PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Devices > Inductive Kickback Circuits > The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit
2024-04-19, 20:35:10
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 29
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 459380 times)
Topic Options img
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #75 on: 2010-01-21, 02:47:44 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3205
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Ainslie Team / Paper submission Update:

Apparently there is some dissension possibly brewing between Harvey (the main author of the paper) and at least some members of the Ainslie team over the alteration of the paper's content in preparation for the next IEEE submission. (I have my own speculations as to what the quarrel/changes is about, but I'll keep that to myself for now.)

It would also appear that the pleonastic putz "jibbguy" is inserting his nose into the matter.

Not sure where Rose stands on all this, but she mentioned previously that the paper might not be re-submitted until May.

.99
   
img  Hoppy
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #76 on: 2010-01-21, 08:40:57 »
Group: Guest
I can fully understand the importance of all parties needing to be in accord on the contents of the paper. It will be a shame if discord amongst the authors results in the paper not being able to be submitted.

Hoppy
   
img  FuzzyTomCat
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #77 on: 2010-01-22, 08:16:41 »
Group: Guest
Hi guys,

Hope all's well with the speculations .... maybe I can give some incite here,

The paper is undergoing almost a complete re-write because of the requirements of the new IEEE journal that the paper has been directed to TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS or TIE ....

REVIEW CRITERIA
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/reviewCriteria.html
 
SUBMISSION OF A NEW MANUSCRIPT FOR REVIEW
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/inital_sub.html
 
SUBMISSION OF THE "REVISED VERSION" OF THE MANUSCRIPT
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/revised_sub.html
 
SUBMISSION OF "FINAL" VERSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/final_sub.html
 
GENERAL INFORMATION
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/geraral%20inf%20for%20authors.html
 
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/faq/index.html
 
TIE - POLICY
http://tie.ieee-ies.org/tie/IESpubPolicy.pdf

Scope of proposed changes for a new submittion -

A) The Magnetic Field Model or "MMRA" that was in the document had to be removed because of not being published in a accredited Journal.
B) All author information or references had to be removed to any complete sir names as not to cause any bias in the review of the document from the IEEE - TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS or TIE
c) During editing the above A & B the context of some or all work has been changed .... with a high probability of some editing using the "save" tab coming back later and seeing something not worded correctly .... making changes again using the "save" tab again ( which saves the document under the same file ID ) and doing this several times and not having a original to know what was the original document context was. This may have been avoided by using the "save as" tab each time and creating a new file ID to know what the changes and progression of changes were in a orderly fashion. Thus now possibly a massive confusion ......

My position is one of most is never to change someones work at all because I didn't create or write it and I'm sure many people whom author documents feel the same .... so it will take some time to sort out the document. I'm glad I just supplied the raw data as best I could with what equipment that was available to me.

Hope you all may have seen the "LIVE" 24/7 broadcast of the circuit on the streaming video channel I created to get alternative energy information on devices out to the public called Open Source Research and Development

There was also a exceptional run on January 9, 2010 fully taped non-stop for 5 Hours from the Mosfet Circuit scratch start with almost the first hour the battery voltage actually going up and after 5 Hours the battery bank loosing 1/10 (.10) of a volt under a 5 + watt load the entire time ..... this is what has been previously described as the preferred mode of operation.

January 9, 2010 @ 12:00 PM PST (USA) or GMT-8

Fuzzy
 ;)
   
img  Hoppy
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #78 on: 2010-01-22, 09:19:07 »
Group: Guest
Hi Fuzzy

Long periods of experimentation and observation of batteries under various load conditions and charging modes has shown me that an initial increase in voltage is not at all unusual for a period of time and that the period of time can be surprisingly long and will vary according to the initial state condition of the battery prior to discharge. When observed over extended run times, it will be seen that this apparent initial gain will not result in the battery providing any more useable capacity than specified by the manufacturer, minus that capacity that can be expected to be lost through ageing and usage of the battery.

