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

Plug Heater

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: 83391
  • *Latest: JaneRyan

  • *Total Posts: 509729
  • *Total Topics: 15193
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??  (Read 48030 times)

Offline fuzzytomcat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 676
    • Open Source Research and Development
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #90 on: October 30, 2010, 07:54:56 AM »
ITEM NUMBER ONE

WORKING COMPLETE "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES WITHHELD FROM OPEN SOURCE

http://www.energeticforum.com/60279-post511.html ( July, 13 2009 )

Quote

witsend
Senior Member

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

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

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

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

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

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


A WORKING COMPLETE "QUANTUM" COP>17 EXPERIMENTAL DEVICE

I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities.

Why were the October 2002 Quantum COP>17 experimental devices knowing and willfully hidden from the Open Source Community after July, 13 2009 ??

1) It's not a COP>17
2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
5) Secret hidden alternative motives
6) ??

TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )

Some would try to lead you in belief of destroying, dismantling or even loosing a incredible device that is a COP>17 ..... who in their right mind would do something a stupid as this,  especially anytime "AFTER" the date of July 13, 2009 of the Open Source posting ....

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13826
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #91 on: October 30, 2010, 06:49:50 PM »
Compare the above reference to my work about the duty cycle of the Quantum article with this much more current post from Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262082#msg262082

And once again, just build the circuit and see for yourselves. Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue? Just what is the TRUTH about the Quantum circuit duty cycle? It involves what, seven dollars worth of parts and a light bulb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

Some Fluke0Scopy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM

Offline Harvey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #92 on: October 30, 2010, 10:09:21 PM »
Compare the above reference to my work about the duty cycle of the Quantum article with this much more current post from Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262082#msg262082

And once again, just build the circuit and see for yourselves. Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue? Just what is the TRUTH about the Quantum circuit duty cycle? It involves what, seven dollars worth of parts and a light bulb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

Some Fluke0Scopy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM

Hi TK,

You are absolutely correct in your reference to the increased duty cycle on the Hexfet. Here is a snapshot from the famous test #13 that we used as a basis for the paper that Rosemary rushed to rejection against the advices of all other authors involved.

(http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_TEK00024%7E0.PNG) Enlarge

As you can see, in the "preferred mode of oscillation" (a phrase I specifically coined when writing that paper) the gate does adopt a duty cycle of 57.32%.

The circuit in this mode simply aborts completely any ties to a resonant action and develops a symbiotic retriggering mode solely dependent on the NE555 internal voltage references and a non-destructive zener breakdown in the output transistor emitter inside the NE555. This pass through current finds its way back upstream within the NE555 and causes the retriggering. I have confirmed this with Spice.

The TRUTH however, is that if the resistor itself actually matched that waveform we would have had considerably more heat than we did. How much more? Just look at the resistor power values in the attached spreadsheet to get a ballpark. 24V @ 50% would be similar to 12V @ 100%


In this mode, the duty cycle of the Resistor waveform (referenced to B(-)) adopts a 3.893% duty cycle as shown in this Channel 2 shot from the exact same test:
(http://urad.net/forums/gallery/albums/userpics/normal_TEK00023.PNG) Enlarge

I'm certain it is the latter Duty cycle that the original technicians (what ever happened to those guys?) referred to in their work that Rosemary later copied and passed off as her own as she is now trying to do with Glen's work.

For a mathematical treatise of these duty cycles and waveforms on this specific test see these 3 posts:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-2.html#post93202
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93751
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93991

This mathematical work has NOT been professionally vetted and may have errors in it - so if you find any please feel free to point them out. I tried to be as accurate as possible but as mentioned before this is very difficult on an ever changing landscape of waveforms. The changing landscape is very evident in Glen's 5 hour videos of continuous operation.

So while I was able to show where the majority of the energy was, there is still about a watt unaccounted for. Because the data is discontinuous, I imagined that the extra watt was melded into the averages from oscillations that were not recorded. But then it could also be due to the projections made in my analysis. The entire methodology is messy and problematic.

Harvey

NOTE:
Because the IMG tags are not working above, I have attached the two images as well:
Channel 3 is the Gate signal, Channel 2 is the Drain Signal:


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #92 on: October 30, 2010, 10:09:21 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #93 on: October 31, 2010, 12:01:58 AM »
. . .

