The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Devices > Inductive Kickback Circuits > The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit

2024-11-27, 22:43:34
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 29

« previous next »

Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit (Read 477213 times)

Grumpy	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #50 on: 2010-01-05, 13:12:49 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010-01-04, 04:50:30 The initial Quantum paper detailed a circuit configuration that was intended to test a magnetic field model that proposed that all identifiable three dimensional objects - or amalgams - are bound by the very thing that astrophysicists claim 'binds' our galaxies. They call this energy 'dark energy' and propose that it's from a dark particle. The magnetic field model claims that this same particle binds amalgams and that it is invisible to light precisely because it is both smaller and faster than light. In effect the particle that binds the material of conductive wire on a circuit is the particle that is able to extrude the body of that material and adjust its position in space. In other words the 'thing' or the 'energy' that has been transferred to the atoms in that wire - is simply fields of these zipons as I have presumed to call the particle. "dark energy" is just another name for what was once called "aether". I don't see how this circuit was supposed to prove or disprove the existance of "dark energy". Can you briefly explain?

witsend	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #51 on: 2010-01-05, 13:59:57 »
Group: Guest	Hi Grumpy. Not sure how to give a quick and easy answer but I'll give it my best shot. The proposal is that an atom - in its unbound state - is also at its lowest energy level. The binding of - say - a nugget of gold is done by the addition of heat which is traditionally seen as a means to then bond the material through a chemical process that then aligns those atoms into its own unique crystalline structure. Mainstream say that there's an interaction of the valence electrons that then distribute and align and balance their charge properties to bring about the required shape of those crystals. And for the sake of clarity let's call that nugget of gold an amalgam. This model proposes that the thing that is transferred into those loosely bound atoms were a whole lot of zipons. They enter the amalgam, interact with the atom's energy levels, move to balance the atoms which they do by establishing those crystalline structures. Then the cool down, and hold that attachment and simply dissapear from view. It holds the amalgam in its fixed shape and the atoms in that amalgam in a state of relative rest. And these fields stay there, orbiting in tightly confined areas - entirely undetectable - until another imbalance is introduced to the amalgam. Then they lose their tight bound cold state to unravel and become slow and hot and big. Extreme values of this is evident as 'flame' or fire - but not necessarily as we know of fire - buring in air. It can literally unravel within the material of the resistor itself and still become hot and slow and big. Which essentially means that energy itself is really just these little zipons which are either slow and big and hot and evident in our own dimension - or fast and small and cold. In the fast small cold state their velocity is twice the speed of light and light itself cannot find them. Slow, big and hot, and we measure it as heat. The two states operate in an inverse but proportional ratio to each other. This is where the mass of an amalgam is able to generate energy. But not from any energy in the atoms - only the energy that was first introduced to form that amalgam. So. This little thesis depends on the absolute conservation of energy - more rigidly than our classicists. It's just that it's presumed to define energy itself and I'm well aware of that presumption. Now. Where are these zipons? They form the earth's magnetic fields and they line up and orbit as strings. They're in these tightly bound areas of amalgams and they orbit as strings. They're in atomic energy levels where, surprise, surprise, they line up as strings. They're in the sun - chaotic and unable to line up as they cannot find a rest state. But they're also in the sun's energy levels which shapes the path of our planetary orbits. And again, like the atomic energy levels, they line up as strings. And so on - into the galaxies, and then into the universe. And in the universe, provided it's toroidal and provided it has a boundary - then this proposal is that it too comprises these strings upon strings upon strings of zipons - shoulder to shoulder. So that's how the model unfolds. Just a whole lot of magnetic fields comprising dipolar particles with a velocity at 2C and a tendancy to follow an immutable principle to establish a state of zero net charge. For what it's worth. It's awfully simplified. But it's something like that. And I agree with you. Dark matter is definitely the same thing as earlier concepts of superluminal aether.

witsend	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #52 on: 2010-01-05, 14:26:33 »
Group: Guest	Sorry. I should add that our experiment does not prove that this is dark energy. It's just that I used this circuit as a means to show that conductive components are able to generate energy provided that it's exposed to some initial voltage imbalance. What the circuit is designed to prove is that the energy on the resistive load is not 'stored energy' as argued by mainstream. It's the result of its own energy quotient, those fields of zipons, and it is therefore capable of supplying its own current flow from a voltage imbalance. And it does this in the same way as a supply source. In effect the inductive resistive load becomes its own energy supply source. All it needs to kick start this - is an applied voltage imbalance from the first part of the switching cycle.

