Hi Mark, we crossed posts there.

I would gladly leave her to her peace... but she refuses to cease and desist with her insults and libels against me (and you, and Sterling, and Stefan, and .99, and just about everyone else who has ever criticized her). And she's got a couple of sock-puppet sycophants who parrot her insults and add their own filth to the mix as well. She offended me greatly with many of her libels and her homophobic slurs and her threats, and as long as she persists I will stand up for myself and my work. I will not tolerate people lying about me or misrepresenting my work, even if they are doing it on an obscure and silly blog that contains nothing else of significance. Not only that, I am proud of my expensive education, and I have credentials that I worked hard for and earned at great expense, and my teachers and advisors were people at the top of their fields. Ainslie is an uneducated barbarian who thinks that reading Gary Zukov's popular book constitutes a physics education. I will not sit still for insults and disrespect from overweeningly arrogant and ignorant fools like Ainslie. Besides.... I've got some time on my hands, and it's kind of fun seeing what she comes up with next, how far down her own throat she can stick her foot, like in the August fiasco "demo" of incompetence and ignorance. She learned one lesson then: never give actual data or details, because they _will_ be examined and fabrications will be uncovered. So now we just get claims from her, no data or descriptions at all, and that's all we will be getting in the future.

Thanks for the note, I'm glad you are still watching. Look at it as sport, because that's really all it is. As you note, from a scientific and technical aspect she has been utterly put down, long ago, and all that is left of her "work" and her "thesis" is a twitching mess, full of holes, contradictions, falsehood and fabrications.

Cheers--
--TK

Frank, the very real evidence for whatever "qualifications" I have can be found in my posts and my many YT videos. I use YT as my "lab notebook" as well as for instructional and demonstration videos. Anyone can repeat anything I do for themselves; the things I post on this forum can be confirmed and are supported by evidence that is checkable by anyone willing to do the homework. If there is anything I have _ever_ posted, anywhere, that you think is lacking empirical support please point it out to me specifically and I will do my best to correct the omission. When I speculate or hypothesize I hope that I always indicate it clearly, and when I satirize I hope it's obvious, even to you.

Now... let's see if any of that applies to the "known" Rosemary Ainslie. Does it, or not?

The reasons certain people wish to remain anonymous on the internet should be clear to you, Frank. But there are plenty of people reading this post who know exactly who I am, how to reach me, where I live, etc. Just because you don't know me, doesn't mean that I am not known. Ainslie has stalked me off of the internet and on it, by calling and emailing people who she thinks might know me, and she has threatened me, in addition to stating her insane beliefs that I have somehow had something to do with breakins and computer hacking at her walled compound in Cape Town. Do you want a paranoid, unstable, clearly mentally disturbed person with an axe to grind, even one a world away, to know just where YOU live and where you bake your bread?


Why don't you answer the true-false quiz? Don't you need the extra credit? And why do I need to "trust you"? Is there some question about you that I must take on faith, that you can't or won't prove unequivocally? Are you that unreliable that I must be exhorted to "trust you" in order to believe your words? Nobody need "trust" me: they can simply see for themselves. As Gary H. says: Make up your own damn mind.

That gets another rofl.

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

The 'box' was constructed to enable a variety of circuits.  The Quantum article simple published an 'extrapolation' of that circuit used for the Quantum paper.

The Quantum paper specifies "the precise circuit" to be used, in so many words ... but that "precise circuit" is not now in the "box" AT ALL, only remnants of it. The circuit in the "box" now is RADICALLY DIFFERENT from the circuit published under her name and has nothing to do with that earlier circuit... at all. Ainslie simply lies when she claims it does.
The reference here is Steve Weir's reconstruction of the circuit in the box now, and the Quantum article schematic. Look for yourselves. Build and test.... you will see the differences immediately. The circuit in the box NOW doesn't even contain the mosfet part that Ainslie has always specified: IRFPG50, but instead contains the very different IRFP450. Ainslie lies when she claims this box hasn't been altered since 2003, as is PROVEN by her own photographs.

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. 

