something like a 'needle in a haystack', then it's usually a good idea to start with with the right haystack!  :)

ok, that's my 2-cents worth, i'll shut up now!

good luck with the investigations everybody
sandy

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hello Sandy,

I suspect that what you saw was that aperiodic Hartley oscillation.  Indeed that is a required pre-cursor to this effect.  But it is NOT difficult to get.  It simply requires a fine tuning.  If you read up on the Quantum and the Open Source papers this is clearly referenced.

The thesis is that the energy - wherever it is from - is returned to the source.  Notwithstanding which heat is dissipated at the load.  While I appreciate your summation as valid - it is only valid from within your experience.  When I embarked on this info through the internet number - I was roundly advised that a supply could not regenerate itself.  Therefore would this system never work.  That much is evidently and empircally disproved.  I would strongly recommend that you read the paper published in scribd.  But the balance of your comments are indeed valid.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
hi Rosemary

thanks for the feedback

perhaps my example was too close to the actual characteristics seen here - i wasn't intending it as being related directly to the effect you've seen

my post was intended to encourage Conrad to start with the initial conditions as you've provided, rather than possibly 'bypassing' a potentially important element of the effect in the name of efficiency


i'm interested to learn that there is a name for such an effect and i'll try & do some background reading

i don't know if it's the same Hartley but i did some 'tinkering' with Hartley oscillators as a lad, over 40 years ago - although that was just a cursory interest in 'less-than-legal' RF applications  ;)


getting back to the present, i've seen something similar with trimmer-tuned oscillator frequency on a switched-charge capacitor to capacitor experiment i've been 'playing' with over the last couple of years - in fact, when i first saw details of your work a year or so back, your mention of the aperiodic aspect of the drive signal immediately struck a chord!


thanks for the link to Scribd - i've tried a couple of times to access the pages but i've been prevented, by either the PCs or networks in use, from seeing anything in the Scribd script windows

my main PC is tied up 24/7 with a datalogging exercise in a rather constricted space at the moment, so it's not easy to use it to browse sites but i do intend to take a look at the files you've uploaded for us all


i have another long-term experiment running at present which, like yours, appears to be sustaining the source-supply

in fact, in just the last couple of days i've physically (but not electrically, of course) isolated & insulated the battery in its own aluminium case within an outer metal enclosure and the first informal indications are that the battery (8.4V NiCad) is experiencing an approx 0.5*C drop compared to a similar battery (disconnected) in a control setup of similar enclosures

this is interesting because i believe that NiCad charging behaviour is endothermic, whilst discharging is exothermic - so this suggests that my battery is tending more towards 'charging' than 'discharging'


i hope i've corrected any impression that my previous post was in any way a criticism or an attempted explanantion of any aspect of your work


all the best
sandy

Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
Quote
Rosemary wrote:

WE HAVE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF A THESIS THAT REQUIRES ENERGY EFFICIENCIES GREATER THAN 1
WE HAVE WIDE AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCREDITATION OF THAT EXPERIMENTAL PROOF
WE HAVE FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE DATA ON A REPLICATION OF THAT EXPERIMENT AVAILABLE TO OPEN SOURCE

What I asked for with my "simple questions" was:

Please present the "EXPERIMENTAL PROOF".

Please present the " WIDE AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCREDITATION OF THAT EXPERIMENTAL PROOF".

Please point us to the "OPEN SOURCE" where the "FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE DATA ON A REPLICATION OF THAT EXPERIMENT" is visible.

For many reasons (may be it is my own stupidity) it does not happen like a simple and straight forward person like me hopes.

Sorry, I thought that this forum was intended to clarify the above questions and to establish a solid basis for further experiments.

Please excuse my questions, it will not happen again.

Conrad

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
hi Conrad

if i understand Rosemary correctly, then this proof - and other supporting information - has been supplied at the Scribd site using the link which Rosemary gave above

all the best
sandy

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
This is the best link I can find to my quantum paper.
http://www.free-energy.ws/rosemary-ainslie.html

This is the link to the Scribd Open Source paper.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Both papers give a comprehensive account of results that exceed unity.  Both rely on classical measurement protocols and both indicate that battery draw down is consistent with the measured rate of current flow discharged from the battery.  There is UNEQUIVOCAL proof in both papers of results that fly in the face of the unity barrier and with it of thermodynamic laws.