Grumpy	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #53 on: 2010-01-05, 14:35:39 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	It will be easier for people to understand your explanations if you use terminology that they are familiar with. Build upon the foundation already laid rather than start a new one. Are "zipons" any different than "photons"? "Virtual photons" can not be detected until they interact with something. Photons are the force carriers of electromagnetic fields in conventional theories. Both comprose a dipolar medium. How did you determine they were dipolar? It is my understanding that a continuous kicking is required as the additional energy is only transferred during the initial change. A propagation of "change" also comprises a "current", even though nothing actually travels. It may prove easier to show a transfer of energy than anomolous heating.

witsend	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #54 on: 2010-01-05, 14:56:19 »
Group: Guest	Grumpy - if you're really interested I've got a blogspot rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com. I've written out the model. And it defintely conforms with observed reality if that's what you're suggesting. Delighted to expand on the subject but it's off topic and it's also way, way too long. Can't be abbreviated not without compromising its logic. « Last Edit: 2010-01-05, 18:25:50 by aetherevarising »

IceStorm	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #55 on: 2010-01-06, 19:03:50 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010-01-05, 14:56:19 Grumpy - if you're really interested I've got a blogspot rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com. I've written out the model. And it defintely conforms with observed reality if that's what you're suggesting. Delighted to expand on the subject but it's off topic and it's also way, way too long. Can't be abbreviated not without compromising its logic. You maybe wrote a model but you didn't showed it. the only thing you showed is a paper with some idea, there no mathematical explanation in it so nothing can be predictable or derivate from it. There a big world between a Theory and a Model. Maybe i missed one of your paper who show all the Math ? Best Regards, IceStorm

witsend	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #56 on: 2010-01-06, 20:20:14 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: IceStorm on 2010-01-06, 19:03:50 You maybe wrote a model but you didn't showed it. And hello to you too IceStorm. Quote from: IceStorm on 2010-01-06, 19:03:50 the only thing you showed is a paper with some idea, Indeed. Quote from: IceStorm on 2010-01-06, 19:03:50 there no mathematical explanation in it so nothing can be predictable or derivate from it. That's because you clearly did not understand the model. Quote from: IceStorm on 2010-01-06, 19:03:50 There a big world between a Theory and a Model. Indeed. Quote from: IceStorm on 2010-01-06, 19:03:50 Maybe i missed one of your paper who show all the Math ? Possibly. Not sure if you expect a discussion if you're just making a comment.

stevend	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #57 on: 2010-01-06, 21:10:01 »
Group: Guest	IceStorm, Grumpy, Is this what you're looking for? It's at least a long textual description of the model. A pdf version with the diagrams is available at the very bottom. http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com -Steve http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org

witsend	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #58 on: 2010-01-06, 22:04:40 »
Group: Guest	IceStorm dispensed with good manners and asked For the sense in a model that clearly had cast Some doubt in a mind Of the obdurate kind That still clung to the logic of a time that had passed.

Grumpy	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #59 on: 2010-01-07, 13:14:55 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: stevend on 2010-01-06, 21:10:01 IceStorm, Grumpy, Is this what you're looking for? It's at least a long textual description of the model. A pdf version with the diagrams is available at the very bottom. http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com -Steve http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org Thanks, but I avoid anything that renames accepted terminology.

witsend	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #60 on: 2010-01-07, 22:30:49 »
Group: Guest	Grumpy - I'm not sorry that you're avoiding that read on my model. It really is not for the weak minded and, to the best of my knowledge there are only, perhaps, 3 people who have actually ever understood it. But I strongly object to your comment that it renames accepted terminology. How do you know this without reading it? And where have I renamed anything at all? This type of post, Poynty, is my point. I have read posts in this forum and others that are so extraordinarily fanciful and illogical and absurd - that it throws some question on the sanity of both the supporter and the supported, so to speak. I have seen claims that have been poorly substantiated, and tests that have been badly presented, and ideas that have been badly articulated and logic that has been grossly abused - and on and on. Yet nothing is offered other than kindly supportive encouragement. It is as if the general critical faculties of all are suspended in favour of some kind of overly sensitive drivel that thoroughly endorses the inevitable consequence of 'more of the same'. And yet my own thesis and the tests in support of it - are subject to nothing but continual attack. Newbies come in with their 'maiden posts' with a signature dismissal of my model or the tests results or both. And no-one jumps to my defense nor comments on the evident poor and insenstive quality of their contribution. I might tell you that my friends asked me why I bothered with this forum unless it's because I enjoy abuse. I assure you I don't. In fact, if I don't see some kind of active restraint imposed on such contributions then I'll bow out here. I'm sick to death of my eternal need to fight a lonely corner.