1) It's not a COP>17
2) It's being hidden because of "errors" in the Quantum article electronic diagram, electrical calculations and recorded data
3) It's being hidden because of Intellectual Property Rights of Rosemary Ainslie, Investors or others involved in South Africa
4) It's being hidden because of a requirement for a 100% "Independent" verification of any experimental device close to the self authored October 2002 Quantum article context or content for a self serving Academic thesis paper
5) Secret hidden alternative motives
6) ??

TAKE YOUR PICK - 1 through 6 ( or all )



Regarding #4 Has anyone found a difference between Her Thesis and Ed's Thesis?

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502)

 ::)
Truthbeknown
J.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #94 on: October 31, 2010, 02:01:29 AM »
Hi TK,

You are absolutely correct in your reference to the increased duty cycle on the Hexfet. Here is a snapshot from the famous test #13 that we used as a basis for the paper that Rosemary rushed to rejection against the advices of all other authors involved.
Golly.  There was NO RUSH.  All was on schedule.  It was you who were trying to stall things to avoid publication.  This because TIE required a COMPLETE disclosure of the author's accreditation.  I knew full well that you were caught between a rock and a hard place.  No accreditation and an anxiety to prevent the general public from learning about this.  Or are you in fact accredited?  I'm sure we'd all be interested.  LOL. 

As you can see, in the "preferred mode of oscillation" (a phrase I specifically coined when writing that paper) the gate does adopt a duty cycle of 57.32%.  The circuit in this mode simply aborts completely any ties to a resonant action and develops a symbiotic retriggering mode solely dependent on the NE555 internal voltage references and a non-destructive zener breakdown in the output transistor emitter inside the NE555. This pass through current finds its way back upstream within the NE555 and causes the retriggering. I have confirmed this with Spice.
This is an example of the Harvey waffle - for any readers that may be interested.  But I rather think that this technobabble is getting somewhat absurd.  How could the NE555 be transmitting/emitting (as a transmitter emitter LOL) a signal with a current that finds it way back 'upstream' wherever that is? and then cause a 'retriggering' IF it still shows a duty cycle at either 3% or 97% - 'off' or 'on'?  If it developed a 'symbiotic' retriggering then it would reflect the 57% 'on'.  Clearly it has NOT developed a SYMBIOTIC anything at all.  Just technobabble Harvey.  I realise how anxious you are to appear accredited.  But you must remember that accredited people read here.  And clarity of terms and precision of expression is definitely preferred.  And if you have proved this on SPICE then SHOW US.   

The TRUTH however, is that if the resistor itself actually matched that waveform we would have had considerably more heat than we did.
LOL.  If the TRUTH as you put it - is in that first analysis of yours in the MOSFET HEATING CIRCUIT then it's laughable.  It was based on some kind of mishmash of nonsense and protocol that required the averaging the voltage across the load resistor while it was in full resonating frequency - for heaven's sake.  And then you rather CROWED that you now had the PROOF that you were so desperately looking for - THAT THERE WAS NO GAIN.  I was alerted to this nonsense by an expert.  But I'm still at a bit of loss because you now seem to be more concerned that there's MORE energy dissipated than is evident as heat. Presumably then you've changed tack?  In any event.   Here we concur.  But that analysis is somewhat outside the league of myself and will need to be finalised by experts.  And to compute this is clearly at a level of complexity that I rather suspect is outside your league as well.  With or without respect.  Certainly your earlier 'averaging' of these values seems to point to this.  And even then that little exercise was accompanied by the tell tale harvey waffle.  Clarity matters Harvey.  You can't forever hide behind your handwaving.

I'm certain it is the latter Duty cycle that the original technicians (what ever happened to those guys?) referred to in their work that Rosemary later copied and passed off as her own as she is now trying to do with Glen's work.
I have NEVER copied anyone's work - unless it was duly acknowledged.  The real problem here is that you find it impossible to believe that a woman let alone an untrained woman - can come up with an original thought. LOL. But the truth is that there's very little that's different in this and any other simple switching circuit.  Else I'd be flattered at all this disbelief.  And let's face it.  One doesn't need to be an Einstein to think of switching an electric current.   