Hoppy
   
img  FuzzyTomCat
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #79 on: 2010-01-22, 09:50:45 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Hoppy on 2010-01-22, 09:19:07
Hi Fuzzy

Long periods of experimentation and observation of batteries under various load conditions and charging modes has shown me that an initial increase in voltage is not at all unusual for a period of time and that the period of time can be surprisingly long and will vary according to the initial state condition of the battery prior to discharge. When observed over extended run times, it will be seen that this apparent initial gain will not result in the battery providing any more useable capacity than specified by the manufacturer, minus that capacity that can be expected to be lost through ageing and usage of the battery.

Hoppy

Hi Hoppy,

I know what your saying and agree .... but I guess it's "how" the battery increased in voltage in relationship to the wave forms that were happening watching the DMM at the same time. This has only happened several times in many runs I've done getting it spot on this and when capturing data dumps and images of whats actually happening it shows these strange results that some would discount because of the wide differences of readings even between just seconds of operation, and if trying to cherry pick data around what the wave forms are doing isn't a scientific way to collect data  ... the only example is really watching a video of whats going on and try to figure out how the wave forms are changing and effecting the data readings recorded and why and how to collect it.

Hopefully soon I can get a better Tektronix's unit that can give a better and higher sampling rate of data from 10K to hopefully much much higher ...... never know .....

Best Regards,
Fuzzy
 :)
 
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #80 on: 2010-01-22, 13:24:06 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3205
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Hi Fuzzy.

In regards to the paper editing, why not take the original WORD document and start from scratch  ???

About the apparently-changing wave forms, yes a higher sample rate scope will smooth that effect out a little, but there will always be some "patterning" when viewing with longer time-base settings.

What needs to be understood about this, is that the patterns are an artifact of the scope and that when one "zooms in" using a short enough time base, the patterns gradually disappear, logically indicating that they were never really there to begin with.

It is crucial to understand this before moving forward, as the existence of these patterns has been molded into an erroneous conclusion about what the circuit is doing, and it consequently gave license to the test group to use a widely-varying set of measurements as proof of concept.

Using an oscilloscope with a much higher record length as I have recommended is a good step forward, and I am pleased to see that advice being heeded, but that won't quite be sufficient to get accurate data. I assume Fuzzy you now realize that what I have been saying and what I laid out in the "proposed improvements" document I posted here and that you have, is valid information? We verified together during one of your live feeds, that simply using a separate sampling wire straight to the battery +'ve terminal reduced the measured battery voltage "bump" by about 20%. That is only the very beginning of what can and should be done to improve the accuracy of the measurements you are taking with the scope. The document lays out quite clearly what steps to take, and what equipment (or more specifically, what probes) to use for the measurements to ensure the best accuracy.

Your 10k record length scope is more than sufficient to make the proper measurement, providing the appropriate probes are used, and the scope is set to display about 1 1/2 cycles of the wave form, so that later it can be trimmed to be precisely one cycle.

My advice to you and the team if you are planning on re-doing the tests, is to obtain the proper differential and current probes, and stay with the TDS3054C. Then follow my improvements document and eliminate 80% of the wire lengths (particularly to the batteries) in your setup. You'll be amazed at the consistency of your measurements, from moment to moment.

.99
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #81 on: 2010-01-24, 23:16:34 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3205
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Here is the latest circuit schematic from Fuzzy.

If someone has the resistor build specs as per how Fuzzy made his, please post that here as well, otherwise I'll try to find it in due time.

Fuzzy, perhaps you could post it here?

Thanks,
.99
   
img  FuzzyTomCat
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #82 on: 2010-01-25, 06:04:25 »
Group: Guest
Hi .99,

Here is the Prototype 10 Ohm Resistor information you requested ....