For those measurement purists that read here - I need to point out that the there was an intrinsic error in the computation of the energy measured to be delivered by the battery in the second paper.  But the text qualifies this as a deliberate attempt to give a conservative value. The actual value of energy delivered is nearer to COP>7 and not COP> 4.  This is because Tektronix equipment only guarantee a multiple samples in any given data dump as a representative average over a more extended time.  I'm still searching for that post.  When I get it I'll copy it and bring it across.

I think that's all that's needed for record of the papers written up on these tests.  Experimental apparatus, component parts and method of data analysis is reasonably comprehensive.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Guys what follows on from here will be the re-posting of those pertinent numbers that were included in the COP17 Rosemary Ainslie Circuit at Energetic Forum.  They're only included for 'record purposes'.  Please do not bother to plough through them unless you're interested to do so.

I'll append dates and titles as required.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
 Another Hot Potato Dropped
Here's a copy of the letter that went out to Cecati with our paper.

Dear Professor Cecati,

I refer you to our brief phone call made last week. You requested that I explain everything in writing.

I have been in touch with Professor Chow to give us some much needed guidance relating to the document standards for a first submission prior to review. This advice was required as our paper was not done under the stewardship of a mentor and, of necessity, we referred to a variety of experts in different aspects of this paper, as and where required. They will be generally acknowledged in the final document after the review process is completed.

The subject of this paper is fraught. In the first instance it deals with evident anomalies in the heat signatures of the resistor. However, the paper argues that this is not an anomaly as it was a required result of a magnetic field model and was, therefore, predicted. This prediction can be verified by two academic Professors in physics who I can refer you to if required. It was in relation to a discussion on the field model some 11 years ago, and they both agreed that this predicted evidence would, indeed support the thesis. They further suggested that their Lab Technician set up that initial test apparatus. Their technician, unfortunately, flatly declined to do so claiming, correctly, that it it was designed to challenge Thermodynamic constraints. The experiment therefore was established away from academic supervision.

The magnetic field model argues that energy is not confined to the supply source except as tradition has identified it. In fact, the proposal is that energy is also available in gross bound material. In electric circuitry this is readily generated in conductive and inductive material which, under proper circuit configuration, can be used to add to the energy coefficient. This requires a radical departure from conventional understandings related to Thermodynamic Laws and current flow. Yet neither the paper nor the data contradict those laws as both maintain a conservation of charge with the only departure being the identification of an alternate energy source. The paper refers.

The first publication of the experiment did not gain acceptance. It was submitted for review in 2002 and was rejected notwithstanding some considerable accreditation of those results. No academic, at that time, would associate with the claims and, to a man, refused to attend a demonstration of the effect. This was puzzling, the more so as it is widely understood that all science needs to be established by empirical evidence. It was thereafter modified for publication in Quantum Magazine, October edition 2002 as this was the only alternate avenue available for publication. It generated no interest being, as it was, without proper academic scrutiny.

Some 7 years after this, my son published that Quantum paper and the field model, on the internet. Here it generated some considerable interest as is evident. I was subsequently invited to join a forum and thread where there was some interest in replicating the effect. The experimentalist that was eventually able to replicate this was Glen Lettenmaier and he was ably and gratuitously assisted with sophisticated measuring instruments, as required, with the generous use of a TDS3054C Tektronix DPO. The gradual unfolding of the 'effect' was achieved within weeks where the previous efforts spanned some years. All these tests are duly and properly recorded in links that are scheduled in the appendix to the document. Because they relate to the author they are in conflict with TIE requirements for review and will be added as required or only fully established after the review process. There is a unique waveform associated with this effect referred to in the paper as a Preferred Mode of Oscillation. This also has been put on live broadcast on the internet and can be accessed or repeated, subject again, to the reviewer's requirement.

What is evident, however, is that there are no prior publications of this - as, self evidently, the proposal is based on unique criteria that have not, heretofore, been considered by academia. We, the authors, have been in lengthy discussions on this and while it is possible to cite papers that relate to different aspects of the effect they are not, in truth, appropriate. We are aware that this may mitigate against our best interests, especially as this relates to TIE's requirement for citations. However, in the light of the exceptional nature of this claim it is hoped that the reasons for non-compliance are understood, notwithstanding our wishes to do so.

