Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84254
  • *Latest: aaronhdd

  • *Total Posts: 898098
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 22
  • *Total: 24

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 313425 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1035 on: April 17, 2014, 04:27:18 PM »
Here's a burr for your saddle-blanket, GMeast.

http://youtu.be/O7Mcp390HyU

Ainslie said,
And I laugh. More IMPOSSIBILITIES claimed by Ainslie, that I show to be perfectly POSSIBLE and in fact TRUE.

LET AINSLIE PERFORM EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE MY FINDINGS. She cannot, and neither can her faithful steed Gmeast, because my findings are TRUE and fully documented. All she can do is emit further bloviations, giving me more and more opportunities to REFUTE HER UTTERLY. The ignorant troll queen knows nothing about electronics in general or mosfets in particular and is happy to brag and display her ignorance in public for all to see! And she has suborned GMEast as well, which is sad, because he really should know better.

And LET AINSLIE PUBLISH A PAPER.... any paper! She cannot! Never has, and never will. Editors laugh at her, and summarily reject her submissions as the amateurish hodge-podge of error and mendacity that they are.
That was another nice demonstration.  If you get the chance and are so willing, I think it would be good to also show the current that flows through the drain/gate capacitance of Q2 MOSFETs during the oscillations.

It is too bad that you don't have a non-contact current probe.  You could make one up with a small ferrite toroid and a 50 to 100 turns.  Then you can thread a lead through the core to monitor for AC current.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1036 on: April 17, 2014, 05:09:03 PM »
Ainslie said,
Quote
But to claim that those IRFPG50's can discharge current from a battery or any supply source through the GATE of a MOSFET?  And then to say that they PROVED this?  For those of you who are NOT purists, trust me on this.  It is IMPOSSIBLE - unless that MOSFET has somehow degraded that it is ENTIRELY defunct.  That's just one of MANY absurdities.  The most of them have been discussed.  I put it to you that IF they're the 'experts' that they pretend - then LET THEM PUBLISH A PAPER ON THESE FINDINGS.  Because, of a truth - there would be a million or more aspiring power and electronic experts who would be MOST intrigued. 

Trust her on this. What a fool she is!

Ainslie, there is NO NEED for me or "us" to publish any paper on these findings... because these findings are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IN ACCORD WITH CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. Textbook after textbook has ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED that support my "findings" or rather my demonstrations of perfectly ordinary circuit and component behaviour.

On the other hand, neither YOU, O Great Scientist ROSEMARY AINSLIE, nor your faithful steed GMEAST, can provide even ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to an "aspiring power and electronic expert" who might agree with YOUR position. Of course you can't, because it's clear that your Straw Man is just that: totally made of straw, without substance and without evidence to refute my "findings".



Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1037 on: April 17, 2014, 07:02:55 PM »
Ainslie said,

Quote
But to claim that those IRFPG50's can discharge current from a battery or any supply source through the GATE of a MOSFET?  And then to say that they PROVED this?  For those of you who are NOT purists, trust me on this.  It is IMPOSSIBLE - unless that MOSFET has somehow degraded that it is ENTIRELY defunct.  That's just one of MANY absurdities.  The most of them have been discussed.  I put it to you that IF they're the 'experts' that they pretend - then LET THEM PUBLISH A PAPER ON THESE FINDINGS.  Because, of a truth - there would be a million or more aspiring power and electronic experts who would be MOST intrigued. 

Trust her on this. What a fool she is!

Ainslie, there is NO NEED for me or "us" to publish any paper on these findings... because these findings are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IN ACCORD WITH CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. Textbook after textbook has ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED that support my "findings" or rather my demonstrations of perfectly ordinary circuit and component behaviour.

