We will be vindicated this weekend (or whenever Steve gets them to go through the test procedure), there is no doubt about that, providing the testing goes as planned and it is not botched by any means. But I am certain Steve will not let that happen, as in a way his professional reputation is riding on it.

Rose will never concede defeat however; that is pretty much a given. But this demo and the results from its outcome are, in my opinion, not so much to prove to Rose that she is and always has been wrong in her assertions and claims, but to clearly demonstrate this fact to the unsuspecting public.

The nonsense has to end, and without a captive audience, hopefully it will after this weekend.

Who knows?

You might remember the last one: She announced a date, then postponed it. Then she announced a weblink to her invitees, that was wrong. If you somehow managed to find the actual weblink to the "hangout" they were using , it didn't work so well and you had to watch the live YT feed. Which was dead air for about 20 or 30 percent of the time and was stupid for the rest of the time.

And of course the only solid product of that demonstration, the five or six scopeshots that SWeir guided them to capture, finally... are not available and will not be made available. Why? Is it because they are solid evidence of the fraudulent data that Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin have tried to publish in their bogus manuscripts? Or is it because they simply couldn't manage actually to get the shots saved to the USB stick at all and are now afraid to admit this further evidence of their incompetence?

Either way, not releasing those scopeshots is another damning bit of evidence of the Ainslie-Martin team's duplicity and incompetence. But the _data_ from those shots is preserved anyway, if in somewhat lower resolution, because I went through the demo video and made screen captures of the scope at the moments of the scopeshots that Weir tried to get them to save. There is ample evidence of their fraud in the video and these captures I made.

Rest assured, as soon as I have any information about any new demonstration I will post it here. And should the demonstration NOT take place on Sunday as promised... I have a lot of material from the last demo and the days since then that I will be posting anyway.

The segment of the June 29 demo that contains the SWeir scopeshots (toward the end):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY

This is just as they streamed it; I have made no edits other than clipping this bit out of the longer full length recording. The audio is really bad, because at some points whoever is holding the cellphone is actually blocking the microphone with his thumb or something!

The demo for Sunday may indeed be canceled, don't be surprised if it is. But if it is it won't be because they are not ready; it will be because the results of the tests on Saturday (the dry run) will be so very devastating to their claims.

I have NEVER claimed that the battery is 'experiencing' that alternating current. I've only stated that convention requires that an alternating current would first represent a discharge and then a recharge.  What goes on in the battery itself is yet to be determined.  And that will require that comparative battery draw down test.  Which we are NOT going to do at our demonstration.   When I say the battery is 'disconnected' I am stating that the battery is UNABLE to discharge it's energy through that period of the duty cycle when we generate the oscillation.  IF it was discharging it would need to show not less than 0.8 amps deduced from the voltage across the shunt that we're going to put in series with the BLACK lead of the function generator.   And NOR are we discharging energy during the 'ON' phase of the duty cycle - when there's a positive signal applied to the Gate of Q1.  Therefore effectively in Fig 3 paper 1 the battery is effectively DISCONNECTED.

Hah hah. Again with the FIGURE 3 Paper 1 FRAUDULENT SCOPESHOT.
The Figure 3 scopeshot CANNOT BE MADE HONESTLY when you are being watched so you cannot cheat, and this was proven beyond a shadow of doubt on June 29.
Further it is EASY to prove that Q1 does turn on and does pass significant current even at a Vgs of +4 volts, much less the +12 volts that YOU CLAIMED IN THE FRADULENT FIGURE 3.

The battery is definitely connected in your Figure 3... but some other things are not! It is falsified out of whole cloth, a complete lie, and every time you refer to it I will remind you that YOU CANNOT REPRODUCE YOUR OWN CLAIMED DATA when you are being watched so you cannot cheat.

And further still....

The fact is that there IS a current that flows in two opposing directions through each oscillation.  And that measured oscillation - that measured current flow - is MOST CERTAINLY flowing through that battery stack - first in one direction and then in the other.

Can't seem to get your story straight, can you, Ainslie?

Hi Bill.

Not even I will be allowed to be present for the dry run. Which is too bad, because there might not be the Sunday demo once reality sets in on Saturday. In fact I believe the chances of a Sunday demo are fairly slim.

In the end does it matter? The outcome is going to be fairly clear; either Rose has been correct all along and all of us who have been trying to educate her for 6 years are clueless about electronics, or Rose has been refusing to see and accept the presented facts and conventional science prevails. In any case, it's sure to be the end of an era.

