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

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: 83568
  • *Latest: XR IX

  • *Total Posts: 514888
  • *Total Topics: 15319
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 251230 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #135 on: December 22, 2013, 05:06:22 PM »
How about "de-retracted" or "disretraction"?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #136 on: December 23, 2013, 12:08:02 AM »
How about "Pseudoscientific misconduct"?

The "papers" contain fabricated, false data. The Figure 3 scopeshot and others are presented as valid and significant, but as we all know, they cannot be obtained under the conditions stated. If an "error" was made in the original collection, it must have been identified and corrected because subsequent scopeshots indicate no similar problems. Yet the bogus data remains in the papers: therefore this constitutes a deliberate fabrication of data in order to give appearance of support to the main claims. Other scopeshots showing more plausible data sets are egregiously misinterpreted by Ainslie in the papers, for example where she claims no current is indicated in a particular trace, when there clearly is, and she draws conclusions based on her false interpretations. This also constitutes fabrication.

The "papers" contain false claims about the schematic used: they misrepresent the location of the Function Generator Black or "ground" output lead, a significant fabrication which disguises the fact that the true location used by the experimenters allows a current path to bypass the Current Sense Resistor, thus invalidating all power measurements using data from this resistor. The location given in the schematics was never actually used by Ainslie or her "team", not even in the most recent video demonstration.  Furthermore, the two "official publications" of the papers, really just blog posts on Rossi's vanity blog, do not even agree that much: they have the positions of the Q1 and Q2 transistors in different locations, a highly significant difference. Other versions of these manuscripts (there are several) have this "error" edited away without comment, as well as having other significant alterations. All versions that I can find still contain the lie about the location of the FG black lead, however.

The "papers" contain false claims about the results of the described experiment: the batteries did in fact measurably discharge over the course of the trials, as evidenced by Ainslie's own data, and the experiment never actually boiled water in any quantity.

All of this is fully documented and can be verified by anyone, using Ainslie's own data, blog and forum posts, and scopeshots. The utter abject failure of Ainslie's "team" to reproduce the data in the video demo last August, coupled with the clear power measurements which showed far more battery power drawn than was dissipated "over the element resistor", are preserved for posterity and can be viewed in the playlist on my channel.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #137 on: January 03, 2014, 09:26:01 AM »
The lying Queen of Trolls just won't quit.

Quote
Ok Guys - here's the problem as it relates to our Quantum Paper - October 2002.  Correctly anyone who claims over unity results needs to have some kind of credibility in support of that claim.  Our own were impeccable - resting as they did - and DO - on the measured evidence.  Sadly a condition to publication was the required OMISSION of 2/3rds of that measured data.  This compromised the claim - as was intended by Professor Jandrel who reviewed that paper.

No evidence for this "omission" is presented. No data, just more claims without support. If Ainslie claims to have more data... what is preventing her from posting it NOW? Only the FACT that it actually does not exist.
And we should remember that one of our present posters is also from South Africa and even works with Professor Jandrell. The good professor may not like to hear how Ainslie is distorting his role in the matter.


Quote
  The second compromise came from Tinsel Koala was widely acclaimed as the 'debunker' of Mylow's proof of over unity.  In as much as he has FALSELY debunked our own experimental evidence - I'm entirely satisfied that he also FALSELY debunked Mylow's claim.  I do not care - one whit - that Mylow may or may not have admitted some fraudulent representations.  Had I been as weak as TK clearly 'hoped' then I too would have withdrawn the claim and admitted anything that he required.  It is inordinately difficult to 'fight one's corner' when put under the kind of attack that I have been subjected to by him and by many other players on the internet.  Thankfully I was equal to that nonsense.  Sadly Mylow was not.

MyLOW was an admitted fraud. Yes, I was INDEED the first one to DEMONSTRATE what others had found by careful analysis of Mylow's videos, that he was using a fishing line drive belt and a remote motor, and Mylow himself even posted an ADMISSION on my YT video illustrating his method of fakery. This is all on record, in places where Ainslie cannot change or alter the FACTS of the matter. There are many witnesses to this affair of Mylow and the lies he promulgated and their debunking. Mylow, LIKE AINSLIE, also suborned others to lie for him in his cheating fraudulent vain attempt at glory and attention.
But MYLOW at least had the integrity finally to admit that he was lying. Ainslie, even when confronted by incontrovertible evidence of her falsehoods and mendacity... persists in her lies and delusions, as we all can see with this present set of verbiage from Ainslie. She has no integrity or honesty at all, not even as much as Mylow. No shame either, since she has been found out, over and over, but still won't admit her lies and errors.
Ainslie accuses me of "falsely debunking" Mylow? What a joke! What part of my debunk of Mylow was in any way "false"? Did Mylow actually have a working HJ motor? Of course he DID NOT. Did he use any of the several possible methods I illustrated in my debunks? Of course he DID. Did he finally admit, in public for all to see, that I was RIGHT? Of course he DID.
As usual Ainslie cannot support any of her libels against me with actual facts, actual references or links to anything that supports her absurd contentions. And as usual, I CAN support ALL of my claims with facts, demonstrations, checkable references and the work of colleagues. My debunk of her claims is also preserved in many videos, all of which contain enough information for anyone to repeat them to see if they are "false" as Ainslie accuses, or not. Where are the "debunks" of my videos illustrating the problems with Ainslie and her claims? Nowhere. Ainslie's August demonstration in fact SOUNDLY SUPPORTED my debunks, especially showing how the Figure 3 scopeshot could not be made as Ainslie claimed.

Quote
In any event - TK came in on the CLAIM that we had inverted our duty cycle.  He claimed that we were running the duty cylce at a 90% ON and not 10%.  He further claimed that this was evident in the schematic.  Which was nonsense.

Now you are tangling yourself up, AINSLIE. You don't seem to realize that the Quantum circuit AS YOU PUBLISHED IT can be built and tested by anyone, and they all find the same thing: it CANNOT make the duty cycle you claimed to use. Simple as that: it cannot. It CAN however produce the exact inverse duty cycle, that is a 3.7 percent OFF duty cycle.... and you, AINSLIE, have demonstrated many times that you STILL cannot grasp the FACT that the DRAIN of the mosfet will be AT BATTERY VOLTAGE... that is, HIGH.... when the mosfet is OFF. Hence your continuing confusion about the duty cycle produced by the Quantum Magazine circuit. Anyone can build and test that circuit for themselves and see that it DOES NOT and CANNOT produce the duty cycle you claimed in the paper. So either the schematic is right .... meaning that the article LIES because it could not have used the 3.7 percent ON dutycycle claimed ... or that the data was gathered using a different circuit--- meaning that the article LIES. Either way, the Quantum article is a compendium of error and lies and it's no wonder that nobody pays any attention to it any more. Any reference to the circuit Steve Weir analyzed as being related to the Quantum Magazine article schematic is also an abject LIE on the part of Ainslie, because that circuit was not even built at the time of the Quantum work, it contains different components and can't operate at the frequency claimed in the article.


Quote
  A certain Joost - an experimentalist - replicated that circuit from the schematic and found NO inversion.  But this made no difference.  TK held to that claim and persisted with it for the entire 3 years that he's dogged my representations on the internet in his efforts to discredit our work.

His name, I believe, was Joit, not "Joost", and he finally acknowledged that I AM RIGHT, as have everyone else who built and tested that circuit, EVEN GMEAST. The schematic exists, still, and anyone can build it for themselves and see that I am STILL RIGHT. Go ahead, Ainslie.... have anyone you like build and test THAT CIRCUIT and publish the results. You will not..... because it will expose you ONCE AGAIN as an abject and incompetent LIAR.

Quote
Thankfully - as you're all aware - we were able discount this nonsense when Steve Weir did a detailed analysis on our actual apparatus.  Here he conclusively proved that we could reduce the on time for up to 5% of each duty cycle - AS CLAIMED - and AS DENIED, for all those years - by our Little TK.

Now you are really lying, Ainslie, in such an obvious manner that it is surprising even to me. The depths of your attempted duplicity are amazing. The circuit that Steve Weir analyzed WAS NOT THE QUANTUM MAGAZINE CIRCUIT. What is more, the photos of the circuit Weir analyzed PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that it was NOT the circuit used for the Quantum article! It contains a chip that was manufactured in 2007! It is, in fact, GREG LETTENMEIER's circuit and operates at a frequency MUCH MUCH HIGHER than the Quantum magazine circuit. The circuit Weir analyzed uses a different mosfet, only a single adjustable potentiometer, and cannot make the combination of duty cycle and frequency that the ORIGINAL QUANTUM MAGAZINE ARTICLE claims was used for the data in that article. Steve and others HAVE INDEED analyzed the original Quantum Magazine article circuit as well and they AGREE WITH ME about that circuit: it cannot make the duty cycle claimed with the component values stated.
Quote
  What's significant and rather sad - is that TK does NOT have the required INTEGRITY to admit this.  He dare not.  Because the minute any such admission is made then with it would be the required acknowledgement of results that are MEASURED to exceed unity.  That elusive barrier that - as a result of his hard fought efforts - still remains largely unacknowledged anywhere in the world.

Unless and until TK can make an open acknowledgement that his initial representations related to that duty cycle inversion were quite simply WRONG - then anything that he says further - on this subject - is of NO CONSEQUENCE.


Ainslie really takes the cake. She is pointing to a blue sky and screaming that it is green. Anyone can see that she is lying! She isn't even doing a good job of it, because the circuit exists and has been built and tested many times by many people.  Nobody really knows just what duty cycle she might have used, but what is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN is that the schematic published in the article cannot make the duty cycle she claimed to use. This is incontrovertible and is easily tested BY ANYONE with the skills and apparatus to do so. Go ahead, Ainslie, do it yourself. Get your techs right now to reproduce the EXACT QUANTUM MAGAZINE CIRCUIT and test it. Report the results! Go Ahead! I DARE YOU to do it. Just like your whining for over a year that the Figure 3 scopeshots were honest and reproducible easily.... you lie and your ignorance of your topic is profound. Just as with the Figure 3 fabrication, you and your techs will NOT BE ABLE to produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle using the circuit published in the Quantum article. GO AHEAD... .TRY IT YOURSELF, you ignorant troll. You cannot do it, just like you cannot reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot under the claimed conditions... because it is an outright LIE and a whole-cloth fabrication.

Quote

It is therefore NOT surprising that he no longer claims anything at all.  I, for one, am enjoying the fact that he's lost his voice together with this complete destruction of his credibility.  It is of ABSOLUTELY no consequence if there were or were not any major or minor errors in the representations of that duty cycle schematic.  The claim - the essential essence of the claim - rests on the measured evidence.  And any attempt to upend that claim based on such objections are clearly SPURIOUS - and are simply advanced in his efforts to deny the feasibility of defeating those unity barriers. 


Ainslie is utterly laughable. She just said that it doesn't matter whether she is reporting critical features accurately.... but it IS INDEED of great consequence that she LIES and continues to LIE about what she has done and how she did it. Not just the Quantum article is full of lies, but also the later work with the "Q-array" kludge.... lie after documented lie, starting with the schematics and continuing to the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot and others, going on past the "bring water to boil 700 ml" lie, through the "batteries do not discharge" lie... all of the rest of it, documented and provable fabrications. As far as my "credibility" goes, anyone can test for themselves the work that I do, because it's all documented fully and doesn't need fancy expensive apparatus to do. Most particularly my many videos that demonstrate the various LIES and ERRORs and simple stupidities coming from Ainslie: anyone can repeat them and see that I am correct about what I claim. And I definitely DO STILL MAINTAIN that Ainslie is a liar who gets others to lie for her (Donovan Martin) and I have documented these lies for anyone to see. The Quantum magazine schematic does what I say it does, the "found" circuit that Steve Weir analyzed is NOT the circuit that was in the box for the Quantum magazine trials, the later "papers" are full of fabricated lying "data" and false claims, and Ainslie herself is so tangled up in her own lies that she cannot keep facts straight at all.

Quote

You will recall that the reason this experimental evidence was ever required, was to support an eccentric field model - that proposed that all matter was based on a magnetic dipole.  That proposal conforms to the properties required for the Higgs Boson.  The quest from hereon in will be to work with that model rather than waste more time on those experiments which, at their best, are not nearly as usable as is the potential exposed by this model.  However, before this chapter is entirely closed - we'll be running those tests as detailed in our protocol thread.  Then hopefully - we'll work with the argument at the heart of that field model.  I can't wait.  These past 13 years have been a departure that it would really have been better to avoid.  The more so as our academics no longer seem to care about measured evidence.  They prefer their own science which is no longer based on experimental proof.  In any event, the fact is that the potential in these electrical applications are BORING compared to the potential in working with the field directly.