On the other hand, neither YOU, O Great Scientist ROSEMARY AINSLIE, nor your faithful steed GMEAST, can provide even ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to an "aspiring power and electronic expert" who might agree with YOUR position. Of course you can't, because it's clear that your Straw Man is just that: totally made of straw, without substance and without evidence to refute my "findings".
Again:  She has very little idea of what she is talking about.  Here are a couple of interesting numbers for you:
Gate/drain charge on the IRGPG50 is 110nC.  If the MOSFET gets fully turned on and off then all of that charge has to be pumped in and swept out each cycle. At 2.5MHz that would amount to 275mA current, per MOSFET.  Since the MOSFETs do not fully turn on or off the actual current is lower.  But this should all be readily testable on that board you got from Steve.  You can measure the gate current with a scope under conditions of low frequency full on-off switching, and under the oscillating conditions.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1037 on: April 17, 2014, 07:02:55 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1038 on: April 18, 2014, 08:45:16 PM »
Sure, I can do that. But first I want to see some evidence for Ainslie's repeated claims, which have to do with heating of the load. Not battery lifetimes on pulsed discharge schedules or any of that.

Here is the last paragraph in the adden-dumb to the daft manuscripts that she believes gets her out of the obligation to completely withdraw them.

Quote
In effect both the positive and the negative voltages of each oscillation swings, first clockwise and then anti clockwise, through the element resistor and it bypasses the battery entirely. However, there is a small discharge from the battery at each positive cycle that enables enough current discharge to establish a positive voltage through the Source of Q2 to the Gate of Q1. Which then overrides the negative signal that is applied by the switch driver. This ensures that some energy is discharged by the battery, albeit that it is in no way proportionate the amount of energy that is dissipated as heat at the element resistor. Which, in turn results in the dissipation of energy at the element resistor that is far in excess of the amount of energy discharged by the battery supply which in turn, results in the defeat of unity constraints.

So I want to see some data that supports this claim. Where is a data set that shows the RATE of temperature rise, which Ainslie claims is needed, to be greater than that obtained by straight DC at the same average power level? What circuit is used, what are the operating parameters?

The claims in the manuscript body, which refer to the Figure 3 and other erroneous FABRICATED scopeshots are of course invalid for that reason alone, although others also obtain. So where is any data that supports Ainslie's claims?

Nowhere, that's where. She has never produced any _when people are watching her_ , and she cannot do so honestly.

"Before you (Steve Weir) got here, we got completely different results at exactly the same settings. Tell him, Donny...."  Yeah.. right. The "skeptic effect" works at the complete antipodes, all around the world.



It takes less than four hours to set up, run, gather data, collate record and present it in intelligible manner. WHERE IS THE DATA THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CONTENTIONS AND CLAIMS, AINSLIE?

Can't take a few hours out of your busy day to perform the experiment? Oh... that's right, YOU aren't actually performing the experiments and you don't actually want to bother whoever IS actually performing them, actually, long enough to present one single LITTLE data set to support your claims. Actually.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1039 on: April 19, 2014, 03:48:26 AM »
One of the elephant's in the middle of Ms. Ainslie's living room is the fact that her own measurements August 11, 2013 reliably showed about 15W power draw from the battery while the heat evolved from the heating resistor amounted to only about 3W.  Ms. Ainslie chooses to wave her hands and pretend that the current measurements taken at the shunt resistor right at the battery were somehow invalid.  Her "explanation" in no way provides any reason to believe that those measurements were highly distorted.  Ms. Ainslie agreed that those measurements would be a more reliable indication of true battery current than the current sense resistors on the white peg board.  Whatever ideas Ms. Ainslie has about current flowing or not flowing through the MOSFETs, no sane person can deny that the demonstration reliably showed voltage developed across the low inductance current sense resistor located at the battery.  No one can deny that because the resistor is low inductance and the connections had low inductance that the measured voltage was not reasonably close to:  Ibattery=Vbattery_current_sense/1 Ohm.  Yet, Ms. Ainslie insists that the measurements she demonstrated are wrong.  How does Ms. Ainslie explain voltage across the low inductance CSR without a corresponding current through it?  She doesn't.  She just wails and flails claiming that the current measured is not real.  Why?  Because she doesn't want it to be real.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1039 on: April 19, 2014, 03:48:26 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1040 on: April 19, 2014, 04:20:29 AM »
Ainslie must be getting exhausted from moving goalposts and willfully ignoring and misrepresenting what's being discussed. Poor old thing is really grasping at straws now. Apparently my last demonstration wasn't comprehensive enough.... I "accidentally" left out a test or two that I probably should have included. But then I would have missed this opportunity to demonstrate Ainslie's foolishness AGAIN!

