Hey, .99...
Did Ainslie ever bother to tell you what those mystery special resistors are, that were sent to her by her USA laboratory that confirmed that her batteries DO discharge, using her own exact apparatus?

No, unfortunately she skirted around that question.

I'd like to know why she is asking me these technical questions though, when she clearly rejects everything I have to say. I've advised her to ask her collaborators and experts to explain these things. After all, if they are indeed experts etc. why ask me?

Well, I think it's pretty clear that she has no real collaborators, at least none with any electronics competency.

And as far as her "experts" go.... I'm sure that when she starts arguing with them about her "45 ohms of inductive capacitance" they nod sagely, drink up, check their watches and flee, late for their next appointments.

"Well, I think it's pretty clear that she has no real collaborators, at least none with any electronics competency."

Thats for certain. I wonder if GM agrees with that terminology?  Or anyone on her site? But your right, she is all alone in this, saddly, or there would be at least a small percentage of what she says that could be found in books, but just about none of it is. I wonder who created her circuits for her?

As for the mosfets being switches, they can be, transistors also, just at lower freq. But in her case, the sig gen just turns on and off the oscillation, and the oscillation happening back and forth between the mosfets is not a square wave like a switch being turned on and off.

"45 ohms of inductive capacitance"

Lol  Where does she get this stuff? It must be in the book that shows how to detect and measure zippons with standard equipment. I havnt been able to find a copy of that book yet. Still looking.

MaGsy

Hi all,

This is to funny, but a new member over there at Rosemary's personal blog/forum has a revaluation that if her experimental data is correct that it would prove Ed Leedskalnins (link) work.   

For several years now a "David Lambright" (link) has made some YouTube videos (link) of a device he has created, that was supposably duplicated by our Rosemary at Energetic Forum as "Witsend" in her thread postings and was trying to attach her zipnot THESIS too it.  I personally could never see any connection, maybe someone else can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMMFMz-ZUMg&list=UUGLr6nPVdiEdtit9AswkV8Q&index=60&feature=plcp   ( Rosemary Ainslie aka Witsend referenced @ 2:58 ) 

FTC
 

I think Dave must have gotten hold of some bad acid and it fried his visual system. I hope he doesn't drive much.

Here's something you'll never see from David Lambright: A controlled, blinded test. Let a disinterested third party set up a box, and either put the distortion maker in it, or not. Then let David look and see his distortion plumes and fields. Can he reliably detect when the distortion producer is active, when he can't see or manipulate the device itself? I will wager that he cannot.... and also that this simple test using the Theory of Signal Detection will never be performed.

This is the only person some time ago that has inquired about a demonstration on my web site (link) to show the visual effects of his device. He does live less than 50 miles from me but I offered to wait until he had something more concrete because of the difficulty showing this effect on all his YouTube presentations. 

FTC
 

He doesn't have to show it so anyone else can see it.... just make him prove that HE can see it himself, by doing the blinded test.  First, let him set the distorter in the box himself, and confirm that the box doesn't interfere with him seeing the distortion above the box. Then you decide, by flipping a coin, whether actually to put the distorter in the box or not, with him not knowing which is which. Then let him tell you if he sees the distortion, or not. Do this a number of times, say, 20, with 10 trials in each condition.
You will then have 4 scores to consider: HIT, MISS, False Alarm, and Correct Rejection.
A Hit is when the distorter is present, and he sees the distortion.
A Miss is when the distorter is present but he fails to see the distortion.
A False Alarm is when the distorter is absent but he sees the distortion.
A Correct Rejection is when the distorter is absent and he does not see any distortion.

So if he simply says "I see it" on every trial, he will of course have 100 percent correct performance on the trials where the device was present.... but he will also have a 100 percent False Alarm rate.... which means he is completely unable actually to make the discrimination, even though he might be "correct" on all trials where the distorter is there.
There is a lot more detail that comes out of the four TSD scores too, in a real setting. For a simple experiment, it can really reveal a lot.

