Follow by Email

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

256 - when the penny finally falls

Dear Reader,

I just want to make a quick reference to something that I find rather amusing.

I think it took about 40 pages of discussion between myself and Poynty Point for Poynty to finally realise that a current discharge from a battery REQUIRES a path through the source leg of a transistors. The joke is that he had the unequivocal support of MileHigh, The Boss, Bubba Gravock, Gyula, Tinsel Koala, - and the unspoken support of all those members who didn't complain. Which support was for the ASSUMPTION that the battery could pass directly onto the Gate - somehow possibly by crossing about 4 inches of space - and land on the signal terminal at the other side of the circuit.

In all those pages and in every single post I made in reference to this - I was either, mocked, denied or ignored. When I posted the waveforms that also denied this assumption - they were also IGNORED. No comment made. And when they did protest their protests were REALLY LOUD. REALLY SCORNFUL. Because, as ever they made the rather reckless assumption that they KNOW BEST and I KNOW NOTHING AT ALL.

And? When the penny finally dropped...? Nothing. Just silence. No-one said anything. It was a quiet filled with all the 'sweet stillness of the evening hour'. It was also suggestive of a certain 'surprise'? Possibly? Can't be sure. I know Poynty wasn't surprised. He was just hoping no-one would notice the schematic or agree with me. Certainly he saw this. He saw this that first time when he kept posting the schematic detail. And asking the same question. 'What is on your actual circuit?'. LOL. SO. All this time while they were shouting that the battery discharge was responsible for at least one half of each oscillation - there was a noisy, clamorous DENIAL of my claim. And then? Just this silence.

It seems that NOT A ONE OF THEM is man enough nor brave enough to ADMIT AN OVERSIGHT. YET. When I genuinely acknowledge an oversight - NOTWITHSTANDING - THEN? They come at one like a pack of dogs. The one laughs. The others mock. Another recommends 'SUICIDE'. Then there's a no holds barred. A NEW HOWL of PROTEST. It seems that I have thereby NEGATED the very foundations of our claim.

It's all very Curious. In fact curious doesn't cut it. It is positively disgusting. Only partially more so than Poynty's earlier intellectual abuse where he attempted to recommend that a battery discharges a NEGATIVE current flow. This argument was also followed by that same SILENCE. It would be JUST SO nice to see ANY kind of intellectual honesty among any of those members. They can't all be employed by The Boss? Surely? But they absolutely can't manage it. There isn't enough character. Not an ounce of decency amongst any of them. They're just talking heads - some of whom are well paid by those with vested interests to KILL over unity. And some of whom are UTTERLY duped by those well paid talking heads. None have the strength of character nor the conviction to own up to their identities let alone their oversights. And certainly none are man enough to apologise.

Anyway. I just thought I'd alert you all to what seems to be a new and interesting scientific fact. When the penny falls - it MAKES NO NOISE AT ALL. How's that for an anomaly?

Kindest regards
Rosemary

I was alerted to a need to edit this. LOL. Have now done so.

255 - the challenge

Dear Reader,

This is my challenge to Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones.

We are more than willing to engage in a test that will be designed to compare comparative 'draw down rates' between our own test and a control. Of the 9 batteries that we started with we only have 6 remaining that have not been recharged through standard conventional recharging methods. We will use those batteries - 3 applied to the control and 3 applied to our own circuit. The heat dissipated at the loads of both the control and our experiment will be as close as dammit. We will then monitor the voltages of both tests until the one or the other battery bank has discharged to 10 volts. Then we will RECHARGE both batteries - through standard conventional recharging methods - to a full state of charge. Then we will SWAP those batteries. The control batteries will now be used for our test. The test batteries will be applied to the control. We will rerun those tests. We will carefully monitor their voltages until one or other of those sets of batteries discharges to 10 volts.

With the caveat - that this test carries the open and acknowledged acceptance that this proof will be considered definitive - by not less than 2 academics (our own esteemed Professor Jones, excepted as he has a vested interest in the outcome). Then we will be able to organise some means of securing that the test results cannot be tampered with - possibly by including a 3rd academic from this end.

Now again to the claim. We are able to generate a continual current flow that is enabled during the period that our battery is ENTIRELY disconnected. It results in a negative wattage that has no relevance to known physical paradigms. At its least it points to the existence of an alternate energy supply from the circuit material. We have resolved this by proposing that magnetic fields comprise tachyons that structure themselves in fields, along Faraday's Lines of Force. This would have the further merit of resolving Quantum and Classical dichotomies and is in line with proposals advanced by our String Theorists.

Should Professor Jones not be able to rally the required academics - then I put it to you all, that there is an impassable hurdle to over unity claims - when our esteemed and revered are not prepared to evaluate the evidence. It means that they've committed the unpardonable disgrace against the noble art of science - which FIRST AND FOREMOST requires theory to be PROVED OR DISPROVED against experimental evidence. And ever thereafter it will be IMPOSSIBLE for them to salvage their own credibility. All those who work for evidence of over unity will then be entirely justified in denying them the respect that is ONLY afforded to SCIENCE. You cannot claim to be a scientist without acknowledging that experimental evidence TRUMPS theory.

And with the utmost respect to Poynty Point and his minions - LET ME ASSURE YOU - that while your vaunted prize is MOST desirable - it would hardly compensate for the required acknowledgement by our experts. Because without that acknowledgement then our science CANNOT be progressed. Which is why the test REQUIRES academic engagement.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary