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 Posts: 524080
  • *Total Topics: 15602
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 5
  • *Total: 8

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 275617 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #615 on: March 02, 2014, 10:53:07 PM »
Listen very carefully to Donovan Martin's voice in the "Donny blooper reel" linked above as he tells us there are "Five mosfets in parallel" on "what you see before you".  He is lying and he knows he is lying. This is not a "mistake" ! He put the apparatus together himself! Surely you do not believe Ainslie set that up or did it without Donny checking it over. Furthermore.... when the truth was revealed by Poynt99 on or about 18 April, Ainslie admitted the conscious deception and stated outright that she was sorry that Poynt99 figured it out!

QED, Martin is in complete conscious cahoots with Ainslie in attempting to perpetrate this jumble of mendacity on the public.

Note also that Ainslie has removed this demonstration from any and all of her four YT accounts and has even claimed that she did not upload it, it does not "represent" her claims, etc,etc. She is clearly aware of what that full demonstration reveals and would like very much for it to be suppressed. But the internet never forgets. The full unedited video demonstration of March 11, 2011 is available still.... on my channel.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #616 on: March 02, 2014, 11:28:47 PM »
Intentionally misrepresenting:  set-ups or data is misconduct.  If any of those academics she hopes would give her rantings a look were ever caught doing such a thing they would face discipline and ridicule.  If for example a pharmaceutical company misrepresented its test data it would be sued for the consequences.  This has happened.  If for example an automobile company misrepresented their test conditions or data, they would be sued for the consequences.  This too has happened.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #617 on: March 03, 2014, 12:53:53 AM »
You betcha, and maybe now some of my continuing effort is better understood. Their program is not just error-ridden, they do not just make mistakes and then try to rationalize them afterwards. Ainslie admits in that forum post just what I have been telling you all along. You cannot trust _anything_ that comes from her unless you can verify it independently yourself, because she has a proven _and admitted_ history of deliberately and consciously and with the collusion of her co-authors engaging in deception in the presentation of data in scientific reports and on the internet in forums.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #617 on: March 03, 2014, 12:53:53 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #618 on: March 03, 2014, 01:57:06 AM »
All of that notwithstanding, I am sort of anticipating a moment when the Great Scientist will "snap" and realize that there is a battery , the bias battery, with its POSITIVE pole at the Gate of the mosfet and a NEGATIVE pole at the Source, in addition to the Main battery whose negative is at the Gate.

A HA, evil TisnelOlaka, she will snort. You have tricked us again, it is that thing you call a Bias Battery that is providing the signal to the Gate to turn on your silly BRYAN LITTLE light bulb you picklemonger with the great big GER. Therefore zipons!

And then it will be another year or so trying to get her to realize that the FG does the same damned thing that the bias battery does.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #619 on: March 03, 2014, 02:37:27 AM »
Ms. Ainslie's recent psots contain gyrations that are so far afield of proven reality that it is as though we are watching a cartoon.  She will flail and protest for however long she might.  With each new post she makes a bigger mockery of herself.  She has since last August gone from someone who made a mistake, recognized it and acted honorably, to someone indistinguishable from the homeless on Venice Beach.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #619 on: March 03, 2014, 02:37:27 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #620 on: March 03, 2014, 03:28:05 AM »
Permit me to offer a somewhat alternate explanation.

Last August she was not found to have erred, she was caught out in a multiple, compound lie. In her arrogance she believed that her fabricated data would hold up to scrutiny, since she has no theory that actually works and cannot herself interpret an oscilloscope screen, but instead relies exclusively on numbers in boxes. She cynically believed that, since she knows best, nobody would be able to see her deception, just as for the 2011 demonstration. Leopards do not readily change their spots. She never acted "honorably" at all. When it became apparent that her lies were indeed found out and demonstrated, during her cynical "cooperation" with Steve Weir, she rapidly shut down the deliberately badly shot and presented demonstration before it became even more obvious.  Her "retraction" was never sincere, it never resulted in an actual withdrawal or even a revision of the daft manuscripts, and as soon as the dust settled a bit, as I predicted, she was back with the same old same old thing, making the same lying claims from the same fabricated data. She may have exacted some promise from Steve to leave her alone or he may have simply lost interest. I am surprised that he did not make any public comment about Ainslie's retracted retraction -- except of course to tell us that the saved screenshots would not be released, contrary to the agreement made during the demonstration. 

The June 29 demo was another deliberately obfuscatory and disrespectful joke.