But really, we know she's not capable of grasping the implications of what's in these videos, but GMeast surely is.

She must really enjoy being put down, time and time again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKF1r6vwUpI


Yes, Ainslie, Great Scientist, you are proven to be utterly and foolishly wrong YET AGAIN, because I have shown just what you, and your faithful steed GMEast, have repeatedly denied: the capacitance of the IRFPG50 mosfet acts like any other capacitor of 2800pF and passes AC current just fine, without damage, at any "polarity" and between any of its terminals.

HEY AINSLIE.... THE "TRICK" as you put it has nothing to do with this Little demonstration. This is just another Little item, one of many, where you are shown to be over your head, swimming against the current, utterly and completely wrong. No, the Data you need to provide is the data that supports your claim in the last paragraph of your Adden-dumb. More heat -- more power dissipation at the load than is delivered by the battery.... temperature RATE of rise data like you insist on but have NEVER shown. You need to refute all the negative data I've published, with some valid data of your own that supports your bogus claims. But we know you cannot, and that is why all your protestations, all your squawkings and parroting of terms you don't understand, your goalpost-moving .... all come to nought.

And why are you lying so transparently about what you said and what issue I addressed? HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID, ROSEMARY AINSLIE:
Quote
But to claim that those IRFPG50's can discharge current from a battery or any supply source through the GATE of a MOSFET?  And then to say that they PROVED this?  For those of you who are NOT purists, trust me on this.  It is IMPOSSIBLE - unless that MOSFET has somehow degraded that it is ENTIRELY defunct.  That's just one of MANY absurdities.  The most of them have been discussed.  I put it to you that IF they're the 'experts' that they pretend - then LET THEM PUBLISH A PAPER ON THESE FINDINGS.  Because, of a truth - there would be a million or more aspiring power and electronic experts who would be MOST intrigued. 

Note that the words "DRAIN LEG" do not appear.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 02:31:54 PM by TinselKoala »

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1041 on: April 19, 2014, 06:26:28 AM »
That was a nice demonstration.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1041 on: April 19, 2014, 06:26:28 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1042 on: April 19, 2014, 01:40:49 PM »
Yes, thanks, overly simplistic I know, but consider my "target audience" : People who make absurd claims about basic electronics and who won't even bother to do their own simple experiments before shooting off their mouths about stuff they don't understand but only parrot.

Ainslie and all her sycophants.... all one or two of them.... would rather talk, bloviate, insult and move goal posts than perform simple and unequivocal experiments to test their claims or demonstrate their validity.

It would take the Ainslie mob four hours to produce a valid data set supporting their claims IF THE CLAIMS WERE TRUE.

Four hours only, as I, working completely alone, have demonstrated MANY TIMES. And they have been incapable of doing it in twelve or fourteen YEARS.

1. Post the CORRECT schematic diagram of the circuit you are using.
2. Post the CORRECT AND COMPLETE operating parameters of the circuit: supply voltages and source, FG or other clock frequency and duty cycle and output voltage settings, etc.
3. Post the CORRECT AND VALID resulting oscilloscope waveforms.
4. Post the Temperature-Time graph of the load heating to THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM using the circuit and parameters specified.
5. Post the Temperature-Time graph of the load heating to thermal equilibrium using the same average power supplied as straight DC from a regulated power supply.
6. Provide a video record to prove you actually did the experiment as you describe, and make your RAW DATA available for inspection.