No 'mistake'.  We attempted to HOLD BACK on a release of the actual circuit until we'd managed academic accreditation of both that circuit and the consequent oscillation.  Our concern was that Glen Lettenmaier and others would try and STEAL authorship as they attempted on our Quantum circuit.  In point of fact our Poynty resolved this dilemma to our entire satisfaction.  After his exposure there would be NONE who would claim it was NOT designed by ourselves.

The FACT that the miswiring was initially an inadvertent mistake is PROVEN by the cartoon diagrams in the second daft manuscript which pretend to explain her "thesis" as it relates to the experimental procedure. The cartoons show the Q1 and Q2 mosfets in STRICT PARALLEL, all sources connected together. Ainslie probably didn't actually realize this "mistake" for some time, perhaps not even until .99 discovered it and revealed it publicly.
The FACT of Ainslie's attempts at cover-up are well known and even acknowledged by her. This is amazing: she lied, mislead and continued to try to do so, long after many people told her that there was something wrong since their replication attempts didn't behave like her scopeshots indicated. She LIED, blatantly and outrageously, for nearly a solid MONTH, over 400 forum posts, discussing the WRONG CIRCUIT. Either she lied at the beginning of that period, or the end, when she claimed to know about it already. These are FACTS and I've provided the references many times. Ainslie made material misrepresentations of the schematic used, and got Donovan Martin to lie for her multiple times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE

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. 

In all my life - I have NEVER posted any youtube video anywhere at all.  I do not know how it's done.  I rely on others to do this.  It's a failing that I don't usually bring to public attention.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g/videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont/videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising

Any questions? Here are three of Ainslie's YouTube accounts, with many videos that SHE HERSELF uploaded.  It is of course a VIOLATION of YT's terms of service to let someone else use one's account logins. The earlier demo video, with all the lies and smoking guns, has been removed... also by Ainslie herself... but still exists on my channel for anyone to view. Check the location of the Black FG lead in that video, and you will see another one of Ainslie's lies... because it is at the Common Battery Negative, as it is in every other available photo of any of Ainslie's apparatuses.

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

No idea what you're on about.  We had a second demo set made as a duplicate of our own - which was shipped to ABB Research in North Carolina - for Colin Bowler.  THAT was the kit that was NEVER RETURNED AND FOREVER LOST.  Our own apparatus was first lost and then FOUND.

Where is the evidence for these claims? Nowhere. Not a shipping receipt, not a photo, nothing. We only have the word of a PROVEN LIAR that any of this ever happened. We have Ainslie claiming that the apparatus was LOST since 2003.... but it has been altered at least twice, the latest time sometime AFTER May of 2007. This is proven beyond doubt by the photographs of the contents of the box, and Ainslie's own admission that she sent some components of the box to Aaron and/or Ashtweth for their own researches... sometime around 2009.

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.

Quite right.  So WHAT?  They address two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES.

So what? The papers lie and don't even agree with each other.... and Ainslie replies "SO WHAT" ? That's pseudoscientific misconduct of the worst kind.

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.

The function generator probes are CORRECTLY detailed for the measurements shown in those waveforms. 

This too is a manifest LIE. The FG Black lead was never located where it is indicated on the schematics. In EVERY photo of Ainslie's apparatus it can be seen at the common ground, NOT the transistor side of the CVR as is proper. The original schematics included with the very first postings of the "papers" showed it, if they showed it at all, at the common ground point, and the schematics weren't changed until AFTER several people pointed out that the location ACTUALLY USED allows a current path to bypass the CVR.

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

WHY would I claim this when the data contradicts it?  And WHY would I draw attention to this discrepancy in the paper itself if I was trying to HIDE SOMETHING as you're implying?

Why indeed? I know why: it is because Ainslie cannot interpret graphical scope displays and doesn't understand what they actually indicate. Furthermore, anyone can point to many times when Ainslie claimed her batteries did not discharge... but as I have shown previously several times, an inspection of scopeshots that Ainslie posted herself (and which she falsely accuses me and others of "rifling" from her computers, LOL) shows that the battery voltages do decline over the course of several days of testing during which she claims very clearly the exact opposite.


Do you see: Every item in the Little Quiz, she lies about,  and she cannot provide ANY REFERENCES OR EVIDENCE for her continuing series of lies and false claims. While every FACT that I mention is supported by checkable outside references and demonstrations.