It's made from "Borosilicate Glass Tube" ( Pyrex ) 10 Ohm Wire Wound Prototype Resistor, it's specifications are - 32 mm OD. x 6 inches long, approximately 48 turns of AWG 20 [.032 dia] ( .6348 ohms ft ) "Ni Cr A" 80% nickel, 20% chromium resistance wire @ 1mm (+ -) Spacing.

The outer covering is "Permatex" Red High Temp RTV Silicone - Continuous Operating Temperatures °C (°F) -54 to 316 (-65 to 600)
Red High Temp RTV Silicone #81409

http://www.energeticforum.com/68032-post2684.html

Regards,
Fuzzy
 :)
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #83 on: 2010-01-28, 02:21:06 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3205
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Fuzzy,

After we chatted briefly the other night during one of your live feeds, I realized the advice I had given you about the circuit Harvey was working on, was ok, but for the most part unnecessary. I don't know if you passed along the comments to Harvey, but later I realized the solution for determining net average current from the supply is already cheap and available--your DC voltage meter.

You may recall that some time ago I performed some fairly rigorous testing of this measurement technique using a variety of voltage meters, from relatively cheap, to somewhat expensive. In each case, the meter set up to measure the small voltage across a current sensing resistor proved to be a reliable and accurate method for determining the net average current magnitude and its direction (i.e. to or from the battery or source).

So in summary, Harvey's goal of making a cheap unit for all experimenters to fine tune their RA circuits, is already out there and they're readily available almost everywhere these days. In fact, most experimenters already possess one or two digital multi-meters, and that is all that is required to make this measurement.

Regards,
.99

There are 3 parts in case you missed this...Mean Meter series.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2KhGpmXPjc[/youtube]
« Last Edit: 2010-01-28, 02:40:06 by poynt99 »
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #84 on: 2010-02-06, 23:58:13 »
Group: Guest
All is not well with Team Ainsley and it seems that people have parted ways.  The postings on EF were quite brutal.

MileHigh
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #85 on: 2010-02-07, 01:27:39 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3205
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Hey MH.

I've been following the thread. Indeed all parties involved have been quite disappointing, and all for nothing actually.

In retrospect, the criteria for full blown oscillation were always there waiting in hiding for the right jitter input to set it off....and away it went.

.99
   
img  Hoppy
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #86 on: 2010-02-07, 18:29:52 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010-02-06, 23:58:13
All is not well with Team Ainsley and it seems that people have parted ways.  The postings on EF were quite brutal.

MileHigh

Yep, I'm glad I was ejected from this EF thread, as it was looking very likely that the whole affair would end in tears. I can understand why Harvey and Glen have had enough and its probably a blessing in disguise that they have bailed out of this highly controversial project.

Hoppy
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #87 on: 2010-02-09, 04:42:04 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Hoppy on 2010-02-07, 18:29:52
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010-02-06, 23:58:13
All is not well with Team Ainsley and it seems that people have parted ways.  The postings on EF were quite brutal.

MileHigh

Yep, I'm glad I was ejected from this EF thread, as it was looking very likely that the whole affair would end in tears. I can understand why Harvey and Glen have had enough and its probably a blessing in disguise that they have bailed out of this highly controversial project.

Hoppy

Hoppy?  Where's your loyalty?  Glen and Harvey are claiming this as their discovery.  I'm delighted the technology is that desirable - but I do suggest that their claim is somewhat flawed.
   
img  FuzzyTomCat
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #88 on: 2010-02-11, 18:46:41 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010-02-06, 23:58:13
All is not well with Team Ainsley and it seems that people have parted ways.  The postings on EF were quite brutal.

MileHigh

Yep .... this be the case .... it appears the South Africa end .... witsend (Rosemary) and ddmdragon (Donovan) had a "Investment Agreement" and were doing secret testing and evaluation withholding all information from these tests and from any prior testing including data, replications and components clear back to the Quantum October 2002 article found out through various misrepresentations, e-mail correspondence and other means.