I've demonstrated, over and over again, how all of this can be accomplished with a minimal budget and acceptable accuracy and precision. Some members of Ainslie's gang are surely competent enough to perform this simple and basic REAL SCIENCE approach to the matter, even though we know Ainslie herself is not. So why, after all these years.... or even after all these months since August 11, 2013 (a day that will go down in infamy for Ainslie).... have they not done so?

I know why.... and so do the rest of "our readers": They cannot, they DARE NOT (tm Ainslie) because they cannot honestly produce any Temperature-Time heating data from their mosfet kludges that beats simple straight Direct Current and direct wiring.


FOUR HOURS, you blowhards. That's all it would take for you to demonstrate the truth of your assertions..... if only they were true. But they aren't.

Quote
In effect both the positive and the negative voltages of each oscillation swings, first clockwise and then anti clockwise, through the element resistor and it bypasses the battery entirely. However, there is a small discharge from the battery at each positive cycle that enables enough current discharge to establish a positive voltage through the Source of Q2 to the Gate of Q1. Which then overrides the negative signal that is applied by the switch driver. This ensures that some energy is discharged by the battery, albeit that it is in no way proportionate the amount of energy that is dissipated as heat at the element resistor. Which, in turn results in the dissipation of energy at the element resistor that is far in excess of the amount of energy discharged by the battery supply which in turn, results in the defeat of unity constraints.

What an unsupported, untenable crock of ignorant garbage that "Adden-dumb" is.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1043 on: April 19, 2014, 02:18:47 PM »
Let's consider what Ainslie and her krewe have actually done.

1. Post the CORRECT schematic diagram of the circuit you are using.
 
Ainslie has posted at least SIX different schematics for the circuits she has claimed to use, and adding the SWeir-deconstructed Grey Box, SEVEN different schematics have been claimed by Ainslie for the Quantum and Q-Array circuits, and her former collaborators have produced even more. EVEN NOW, the two daft manuscripts describing the 5-mosfet circuit have LYING SCHEMATICS in them that were never used before August 11, 2013 and were certainly NOT used to gather the data in the manuscripts. The Quantum Magazine schematic's defects are legendary... yet the schematic and the containing article still persist in their claims. Ainslie DELIBERATELY AND ADMITTEDLY LIED about the actual 5-mosfet schematic and even made Donovan Martin lie for her as well.


2. Post the CORRECT AND COMPLETE operating parameters of the circuit: supply voltages and source, FG or other clock frequency and duty cycle and output voltage settings, etc.

Here Ainslie and her mob has been all over the ballpark. Never once has she posted the open-circuit voltage waveforms from the FG. Never has the actual performance of the circuit been correlated with the operating parameters. No evidence exists that Ainslie has ever even performed a complete trial without fiddling and changing settings! Ainslie famously claimed to Steve Weir that "they got completely different results using the exact same settings" before he showed up to guide them.

3. Post the CORRECT AND VALID resulting oscilloscope waveforms.

This is the most laughable and egregious item. Ainslie has been PROVEN to include falsified data in her reports! The Figure 3 scopeshot, which STILL EXISTS in the daft manuscripts, was not made using the connections claimed by Ainslie, or perhaps was made with an inoperative mosfet, YET WAS INCLUDED ANYWAY, pretending to be valid data, and is the KEY bit of supporting evidence for Ainslie's entire set of claims. Yet it is FABRICATED, the fabrication consisting of her continuing claims of its validity even though she herself cannot reproduce it when she is being watched. Ainslie cannot interpret scope traces herself so the scopeshots she posts are just pretty pictures to her and are definitely NOT displayed in a manner as to convey data.... they are deliberately and ignorantly obfuscatory rather than being good examples of scientific communication. Furthermore she has actively tried to deny, hide and even suppress screenshots from her most recent comedy "demonstrations", because they don't support her ridiculous contentions.

4. Post the Temperature-Time graph of the load heating to THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM using the circuit and parameters specified.