Kindest regards
Rosie

Ainslie never even heard of a Higgs Boson when she wrote her "field model" which is nothing more than a bunch of deluded ignorant cartoons. She cannot even reproduce her own claimed data when she is being watched to keep her honest.... she proved that amply in August. Her "papers" are full of fabrications and errors and delusions. 

I can hardly wait for Ainslie to produce some more actual data. However, I think she's learned her lesson: any report that is of sufficient quality to allow reproduction will also show, just as in the past, that she is wrong, utterly and completely wrong, and may, in fact, show ONCE AGAIN that she deliberately falsified data and presented it for publication, like the Figure 3 scopeshot (and others.)

I am really getting sick and tired of Ainslie claiming that the Quantum circuit performs as stated in the article, and insulting me over my analysis of it. I AM CORRECT, and this has been proven over and over many times. Now that she is invoking the good name of Steve Weir in an attempt to support her claims and her insults against me..... I am really angry. Steve made no such determination as she claims about the Quantum magazine article; his analysis was of a completely different circuit that could NOT have been used in 2002 since it contains a chip manufactured in 2007. Ainslie lies about and even distorts the meaning of the help she receives, when anyone can check the facts for themselves. How, then, are we to believe ANY of her claims, made without a shred of support, of testing by BP, SASOL, and those other alphabet agencies ten or twelve or fourteen years ago, when they cannot be checked by any means? We cannot and should not believe them, that much is certain.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 02:14:56 PM by TinselKoala »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #137 on: January 03, 2014, 09:26:01 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #138 on: January 03, 2014, 09:41:39 AM »
Here's another laughable set of lies and libels, from someone else who cannot get his facts straight.

Where is all this new and expensive equipment I'm supposed to be collecting? GMeast cannot support his claim with facts and references.

Where is an _earlier_ demonstration of Mylow's fishing line drive than mine? Sterling Allen even acknowledged that I was the first "replicator" of Mylow's motor, but he weaseled and wouldn't give me the prize he offered, because my replication wasn't OU. Never mind that I did it the same way as Mylow, that it was a true and precise replication of all the important features, never mind that Mylow's wasn't OU either ....

Yes, some people did video analysis that showed the fishing line in Mylow's vids at about the same time but these weren't demonstrations or replications like I performed, and they were widely challenged by the usual flock of believing sheep. Not until I actually demonstrated that the fishing line drive would work across the room and even around corners did it finally sink in that Mylow was a cynical fraudster.

Again, GMeast cannot support his claims about my role in the Mylow debunk with facts and references.

Neither can he support his claims about his own apparatus with good and properly performed measurements and calorimetry. He is simply emitting his usual verbal flatulence and cannot actually refute me in any regard, nor can he provide incontrovertible support for his own silly claims.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #139 on: January 03, 2014, 02:07:31 PM »
The Quantum magazine article clearly states:

Quote
This article describes the precise circuit, as depicted in Figure 1, that is used to expose this benefit in transient energy.


And the Figure 1 schematic has been given here and elsewhere many times. But as I and many others have proven, over and over, that circuit cannot make the claimed short ON duty cycle. Ainslie whines and moans about this, forgetting that anyone can build it and see for themselves that she is lying, baldly and blatantly, about this circuit's performance.

One may wonder, therefore, why that precise circuit as depicted in Figure 1 was NOT used subsequently, and was instead replaced, sometime AFTER MAY OF 2007, with a completely different circuit, the one that Steve Weir analyzed from the photographs. A completely different circuit that:
1) operates at a much much higher frequency than the original Quantum circuit;
2) contains only a single adjustable potentiometer instead of the two depicted in the "precise circuit" of the Quantum article;
3) contains a DIFFERENT MOSFET, the IRFP450, instead of the very different IRFPG50 that Ainslie has always... ALWAYS.... claimed they used;
4) contains a 555 timer chip manufactured in May of 2007, proving that the circuit in the box could not have been used for any of Ainslie's published or posted data;
5) contains many other components such as chokes and diodes that were never mentioned in any of Ainslie's material;
6) is essentially a "replication" of Glen Lettenmeier's circuit performance parameters.

Indeed one may wonder... or may simply conclude that the more knowledgeable members of Ainslie's "team" knew and understood the problems with the "precise circuit in Figure 1" and chose to use Glen's circuit instead... since it makes waveforms that Ainslie approved at the time.

