Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Looks like Ainslie's been hitting the sherry pretty hard this afternoon.

She is in complete denial of fact. Reality makes no impression on her in her walled compound. For her, things are just so, and just because she says so, and if you do not agree so much the worse for you -- you will be deleted.

She has been soundly refuted on every point, from the fundamental claims all the way down to the tiny individual details such as her present belief that diodes are perfect little one-way valves. Yet she simply ignores the refutations as if they did not exist and continues to claim that she must be right _by default_ since nobody has the patience to deal with her continuous line of logorrhea and word salad, combined with fractured math and fairy tale scoposcopy.

I expect there to be another insulting doggerel "poem" from her shortly. But of course.... she won't watch or comment on any of my video refutations of her nonsense. That would require her taking her head out of her...... sandpile...... for a moment to look around, and actually to _think_ about something logically for a change.

Quote from "her", over "there"...

"If I were merely a deluded old woman with a lonely support for this - then the reasonable reaction would be to 'leave well alone' and let this flame burn out." 

With regard to her understanding of electronics (or lack thereof), I took the option above some time ago...


PW

All the more nutty because of course .99 _has_ explained the "flow of current" in all conditions in the Ainslie NERD circuit. Some of it is illusory, an artefact of the inductances. Some of it is passing through the function generator, and some of it is passing as AC through the circuit's capacitances and the mosfet body diodes.

Poynt99 is able to predict, using his simulation, the current waveforms of the NERD circuit at any point. The circuit and its behaviour are UNDERSTOOD, by everyone except Ainslie, who is still trying to justify her Zipon "thesis", in spite of the fact that her "explanation" uses a diagram and a circuit path that is NOT EVEN PRESENT in the apparatus she claimed to use for the experiment.

Look at the labels on the cartoon mosfets! She doesn't even have her explanation describing the actual wiring of the circuit! So how could it POSSIBLY explain the operation of the circuit! It cannot.

So we have the "classical" model of electronics, standard physics, that is able to simulate and predict all of the NERD circuit performance accurately with the correct, actual schematic published as the one used by Ainslie ..... vying with a "thesis" that cannot make any quantitative predictions at all and whose only explanation of the current flow in the Ainslie circuit uses a wrong wiring arrangement entirely -- one that was NEVER used by any NERD circuit at any time -- and thus cannot explain anything.

The cartoons and the "explanation" were clearly prepared during the time when Ainslie and her "collaborators" did not yet realise their miswiring error--- they thought all the mosfets were in parallel AS IN THE CARTOON BELOW. And Ainslie in her arrogance and ignorance has never bothered to correct this fatal mistake, constantly pointing to this very "explanation", when in fact it corresponds to nothing that she ever tested or showed.

What did I tell you? Another insulting bit of drunken verbiage from Ainslie has dribbled out of her senile mind like the slackjawed drool it is.

The overweeningly arrogant, insulting and miraculously ignorant fool Rosemary Ainslie is now biting the hand that's been feeding her so carefully and patiently for these past years.

Meanwhile, the lies from Ainslie make such a big pile of stinking mendacity that it's hard to imagine how anyone will ever be able to fall into it again. Her "papers" themselves are lies!

And now her sole replicator has gone "private" with his error-filled work. All that remains of the great Ainslie affair is a handful of insulting doggerel... and she can't even spell that right.

I doubt they've figured out how to make a thread or board "private", and if they did, who would be posting/reading there anyway?

I guess it does however only take two to have a 'discussion'. 

And, without the burden of experts to disagree with him, he's back:

Well he's told you there's "no doubt" (p < 0.000000019997) that the gate is off, so that's an end to it.


And cheesenyt is systematically cracking the other conspiracies as a bonus.


But has he, in the course of the thread, given enough information to calculate the true input power on the assumption he's currently calculating with an inverted duty cycle? I couldn't see it, but I doubt I'd recognise it (and who's to say how consistent any of it is?)