This had and was being done without the knowledge or consent of the other five authors in a "conflict of interest" between party's ....  :o

The Energetic Forum .... COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie thread is now a "Sounding Board" for Rosemary or more commonly known as a blog with her theory or thesis no one quite understands, with all "Research and Development" of the device moving to a new sub-forum called "Mosfet Heating Circuits" which includes the other five authors and replicators.

There has been six (6) tests done now using a Tektronix DPO 3054 .... two having 100k data dumps all information has been posted and is available at http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/showthread.php?t=5359

Best Regards,
Fuzzy
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #89 on: 2010-02-12, 04:20:00 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010-02-11, 18:46:41
Yep .... this be the case .... it appears the South Africa end .... witsend (Rosemary) and ddmdragon (Donovan) had a "Investment Agreement" and were doing secret testing and evaluation withholding all information from these tests and from any prior testing including data, replications and components clear back to the Quantum October 2002 article found out through various misrepresentations, e-mail correspondence and other means.

This had and was being done without the knowledge or consent of the other five authors in a "conflict of interest" between party's ...
LOL.  I wish I could claim this as being true.  I have a decided lack of interest in capitalising on this device.  But I must admit.  I'm now doing my best to improve on this lack - and thankfully am gaining inroads and making up for lost ground and that at speed.  So, I hope, is Donovan.   What you lack Glen, is credibility.  This is a sad final excuse to justify your attempt at 'appropriating' the ainslie circuit as your own discovery.  Good gracious.   ::)  First it was lack of the required resistor - then it was lack of the actual appartus related to the Quantum publication - then it was the lack of the required waveform - then it was lack of COP>17 and now this nonsense.  Perhaps you'd like to advise our members and readers about your own negotiation.  Not secret and widely approved by us all.  Do you claim a monopoly on its development?  I've alerted the American Patenting office to look out for something related to a mosfet heating circuit under the name .......??!! Be advised.  LOL

Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010-02-11, 18:46:41
The Energetic Forum .... COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie thread is now a "Sounding Board" for Rosemary or more commonly known as a blog with her theory or thesis no one quite understands, with all "Research and Development" of the device moving to a new sub-forum called "Mosfet Heating Circuits" which includes the other five authors and replicators.
Spamming us here Glen?  With all the finesse and aplomb of a bull elephant in musk.  LOL.  

Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010-02-11, 18:46:41
There has been six (6) tests done now using a Tektronix DPO 3054 .... two having 100k data dumps all information has been posted and is available at http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/showthread.php?t=5359
Repeated this to help you in your spamming.  God knows you need all the help you can get.  You're getting really loud  Glen,  and really, really repetitive.  I think the readers here are tired of the circuit.  Move on.

 ;D :o ::) :-*

edited

Edited to remove surname, by request.
You left out an edit there Poynty.  But I've dealt with it.  LOL
And not that you asked - but I modified my analogies to just one avatar.  Else it gets confusing.  So many avatars and I missed out the rat?   ;D
« Last Edit: 2010-02-12, 12:53:48 by aetherevarising »
   
img  FuzzyTomCat
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #90 on: 2010-02-12, 10:00:29 »
Group: Guest
« Last Edit: 2010-02-12, 18:49:43 by FuzzyTomCat »
   
img  Hoppy
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #91 on: 2010-02-12, 16:29:59 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010-02-12, 04:20:00


edited

Edited to remove surname, by request.
You left out an edit there Poynty.  But I've dealt with it.  LOL
And not that you asked - but I modified my analogies to just one avatar.  Else it gets confusing.  So many avatars and I missed out the rat?   ;D

Hi Rosemary,

Don't you think this is more Wilby's style of post. Please dont continue posting at this level.

Hoppy
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #92 on: 2010-02-12, 20:38:48 »
Group: Guest
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

Hoppy, I think these are the 'rules' of the forum.  Glen's single post breaches 8 of those rules.  If I cared to I could ask the moderators to address this.  I don't care to because I believe in freedom of expression and I also think that the discerning reader is able to see through the rather inarticulate innuendos and unsubstantiated allegations for himself.  In your case, however, I rather question your discernment.

