Once again, the Brine Shrimp insists on straying off topic and posting irrelevancies that try to bury the real issues that this thread is concerned with. There is enough noise already, and SEA MONKEY IS PERFECTLY FREE to start his...or her.... own thread where the noise can be listened to by whomever.

This thread is about Rosemary Ainslie and the issues around her various demonstrations, "papers" and claims.


Now.... please take a look at the most recent set of posts. Rosemary Ainslie is seriously deluded. She claims that Mark E and the rest of us

Dear Mark,

You most certainly HAVE been advised by public companies that they are aware of the results referenced in the paper and that they stand by the claim of measured anomalies. 

If you feel that this level of accreditation does not satisfy you - then perhaps you could take the trouble to advise them.  Meanwhile I note that your opinion on this matter is at variance with my own.

Regards
Rosemary Ainslie

[/color]

Here she insists that HER OWN statements, lists of alphabet agencies and HER OWN claims about what they did, ten or twelve years ago... without any documentation at all, not even an email.... means that THE PUBLIC COMPANIES HAVE ADVISED us of their results and endorsement. Then she challenges Mark to talk to the companies!
Of course she knows that none of the referenced companies have ever heard of her nonsense. SHE CANNOT PRODUCE A SINGLE BIT OF DOCUMENTATION of her silly claims and this latter set of delusional rants from her are just further evidence of that.

How can anyone possibly have such muddled thinking? Nobody has been "advised" BY THE PUBLIC COMPANIES of anything at all concerning Ainslie! Nobody from ANY COMPANY has ever "advised" anyone concerning Ainslie!

I can show where Professor Kahn banned her from his laboratory, in Kahn's own words .... and I can show where Tektronix pulled their loaner scope because she misrepresented their involvement, in Tektronix official emails ..... But she can't show a single jot or tittle of evidence for her claims concerning ABB, BP, SASOL, or the other strings of random letters she emits. Yet she claims THE COMPANIES THEMSELVES "advised"

[/color]I know you have not been contacted.  Nor was direct contact necessary.  We have an unusual claim.  To support the evidence we sought and obtained validation of our results from experts within many different companies.  Those companies that are listed in the paper have not only accredited these results but have have also permitted their names to be published in that same paper.  Precisely to obviate the inevitable objections that we anticipated from those such as you and your colleague Tinsel Koala.  That referenced accreditation is the vehicle of information to which I refer.  Therefore, indeed, you have been notified by them of their accreditation.  If you have a quarrel with what they've approved - then take the complaint up with them.

[/color]

I am astounded once again. Just when I think that the Ainslie delusions have taken a break, she proceeds to emit even more utter and incredible bullcrap. She makes a claim about a company "accrediting" her garbage, gives no evidence at all, then turns around and tells you that the COMPANIES THEMSELVES HAVE NOTIFIED YOU of their accreditation.

But they haven't! Is there anyone, anywhere, who would take Ainslie's undocumented statements as a "notification" from the companies themselves?

Is Ainslie being honest here, or honorable? I submit to you readers, that a claim from Ainslie is not the same as a notification from a company, and it is dishonest to claim it is, and it is dishonorable to continue to pretend that her Quantum magazine article does not specify exactly the dutycycle and frequency she claims were used to make the data in the paper......because it does so specify, as Mark E. has quoted several times. I also submit to you that it is dishonorable in the extreme for her to attempt to blame someone other than herself and her co-author BC Buckley for the TOTAL CONTENTS of the article that bears their names.

<<< Once you've got it pegged on what seems like a reasonable COP which WILL be greater than 1  >>>

Deja Vu!  Some people deserve prizes.

Well, when you are trained in the science of electronics and energy, you can just look at a schematic and pass judgement on it.  The Quantum circuit is obviously under unity just like the insane miss-wired MOSFET circuit was under unity.