For a mathematical treatise of these duty cycles and waveforms on this specific test see these 3 posts:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-2.html#post93202
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93751
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits-3.html#post93991

This mathematical work has NOT been professionally vetted and may have errors in it - so if you find any please feel free to point them out. I tried to be as accurate as possible but as mentioned before this is very difficult on an ever changing landscape of waveforms. The changing landscape is very evident in Glen's 5 hour videos of continuous operation.
I'll get back to you in due course on your mathematical treatise.   ::) But I'll first refer it to experts.  LOL

Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #94 on: October 31, 2010, 02:01:29 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #95 on: October 31, 2010, 02:04:35 AM »

Regarding #4 Has anyone found a difference between Her Thesis and Ed's Thesis?

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.msg262502#msg262502)

 ::)
Truthbeknown

Interesting point Truthbeknown.  I'd LOVE to be associated with Leedskalnin's genius.  What a pleasure. 

BTW - where's that delightful little ditty gone?  Did you get shy?

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #96 on: October 31, 2010, 02:14:06 AM »
Compare the above reference to my work about the duty cycle of the Quantum article with this much more current post from Rosemary:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9442.msg262082#msg262082

And once again, just build the circuit and see for yourselves. Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue? Just what is the TRUTH about the Quantum circuit duty cycle? It involves what, seven dollars worth of parts and a light bulb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

Some Fluke0Scopy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU1YGaEBKwM

TK I've answered this nonsense on your previous post.  You really need to do some real power analysis but you first need to find that resonating frequency.  It seems it entirely eluded you - else I rather suspect you'd be digging up the kind of analysis that Harvey is trying for. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #96 on: October 31, 2010, 02:14:06 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #97 on: October 31, 2010, 02:22:52 AM »
Interesting point Truthbeknown.  I'd LOVE to be associated with Leedskalnin's genius.  What a pleasure. 

BTW - where's that delightful little ditty gone?  Did you get shy?


What are YOU talking about?
LINKS...LINKS...LINKS      LOL!
Now go back up to my reply #94 and clickety on the link. I can post it in your thread also if you would like. Then it can be there for POSTERITY.

Lets see now...Ed's thesis was written in 1945 and yours in when? You must be very proud.

 ::)
J.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #98 on: October 31, 2010, 02:23:47 AM »
Here it is again just for the record.

Always nice to hear from you.  But you're getting tediously repetitive and I'm not sure that I'm prepared to let these spurious comments of yours dominate this thread - as much as you may require this.  I am very well aware how your particular brand of 'trollmanship' requires the monopoly of my time by answering these entirely false allegations.  The intention is to distract me and to take the attention away from the theme of this thread.  If I'm obliged to keep answering you then you will indeed be wasting my time.  Clearly your objective.

I'm of the opinion that you,  like Harvey, would prefer it that I do not elaborate on the thesis which is why you are both now 'elbowing in' - so to speak.  Self-evidently you also see the need to repeat this complaint of yours on no less than two threads - twice on this and once on that - and God alone knows how many times on the COP>17 thread at EF.com and your own thread here.  But this, like ALL your allegations are pure fabrication.  We both know that Joit in fact reported that he'd DISPROVED YOUR POINT.  Unfortunately his post was not clear. Here's the link.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-17.html#post60251
Neither I nor Donovan could work out what he was trying to say so I simply gave you the benefit of the doubt.  Here's that link.
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html
Whereupon Joit answered me here
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-18.html
where his opening statement in that post is as follows

it only prooves, that you are RIGHT and Tinselkoala is WRONG, and all his discreding and debunking Post here and at OU.com.

He never DID support your findings.  I notice that Glen very carefully prevents anyone actually reading his links in context.  He relies on this as he could not otherwise continue with his allegations any more than you could.  But where you take this to dizzy new dimensions is that your own allegations are ENTIRELY UNTRUE.  The proverbial 'bald faced lie'.  Where Glen 'alleges' you simply go for the gullet and FABRICATE.  LOL.

And it is not only a lie but it is NONSENSICAL to state that the basis of our claim depends on the duty cycle.  Our claim is based on close analysis of the voltages measured across the shunt resistor.  Go read our Quantum paper.  It'll may help.  That would NEVER have been published without the editor being fully au fait with the data required - albeit it was too cumbersome to publish.