Ainslie has never adequately explained these discrepancies, instead preferring to libel me and her other critics, but never, NEVER providing any evidence or proof of her ridiculous and indeed insane assertions. For years in this forum she even claimed that the box was LOST, when it in fact was in her possession the entire time, even including her several moves of household. Somebody modified that box after May of 2007.... it was never "lost" at all, that is just another one of her and Martin's lies, constructed so that she could continue with her dog-and-pony show without providing evidence. But now her "finding" of the box has backfired, because the photos show the "smoking gun" of the circuit and the date code on the timer chip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #139 on: January 03, 2014, 02:07:31 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8369
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #140 on: January 04, 2014, 03:33:12 AM »
Is Rose actually claiming that Mylow did indeed have a free energy magnet motor?  Even after he admitted his fakery?  Even after TK and other smart guys here on OU proved it was faked?  I was one of the folks that enhanced a still shot from his video clearly showing the fishing line to the motor on his couch.  Sterling banned me from his site for pointing this out.

So, if she is now claiming that Mylow was not showing fakery, and she is now claiming that her original results were indeed more output than in, what are we to believe?

I know what I believe.  Rose has to be smart enough to know that we all know she is lying right?  What is her point then?

What might happen if Rose hooked her unit up to Mylow's motor?  Would it cause a rift in the space/time continuium?  That might be dangerous.

Bill

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #141 on: January 04, 2014, 07:03:24 AM »
The Quantum magazine article clearly states:
 

And the Figure 1 schematic has been given here and elsewhere many times. But as I and many others have proven, over and over, that circuit cannot make the claimed short ON duty cycle. Ainslie whines and moans about this, forgetting that anyone can build it and see for themselves that she is lying, baldly and blatantly, about this circuit's performance.

One may wonder, therefore, why that precise circuit as depicted in Figure 1 was NOT used subsequently, and was instead replaced, sometime AFTER MAY OF 2007, with a completely different circuit, the one that Steve Weir analyzed from the photographs. A completely different circuit that:
1) operates at a much much higher frequency than the original Quantum circuit;
2) contains only a single adjustable potentiometer instead of the two depicted in the "precise circuit" of the Quantum article;
3) contains a DIFFERENT MOSFET, the IRFP450, instead of the very different IRFPG50 that Ainslie has always... ALWAYS.... claimed they used;
4) contains a 555 timer chip manufactured in May of 2007, proving that the circuit in the box could not have been used for any of Ainslie's published or posted data;
5) contains many other components such as chokes and diodes that were never mentioned in any of Ainslie's material;
6) is essentially a "replication" of Glen Lettenmeier's circuit performance parameters.

Indeed one may wonder... or may simply conclude that the more knowledgeable members of Ainslie's "team" knew and understood the problems with the "precise circuit in Figure 1" and chose to use Glen's circuit instead... since it makes waveforms that Ainslie approved at the time.

Ainslie has never adequately explained these discrepancies, instead preferring to libel me and her other critics, but never, NEVER providing any evidence or proof of her ridiculous and indeed insane assertions. For years in this forum she even claimed that the box was LOST, when it in fact was in her possession the entire time, even including her several moves of household. Somebody modified that box after May of 2007.... it was never "lost" at all, that is just another one of her and Martin's lies, constructed so that she could continue with her dog-and-pony show without providing evidence. But now her "finding" of the box has backfired, because the photos show the "smoking gun" of the circuit and the date code on the timer chip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4


OOOOHHHH ... "Date Code". You're my hero sleuth. I can't tell you how much fun it is to watch you go crazy over the nonsense claims and accusations you make. You just get so frenzied ... like you're saving the world or something or made some great discovery. You are insignificant. It's entertaining for sure though. You are truly a psychotic wreck and narcissistic prick. You can just sense your cranial pressure building .... POP! and R.I.P.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #141 on: January 04, 2014, 07:03:24 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #142 on: January 04, 2014, 08:02:25 AM »
Oh, so now you are deliberately antagonizing me with insults, in the hope that I will have a cerebral aneurism, POP, and die? Remarkable. Some might call that attempted internet murder!