Therefore we ask you to indulge us this exception and that this omission will not compromise this paper's chances of publication. We modestly suggest that it is enough that the reviewer understand that there is an alternate supply of current flow and that the merits of the evidence therefore be established on their own. We will be able to append the model only after review. We are also satisfied that the proper avenue to make this knowledge available would be through your good offices and through your own prestigious publications - proposing the journal on renewable energies as being appropriate. While the paper itself has no citations, we modestly suggest that it may be citable. Certainly it is possible that it may evoke some considerable interest in results that contradict classical expectation. The data that has now been amassed to prove this evidence is considerable. And as mentioned in the paper, we hope the subject here may provoke further investigations into the model. The claims are contentious. Properly this needs a wide academic forum for discussion. A critical investigation therefore can only be achieved with a wide dissemination of this claim through a publication such as yours.

Finally this is an Open Source publication and that title will be amended to include this reference and the institutions and structures associated with this will be added to the paper's identification subject to completion of the review process. There are many interested readers of the progress of this paper on the internet. They will be updated and informed of this application and, I believe, would be most interested to hear of its progress. The authors of the paper are drawn from different countries that span the globe. All this work was done without any material advantage and, indeed at considerable personal cost to us all, both in time and money spent in progressing this knowledge.

Kindest regards,
ROSEMARY AINSLIE

POSTED 02.02.2010
COPY OF A LETTER TO PROFESSOR CECATI EDITOR OF TIE/IEEE

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Dear Ainslie,

thank you very much for your phone and letter. You reached me on mobile,
while I was driving, a mail is much better than discussing by phone in
such a situation.
I have read your letter with attention. Even if our guidelines require
the citation of recent journal papers, particularly TIE papers, this is
only a strong suggestion and not a rejection motivation, supported by a
clear reason: if other papers on a similar topics where published on our
Transactions, this does mean that its topic is of general interest for
our readers.
I have read your letter and given a short reading to your paper: in my
opinion the main problem for your paper is that probably it doesn't fit
with journal scope and topics. In fact, our transactions are mainly
addressed to industrial electronics applications, your paper seems to my
very short analysis more addressed to physics phenomena, even if with
potential industrial applications and experiments.
If you like, I'll forward this paper to a qualified associate editor
for reviewers' assignment. But in case the review process, which will
take some weeks will result negative, you have delayed its possible
publication on a more specific journal.
I understand that you have chosen our transactions for his high impact
factor, on the other hand our policy is to publish papers of general
interest.

Thank you again for you submission, I am waiting for your early reply.
Best regards
Carlo Cecati

Reply from Professor Cecati.  02.02.2010.
Note his concern that their policyt is to publish papers of general interst?  Perhaps breaches in the unity barrier would not qualify. 

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
    
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Guys, I've lost a post. No idea if I deleted it or what? I've not heard from Admin yet - so can't explain it. In any event I need to redo this post. I'm trying to show that the 'effect' - that extra energy - is actually REQUIRED by mainstream science based, as it is, on e=mc^2. Here's the argument.

All energy is traditionally seen as being, or based on, the mass of a material be it particulate or gross. In other words - and at the risk of being fatuously simplistic - take your material be it photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, your average pebble, rocks and the rest. If it's made of matter - and if it's measurable - then it's got energy. And the amount of energy available depends on the amount of that matter or that mass.

Traditionally our electric energy is generated from potential difference. Potential difference is measured as a voltage. This 'difference' is ascribed to various properties but it essentially measures a magnetic imbalance that also relates to the valence condition of an applied energy source. So - very broadly, one can say that electric energy is generated by a 'valence imbalance' that is then conducted through circuit material or any medium that allows a path for current flow. This enables a discharge of that imbalanced valence condition. But it is yet and quite simply - an energy supply source based on the material of that supply. In other words it still conforms to Einstein's famous equation. It is still the sum of the mass of that supply source. Therefore the amount of energy that is discharged cannot exceed the amount of energy or mass available from that supply. That's the basis of the 'elusive' energy barrier. This is still the agument used by Newton and Farraday and Maxwell. Our Giants.

