I'm nearly at the close of that thread. I'm just waiting to hear from Prof Steven E Jones and will then do a full summation. I'm hoping that Harti will allow me to post our entire paper on that thread. And then he can lock it.
Then I can get back here and concentrate on our thesis. I made that detour ONLY because I have been claiming that there's a 'conspiracy' against any over unity claims. All such conspiracies are considered somewhat fanciful. And in truth I also thought that it was somewhat improbable. I was advised by a Dr Stiffler in a very cryptic message that 'they will get to you'. Indeed they did.
If you ever take the trouble to dip into Over Unity Research.com - there's a thread on my circuit - where one poster, MileHigh - picks up the theme that I'm deluded - fanciful and unable to read my own circuit. What's rather ironic, in point of fact is that it's they themselves who were rather ill equipped to argue the circuit - precisely because they could not read it. Not only that - but poor Poynty Point was trying to argue that our LeCroy was skewing its voltage by virtue of IMPEDANCE? I'm not sure which option is more disturbing. That he believes it - or that he simply hopes the readers there do. Either way - it shows a rather reckless reliance on public ignorance. And more disturbing yet is that Poynty has been barging into the threads of many experimenters to apply this rather flawed measurements analysis to anything and everything that smells of promise. The worst of it is that until this exercise of mine I think the readers there made the assumption that he knew whereof he spoke. Well. Clearly he has no clue. Or he has rather grossly underestimated the public's level of knowledge. That he also grossly underestimated my own is possibly forgivable. Even I admit to knowing very little about electronics. But I know more than enough about the fundamentals of physics - to compensate. And I hope I've injected those countermands of his - with some modicum of logic. Sorely lacking in his own arguments. And sorely lacking in all previous analysis.
For some reason - they seem to regard it as REQUIRED that one first buries the sense of an argument behind undefined acronyms - to spread, not only rampant confusion, but to seem to be privy to a rather higher level of knowledge where everything is IMPLIED and nothing stated. It's the greatest weakness that there is going at the moment. If any science is not CLEAR - then clearly it's NOT SCIENCE - is the maxim.
Anyway, dear, dear readers. I have to make a whole lot of those 'for the record posts'. But then I'm done with that thread. And then I'll just go back to rabbiting on about physics theory - and lending whatever support I possibly can to Andrea Rossi's remarkable breakthroughs. Our fight is nearly done. And I'd put money on it that his technology will be available to us ALL - very very soon now. That is going to be the REAL revolution. Can't wait.