Never the less, troll sycophant idiot GMeast, the date code is on the chip. This is REALITY. Take a look up above! Do you deny that that is a photograph of the 555 chip that is presently in Ainslie's box? Do you deny that it has the numbers on it that it has? Do you deny that that is a date code? Did you check the reference? I even gave the link to how to decode STMicro date codes. The 555 timer chip was manufactured in May of 2007, there is no doubt about that. And there is absolutely no doubt that the box has been altered! Look at the pictures. It no longer contains the Quantum Magazine circuit, many components are obviously disconnected (and didn't appear at all in the Quantum article's schematic) and it doesn't even use the "right" mosfet. Instead of whining your insulting posts why don't you LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE and explain or refute it if you can. But you cannot.

Quote
Hi Guys,

Our Little TK has risen from the dead and is back lurking on his Hate Thread at OU.com.  And being the little fairy that he is, he's parading his usual amateurish sleuthing skills in loud screams that would, typically, be the envy of your average Banshee.  Apparently there's some chip included in our apparatus that was manufactured in 2007.  I have NO idea what the significance of that chip is.  I have never altered nor changed any aspect of that apparatus.  I simply do not have the skill set.  Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has there been any REASON to change anything at all - as we have quite simply not used that demonstration model since 2003.  So.  I challenge the ALLEGATION that this chip was only manufactured in 2007.  If it's true then through a miracle of no mean dimension - it has somehow assimilated itself onto our apparatus.  His authority for this claim is about as comprehensive as his claim that I authored this post. http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg5034.html#msg5034  Effectively I would be more inclined to believe this IF and ONLY IF we had a full report on the subject by that chip manufacturer.  My eyes are not the best but I see too that he interprets an '8' on the last digit?  Not sure that this is right.  BUT.  In either event ... SO WHAT?

Here again Ainslie admits her ignorance and lack of research skills, even though I cited the reference for the date code in the photo analysis above. She pretends to talk about circuitry but cannot even identify a 555 timer chip ON HER OWN PHOTOGRAPH.  She also again LIES BLATANTLY claiming the box was not altered or used since 2003.

SO WHAT? It proves that Ainslie is an abject liar, and ignorant of her topic to boot, that is "so what". A chip that was made in 2007, placed in a circuit to make Glen Lettenmeier's waveforms and frequencies, has nothing to do with the Quantum article of 2002 or the data therein.

Quote
Surely?  The requirement here is to disprove Papers 1, 2 & 3 - on the bases of those claims.  And more to the point - with a presentation that is at least as comprehensive and articulate as is presented in those papers.

This has been done, over and over again. Ainslie refuses to look at the disproofs and refutations, preferring to insult and wheedle and condemn things she has never even examined or thought about seriously. She also refuses to recognize that HER OWN DATA disprove her claims soundly.

Quote
In effect the call is on them all to do their own draw down tests.  THEN.  PUBLISH THOSE RESULTS.  Sadly and for reasons that entirely elude me - they avoid this like the plague.

Here Ainslie lies again, or perhaps displays her overweening arrogant willfull ignorance and denial of facts again. I have performed, posted and discussed MORE and MORE COMPREHENSIVE drawdown tests than Ainslie ever has. Her ignorance, her willfull ignoring of my work and my data and my video explanations does not make them "go away" or cancel what they contain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BK4rx01INY

We have never seen, to this date, ANY DATA on battery drawdowns from Ainslie. None at all. Just claims without any support.

Quote
  TK - all of them -  ALL those detractors and disclaimants - employ and enjoy sloppy experimental standards - undefined terminologies - badly constructed circuits with little or no relevance to the circuits under discussion - appalling measurement protocols.

This is incredibly false. Ainslie doesn't know the standard terminology of her topic. The depths of her ignorance are preserved in her own words in many posts. She even thinks a Watt and a Joule are the same thing. As noted above she cannot even identify a 555 timer chip. The famous Box is a rat's nest, as anyone can see from her photos. The 5-mosfet device violates every principle of mosfet amplifier circuit layout and construction. Her "protocols" are childish at best and nonexistent most of the time: she just turns knobs and fiddles about. The circuits I and Poynt99 have examined are the _exact_ circuits that she herself has published, all of them, and other variants, and we have _real data_ on those circuits. The circuits we made produce the _exact_ waveforms that Ainslie herself has posted in her forum posts and manuscripts. Below I will attach her, and then my, versions of the current Box circuit layout, so that the reader may judge and "make up your own damn mind" as to the veracity of Ainslie's current accusations and rants. I will also attach a real graph of real time-temperature data, obtained and presented properly, in stark contrast to Ainslie's silly methods.