Hey Tk, I never thought of this kind of testing that you've outlined because of the possibility of actually catching the optical distortions for others to view being some have seen what's described in his video presentations. This does although sound good as a alternative method to do at least some testing and evaluation of his device.

Please note David's YouTube videos (link) shows fairly the same device in each one. It took me a while to wade through the blah, blah, blah postings of Rosemary's ( aka witsend ) as usual but I found her "replication" (  ) http://www.energeticforum.com/100788-post904.html  for her testing and evaluation .... but she claims not to be able to electromagnetically lock the tubes together.   

FTC
 

Incredible. The woman is swamped by her own delusions. There are so many lies and false conclusions in that mess of bloviated "refutation" that it's nearly impossible to believe that it came from an adult human being who can dress herself. (Presumably she can do that much, although we have no evidence of it.)

Here's just one of her silly claims:

The argument that the battery supply source continues to lose potential difference notwithstanding the measured gains is REFUTED. Because according to the measurements there should be NO loss of potential difference from the supply. Therefore the measurements are pointing at an anomaly that needs resolution.

But her own actual data of the measured battery voltage REFUTES her silly claim. And most of the rest are just as bad. Even the independent lab testing her own apparatus confirmed "that the battery supply source continues to lose potential difference notwithstanding the measured gains"... because the "measured gains" are no such thing... they are artefacts. The actual battery voltage data tells the tale.


On April 30, 2011, for example, a series of scopeshots was saved.
SCRN0331 starts at 18:19:06 with a mean voltage of 63.3 volts.
Seven published shots later, in SCRN0355 at 23:54:48, we see a  mean voltage of 62.0 volts. There is a steady decline in voltage over the series.

On April 13, 2011, a series was saved. Many of these were done in a short interval and so don't show the nice steady decline of the April 30th tests.
SCRN0317 was saved at 18:05:04 with the same mean voltage as 0316 of 63.6 v. Over the next twelve minutes, to 18:17:18, a bunch of scopeshots were saved, up to SCRN0329 and SCRN0330... both winding up with a mean voltage of 63.2 volts.

On April 12, 2011, she started at SCRN0304, 63.8 volts at 06:14:49, and finished up at SCRN0316, 63.6 volts, less than 10 minutes later.

The scopeshots are available for inspection here:
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/

In other words, you can watch Ainslie's batteries discharging in her own data. On the 12th, the batteries started at 63.8 volts and finished at 63.6 volts. On the 13th, the batteries started at 63.6 volts and finished at 63.2 volts. On the 30th (the next recorded test date that I have in the scope data) the batteries started at 63.3 volts and finished at 62.0 volts.

The next shots I can find are SCRN0361 and SCRN0362, both on May 8, both at 25.1 volts, and I think those might be the latest I have.

I am quoting the scope's computed means, always the highest of the three it gives (mean mean, high mean, low mean, fortune cookie extra).

In short, Ainslie's OWN DATA refute her silly claim that her silly claim has been refuted.

What are your qualifications @ysw?


Last time you were here, you claimed you were a professional. How so? Just a list of your qualifications, that doesn't compromise your anonymity, does it?

@All

What is interesting is what is not referenced.  This should put you in the picture better.

On the contrary, your spam is not interesting, as it is a moldy rehash of Ainslie's mistaken and mendacious claims. As I have indicated in my post above WITH FACTS, the claims made are spurious and false.

What is interesting is that you also share the same characteristics as Ainslie herself: you lack the ability to reason correctly, you are ignorant of your topic, you refuse to educate yourself, you are uncritical of absurd claims without evidence, you are overweeningly arrogant and refuse to accept clear and irrefutable facts when they are presented to you, and you do not know how to, or choose not to, engage in a reasonable scientific discussion. You also deny the reality of data that does not fit your preconceived and incorrect "thesis" and you simply lie about what has been done and how it has been measured. In short, you are a typical sock puppet of Ainslie.

There is one thing for certain: You are not heating your home, or even making tea or oxtail soup, with anything like an Ainslie circuit. In fact.... you are still hooked up to the national grid, aren't you, instead of running off of your perpetually charged batteries.