Grumpy	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #61 on: 2010-01-07, 22:54:10 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010-01-07, 22:30:49 Grumpy - I'm not sorry that you're avoiding that read on my model. It really is not for the weak minded and, to the best of my knowledge there are only, perhaps, 3 people who have actually ever understood it. But I strongly object to your comment that it renames accepted terminology. How do you know this without reading it? And where have I renamed anything at all? This type of post, Poynty, is my point. I have read posts in this forum and others that are so extraordinarily fanciful and illogical and absurd - that it throws some question on the sanity of both the supporter and the supported, so to speak. I have seen claims that have been poorly substantiated, and tests that have been badly presented, and ideas that have been badly articulated and logic that has been grossly abused - and on and on. Yet nothing is offered other than kindly supportive encouragement. It is as if the general critical faculties of all are suspended in favour of some kind of overly sensitive drivel that thoroughly endorses the inevitable consequence of 'more of the same'. And yet my own thesis and the tests in support of it - are subject to nothing but continual attack. Newbies come in with their 'maiden posts' with a signature dismissal of my model or the tests results or both. And no-one jumps to my defense nor comments on the evident poor and insenstive quality of their contribution. I might tell you that my friends asked me why I bothered with this forum unless it's because I enjoy abuse. I assure you I don't. In fact, if I don't see some kind of active restraint imposed on such contributions then I'll bow out here. I'm sick to death of my eternal need to fight a lonely corner. That was a poor choice of words. At first glance it apeared that zipons and (that other name) replaced "things" in conventional interpretations of physics. After reading it, a better summarizing statement is that your model tries to correct a flawed model that can not be corrected because it is fundamentally incorrect. All energy in any form, is recieved from the medium - period. Tesla finally realized this before he died and he was absolutely correct.

IceStorm	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #62 on: 2010-01-08, 03:12:25 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: witsend on 2010-01-06, 22:04:40 IceStorm dispensed with good manners and asked For the sense in a model that clearly had cast Some doubt in a mind Of the obdurate kind That still clung to the logic of a time that had passed. Look at what i talk about, a Model need to be mathematical because if you say that the current model is wrong, then you need to show HOW is wrong, not invent some new words and throwing some idea, look at this Thesis http://www.distinti.com/docs/neThesis.pdf . The guy is maybe wrong but it show mathematically and with experiment how his model is better than the current one. Its how you need to do that. You MAYBE right in your model, i don't know , but you need to correlate with the current model to show what is wrong and it can only be in one format, Mathematically. Best Regards, IceStorm

poynt99	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #63 on: 2010-01-08, 03:36:55 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	@All, Rose has deleted her account here and left. I bid her adieu with the following: Quote Hi Rose. I've read all the posts, and I'm not sure why you are so upset. People ask questions, because they are skeptical of the works presented. The type of work submitted by you and the team is a target with a sign in big letters saying "shoot at me", and you surely are aware of this, and should expect this, after all, it is far outside of mainstream acceptance and understanding. I have advised you in the past, and I'll suggest again, that the data presented by you to support any notion of OU or claims of COP>1 are lacking. You do not agree, but it is the truth. The paper too, is weak in it's argument and is poorly presented. I can only hope that after the IEEE rejects the paper a second time, you will see that you and the team will have to do much much better in order to garner some credibility with the academics you are so desperately soliciting for approval. I find it puzzling also that you do not impose the same level of tolerance (i.e. thickness of skin) on yourself that you do upon those that have endured several deep assaults in turn from you. It is a two-way street Rose, and you must be willing to receive equal to what you sow. Indeed some "questions" arise that you may perceive as first assault, but you have a choice about how to respond, don't you? Think about that. A clear objective response can only promote a clear objective response, and if I saw anyone getting out of line as such, they would hear from me. But I did not see anything that required intervention, and I am sorry that you chose to depart rather than stand your ground, but that is your choice. Good luck. I think you are missing out on a great forum, and a great opportunity to interact with an interesting, intelligent group of people. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