It should take but 2 or 3 straight forward measurements. And it's but a matter of time.

I don't think the outcome of the demo will change anything significant. Ainslie will realize that Mr. Weir belongs to team troll and will continue to do that Ainslie number. And - NOTA BENE - continue the search for academics who would give her thesis a fair hearing.

Yes, I'll be watching all right -- if anything actually takes place, which I doubt. She's competing with another scheduled and postponed demonstration now, you know, Chuck Pierce's Cleveland Mo-Gen that makes 17 kW for free, that he's been trying to get running since Thursday night.

My  involvement has already been extensive and comprehensive. The many videos I've made over the past two years illustrating and explaining features of her device will be fun to review and compare to what they will present, and have presented. They will of course avoid dealing with any of the Real issues involved, like the fabrication of fraudulent data in their "papers", that was demonstrated on June 29th.

I've illustrated several things over the duration:

1. A Vgs of +4 volts is enough to turn on Q1 substantially, but not completely.
2. The Function Generator DOES act as a power supply in series with the main battery during the Q2 oscillations.
3. The oscillations can be made continuously, with no Function Generator necessary at all.
4. The oscillations do result in a small current drain from the battery and some small load heating.

5. The Paper 1 Figure 3 scopeshot is a fabrication, a lie, it cannot be made under the claimed conditions in the paper. This is a definite and provable example of deliberate fraud on the part of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin: cooking data so that it appears to support the claims in the papers. The Figure 3 scopeshot has been challenged ever since it was published in March of 2011, and since June 29, 2013 it has been known, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that Ainslie and Martin cannot produce this dataset under the claimed conditions, when they are being watched so that they cannot cheat. The presence of the Figure 3 scopeshot is clear proof of fraud, not error--- since the problems were pointed out over two years ago, yet Ainslie even today still refers to the figure in an attempt to support her mendacious claims. Calling the Figure 3 shot "scientific misconduct" of the worst kind -- falsifying data -- is too good for Ainslie, since there is no science involved in her playtime amusements.... but the fact remains: the Figure 3 scopeshot is a fabrication -- as are the schematics posted in the papers. The Ainslie-Martin team actually used a different schematic than any they have ever published! This fact, too, was clearly proven during the June 29 demonstration.

6. The oscillations actually dissipate more power in the transistors than in the load.
7. Batteries used to run the Ainslie circuit DO discharge and will run down faster in a Dim Bulb test than batteries that have not been used to run the circuit.
8. There is no "benefit" of Ainslie's circuit as a heater, over straight DC supplied to the load.
9. Tar Baby is an exact functional replication of Ainslie's device.
10. Digital oscilloscopes, like ALL test instruments, have artifacts and measurement pitfalls that must be taken into account by the user.
11. The battery is connected at all times during the operation of the device, it is never DISCONNECTED as Ainslie shouts with her false claims.
12. The claimed COP>17 device, and the present claimed COP INFINITY device, both have incorrect or impossible schematics published along with their claims.
13. The claimed COP>17 device in particular cannot operate as claimed using the published 555 timer schematic, which produces the exact inverse of the claimed duty cycle.
14. There is no documentation supporting Ainslie's claims of independent testing and supervision by "BP" or any other alphabet agency or company.
15. Documentation DOES exist from people who have worked "with" Ainslie or allowed her to use equipment and space, all of it uniformly negative.
16. The "negative power product" that is Ainslie's only remaining data that could support her claims... is an easily produced artifact of her naive measurements and lack of math ability. It can be made on demand by devices that are manifestly NOT overunity, and hence it is not support for her main claims at all.
17. She still believes I am someone called Bryan Little !  With absolutely no evidence or support!  I am rolling on the floor laughing!
18. And of course there are the many proven lies she has emitted, like "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO"...... referring to the video of the demonstration of March 2011, which she posted herself to one of her four YT accounts immediately, proudly announced in her blog and this forum... and then later proceeded to disavow when it became clear what lies it contained. She then tried to cover up the lies by removing that video completely... but the internet never forgets.

And I've refuted many of Ainslie's lesser ancillary claims and stupid statements as well. The Saturday "dry run" and any Sunday demonstration that may happen will not be able to contradict any of these items that I have illustrated in my videos over the past years. Willfully ignorant, Ainslie stumbles on, still claiming many things that I and others have soundly disproven many times long ago, still making a laughingstock of herself with every mendacious and ignorant post she makes.