Secondly - what is conspicuously evident is that Glen's new thread is rather neglected by that same discerning public.  This is his second spamming attempt to alert you all to 'read' there.  Let me remind you.  He claims that this circuit is now his discovery.  I have advised him that he is welcome to that impression.  And he may claim this as loudly and as often as he wishes.  I have taken legal and expert advice on this and have posted, as required - answers to all his claims.  They are spurious - and clumsily so.  He has not been able to answer me on any single point made.  But quite apart from which his 'right of ownership' does not carry the conviction of the vast majority of forums' members or guests.  He's in the minority.  And like all minorities, they're usually just noisy rather than representative.  But nor do I object to this noise.  It draws public attention to the claim itself - and I'm only concernd that the circuit is better understood and I hope, that in the fullness of time it will also be widely applied. 

Meanwhile - in order to substantiate HIS claim he needs to prove that this 'disovery' that he now states is his, was the result of a rare and extraordinary result of his own findings bearing no material relationship whatsoever to the Quantum circuit, the two rejected papers to the IET and the IEEE written by myself in collaboration with Donovan - to the numerous personal claims he himself made relating it to the 'Rosemary Ainslie circuit' and, finally, to his own written agreement whereby he acknowledges the relationship between the circuit and the thesis predicting the circuit.  This prior knowledge is on record.

And by contrast I have not breached any one of the forum rules.  Not anywhere.  So.  What exactly is your beef?
   
img  Allcanadian
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #93 on: 2010-02-12, 22:45:45 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2625
@aetherevarising
Quote
Meanwhile - in order to substantiate HIS claim he needs to prove that this 'disovery' that he now states is his, was the result of a rare and extraordinary result of his own findings bearing no material relationship whatsoever to the Quantum circuit, the two rejected papers to the IET and the IEEE written by myself in collaboration with Donovan - to the numerous personal claims he himself made relating it to the 'Rosemary Ainslie circuit' and, finally, to his own written agreement whereby he acknowledges the relationship between the circuit and the thesis predicting the circuit.  This prior knowledge is on record.

You are correct, any documented and "dated" information is considered as prior art and as such no technology can infringe on this prior art nor the "spirit" of the device. I find this all rather amusing as I have had some experience with this in the past. There is always some person who feels they are deserving of things they have not earned and feel they have "invented" something new by adding additional and often meaningless components to an invention and calling it something else. Also regardless of what may transpire in this "Mosfet Heating Circuits" thread the fact will remain that all of it is based on prior art -- " The Rosemary Ainslie circuit" thus most any circuit developed will violate the spirit of the prior art if there is an application for patents. This scenario sounds so typical of this day and age where everyone feels they deserve things for no other reason than they want them, deserve things for nothing, fortunately reality seldom works this way.
Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2010-02-12, 23:19:52 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
img  FuzzyTomCat
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #94 on: 2010-02-12, 23:34:43 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010-02-12, 20:38:48

Meanwhile - in order to substantiate [1] HIS claim he needs to prove that this 'disovery' that he now states is his, was the result of a rare and extraordinary result of his own findings bearing no material relationship whatsoever to the Quantum circuit, the two rejected papers to the [2] IET and the IEEE written by myself in collaboration with Donovan - to the numerous personal claims he himself made relating it to the 'Rosemary Ainslie circuit' and, finally, to [3] his own written agreement whereby he acknowledges the relationship between the circuit and the thesis predicting the circuit. 

