hi this is my final article
many thanks to Mark E
I did not involve any commentators form here, I just wanted to give Rosemary a chance to express her side and  for an strong argument why her claims from 2002 were in question.


http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/18/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/


Please do not shoot the messenger. We have a wider audience that does not understand the technical issues.

I'm guessing he knows better now.

Then why does his name still appear on the papers? Does he still endorse the bogus data, the false claims?

Why, for that matter, do the papers themselves still appear?

I'm guessing that Ainslie is lying to him, too. Remember how obviously unprepared and apparently surprised he was at the June 29 demo? He wasn't even aware of the issues around Figure 3, apparently.

Simple mistakes such as component value transcription or transposition of components cannot account for such extensive circuit modifications. This author concludes that the authors either did not use a circuit resembling what they published, or that they did not obtain the operating frequency and duty cycle that they reported.....
..... Therefore, barring further corroborating evidence, the findings and conclusions offered by the authors Ainslie and Buckley in the subject paper are shown to be based on serious errors and must be rejected. The authors are encouraged to either produce corroborating evidence and make appropriate corrections to their paper or they should retract their claims.

From the Report by Mark Euthanasius.

I will go further and state, most emphatically, that the article should and must be retracted NOW, since it is manifestly and incontrovertibly false as it stands. If they want to correct and re-do the experiment and THEN post another paper, that is their prerogative. However it is undeniable that the present Quantum magazine article is wrong.


I would also like to emphasize that the "long and protracted debates" mentioned are the fault of Ainslie and her alone. She resisted actual tests of what her replicators were telling her and simply resorted to ad-hominem abuse of such magnitude that many of her former co-workers simply washed their hands in disgust, until they were replaced by new fodder for Ainslie's delusions. Had Ainslie simply cooperated, as she finally did this past month, there would have been no need at all for any of the long and protracted debates, or even this present "debate".  The issues have been resolved, long ago, for everyone except Ainslie herself, and the new, uninformed victims that happen to click on one of her links to her bogus claims.

Hi TK
you do not retract articles, you have them peer reviewed. It has been reviewed and found wanting. I think Mark did a great job stating the case that can only draw one conclusion. You do not have to ram everything down peoples throat.

On the contrary, articles are retracted quite frequently when they are found to be wrong or fraudulent.

A retraction is a public statement made about an earlier statement that withdraws, cancels, refutes, diametrically reverses the original statement or ceases and desists from publishing the original statement. The retraction may be initiated by the editors of a journal, or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution). Retractions may or may not be accompanied by the author's further explanation as to how the original statement came to be made and/or what subsequent events, discoveries, or experiences led to the subsequent retraction. They are also in some cases accompanied by apologies for previous error and/or expressions of gratitude to persons who disclosed the error to the author.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/why-has-the-number-of-scientific-retractions-increased-new-study-tries-to-answer/

It is also important to give people an exit, if you do not then you never have an end to hostilities.

Ainslie has had the opportunity to "exit" for many years. This information about her bogus data and mendacity is not new!

After all these years it must be difficult for anyone to realize they were wrong.

Maybe so but that doesn't change the fact that they _are_ wrong. Don't forget... I too have put in "all these years", since 2009, and I think my work Proving Ainslie Wrong, and the factual information that I have brought to the discussion, is valuable ... and if it were NOT for me and my constant insistence that she prove her claims..... you and the rest of the world might still think she was correct or proper in her claims.

When academic journals are published or papers are presented at conferences, they are on the basis of "this is what we thought and saw"

Nope, that's simply not true. "This is what we thought and saw, and we took all possible precautions to make sure our data was correct and reproducible before we started making claims." I have gone through the process of actually having real scientific papers reporting real experiments getting published in major scientific journals. I will thus have to trust my own experiences in the matter.

More often than not they are wrong for a number of reasons, and when it finally accepted people move on.

More often than not? I don't think so, not in the journals and conference proceedings I am reading.