Now that she is once again in a position where her false claims, outright lies and ignorance of circuit behaviour and facts in general are again made evident, she chooses to do what she has always done when challenged: she lashes out with the most ridiculous arguments based on her "thesis" which is no such thing, it is barely a WAG, a conjecture based on a dream based on a bit of underdone potato.

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #621 on: March 03, 2014, 03:38:00 AM »
This is not just about Rosemary either in my opinion, it serves as notice to all OU claimants, there are people with the knowledge to see through the mistaken or fraudulent claims and will debunk them. I can spot a fake by intuition but I cannot go to the great detail and complexity to show them up that way. What I can do is replicate some of the claims made and show it is nothing special. We can all do our bit.

Good job Tinsel and all the guys involved. The inductive heater of Rosemary Ainsley is bogus as it can be even I can see that. Being a heater makes it easier to get higher efficiency due to usually heat is unwanted and we can all make things hot if we want. It is a bigger challenge to keep things cool with high power throughput.

As for you tube subscribers I think i have more than her  ;D I have 160. But I also have almost that many video's as well on numerous different subjects.  :D

Cheers

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #621 on: March 03, 2014, 03:38:00 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #622 on: March 03, 2014, 04:19:28 AM »
The irony in all of this, of course, is that the actual definitive tests of the hypothesis that the circuit creates more energy out than in, have never been done. Not even close.

Due to Ainslie's mendacity, arrogance, ignorance of proper scientific methodology, bad math and general incompetence, what she _claimed_ was known isn't known at all. An honest researcher could have in fact tested the hypothesis rigorously and definitively in a year, gotten a real publication in a peer-reviewed journal or two out of it even "if" excess energy was not, for some odd reason, actually found to be produced. Yet the arrogant Ainslie instead had her "thesis" to promote, and so stooped to endless delay, fabrication of data, changing goalposts and just about every other dishonest ploy there is in order to _prevent_ any real research into her original claim of excess energy output.

For goodness sakes, we are still trying to get her to realize how the circuit even does what it _does_ do, much less find out what it "might be able" to do. Without an understanding of the basics of mosfet behaviour how can she hope to contribute anything real to the discussion? With a pre-ordained "thesis" that she is sure is correct, because it was revealed to her in a dream, she cannot even allow herself to see real data for what it is, nor interpret it properly if it conflicts with her "thesis".

Now we might all "know" that the circuit cannot produce excess energy of any kind. So we can either decide to do the experiment to see, or let it go and go play somewhere else. But if we decide we want to _do_ the experiment to find out once and for all, then it must be done properly, and a very important part of that is to understand the basics of electronics well enough to be able to apply Ohm's Law appropriately. Another very important part is the honest and dispassionate reporting of accurate and precise results. Yet another is to be "thesis-free" in that one attempts to do everything one can to _disprove_ the hypothesis by experiment. Only when one FAILS in earnest attempts to DISPROVE one's own hypothesis can one legitimately say it has support. This is the basis of the Scientific Method, something which Ainslie has never shown any inkling of understanding.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #623 on: March 03, 2014, 04:28:20 AM »
Permit me to offer a somewhat alternate explanation.

Last August she was not found to have erred, she was caught out in a multiple, compound lie. In her arrogance she believed that her fabricated data would hold up to scrutiny, since she has no theory that actually works and cannot herself interpret an oscilloscope screen, but instead relies exclusively on numbers in boxes. She cynically believed that, since she knows best, nobody would be able to see her deception, just as for the 2011 demonstration. Leopards do not readily change their spots. She never acted "honorably" at all. When it became apparent that her lies were indeed found out and demonstrated, during her cynical "cooperation" with Steve Weir, she rapidly shut down the deliberately badly shot and presented demonstration before it became even more obvious.  Her "retraction" was never sincere, it never resulted in an actual withdrawal or even a revision of the daft manuscripts, and as soon as the dust settled a bit, as I predicted, she was back with the same old same old thing, making the same lying claims from the same fabricated data. She may have exacted some promise from Steve to leave her alone or he may have simply lost interest. I am surprised that he did not make any public comment about Ainslie's retracted retraction -- except of course to tell us that the saved screenshots would not be released, contrary to the agreement made during the demonstration. 

The June 29 demo was another deliberately obfuscatory and disrespectful joke.