Some people get upset when a "laying on of eyes" passes judgement on a circuit but it's not rocket science people.  A switching MOSFET is a variable resistor and will burn off more and more energy the faster it switches.  You can literally just look at a schematic and and make a rough estimate on where the supplied battery power is going to get burned off.

All of Sea Monkey's allusions to "secret sauce - ha ha seek and ye shall find" are just delusions and hope.  Or they could be connected to the Grand Conspiracy.  Same thing for Rosemary saying to find the "right" oscillation.

The Cracker Jack box is empty.  Doooooooooooooooooooommmmm!!!!!

_yOu guy|s should try harder if you really want to squeeze the maximum performance out of this circuit* _gMeast is on the right track/ but still needs some more work to make it waterproof* _tHere are certain rare materials which can be used in a advantageous way if applied correctly*
_bUt of course you wouldn|t find it the way you look at this problem*

@Brine Shrimp: Koalas are not bears, and we are not cuddly at all, so don't try to pet one of us, you might draw back a bloody shredded stump.

I rest my case!

Surely it must have been a typo,

Happy Hyperbole!

Hopefully my final comment about this and then I will just observe.

<<< Sadly there was a brutal consequence to their involvement.  ALL three of the players at ABB Research - were retrenched, put on early retirement and sacked - respectively - within 3 months of that publication.  I then learned better than to reference any of the names in those reports that come out in support of over unity evidence.  Which is why I will NEVER make any of their reports public. >>>

Self-contradictory statements about revealing people's identities, how about that?

But my real comment is about the Dick Tracy MIB fantasies and the alleged negative consequences for being associated with a measly 555 timer circuit firing a MOSFET, presented by a woman that knows almost nothing about electronics.

No negative consequences ever fell on people that witnessed, or were involved with, the 2002 circuit.  I state this by analyzing the situation rationally.  If anything, Rosemary's stories if true are purely coincidental.

it doesnt have to be a closed system @farmhand.if we go over 100% its a nail in the coffin for the thermo laws.just gota prove it.

Well well well. The mendacious troll Ainslie has once again plastered a bunch of misrepresentations and outrageous claims on her honeypot forum.

As is typical she accuses me of saying that which I DID NOT SAY and proceeds to attack her own deluded ideas, while at the same time betraying her utter lack of understanding.

I have pointed out MANY TIMES that the PUBLISHED CIRCUIT CANNOT MAKE THE DUTY CYCLE AINSLIE CLAIMS.

NEVER ONCE have I said that the published circuit only makes 90 percent duty cycle, nor have I EVER SAID that it is not adjustable in duty cycle or frequency. Of course it is! I've demonstrated this in MANY VIDEOS THAT AINSLIE REFUSES TO WATCH IN HER ARROGANT DELIBERATE IGNORANCE.

What I have said, still say, and what is backed up by the work of Mark E and anyone else who cares to build the circuit, is that THE SCHEMATIC AINSLIE PUBLISHED UNDER HER NAME CANNOT MAKE THE DUTY CYCLE SHE HAS CLAIMED or any short ON time duty cycles.

I have no idea what her actual apparatus might have used... we know she LIES and even gets other people to LIE FOR HER about the actual schematics she uses. She either did not use the circuit claimed, or she did not use the duty cycle she claimed.... it's up to her to clear this discrepancy up. What is perfectly clear is that she DID NOT USE THE CLAIMED CIRCUIT to make the DUTY CYCLE SHE CLAIMED TO USE.

What I do know is that the schematic she published under her name cannot do what she claims it does. And it's clear from Ainslie's present posts that she is still perfectly willing to lie about me, about what other say, and about her own claims.

Note that she accuses ME of lying! But every thing I have said is not only TRUE, but I have demonstrated its truth with checkable references, demonstrations and Ainslie's own mendacious posts.

NOTE WELL: She accuses me of saying what I never said.... and she cannot provide any references for what she accuses me of... because her accusations are total lies!

@ TK

You're on a hiding to nothing mate!