Follow by Email

Saturday, February 19, 2011

62 - how about it Poynty?

Dear Reader,

it seems that Poynty Point will consider anything in his simulator bar the possibility of actually testing the thesis itself. This is a sad tribute to that 3rd school mindset that I've referred to earlier. And if it were a trivial matter I'd still joke about it. But it's not.

Pointy, the art of debunking is - possibly - required. Especially when what is being debunked is obviously being perpetrated as a deliberate fraud. But what is at issue here is not a fraud. I would not have the skills required to fabricate a waveform in any event. All those resistances and what have you in series with the gate of the MOSFET. Golly. I wouldn't know where to begin. We're looking at waveforms that are either the result of some intrinsic corruption in the circuit components - or we're looking at an alternate energy supply source. And there is nothing corrupted in our MOSFETS.

So. Test it Poynty Point. If you don't, I assure you that others will. And then your counter arguments here will be entirely irrelevant. What exactly are you scared of? That you'll duplicate the waveform - and thereby show that the thesis may be correct? And what harm? It would be of riveting interest to the guys at Caltech. and it would be memorable piece of simulation. I rather hoped you'd be equal to all sides of this argument. That's the base requirement for a serious experimentalist. Surely? Failing which, I'm afraid that your integrity will remain questionable. It's one thing to pose as a serious researcher. That's deserving of every respect. But it carries certain obligations that require objectivity and impartiality. I'm not sure that you're equal to it. Sadly.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

61 - just a way to stress those rigid paradigms yet further

Dear Reader,

I've been asked to give a full description of circuit and circuit components. I won't do this prior to the demo. Therefore, technically, it will need to wait until the 15th of March or thereafter. The simple facts are that Fuzzy et al - lurk - with as much menace as ever. Quick to deride or decry - and either way - may well, and again, attempt to usurp or deny these results. Either way I'm not sure that the technology would survive a second attack. And I've run out of the required energy to fight it all again. I want academic accreditation to precede disclosure on the internet. Frankly I have no reason, whatsoever, to distrust mainstream. I only know that they've been indifferent and entirely sceptical. I've learned better than to ever again trust our internet personalities.

But the actual simulation does not depend on precise circuit components. What needs to be tested is this. Assume that there is no body diode. And assume that there's an alternate energy supply source. With those two items factored in - then I'm reasonably satisfied that you'll get a waveform precisely as we manage on our circuit. It will have the added advantage of evaluating the actual thesis which everyone, thus far, has chosen to ignore.

If, indeed, current flow has these properties of 'dual charge' and if there is an energy supply source extraneous to atoms - then the actual beneficiary will be our entire scientific community and their required skills to apply this knowledge. Then - to those who can operate those simulators - here's the carrot. The first person who actually finds this will be in the happy position of proving the thesis. And that proof would be conclusive - provided only that I can then show that our body diodes are in tact.

I would have thought that this could be a desirable test. Certainly with all that promising conservation of charge - the simulation should attract a certain amount of interest.

Just a thought.
Kindest as ever,

Rosie

60 - ta muchly

Dear Reader,

I must say that I'm in awe of Poynty's and Humbugger's technical knowledge. I have to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to get past those tedious acronyms - but when I finally manage that I see the genius involved in reverse engineering. And surprisingly, I think I'm beginning to understand how school 'classical' thinks. The only criticism that I have is that they both insist that my writing is less than obscure - if you can manage that double negative. It's when a double negative does not become positive. LOL I rather prided myself on the idea that I was articulate. But 'clearly' not. I"ll need to do better. Here's my first best effort.

What I find intriguing is that if you apply a material dual charge property to current - which, by the way, precludes electrons as they're monopoles - then that resonance - indeed any type of resonance on this circuit - is immediately explicable. Just a thought. I've always sort of depended on this - from the beginning. In other words, I predicted that the flow of current would be bi-directional depending on the applied voltage. And when it flows in 'the opposite direction' then it also presents and alternate charge. That way, and only in that way, can you get that energy going back through the diode. And the strength of that resonance? That means that there may be an alternate supply source on the circuit. Surely? That way you can eliminate all those tedious possibilities. And better yet. You won't need to reference those acronyms.

Jokes aside. Thanks for your efforts - Poynty Point and Humbybugger. I'm learning lots - but I think I'm the only beneficiary here.

Kindest regards,
Rosie