stevend	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #64 on: 2010-01-08, 15:19:38 »
Group: Guest	Hi IceStorm, I face the same problem regarding the need of a model with mathematical. The usefulness of mathematics is that you can make quantitive predictions and choose components and values for experiments. Mostly I currently use the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) model. It has a lot of mathematical support but much of it is still conceptual due only to lack of people working on it. It does clearly state what energy is and how it's transfered from particle to particle and so gives me a guide to what won't work for converting quantum vacuum energy to electrical energy, according to the model. Given that, I can sort of guess at what might work but the model isn't far enough along mathematically to tell me if I'm right, according to the model, and if so, tell me precisely what to build. So the model gives me some rough guidance, but that's all. I guess it's a little better than doing things at random, for now. I looked at the link you provided. So far I like it and will dig deeper. Thanks for that. -Steve http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org

MileHigh	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #65 on: 2010-01-15, 19:51:58 »
Group: Guest	Ken, For what it's worth, I am an exile from the RA circuit discussion also. Several months ago it became quite apparent that there was no solid data coming in to back up her claim. Then there was a disconnect where Rosemary and her followers pushed on as if they did have data to back up her claim. Then the paper was written and presented that included no concrete data at to back up her claim. Sorry to be repetitive but I want to emphasize the point. It's a classic example of a reality distortion field in action. A half-dozen people are going to continue on with this nonsensical project and get absolutely nowhere with it. Some of them are beginners and have a very limited understanding of electronics and are apparently unaware that what they are doing is useless. They also actively resist all attempts to point out the error in their ways and refuse to listen to or discuss these problems with the people that are "not of the body." As Vortex1 recently pointed out, the paper is filled with links to useless DSO shots of under-sampled waveforms. The whole thing has become a complete farce but don't expect anyone on the RA team to express any doubts, that would be a thoughtcrime. MileHigh

poynt99	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #66 on: 2010-01-16, 16:42:31 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	"Learn" is the operative word here. Unguided "learning" quite often leads to a misguided understanding, and that's the underlying problem. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

ion	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #67 on: 2010-01-16, 18:14:53 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	I just posted this at OU in response to "Fuzzy" Fuzzy Your tabular data for the temperature rise above ambient vs power input of your nicely hand wound resistor is a starting point. You used your bench power supply for this. Now using the same power supply, run the Ainslie circuit and note the power being used on the same meters . No need for batteries and a DSO and all that number crunching and cherry picking of "preferred data" out of the noise. You could also do a number of control experiments using non "Ainslie" resistors, such as pure carbon tubular rods of the same size,shape, and resistance. don't forget to take into account "emissivity differences". There are special paints you could use in an attempt to normalize the differences in resistor surfaces so that your IR thermometer gives consistent readings. My main point is that you are using one piece of equipment (a power supply) to measure power input to the device under test, then switching to a battery and DSO, cherry picked and crunched data readings for your "proof". This would lead to suspicion in a scientific test. Get rid of the battery. If necessary, put a large filter cap on the output of your power supply to simulate the low impedance and high peak current capacity of a battery. This would be convincing to me, not hours of live broadcasts of a DSO in operation. You could also double check by putting a Kill-O-Watt meter on the line side of your power supply. To switch instrumentation from the power supply to the DSO is a little slight of hand and suspicious. I am not against DSO's, and have a few that I use, but a more down to earth and less noise sensitive approach would be more meaningful to me. For Rosemary to imply that a simple test setup may be acceptable to simple people like myself but never to academia is a bit of an insult, considering I've had over 40 years of temperature and power measurement skills and would like to believe I am rather good at it. Throughout the history of science, researchers have devised very simple and excellently crafted devices to make extremely fine measurements. This is way before DSO's were available. Granted a DSO in the hands of a highly experienced individual can give excellent results, but that individual should also have lots of savvy in proper breadboarding techniques so that his "noisy" setup does not skew the DSO data. I find it difficult to fathom that the "Ainslie team" believes in a COP>6 for the device. If that is so you should be scaling this up and taking over the world in the home heating industry....far better than heat pumps. I don't see anyone having enough faith to jump on this. Kind Regards....V --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