[1] Please describe in detail where this is stated
[2] The paper is a IEEE EIT not a IET ( there is no IET ) PDF as available as EIT from http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
[3] I was no author ( you were ) to a agreement and did not sign off on one, this can be verified by four other IEEE TIE authors.
   
img  Fraser
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #95 on: 2010-02-13, 01:53:17 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Ken on 2010-02-09, 15:38:18
Loyalty? haha

Indeed.... one should only be loyal to objectivity and truth, things that we can all share in common.
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #96 on: 2010-02-13, 06:01:40 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: FuzzyTomCat on 2010-02-12, 23:34:43
[1] Please describe in detail where this is stated
[2] The paper is a IEEE EIT not a IET ( there is no IET ) PDF as available as EIT from http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html
[3] I was no author ( you were ) to a agreement and did not sign off on one, this can be verified by four other IEEE TIE authors.

1- Not sure what statement.  There are so many.
2- My point stands.  Irrespective of the name of any pdf the IET were the recipient of a paper written by Donovan and myself.
3- Again - not clear what authorship and which agreement?

You really need to make yourself clear Glen.  And if you're going to claim general support from other IEEE TIE authors you must first give proof that you represent their opinions in all such matters. Else you may not refer to it at all.  It is unprofessional and somewhat manipulative to infer or to allege or to imply.  Their silence in such matters may indeed 'imply' support.  But then again, it may simply 'imply' embarrassment.  You need to show proof.  Then.  I am not sure if it's your general want of language skills that you omit this - or if it's the only way you can 'infer' that ownership that you so patently covet - lacking, as you do, the required evidence - but I am still awaiting that articulated evidence that this is, in fact, your discovery.  

I would like to refer you to a little known fable.  Once upon a time a rat pack boarded a ship that claimed to supply FREE FOOD FOR ALL - FOREVER.  The rats themselves were sceptical and talked amongst each other saying 'how so?' and 'could this be true?'.  To gain a full understanding of such an extraordinary truth they flattered the ship's captain saying that he was 'graciously bountiful' and 'remarkably beneficent' to make this a free gift available to deck hands, and passengers alike.  And 'could the captain please show them, the rat pack the art required to liberate this 'free food for all forever' technology?  The ship's captain relied on open source technology to ensure that prior knowledge of the art would not be violated.  He then took the rat pack through a step by step recipe and - in the fullness of time - the rat pack learned the 'trick' required for precisely this liberal liberation of so much natural bounty.  Whereupon the leader of the pack said  -  'This is entirely my invention.  Should any of you care to learn more then you must defer to me and refer to me and none other than me'.  He went further.  'And I alone will then take this knowledge from this ship to many ships.  And while I'm thus busily engaged, while I'm AT it, let me assure you - in which ever expedient way I wish it, I will fabricate lies and bend the truth that those many ships know that this ship's captain knows not whereof he speaks.'

Where upon the rats left the ship - thinking that they had now gnawed a hole in the bows of that ship that would make it sink.  In this they were ill advised.  In the immortal words of Conrad - 'who would have thought that there was so much float' left in that little ship?copyright registered and belonging to CAPTAIN YOURONYOUROWN

That's an example of the art of inference and implication.

EDITED  ;D :-*
« Last Edit: 2010-02-13, 15:49:49 by aetherevarising »
   
img  FuzzyTomCat
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #97 on: 2010-02-13, 23:54:56 »
Group: Guest
EIT or IET ..... the facts ......

EIT paper available for downloading at http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html


NEXT ......