If everyone is made to feel bad about supporting their belief with passion, then we should all pack up and go home.

Supporting untenable positions not with facts but rather with unsupported claims and more ad-hominem insults than a second-grade class of unruly children can manage.... yes, people should indeed feel badly about stuff like that, since it is false and it wastes the time of others who might be looking on-- or trying to replicate a circuit that is a lie!
The Quantum circuit is wrong, does not jive with what she claims in the paper, and several people wasted their time trying to replicate her results... using the WRONG schematic she posted. The present schematic, the 5 transistor one, has also been shown to be false. The versions in the papers WERE NEVER ACTUALLY USED by Ainslie at all, and the version that she did use, bypasses the current sense resistor with a major current path and does not account for the full current flow in the circuit, no matter how "correctly" these values are measured.  How is it possible to justify in any way a person asking for replications, and then lying about the circuit used? And doing this _knowingly_ as she has admitted wrt the 5-transistor circuit. Yes, if you _accept_ that kind of behaviour and seek to justify or excuse it... then we should indeed all go home.

Was her behavior to be commended during the last few years. Probably not. Was she right, no. Do you deserve and apology. probably, will you get one? No. 


I think it a matter of moving on, this show is over. Being pedantic and seeking recriminations serves no purpose. People will form their own opinions about the personalities involved.


Kind Regards
Mark

The show isn't over though, as your article, citing Ainslie's letter and her link to the discredited Quantum magazine article shows.

As I have said before several times: Ainslie can stop lying and pushing her false claims at any time. She should have done so years ago, when the problems were pointed out by many different people and she could not refute them. Until she does.... "it" is not over and my role in it is not going to change.

I and others are being "pedantic" as you call it in an attempt to _teach those who need to know_ the realities of the circuit and the measurement techniques and the depths to which Ainslie can sink in her self-serving attempts to save her face.
I am not "seeking recriminations"... I just want people to tell the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You don't get that from Ainslie or Martin, as I have shown with their own words. You do get it from me. If that's not important to you or to the community of researchers that we both belong to and represent.... I think that's very sad indeed.
Yes, it would be nice to get an apology, but trolls never apologize, and Ainslie is the Troll Queen. So I do the next best thing: when she insults and makes false claims I record it, preserve it, and will display it whenever she drags out her false claims again.

"Kind regards"...... from you I accept this closing. From Ainslie it is just another illustration of her amazing hypocrisy and overweeing arrogance.
--TK

Thanks TK
we might agree to disagree on a few points, but I always have the upmost respect for you, your opinions and abilities.
i was always looking to bring this to some sort of conclusion, and I believe i have done so, maybe not to the extent everyone would like.
Kind Regards
Mark

If I stand in front of a red car, and I show you a picture of a ski boat and tell you that the picture "represents what is before you here", and then gesture towards the red car and tell you that "what we have here is a green motorcycle".... is that a mistake? Because that is essentially what Donovan Martin is doing in that video. He shows you a schematic that is NOT even similar to what is "before you", then he tells you that there are five mosfets in parallel... and the apparatus not only does NOT have five mosfets in parallel but it doesn't even correspond to the schematics that are in the papers, even after that "error" is corrected, because of the location of the Black FG lead!

"Please don't shoot the messenger". Indeed. Who is it that has brought you the real message about Ainslie and Martin? Who is getting "shot at" for it?

You just have to learn when to duck sometimes TK.

Maybe I just need a new dictionary, that defines words like "retraction", "error",  "mistake", "overunity", "COP INFINITY", "incontrovertible evidence" and so on in the way that they seem to be used here on this forum.

Snooze alarm:

That's the kind of non-answer I've come to expect from you.

The bottom line is this; I'm not really interested in your hollow hints, crumbs of wisdom, opinions, speculations or philosophies. What interests me is seeing a setup and the measurements thereof, that you believe achieves something out of the ordinary or beyond what conventional science predicts.

Can you do that?

I hear a very gentle sound...
With your ear down to the ground...
We want the world and we want it now!