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: 514891
  • *Total Topics: 15319
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 251262 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #195 on: January 11, 2014, 08:32:42 AM »
Years ago there was a scientist whose comments I admired who had a tag line something like:  "patience, persistence, truth".  I think that is a very wise approach.  I try as I can to emulate his philosophy by focusing on the data.  In terms of dealing with Ms. Ainslie I am interested in any data she presents as it relates to her extraordinary claims.

Yes... and the problem with that, as you may have noticed by now, is that you cannot rely on data she "presents" unless you can confirm it by checkable independent references. She has willfully misrepresented data and events, over and over again. How can you possibly tell what is true and what is not, coming from her, unless you can verify it independently?

If only we had reliable data from Ainslie in the first place, with complete and accurate descriptions of procedures and apparatus, much of the difficulties people have had with this project would never have happened. Had we encountered an attitude of "patience and truth" from Ainslie, a cooperative and honest attitude, we likely would not be here today discussing her "retracted retraction" comedy of errors. Certainly we have had an attitude of "persistence" from her: persistence in error, in mendacity, in amazing arrogance, in willfull ignorance of her chosen topic.


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 #196 on: January 11, 2014, 08:54:05 AM »
Yes... and the problem with that, as you may have noticed by now, is that you cannot rely on data she "presents" unless you can confirm it by checkable independent references. She has willfully misrepresented data and events, over and over again. How can you possibly tell what is true and what is not, coming from her, unless you can verify it independently?

If only we had reliable data from Ainslie in the first place, with complete and accurate descriptions of procedures and apparatus, much of the difficulties people have had with this project would never have happened. Had we encountered an attitude of "patience and truth" from Ainslie, a cooperative and honest attitude, we likely would not be here today discussing her "retracted retraction" comedy of errors. Certainly we have had an attitude of "persistence" from her: persistence in error, in mendacity, in amazing arrogance, in willfull ignorance of her chosen topic.
Yes, there are definitely large discrepancies between what Ms. Ainslie asserts and what verifiable evidence shows.  I don't care about the cause so much as the fact.  In this case, I enjoy the luxury of having read about her projects only after others such as yourself had found major problems.  For that I am in your debt.

Whatever the reasons why Ms. Ainslie has represented the things she has that have proven untrue, at this point I don't see that it is of value to me to try and determine why.  It may be a combination of factors that I would never correctly guess.  What matters is that she has disproven her energy gain claims.   Allowing that there is always a tiny chance that despite all the current evidence that she might yet have been onto something, if she, or a supporter should someday come back with tangible and reproducible evidence of something extraordinary then that evidence should be fairly evaluated like any other. 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #197 on: January 11, 2014, 09:15:41 AM »
Yes, of course I agree that new data should be evaluated on its own merits, if and when it is presented. Ainslie's present course of action, repealing her retraction and reiterating her claims without presenting a shred of new data, nor refuting any findings from her critics, while at the same time continuing with her insults and misrepresentations of fact.... is all the more pseudoscientific misconduct and only dampens the chances of herself or others like her being taken seriously in the future. Ainslie is her own worst enemy, as others have noted as well.

Meanwhile, the image below shows the fundamental "calculation" that led Ainslie to make her silly claims. Ainslie has never taken the trouble to correct this "calculation" to arrive at a correct answer, nor has she demonstrated a grasp of the basic quantities involved (the Watt and the Joule), or the reasons why her "calculation" is so wrong. When one uses her own stated input data, and the correct value for the capacity of her batteries (60 amp-hours) one arrives at a very different conclusion. It is instructive to work through this example.

Notice her amazingly arrogant tone, even in the midst of displaying her monumental ignorance. "Do the math" indeed. One LOLs....


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #197 on: January 11, 2014, 09:15:41 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #198 on: January 11, 2014, 10:08:31 AM »
The only place where we depart is that I do not see value in attempting to assess Ms. Ainslie's motivation or character.  I think that is potentially distracting from evaluation of her claims.