And TK if you persist in dominating this subject with historical irrelevancies then I'm afraid I will need to delete your posts.  So.  If you like Truthbeknown - want to preserve them for prosterity  ::) LOL I'd advise you to copy them and post them where they belong - which is on Glen's thread.  For God's sake discuss something new.  I am happy with discussions.  I am absolutely NOT happy to have you rake up those sad little tests that you performed - NOT ONCE getting the required resonance - NOT ONCE doing a detailed wattage analysis.  I'm not sure that you even knew how to.  Neither I nor anyone was EVER in a position to access the data and do an independent analysis.  Notwithstanding your access to enough instrumentation to bury us all in actual experimental results.  I have never in my life seen such a parody of attempt at a replication.  Frankly  my own opinion is that either you did not know how to to those dumps or you did not dare.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #98 on: October 31, 2010, 02:23:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #99 on: October 31, 2010, 02:51:07 AM »

What are YOU talking about?
LINKS...LINKS...LINKS      LOL!
Now go back up to my reply #94 and clickety on the link. I can post it in your thread also if you would like. Then it can be there for POSTERITY.

Lets see now...Ed's thesis was written in 1945 and yours in when? You must be very proud.

 ::)
J.

You really are not the brightest of people Truthbeknown.  If you even understood my thesis you'd see that there's only a passing similarity in the concepts.  Leedskalnin depended on a two way flow of monopoles.  I argue that such cannot be sustained in a field condition.  I have proposed a bipolar particle - to enable a flow in one or other direction.  But this had NOTHING to do with Leedskalnin's insights.  The man is a genius but his explanations here have defeated everyone in the world - including me.  Wish that I knew one tenth of what he must have known.

My thesis was developed on the concept of current flow comprising the flow of magnetic fields.  In fact I propose that all energy is sourced from magnetic fields.  I don't think that has any similarity whatsoever to Leedskalnin's thinking.

Rosemary

Edited.  Corrected 'flow of magnetic monopoles' to 'flow of monopoles'.

Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #100 on: October 31, 2010, 03:16:03 AM »
You really are not the brightest of people Truthbeknown.  If you even understood my thesis you'd see that there's only a passing similarity in the concepts.  Leedskalnin depended on a two way flow of monopoles.  I argue that such cannot be sustained in a field condition.  I have proposed a bipolar particle - to enable a flow in one or other direction.  But this had NOTHING to do with Leedskalnin's insights.  The man is a genius but his explanations here have defeated everyone in the world - including me.  Wish that I knew one tenth of what he must have known.

My thesis was developed on the concept of current flow comprising the flow of magnetic fields.  In fact I propose that all energy is sourced from magnetic fields.  I don't think that has any similarity whatsoever to Leedskalnin's thinking.

Rosemary

Edited.  Corrected 'flow of magnetic monopoles' to 'flow of monopoles'.


Well I won't get into who is "bright" or "brighter" or "brightest" I'll just let the readers here sit down with a cuppy and do a bit of reading for themselves.

 ;)
J.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #100 on: October 31, 2010, 03:16:03 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #101 on: October 31, 2010, 05:05:21 AM »
Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue?
tk, master of logical fallacies and hacks, i'm glad you're back. you avoided answering to your contradictions (AGAIN ::) )  the last time we spoke. why is it that you continue to choose to not reconcile YOUR OWN CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS before moving on? i have been trying for quite some time to get you to reconcile them... last time i pressed the issue, you ran off swearing and crying about how you were going to take your ball home and not play with us anymore. what happened to that? i expect you will avoid answering to those contradictions just as you usually do.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #102 on: October 31, 2010, 08:15:55 AM »

Well I won't get into who is "bright" or "brighter" or "brightest" I'll just let the readers here sit down with a cuppy and do a bit of reading for themselves.

 ;)
J.

Indeed.  LOL.   ;D

BTW  I've deleted your last post on my own thread Truthbeknown.  I trust you kept a copy.  Otherwise I'm afraid it's forever lost.    :o  Fact is that I posted on the wrong thread.  But due to the HACK was not sure if I'd even posted anything at all.  The ONLY people that I know who have already declared their ability to hack into computers is Glen - and Poynty.  BOTH by their own admission.  Frankly I don't think Poynty is that nasty let alone immoral.  And I can definitely attest to the fact that both Glen and Harvey have GOOD REASON to hack.  Else all this technology may very well get widely known, used AND UNDERSTOOD.  God forbid.   ::)

 ;D

Offline truthbeknown

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #103 on: October 31, 2010, 09:13:04 AM »
Indeed.  LOL.   ;D