Lately, Ainslie has insisted that the final equilibrium TEMPERATURE of the load isn't adequate to measure power dissipation (even though it is.) So she has begun parroting the word "RATE" and seems to be insisting on RATE of temperature rise as the proper performance parameter to be considered. This is really ironic... because not only is she wrong about that basic assertion, but also SHE HAS NEVER PROVIDED ANY "RATE" of temperature rise data of her own! ALL of her claims in EVERY "paper" she has cobbled together rely on the FINAL TEMPERATURE reached by the load and the time taken to reach this temperature, or the time-temperature RATE curve, is simply ignored.
Furthermore, Ainslie has repeatedly confused, and still obviously confuses, RATES with QUANTITIES, as in her continual buggering and misuse of the terms "Joule" and "Watt".

5. Post the Temperature-Time graph of the load heating to thermal equilibrium using the same average power supplied as straight DC from a regulated power supply.

Recently, Ainslie has claimed that her cadre of fumblers has obtained this data. Where is it? Where is the DC calibration data, including RATE of temperature increase, for the load cell she is currently using? How was this data obtained? How are we to be assured that the experimental trials are made with the load cell in the same kind of environmental conditions as the DC calibrations? Up until this past few months, ALL of the Ainslie temperature data is actually invalid, as are the claims of "taking water to boil", because the temperature-monitoring thermocouple was attached directly to the metal of the "element resistor" which in turn was simply dangling in air. Only in the last few months has Ainslie even considered making proper thermal measurements of a properly constructed and monitored load cell IN OIL.

6. Provide a video record to prove you actually did the experiment as you describe, and make your RAW DATA available for inspection.

The video demonstrations that Ainslie has recently provided are insults. Important, long-awaited live video streams _from a cellphone_. A cellphone that actually has to receive calls during the demonstration! A cellphone that cannot seem to be pointed at the items of interest and significance, that does not have the resolution necessary for clarity, that has thumbs placed over the microphone. Narration that is garbled, unclear, disorganized and unrehearsed. Objectives that are clearly not even understood by the presenters. Fumbling illustrations of incompetence in using their basic test equipment. Long delays and even sheer _abandonments_ during the demonstrations due to their lack of understanding of their own equipment.
And the one clear demonstration, from March of 2011.... Ainslie tried to suppress, when it became clear that it is a very definite record of her and Donovan Martin's lies about the schematic and the performance of the device!
Furthermore, Ainslie promised to make her spreadsheet data available; she never has done so. She agreed with Steve Weir and Poynt99 to save and release screenshots from the most recent demonstrations.... she never has done so.

In short, Ainslie and her gang have done _everything possible_ to actually avoid performing a simple experiment or demonstration of their claims!  At every step of the simple process I've outlined above, they have failed due to incompetence, or have deliberately avoided the proper performance.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1043 on: April 19, 2014, 02:18:47 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1044 on: April 19, 2014, 06:00:17 PM »
You know, I know, everyone including Ms. Ainslie knows that she cannot produce evidence that supports her claims.  The data that you ask of her will never be forthcoming.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1045 on: April 19, 2014, 07:11:30 PM »
Sure. But you would think that an honest researcher who genuinely believed in her claims and data would at least _try_ to provide data to support them, wouldn't you? And I've shown that the process of running the experimental trials is actually very easy to do and doesn't take a lot of time. So why don't she and her minions run some trials and report the data, good OR bad, like any real scientist would do?  Well, I know why. What they will wind up doing, if anything, as the most recent scopeshot seems to indicate, is that they will happily repeat their old and stupid measurement errors and assert that they are actually valid measurements.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1045 on: April 19, 2014, 07:11:30 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1046 on: April 19, 2014, 11:26:52 PM »
Sure. But you would think that an honest researcher who genuinely believed in her claims and data would at least _try_ to provide data to support them, wouldn't you? And I've shown that the process of running the experimental trials is actually very easy to do and doesn't take a lot of time. So why don't she and her minions run some trials and report the data, good OR bad, like any real scientist would do?  Well, I know why. What they will wind up doing, if anything, as the most recent scopeshot seems to indicate, is that they will happily repeat their old and stupid measurement errors and assert that they are actually valid measurements.
Ms. Ainslie herself says that she lacks the skills to perform such experiments.  How she convinces herself that she has the discovery that she claims when her own demonstrations soundly rebuke her ideas is anyone's guess.  Why there is anyone who would continue to give her self-refuted ideas any credence is an even bigger mystery.