poynt99	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #68 on: 2010-01-16, 19:02:03 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	VION, I can pluck the answers from the Ainslie way of thinking of you wish: Moving the experiment away from using a battery as a power source diminishes or even kills "the effect" entirely, so unfortunately, this will not be done. The clear compromise imo is to apply the simple input power measurement using heavy averaging on the supply side, reducing this to a very simple power measurement. Even if this measurement had a margin of error of 10% (which it doesn't), it would be more than sufficient to determine if the average input power was less than the average output power, especially with a COP claim of >3. .99 PS. Don't let willy drag you into his ugly abyss. He'll never "get it" as long as he continues striving to be the clueless jackass he is. --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

ion	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #69 on: 2010-01-16, 19:34:13 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Hi Poynt Yes I agree, but I wonder what magic they see in a battery? And how does the battery apply to Rosie's theory? Also tabulation of total power used over time is really not necessary as steady state power measurements will give data to calculate the COP. Anyway if you should find you have a sleepless night, just watch the "live" broadcasts for a bit. As for W, I am reminded of those nasty little burrs you pick up on your clothing when walking through a field.........sometimes difficult to be rid of. Regards....VION --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

poynt99	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #70 on: 2010-01-16, 20:01:40 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: ION on 2010-01-16, 19:34:13 Hi Poynt Yes I agree, but I wonder what magic they see in a battery? And how does the battery apply to Rosie's theory? Remember the "bump" shown on the battery voltage wave form? The AT believe this is charge going back into the battery. I agree there is a certain amount of recharge (and I've proven and shown it in simulations), it is not nearly enough to cause the indication of a COP>1. That voltage bump is mainly caused by the relatively massive distributed inductance in the some 130 inches of connecting wire to the battery, and where the voltage sample is being taken, i.e. at the wrong end of that wire. This so-called battery re-charge effect doesn't really figure into Rose's thesis, but is more of an "added benefit" while achieving the apparent 'effect". Quote Also tabulation of total power used over time is really not necessary as steady state power measurements will give data to calculate the COP. Agreed, and I've never indicated that it was. Simply connect the heavy averaging circuit, hook up your two meters, and do the calculation. INPUT power measurement done! COP calculation--done! Quote Anyway if you should find you have a sleepless night, just watch the "live" broadcasts for a bit. I've joined in on the observations, and on one occasion I walked Fuzzy through a very slight modification to his battery voltage measurement (added a sense wire) which resulted in a 20% decrease in the measured voltage "bump" I've also explained clearly to Fuzzy and the team that the patterns being observed on the scope are "normal" and are caused by artifacts in the sampling and display process. Quote As for W, I am reminded of those nasty little burrs you pick up on your clothing when walking through a field.........sometimes difficult to be rid of. Regards....VION Indeed .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

ion	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #71 on: 2010-01-16, 20:23:43 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Hi Poynt We are in agreement Quote Remember the "bump" shown on the battery voltage wave form? The AT believe this is charge going back into the battery. Yes I remember that, and the little bump could also charge a large capacitor on the output of the power supply. Most power supplies are single ended and do not have full op-amp type outputs therefore will happily accept a little transient fed-back power, which will just average into the power supplies capacitors. So in my opinion, their argument about the magic of the battery does not hold water. Cheers.....ION --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

poynt99	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #72 on: 2010-01-16, 20:33:39 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	The battery "magic" comes from Harvey's wild theory that the battery has a certain resonance that when hit can achieve a "recharge from nowhere" effect within. This is probably also happily associated with Bedini's related theory of radiant energy spikes going back into the battery, and Bearden's negative resistance in LAB's. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

MileHigh	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #73 on: 2010-01-19, 23:21:40 »
Group: Guest	I don't know if Rosemary is reading this thread anymore. I understand that Vortex1 (I think that he is Ion1 around here) may replicate and test the RA circuit. Vortex1 is the _real_ thing and I have no doubt that he will do an excellent job of it. It should be very interesting to see the results if they will be forthcoming. Rosie, you got a taste of the real world in your recent discussions with Vortex1. MileHigh

poynt99	Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #74 on: 2010-01-21, 02:32:11 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	MH, Indeed, if VION (Vortex-ION) chooses to perform the measurements on the Ainslie circuit as he described, the results and conclusions will be trustworthy. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 29

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-27, 22:43:34

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2