Now that she is once again in a position where her false claims, outright lies and ignorance of circuit behaviour and facts in general are again made evident, she chooses to do what she has always done when challenged: she lashes out with the most ridiculous arguments based on her "thesis" which is no such thing, it is barely a WAG, a conjecture based on a dream based on a bit of underdone potato.
I can buy a hypothesis that the swapped source and gate connections of the Q2 MOSFETs were something that neither Ms. Ainslie nor her collaborators recognized until Poynt99 figured it out.  I have not seen any evidence that they have ever understood these simple circuits.  Whether that hypothesis is correct or alternately Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators knew what they had done prior to the demonstration, in the end she an her collaborators did lie about material issues one way or another.  That's the sort of thing that can cause a highly paid tenured professor to find out they need to find another university or retire early.  It's just a really stupid thing to do, because once one destroys their credibility pulling a stunt like that, there is really no getting it back.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #623 on: March 03, 2014, 04:28:20 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #624 on: March 03, 2014, 04:31:32 AM »
(sorry crossed posts, this is not a reply to the above, it's just a general rant.)

Look at it this way. Suppose my hypothesis is that it is raining outside. I assert that it is absolutely and positively raining outside.

Fine, you say, what is your evidence in support of your claim?

HA, I say, look here, the street is wet. QED, it is raining outside.


OK, have I in fact proved to you that it is indeed raining outside? After all, everybody knows that the streets get wet when it rains. SO I've given you strong evidence in support of my claim that it is raining. Haven't I?

Well, maybe. Have you tried any other methods of testing for rain outside?

No, why should I, we both agree that the street is wet. And so on and so on.

SO positive evidence in favor of a claim does not prove the claim at all because there may be a myriad of other reasons that produce the same evidence. The fire hydrant was opened by some kids down the block. The dam burst. My neighbor is playing a trick on me. My street-dryness detector is broken. The ice truck dumped a load accidentally.  Etc etc.


But what happens if I look outside and I find that the street is in fact DRY, that there is no cloud, nobody is carrying an umbrella and the sun is shining brilliantly.

Then I KNOW FOR SURE that the original hypothesis is wrong, it is not raining outside.


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #625 on: March 03, 2014, 04:37:13 AM »
Yes, but that will only be because you are part of a group dedicated to suppressing new discoveries using those weapons of mass fantasy destruction called facts.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #625 on: March 03, 2014, 04:37:13 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #626 on: March 03, 2014, 04:38:29 AM »
Quote
I can buy a hypothesis that the swapped source and gate connections of the Q2 MOSFETs were something that neither Ms. Ainslie nor her collaborators recognized until Poynt99 figured it out.

But there is some evidence to the contrary. Ainslie's statements at the time that Poynt99 showed it publicly contain her claim that she knew it all along but wanted to keep it secret; she has a blog post that says "there was a small variation to the circuit, we made full disclosure" , or something like that,  but that might be an after-the-fact meaning-changing edit, something else she is well known to do.

At first I thought that these were just self-serving attempts at saving face: better to be found a liar than a fool, sort of thing, pretending to have covered it up knowingly sounding better at the time than admitting that neither of them had a clue until .99 poynted it out.

But now I know better. She's a conniving schemer. Sure, they probably made the connection accidentally at first, but by the time of the March 2011 demo, they knew all about it.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #627 on: March 03, 2014, 04:42:50 AM »
Some relevant posts:


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #628 on: March 03, 2014, 04:42:58 AM »
I don't know and don't care which it is.  In either case she had to knowingly lie about import facets of her apparatus.  That is fatal to one's credibility.

As to why Steve hasn't said much, I think he really doesn't care.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #629 on: March 03, 2014, 04:55:52 AM »
WARNING: Rosemary Ainslie is once again LYING about my data and my demonstrations in an attempt to bolster her ridiculous claims. I say again, what she says in this post about my work is a LIE.

I did indeed "replicate" the test and the scopetraces and I showed what I showed, which is that we cannot trust her report that the shot was obtained with a period of 20 milliseconds, because at that slow period the entire screen would only contain a tiny portion of the entire period and a large Q1 ON time would not even show up on the scope at all, being set to 500 microseconds per horizontal division.

I have already explained the very same thing that .99 has said and that she is arguing against. The high heat and char marks on the PHENOLIC, not ceramic, tube that my nichrome heating element wire shows, matched for resistance and inductance to her _claimed_ values, were caused by an extended period of Q1 ON time. The Q2 oscillations produce very little heat in the element, and the battery MOST CERTAINLY DOES discharge normally during both phases of the circuit's operation.

 

OneLink