Without detailed descriptions and/or pictures of what they are doing it is hard to say for certain just what they are up to. Given their history of completely inept bungling, and demonstrated extremely poor understanding of science, it is a safe bet that the information value of anything they do by themselves will be very low.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1047 on: April 20, 2014, 06:23:13 PM »
Ms. Ainslie herself says that she lacks the skills to perform such experiments.  How she convinces herself that she has the discovery that she claims when her own demonstrations soundly rebuke her ideas is anyone's guess.  Why there is anyone who would continue to give her self-refuted ideas any credence is an even bigger mystery.

Without detailed descriptions and/or pictures of what they are doing it is hard to say for certain just what they are up to. Given their history of completely inept bungling, and demonstrated extremely poor understanding of science, it is a safe bet that the information value of anything they do by themselves will be very low.

You seem to forget that their history also includes much deliberate prevarication, misrepresentation, mendacity, and collusive lying about what they have done, are doing and will do. These are not "errors", bunglings, ignorances or lapses in competence. They are deliberate, conscious attempts to alter history, to spin facts and details in their favor. These emissions from Ainslie and her co-authors, especially Donovan Martin, are deliberate lies.

-the Quantum Magazine circuit itself and the claims made in that article
-the story of the Lost Grey Box, its history, its whereabouts, its circuitry and its usage
-the "taking water to boil" story
-the Figure 3 and other bogus scopeshots which still remain and are still claimed to be valid by Ainslie
-the March 2011 demonstration video, where Ainslie and Donovan Martin are consciously lying about the circuit used
-the sudden disappearance from all of her 4 YouTube channels of that video in an attempt to cover up the evidence it contains
-the repeated shouts of "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" when there are many forum and blog postings from her that PROVE she did post it to HER YouTube account
-the continuing claims of high heat evolution without "measurable" power drawn from the battery supply
-the promises to release raw data spreadsheets
-the promises to release the scopeshots made under Steve Weir's supervision
-the bogus "retraction" which was never sincere, just a delaying tactic
-and then the "unretraction" based on no new data, repudiating the findings of Steve Weir in the "public" stealth demo
-the continuing lies and misrepresentations of the work of others, notably Glen Lettenmeier, Poynt99, and myself

And the list goes on and on, and is added to almost every day by further lies and prevarications from Ainslie.

So I submit this: You cannot believe or trust _anything_ coming from the Ainslie mob unless you, or some other trustworthy researcher, can actually _repeat_ the findings for yourself. Just watching them or looking at diagrams and photos _they_ submit are not sufficient in this case, due to their proven track record of lying and misrepresentation, in spoken word, forum and blog posts, photographs and videos. All of it is tainted and cannot be believed without outside confirmation. And whenever anyone HAS actually tried to repeat any of Ainslie's posted "work" they encounter the discrepancies right away.

For example.... ALL of my work, contrary to more lies from Ainslie, on this topic is publicly available on my YT channel in complete detail; anyone who likes can look up any particular experiment or demonstration of mine and repeat it for themselves, and IF they find some contrary data or performance, they can discuss it with me rationally and in detail. Just try that with Ainslie's reports. Remember what happened when GMeast tried it? Insert ROFL here !!

The only reason people even know _at all_ what circuits Ainslie might have used is because of the analyses BY HER CRITICS !!