Her misunderstanding of Joules and consequent irrational multiplication by time is a gross scientific error.  Someone with better formal education in science would not be expected to make such an error and/or to have checked their work much more thoroughly.  It may be that she erroneously multiplied the required heat by time as a misunderstanding of how to treat thermal leaks.  I disagree with the idea that errors, even gross errors should be a basis for ridicule.

I think that mistakes are a natural and critical component of learning.  I think a defining quality of a person is not how many mistakes that they make, but what they do to try and find their own mistakes, and what they do once a mistake is found.  I think as engineers and scientists it is important to encourage those around us and the generations coming up behind us to challenge themselves without fear of ridicule when they make a mistake.

Peer review works and is necessary because anyone can make a mistake, even a big mistake.  I think it is sufficient to point out the error and the correct calculation.  Yes, her lack of understanding of basic physical units strongly suggests that her assumptions and calculations are far more likely to be wrong than an experienced professional.  However, we would be mistaken to assume that all of our own work or that of any experienced professional is free of debilitating errors. 

Whatever Ms. Ainslie's behavior, and whatever her mistakes, I think that it is valuable to stay focused on the data and not the person.  If a person can be taught, then that is one more person with tools out looking for the truth.  If a person cannot be taught, then that eventually becomes self-evident.  Most of the community will be on notice to be wary of that person's declarations. 

We are unfortunately at a point where Ms. Ainslie has recently made and continues to make statements that are at great odds with proven facts, including proven facts she has herself demonstrated, acknowledged and previously accepted.  And Ms. Ainslie does herself no favors by making rude remarks and wild accusations.  However, I think it is up to us as responsible technical professionals to stick to the facts, and present them as objectively as possible without attacking individuals.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #199 on: January 11, 2014, 11:16:42 AM »
I have no argument with the above, in principle. However, Ainslie is no naive newcomer who deserves benefit of doubt: she has been banned from at least three forums (Naked Scientists, Energetic Forum, this forum several times, and some other forums as well) because of her insulting behaviour, her non-cooperativeness and her arrogant ignorance. She utterly refuses to be taught, to learn from others or to educate herself in her topic. She utterly disrespects the learning and credentials of those who disagree with her, yet she is grossly undereducated and has no credentials of her own. Her former collaborations, with Glen Lettenmeier, "Harvey", Ashtweth, Aaron Murakami, and others, which initially started out with them believing in her and supporting her claims, have always dissolved in acrimony when her true nature and the true facts have come to light. If she was just someone who made a few mistakes, that would be one thing. But the fact is that she routinely misrepresents material matters and routinely insults, disparages and even threatens those who would try to correct her errors and to find out the truth.

For example, here are the blog and forum posts where she posted and made public the video of the 2011 demonstration, where the 5-mosfet device was presented as having all 5 in parallel.... and then the posts where she denies having posted the very same video.

Note that in the blog post she refers to the video as "the proof" of her claims. Yet a year later she wants to deny posting the video completely and to deny its relevance to her claims. Why? I know why.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #199 on: January 11, 2014, 11:16:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #200 on: January 11, 2014, 12:03:37 PM »
I do not challenge the incidents that you describe.  What I am trying to say is that no matter what someone else says or does, we can choose to stick to the data and only the data.  If another person acts badly let that be their action alone.  If they refuse all counseling, all tutelage, then let that be on them.  If they constantly assert against reality, then defend the facts.  In other words, if we choose to treat other people as though their errors are innocent, we spare derailing ourselves or the technical discussion.  It doesn't matter whether someone else is the Mother Theresa or Joseph Goebbels of science.  Sticking to the technical facts keeps the discussion focused on the topic.  Over time even well crafted propaganda does not stand up against clearly articulated science.  Sooner or later most people are smart enough to notice the difference between those who consistently offer compelling evidence with their argument versus those who argue with empty hands. 

On the other hand, veering off on personal issues creates many opportunities to muddle topics and in some cases play into the hands of unscrupulous debaters.  This can frequently seen in political debates where one debater works their opponent until their opponent lets loose with a fit of anger.  At that point the audience reacts to the opponent's anger and not their argument. Some politicians are very good at using this trick.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #201 on: January 11, 2014, 03:43:24 PM »
poynt99 you've done some really good investigative work on this.  It is terribly unfortunate that Ms. Ainslie elects to dismiss your fine work and cast dispersions on you.
Thanks Mark.