Now... continuing on with debunking false claims and libels: Look at the image of "Neo's" post below. Where is there ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that I or Mark Dansie have ever engaged in "women bashing"?  There is none whatsoever.

Ainslie happens to be female, but that has nothing to do with the reasons she is "bashed". She is criticized solely on the merits, or rather lack thereof, of her postings, claims, insults, lies and misrepresentations. She, on the other hand, has repeatedly emitted sexual slurs, innuendos, insults and the like that directly attack the masculinity of her critics, most of whom happen to be male. For example she more than once has referred to TK as a "poor little sod".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod_%28word%29

Here's a little video that Ainslie posted to one of her three or four YT accounts. Who is "bashing" whom, and for what s e x or gender?

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

Now... continuing on with debunking false claims and libels: Look at the image of "Neo's" post below. Where is there ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that I or Mark Dansie have ever engaged in "women bashing"?  There is none whatsoever.

Ainslie happens to be female, but that has nothing to do with the reasons she is "bashed". She is criticized solely on the merits, or rather lack thereof, of her postings, claims, insults, lies and misrepresentations. She, on the other hand, has repeatedly emitted sexual slurs, innuendos, insults and the like that directly attack the masculinity of her critics, most of whom happen to be male. For example she more than once has referred to TK as a "poor little sod".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod_%28word%29

Here's a little video that Ainslie posted to one of her three or four YT accounts. Who is "bashing" whom, and for what s e x or gender?

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

That video is certainly appalling. I sympathise.


I can see you have quite enough on your plate to cope with without attempting the gravity conundrum.


Sorry I suggested it.

Hi Tk
It seems I am no longer loved. I recieved the following via Skype
I updated the article
http://revolution-green.com/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/



Hi Guys,


it seems that Mark Dansie has joined the battle against Ainslie and has stepped in to assist our Little TK as he falls against the ropes.  No surprise as they share the same employer.  And the same agenda.  And that agenda has nothing to do with the promotion of scientific discovery.  Far from it.  Mark unashamedly denies free energy claims across the board.  This includes Rossi's data that has been independently verified by acknowledged experts in the art.  And that refusal alone is more than enough to destroy his public credibility.  And - from a more personal perspective - his credibility for me was UTTERLY voided when he REFUSED to publish the fact that we'd withdrawn our RETRACTION of the claims in Paper 1 & 2.  So has Sterling.  One would expect a reporter - anyone who professes to comment on science - to, at its least - report on the facts. He/they no longer bother to keep up with the news - especially when that news defeats his/their agenda.  And NO-ONE can accuse him or them of impartiality.  Which under usual circumstances would be the ONLY quality to qualify someone for reporting on anything at all.   Mark recommends that TK shouldn't mention me so that this blog can be forgotten.  Our hit rate at the moment is in excess of 4000 per day and climbing.  IF this is the 'obscurity' he's recommending - then LONG may such obscurity last.


Here's this month's stats alone...


2014-01-01    0    0    0    317    4,260
2014-01-02    0    0    1    340    4,594
2014-01-03    0    5    0    327    4,767
2014-01-04    0    1    3    385    6,493
2014-01-05    0    6    3    400    4,779


So - a small personal message for our Mark Dansie.  Eat your heart out.  The 'obscurity' of our blog gives us a higher hit rate than the entire OU.com forum enjoys on a daily basis.  Who would have thought?  I'm of the opinion that they read here because - unlike you - they want to evaluate the other side of this 'story' that you and TK try to promote as 'truth'.  While the number who post here are slim - the 'hit rate' is nonetheless extraordinary.


Kindest regards
Rosie

Most likely the high count is grossly inflated due to the barrage of spam-bots accessing the pages there. Look at their "users online" if you can; 90% are spam bots.

The funny thing is, both her and Chess seem to think that they actually have that many hits from real people.

Rosemary that's a big claim, one can only assume it's like all your other claims, you have deliberately lied or at best you have made a measurement error, it's also possible that you are using a third party or some software (Spambot) to produce the figures falsely, you just can't help being deceitful.

I think it is not deliberate it is just out of ignorance like her claims.
Kind Regards
Mark