 

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1048 on: April 20, 2014, 07:55:07 PM »
You seem to forget that their history also includes much deliberate prevarication, misrepresentation, mendacity, and collusive lying about what they have done, are doing and will do. These are not "errors", bunglings, ignorances or lapses in competence. They are deliberate, conscious attempts to alter history, to spin facts and details in their favor. These emissions from Ainslie and her co-authors, especially Donovan Martin, are deliberate lies.

-the Quantum Magazine circuit itself and the claims made in that article
-the story of the Lost Grey Box, its history, its whereabouts, its circuitry and its usage
-the "taking water to boil" story
-the Figure 3 and other bogus scopeshots which still remain and are still claimed to be valid by Ainslie
-the March 2011 demonstration video, where Ainslie and Donovan Martin are consciously lying about the circuit used
-the sudden disappearance from all of her 4 YouTube channels of that video in an attempt to cover up the evidence it contains
-the repeated shouts of "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" when there are many forum and blog postings from her that PROVE she did post it to HER YouTube account
-the continuing claims of high heat evolution without "measurable" power drawn from the battery supply
-the promises to release raw data spreadsheets
-the promises to release the scopeshots made under Steve Weir's supervision
-the bogus "retraction" which was never sincere, just a delaying tactic
-and then the "unretraction" based on no new data, repudiating the findings of Steve Weir in the "public" stealth demo
-the continuing lies and misrepresentations of the work of others, notably Glen Lettenmeier, Poynt99, and myself

And the list goes on and on, and is added to almost every day by further lies and prevarications from Ainslie.

So I submit this: You cannot believe or trust _anything_ coming from the Ainslie mob unless you, or some other trustworthy researcher, can actually _repeat_ the findings for yourself. Just watching them or looking at diagrams and photos _they_ submit are not sufficient in this case, due to their proven track record of lying and misrepresentation, in spoken word, forum and blog posts, photographs and videos. All of it is tainted and cannot be believed without outside confirmation. And whenever anyone HAS actually tried to repeat any of Ainslie's posted "work" they encounter the discrepancies right away.

For example.... ALL of my work, contrary to more lies from Ainslie, on this topic is publicly available on my YT channel in complete detail; anyone who likes can look up any particular experiment or demonstration of mine and repeat it for themselves, and IF they find some contrary data or performance, they can discuss it with me rationally and in detail. Just try that with Ainslie's reports. Remember what happened when GMeast tried it? Insert ROFL here !!

The only reason people even know _at all_ what circuits Ainslie might have used is because of the analyses BY HER CRITICS !!
I am well aware of  debacles like the MOSFET wiring in the 2011 demonstration not being as represented, and Ms. Ainslie's later declarations that she intentionally misrepresented the circuit.  Her representations with regard to  the magazine article circuit are equally bizarre.  Ms. Ainslie has said that to effect that she was "ordered" to publish a circuit, so "they" just grabbed one from the internet.  Does the gross incompetence make the intentional misrepresentations moot?  Do the intentional misrepresentations make the gross incompetence moot?  Or do they both just say:  There is nothing there to see?  Ms. Ainslie will most likely keep barking at the moon.  She may think she has some audience.  She may hold out hope that one day she will impress experts when all she has done is consistently push experts away.  Her hopes will not be realized.

The work you have done researching the claims has been very good.  Point by point you have conducted reliable and repeatable experiments that show the falsity of Ms. Ainslie's confused ideas concerning science in general and electronics in particular.

Offline memoryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1049 on: April 21, 2014, 02:58:51 PM »
Mark E and TK: I wonder why you two spend so much time on RA and her ramblings. Given your very high level of competence, are there not vastly more important issues you can address? As an electronics professional myself for 50 years, I realised that I had little to contribute to your posts, so I did not bother.
Similarly for Mr.Wayne's silly ZED. I did not accept his invitation because
a: I have no need/desire to spend two day listening to an explanation of HOW the ZED works, when it can not be demonstrated, and
b: There will be no practical way to rule out a hidden power source with a device that is anchored to the ground.
Just curious.

 

OneLink