The IEEE publishes 149 IEEE and IET journals, magazines, and transactions

IEEE Transactions, Journals, and Letters

    * Advanced Packaging, IEEE Transactions on
    * Aerospace and Electronic Systems, IEEE Transactions on
    * Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on
    * Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters
    * Applied Superconductivity, IEEE Transactions on
    * Audio, Speech and Language Processing, IEEE Transactions on
    * Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on
    * Automation Science and Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
    * Biomedical Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on
    * Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
    * Broadcasting, IEEE Transactions on
    * Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, IEEE Transactions on
    * Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, IEEE Transactions on
    * Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, IEEE Transactions on
    * Communications Letters, IEEE
    * Communications Magazine, IEEE
    * Communications, IEEE Transactions on
    * Components and Packaging Technologies, IEEE Transactions on
    * Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, IEEE/ACM Transactions on
    * Computer Architecture Letters, IEEE
    * Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on
    * Computers, IEEE Transactions on
    * Computing in Science & Engineering
    * Consumer Electronics, IEEE Transactions on
    * Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on
    * Dependable and Secure Computing, IEEE Transactions on
    * Device and Materials Reliability, IEEE Transactions on
    * Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, IEEE Transactions on
    * Display Technology, Journal of
    * Education, IEEE Transactions on
    * Electrical and Computer Engineering, Canadian Journal of
    * Electromagnetic Compatibility, IEEE Transactions on
    * Electron Device Letters, IEEE
    * Electron Devices, IEEE Transactions on
    * Electronic Materials, IEEE/TMS Journal of
    * Electronics Packaging Manufacturing, IEEE Transactions on
    * Energy Conversion, IEEE Transactions on
    * Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on
    * Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on
    * Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on
    * Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, IEEE
    * Geoscience and Remote Sensing, IEEE Transactions on
    * Image Processing, IEEE Transactions on
    * Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on
    * Industrial Informatics, IEEE Transactions on
    * Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on
    * Information Forensics and Security, IEEE Transactions on
    * Information Technology in Biomedicine, IEEE Transactions on
    * Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on
    * Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on
    * Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on
    * Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
    * Latin America Transactions, IEEE
    * Lightwave Technology, Journal of
    * Magnetics, IEEE Transactions on
    * Manufacturing Technology, IEEE Transactions on
    * Mechatronics, IEEE/ASME Transactions on
    * Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on
    * Microelectromechanical Systems, Journal of
    * Microwave and Wireless Components Letters, IEEE
    * Microwave Theory and Techniques, IEEE Transactions on
    * Mobile Computing, IEEE Transactions on
    * Multimedia, IEEE Transactions on
    * Nanobioscience, IEEE Transactions on
    * Nanotechnology, IEEE Transactions on
    * Network and Service Management, IEEE Transactions on
    * Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on
    * Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on
    * Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
    * Nuclear Science, IEEE Transactions on
    * Oceanic Engineering, IEEE Journal of
    * Parallel and Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions on
    * Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on
    * Photonics Journals, IEEE
    * Photonics Technology Letters, IEEE
    * Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
    * Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on
    * Power Electronics Letters, IEEE
    * Power Electronics, IEEE Transactions on
    * Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on
    * Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on
    * Project Safety Engineering, IEEE Journal on
    * Quantum Electronics, IEEE Journal of
    * Reliability, IEEE Transactions on
    * Robotics, IEEE Transactions on
    * Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on
    * Selected Topics in Signal Processing, IEEE Journal on
    * Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, IEEE Journal of
    * Semiconductor Manufacturing, IEEE Transactions on
    * Sensors Journal, IEEE
    * Signal Processing Letters, IEEE
    * Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on
    * Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on
    * Solid-State Circuits, IEEE Journal of
    * Systems Journal, IEEE
    * Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A, IEEE Transactions on
    * Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B, IEEE Transactions on
    * Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C, IEEE Transactions on
    * Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control, IEEE Transactions on
    * Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on
    * Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, IEEE Transactions on
    * Visualization and Computer Graphics, IEEE Transactions on
    * Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on

