How about "de-retracted" or "disretraction"?

The lying Queen of Trolls just won't quit.

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.

  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  Had I been as weak as TK clearly 'hoped' then I too would have withdrawn the claim and admitted anything that he required.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.

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.

  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.

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.

  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.

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.

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.

The Quantum magazine article clearly states:

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

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.

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.

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.

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" !!

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?