Quote
  And they yet have the temerity to ASSUME that this is adequate for purposes of denial.  And MOST SADLY - it appears that they're right.  NO ONE challenges their authority.  I've said it often.  It is a DISGRACE to science and the quest for discovery. 


And yet not Ainslie, nor anyone else, can refute my analyses or support her claims. The DISGRACE is that Ainslie has returned "from the dead" with her denials of reality and her continuing claims of "overunity" from a vastly INEFFICIENT mosfet circuit.

Quote
What is at stake here is the rare proof of measured evidence of Over Unity.  That's a BIG claim.  It needs a skilled and reasoned refutation.  What's been put on the table to counter this is very far from adequate - has very little relevance to science and is promoted by despicable personalities who are compulsively unable to deny their need to bully old women.

Kindest regards
Rosie

And yet... the results and analyses that we have presented can be repeated by anyone with the skills and equipment. Our results can be solidly confirmed by anyone who tries. But what about Ainslie's? How to go about reproducing the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot that is at the heart of her "rare proof of measured evidence of Over Unity"? She herself has shown that this scopeshot is false, but she can't even think past that to realize that the claims based on the scopeshot are therefore untenable... and unrepeatable. Ainslie has no conception of what real Science is about, nor does she understand the Scientific Method or scientific communication. She even refuses to learn the standard language of science: mathematics.

Bully old women, what a laugh. Should she be held to some other standard because she's an old woman? I don't think so. First she pretends to be a scientist, then when she is criticised for sloppy work, falsification of data and unsupported, wrong, claims.... she claims to be a bullied old woman. Cue the tiny violins, my heart weeps for her. The record proves that she is an insulting, hypocritical and ignorant internet poster, no matter what her  or age might be. Some of her posts might have been made by a potty mouth 8 year old.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #143 on: January 05, 2014, 06:46:25 AM »
You know, it's a funny thing. People -- mostly Ainslie sycophants with no skill, credentials, capabilities or understanding of their own -- want to disrespect me, libel me, complain about my lack of technical knowledge and skills.... yet these same people will not analyze and dissect any of my videos or forum posts, in order to refute me with facts, checkable references or demonstrations of their own. Why not? I know why not: they CANNOT. After all, I always provide enough information for anyone to check my work, and I'm certainly unpopular amongst that crowd. So why don't they do their due diligence, like CHECKING THE DATE CODE on the chip in Ainslie's box for themselves? I know why: when they cannot support their contentions against me, they just wind up looking silly, like GMYeast. But if they don't even _try_ to refute me or provide specific information about what they object to, there's nothing to contend with. They can continue making accusations and claims without evidence... since you can't prove "no evidence" to be wrong.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #143 on: January 05, 2014, 06:46:25 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #144 on: January 05, 2014, 07:48:56 AM »
I sympathise TK. I know how it feels.  ;)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #145 on: January 05, 2014, 10:16:57 AM »
I sympathise TK. I know how it feels.  ;)

You must be referring to your water power law work from many years ago, because lately, I'd put you pretty strongly in the "claims without evidence" camp, when you aren't actually in the "supporters of claimants who don't provide evidence" camp next door.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #145 on: January 05, 2014, 10:16:57 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #146 on: January 05, 2014, 11:21:01 AM »
I see the whining Ainslie is still trying to insult and denigrate, without actually addressing ANY of the very strong points I've made in my posts or my videos. She also lies about my videos, but after all, by her own admission she doesn't watch them. She is too ignorant to evaluate or even pretend to understand what's going on and she somehow thinks that my demonstrations aren't logical, scientific or organized, or something. What an utter fool she is! I challenge her, ONCE AGAIN, to take any one of my videos and refute it, or tell us just how it's not clear, how it doesn't apply, how it's not scientific. Here, try these ones for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rgB3WlXtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0DziLllc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vm2ZTDUyyA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jENARrROGs

Any questions? Do we think Ainslie might benefit from watching videos like these?

And apparently Ainslie believes there is no such thing as a "mosfet", since she seems to think that capitalization of the acronym is necessary. One can cite literally millions of instances in the literature where the lower-case is used. But since she thinks it's so important... there is no such thing as a MOSFET, either, Ainslie troll: the part is a Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor, and if I ever see her refer to it as a MOSFET again, without typing it out fully... I will report her to the Grammar Police (again).