IEEE Magazines

    * Aerospace & Electronics Systems Magazine, IEEE
    * Annals of the History of Computing, IEEE
    * Antennas & Propagation Magazine, IEEE
    * Circuits & Devices Magazine, IEEE
    * Circuits and Systems Magazine, IEEE
    * Communications, IEEE
    * Communications Surveys and Tutorials, IEEE
    * Computer
    * Computer Graphics & Applications, IEEE
    * Computational Intelligence magazine IEEE
    * Control Systems Magazine, IEEE
    * Design & Test of Computers, IEEE
    * Distributed Systems Online, IEEE
    * Electrical Insulation Magazine, IEEE
    * Engineering in Medicine & Biology Magazine, IEEE
    * Engineering Management Review, IEEE
    * Industry Applications Magazine, IEEE
    * Industrial Electronics Magazine, IEEE
    * Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, IEEE
    * Intelligent Systems, IEEE
    * Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE
    * Internet Computing, IEEE
    * IT Professional
    * Micro, IEEE
    * Microwave Magazine, IEEE
    * MultiMedia, IEEE
    * Network, IEEE
    * Pervasive Computing, IEEE
    * Potentials, IEEE
    * Power and Energy Magazine, IEEE
    * Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE
    * Security and Privacy Magazine, IEEE
    * Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE
    * Software, IEEE
    * Solid-State Circuits, IEEE
    * Spectrum, IEEE
    * Technology & Society Magazine, IEEE
    * Vehicular Technology Magazine IEEE
    * Wireless Communications, IEEE


As you can see there is no IET section or division in the IEEE ......


The "Institution of Engineering and Technology" or IET is not a section or division of IEEE it is a separate organization all together. ( I'm a member )

"Institution of Engineering and Technology" or IET
http://www.theiet.org/

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=4159946
Publisher
Editorial Assistant
IET Research Journals
Michael Faraday House
Six Hills Way
Stevenage,   SG1 2AY  United Kingdom
iet_rpg@theiet.org


The IEEE publishes more than 750 leading-edge conference proceedings every year, which are recognized by academia and industry worldwide as the most vital collection of consolidated published papers in electrical engineering, computer science and related fields.

All Electro Information Technology (EIT) Conferences sponsored by the IEEE in 2009
http://www.ourglocal.com/ourglocal/sites/resouce/IEEE2009.htm  ( see AFRICON, 2009 )

http://www.palensky.org/africon09/

 
IEEE/IET Electronic Library (IEL) IEEE and IET Journals, Magazines, Transactions and Conferences
http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/subscriptions/prod/iel_overview.html


Rosemary never until now have you tried to correct anyone with the difference between the EIT paper and now what your calling a IET paper that was submitted for publication to the IEEE .....

It seems that the IEEE (EIT) AFRICON, 2009 conference may have needed a working model with the uncontested data for discussion in a forum for professionals, academia and industry to exchange ideas, present their newest research findings in a public venue and to verify the findings of a COP>17 ???  Did the submittal get rejected for lack of data ??? what happened to the 2009 working model you and Donovan made ???


Fuzzy
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #98 on: 2010-02-14, 01:21:04 »
Group: Guest
I've whittled Glen's post down to the bare essentials.  He has posted a slew of extraneous information which, I suspect is simply to take the focus away from a little known fable.  

I submitted 2 versions of the paper to the IET in January 2009.  Both were rejected.  I then approached Iravani of the IEEE.  He read the paper and invited me to submit it for review.  I did.  Those Glen - are the facts.  What you have done with these facts is indulge in yet another inappropriate attempt at implying that I know not whereof I speak.  It reminds me of something that was written in that little known fable.  Let me quote.  

Whereupon the leader of the pack said  -  'This is entirely my invention.  Should any of you care to learn more then you must defer to me and refer to me and none other than me'.  He went further.  'And I alone will then take this knowledge from this ship to many ships.  And while I'm thus busily engaged, while I'm AT it, let me assure you - in which ever expedient way I wish it, I will fabricate lies and bend the truth that those many ships know that this ship's captain knows not whereof he speaks.'

Edit: Removed Sirname.
« Last Edit: 2010-02-14, 03:43:20 by poynt99 »
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #99 on: 2010-02-14, 01:33:16 »
Group: Guest
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.

Glen you have again indulged in abuse of the forum rules this time with 5 counts, as opposed to the 8 in your previous post.  You clearly have not one ounce of respect for the standard of posting that is required here and you are degrading what is otherwise an impeccable forum. 
 
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 29
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-04-19, 20:35:10