BTW  I've deleted your last post on my own thread Truthbeknown.  I trust you kept a copy.  Otherwise I'm afraid it's forever lost.    :o  Fact is that I posted on the wrong thread.  But due to the HACK was not sure if I'd even posted anything at all.  The ONLY people that I know who have already declared their ability to hack into computers is Glen - and Poynty.  BOTH by their own admission.  Frankly I don't think Poynty is that nasty let alone immoral.  And I can definitely attest to the fact that both Glen and Harvey have GOOD REASON to hack.  Else all this technology may very well get widely known, used AND UNDERSTOOD.  God forbid.   ::)

 ;D


The big DELETE finger has struck once again!

Now, does it not make us wonder WHY it was so important that she delete her OWN post that I happened to see in the 1 hour or so it was there AND then delete my comment to what she said?
What are YOU trying to hide? LOL many times over.

 :o
J.

 BTW...I will give you the opportunity to re-post YOUR post where you claim to have some sort of PROOF that 3 people have compromised your computer? I won't embarrass you with my copy.

Offline Harvey

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: **UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??
« Reply #104 on: October 31, 2010, 09:25:56 AM »

Regarding #4 Has anyone found a difference between Her Thesis and Ed's Thesis?

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.MSG262502#MSG262502)

 ::)
Truthbeknown
J.

I have read both theses more than once and find Ed's work to be very well thought out and presented in a concise and easy to follow manner. 

The other one, which by all rights appears to be a messy copy of Ed's work has many loose ends, poor diagrams and cannot be explained verbally by the author. I did spend hours speaking with her on Skype trying to understand what she is trying to convey, and she simply cannot explain it verbally. She kept telling me that I must read it - so I did - it took me 5 straight hours and a stiff neck and I still have my copy complete with marginal notes. She wanted my honest opinion and I gave it to her: "This is a mess and needs to be completely rewritten", I told her. I felt so bad having to tell her that, but I thought she needed to know that it really does need to be reworked and if a co-author cannot tell it like it is then who can? In one place she states that her thesis demands 11 dimensions to properly function and then she only identifies 10 in the breakdown. She has no way to quantify the energy of her "little magnets" as Ed calls them and confuses 2C with C². Also she seems to have confused spherical area with spherical volume in her math supporting the size ratio of a Proton to an Electron and then later states that electrons don't exist - a statement shared by Ed Leedskalnin (which is where I imagine she got it from) and a view even supported by forum members like Wilby.

So if electrons don't exist, then how could her crowning moment of defining the ratio be of any value? Clearly electrons must exist in her thesis but electric current does not. Therefore, her current is magnetic just as Ed's current is magnetic. This must also mean that she is switching "magnetic current" not "electric current" right? Now, that is another subject that she and I spent several hours discussing, trying to get the specifics properly organized so we could explain it to others. "Is the current inside or outside the material?" We never could get that matter concluded, but one thing was certain - the magnetic chain had to be a complete circuit in her model, there is no place for it to break apart unless you want an nebula on your workbench. Well not that bad, but in her model the principle is the same, break the chain and all those superluminal "little magnets" come crashing into our dimension and become quarks and stuff like that. And don't even try to form a correlation between the universal magnetic model that involves nebula, a toroid universe and a series of spiral chains all in motion to the structure of a molecule where every particle has it's own 'field' of 'little magnets' (of some unknown quantity) structured around them to blue print the interactions with other particles. As soon as you try, you find yourself swimming in relativistic motion problems where superluminal particles somehow pass through each other some of the time and bounce off each other at other times. These are just some of the loose ends.

Personally, I find no difference between her thesis and Ed's at the fundamental level. It should be noted that Ed's "Little Magnets" were smaller than photons and Ed knew that magnets are dipoles. But I encourage all the readers who have the time to spend, to carefully read Rosemary's work and query her on what it means. Perhaps I have a problem that prohibits me from comprehending it. You on the other hand may be able to help her get it rewritten in a way that guys like me can follow. I did tell her once, that if she could explain it to grade school children then the whole world would be able to understand it. Read it and share your thoughts, perhaps through refinement the thesis can become an open source project that eventually explains everything.

Personally I have my own TOE that does not depend on superluminal particles and perhaps that is the problem I have that prohibits me from accepting these magnetic models of our universe.

Harvey


 

OneLink