Lol. What a story. Ainslie cannot refute a single point that any of us critics have made -- she cannot even verify a Date Code or hazard a reasonable explanation for it -- so she just lies and insults, over and over again. She has neither the eyesight nor the vision to grasp what's right in front of her face.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #147 on: January 05, 2014, 11:33:50 AM »
Compare my video demos to what Ainslie posts as a demonstration, after months of preparation and promises:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9IRONEArVU

The audio is so bad because the "cameraman" is holding a finger over the cellphone's microphone! How's that for "obfuscation" !!

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #148 on: January 05, 2014, 12:02:29 PM »
I admire rosemary for having a go at a free energy device. However I do not admire her behavior in not accepting the reality she has fallen well short of demonstrating anything that comes close to overunity. The academic world has closed the doors on this and the real problem is the lack of qualifications from an electronics and measurement perspective. I intend to give this no further publicity at conferences or at Revolution_Green.com as it was all over game set and match a few months ago.
Mylow is one of the most famous tricksters claiming a free energy device. TK was among many who early called it what it was which was a fake. He was busted red handed using fishing lines. Many others are now being made accountable through the courts or are serving time like the another South African Mike Brady.
Please do not get all bitter and twisted over this TK as those who criticize you do not count and only have a few of the true believers still following like lost sheep. Anyone with a reasonable amount of electronics or even science experience has long lost interest and quite frankly does not care.
I am called many names, and even a demon by those who try an promote, profit from false free energy claims. Wear the criticisms with a badge of honor, and be proud you are not only true to yourself but speak volumes to the 99% rational population. Its like trying to convert extreme religious factions into believers of another faith. You will never succeed.
I backed of covering Rosemary as she was ill and very few have any faith in her abilities to understand what is really going on. It has been my experience that the poor researchers and the ones that fail only look selectively at data that supports their hypothesis and will not let go even if the smoking gun is staring them in the face
I am sure I will face anotehr public flogging in some irrelevant forums only to further grow my reputation. Just like when Sterling goes of frothing at the mouth about me it just introduces me to a larger audience. So enjoy life and stop bashing your head against the brick wall,. Let Rosemary just fade into the background like the hundreds before her. Let her live in peace with her beliefs and faith.
Kind Regards
Mark 






Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #149 on: January 05, 2014, 12:44:40 PM »
Here's a little quiz. True, or false? Anyone can participate, but I request that answers be supported with evidence.


1. The Figure 3 scopeshot cannot be reproduced using the schematic and setup claimed by Ainslie and Donovan Martin in the manuscripts posted under their names. Yet the major claims of the manuscripts depend on conclusions drawn from this and similar -- also non-reproducible, invalid -- scopeshots.

2. The Quantum magazine published schematic cannot produce the short ON time duty cycle claimed in the article.

3. The recently found Quantum magazine apparatus contains a 555 timer chip that was manufactured in May of 2007, along with a different part number mosfet,  and other parts not found in the original schematic.

4. The "box" circuit diagrammed by Steve Weir differs substantially and significantly from the Quantum magazine article circuit, both in performance and construction.

5. Ainslie attempted to cover up the "mistake" that led to the "Q-array" of the 4  miswired mosfets, after the release of her first video demonstration in 2009. She lied about the schematic in use and even told .99 that she wished she could have continued the deception longer. Over 400 forum posts here alone discussed the WRONG CIRCUIT, with her conscious knowledge that she was deceiving everyone.

6. Ainslie repeatedly claimed that she "did not post that video", referring to the video of the first demonstration that she posted to one of her four YouTube accounts.

7. Ainslie and her co-conspirator Donovan Martin both claimed that the apparatus was sent off somewhere and never returned.

8. The postings of the two manuscripts on Rossi's blog contain different schematics purporting to describe the same apparatus. In some other versions the schematics agree with each other... but not with the reality of the apparatus as she used it.

9. Neither of those schematics is actually correct, because Ainslie and her crew always used a different location for the Black FG lead than is shown on those schematics.

10. Ainslie's own data show clearly that her batteries do discharge over the course of several days of experimentation, contrary to her claims.


Hint: I have repeatedly posted references and other proofs that show that each of the above statements is TRUE. Can anyone contradict me by proving that any of them are FALSE?





 

OneLink