However. If the discharge of that energy from the supply source then generates another imbalance in material that is in the 'path of' that discharge - then it is evident that we get ANOTHER measurable voltage imbalance, a kind of transferred potential difference. Classically this is regarded as STORED ENERGY. And when it too finds a path - it too will discharge that energy. In other words, the amount of material in that 'path' determines the rate at which energy is transferred through that path, or the rate of discharge from the energy supply source. BUT, interrupt that path and - depending on the material used and the amount of imbalance that energy flow generated or 'stored' or 'transferred' then that material itself can generate it's own flow of current depending only on an available path for discharge and on the 'break' or 'chance' or opportunity - afforded by interrupting that first flow from the primary energy supply source.

So. Let's look at the actual condition on this or any switching circuitry. The rate of energy discharged from the supply was determined by the resistance in the path of that primary energy supply source. If it discharged or delivered - for example - 1 Joule of energy in current flow, then classically the circuit can only dissipate 1 Joule of energy or it can store and dissipate some value that is precisely proportionate to that 1 Joule that was first delivered. The primary energy supply source has now 'transferred' it's own potential difference to the material of the resistor - in the process of establishing it's own balanced valence condition or potential difference.

But here's the thing. In point of fact, when one actually interrupts that current flow from the source, and provided one allows a path to discharge that energy - it can be routed back through the supply source to re-energise it. AND it has dissipated energy in the form of 'heat' over that resistor. Not only that - but the amount of energy that is returned to the supply can equal, (And as Aaron and others have shown) even exceed the amount of energy that was first delivered. The question then is this. Have we defied Einstein's equation that determines the limit in the amount of energy that is available in the mass of our supply source. The answer is emphatically NO.

The fact is that the material in the resistor - now comes into the equation. It's mass has been energised. It has adopted the same but opposite valence condition of the supply source. And it has generated heat. Therefore the proposal is that the heat is a measure of the resistance of the material to the applied potential difference from the supply source. And the measured voltage across the resistor is also now a measure of it's own potential difference which precisely matches or depending on the mass of the resistor can even exceed the potential difference at the supply.

The point is this. The mass of the battery or the supply source has been determined by Maxwell as the primary energy supply source. But Einstein's equation incorporates the mass of the resistor as well as the supply source. Therefore the resistive mass is also a potential energy supply souce dependent only on its mass, the inductive and conductive components in that mass and it's ability to 'find' a path to discharge that energy. But it FIRST needs its 'own' moment to become an energy supply source. A switching circuit affords it that moment. Therefore there is no real conflict between this result and the result required in terms of mainstream thinking.

That the thesis attributes current flow to anything at all - is immaterial to this argument. But for the record, the proposal is that current flow itself is the transfer of magnetic fields and not electrons as required by mainstream argument. But in all other respects, this proposal conforms to the quintessentially proven requirement that E=mc^2.

Perhaps those who are testing this circuit can use this argument in support of the proven gains on a switching circuit of this kind. It's certainly the basis of the thesis.

posted by me 02.05.2010

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Guys, could someone help me.  I've been trying to post over pictures from my photobucket and I can only get links.  What's required here?  I'd be glad of assistance.

Here are the links for now. 
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00032.jpg)
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00036.jpg)
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00037.jpg)
(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00038.jpg)

Jesus?  Could you open these for direct view?  Be most obliged.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
hi rosemary, to post pictures use the 'attach' field(s) at the bottom of the reply form.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
WILBY.   ;D  HOW NICE IS THIS.  I had an idea you'd been banished?  Obviously not.  You have NO IDEA how much I've missed your critical input.  They're badly in need of a Captain across at EF.  He's needed to steady that ship.  Right now it's been appropriated by MIB's who are pretending to all kinds of accreditation and goodness knows what.  If it weren't so ominious it would be laughable.

WELCOME INDEED.    ;D

BTW  Many thanks for that posting.  I'll try it later.  Many more to post across.
I'M SMILING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DAYS.  Seems like we've got a 'shared tenure' at last.  LOL 

Offline rensseak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
This are the pictures of Rosi  ;D

 

OneLink