It is unfortunate indeed. Rose and her colleagues could learn a great deal if they would only put aside their pride and listen. And if they insist I am wrong, a cogent explanation as to why would be expected, but we never get one.

Quote
Ms. Ainslie now charges that the sound protocols that you suggested, and that she accepted were "FAR from satisfactory".  Ms. Ainslie does not elaborate on what it is that she finds lacking in those methods, or why she chose to use protocols she believes to be unsatisfactory in her demonstrations, or why she agreed with the measurement results that those methods produced as can be seen in the demonstration video. 
I am uncertain to what she refers actually. Rose objects to essentially everything I write, so if she wants an answer, I would suggest she be more specific as to what protocol she is referring to.

Quote
This is most readily observed during measurements reliably taken at the batteries themselves, which is a set-up that you skillfully suggested, and Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators accepted.
Is Rose now suggesting that the battery power measurement should NOT be performed right at the battery? Or is she saying that the battery power measurement is irrelevant somehow?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #201 on: January 11, 2014, 03:43:24 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #202 on: January 11, 2014, 05:44:57 PM »
Ainslie has set herself up as an object of ridicule and mockery. The scientific issues have been settled, years ago. There has been nothing new to emerge in years of discussion except the Quantum "box" and its smoking gun: the 555 chip made in 2007. Ainslie has no clue about her circuit or how to measure any aspect of its performance. She still doesn't know the difference between a Joule and a Watt. (Are a "mile" and a "mile per hour" the same thing?) She parrots terms without understanding their meaning and won't bother to learn the standard terminology of her topic.

Take a close look at her Figure 9. This cartoon was drawn by her _before_ they realized that the Q2 mosfets are in backwards, and has never been revised. Note that she has the Source of Q2 connected to the Source of Q1, and the Gates of the two connected together. This cartoon represents her "understanding" of the operation of the circuit.... and it doesn't even correspond to the way the circuit is wired!

I've included a few more post images that show Ainslie's attitude, as well. Note her repeated lies, her name-calling, her unfounded ridiculous accusations, the libels and threats.

Do you see, Mark E., that it is Ainslie who chooses the tone of the argument, not I?





Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #203 on: January 12, 2014, 02:26:23 AM »
Thanks Mark.

It is unfortunate indeed. Rose and her colleagues could learn a great deal if they would only put aside their pride and listen. And if they insist I am wrong, a cogent explanation as to why would be expected, but we never get one.
I am uncertain to what she refers actually. Rose objects to essentially everything I write, so if she wants an answer, I would suggest she be more specific as to what protocol she is referring to.
Is Rose now suggesting that the battery power measurement should NOT be performed right at the battery? Or is she saying that the battery power measurement is irrelevant somehow?
Poynt99, I am afraid that I have not seen anything more specific by Ms. Ainslie than what I described.  If I were to take a guess it would be that she is now discounting the validity of battery voltage and current measurements taken right at the battery.  In her own demonstrations, those measurements showed both that the wild battery voltage swings as measured at the breadboard did not exist at the batteries, and that the batteries supplied net power during both the Q1 on and off phases.  Those measurements taken at the batteries established that as your simulations and demonstrations had already shown long before the demonstration that wiring inductance between the batteries and the measurement points fouled the battery voltage and current measurements.

On her blog, Ms. Ainslie recently declared that the demonstrations did not show net battery power draw during both Q1 on and off phases when the fact that they did is readily observed in the August 11 demonstration video.  Ms. Ainslie has not elaborated on what she relies on to make these declarations that are at clear odds with her own demonstration. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #203 on: January 12, 2014, 02:26:23 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #204 on: January 12, 2014, 02:48:43 AM »
Ainslie has set herself up as an object of ridicule and mockery. The scientific issues have been settled, years ago. There has been nothing new to emerge in years of discussion except the Quantum "box" and its smoking gun: the 555 chip made in 2007. Ainslie has no clue about her circuit or how to measure any aspect of its performance. She still doesn't know the difference between a Joule and a Watt. (Are a "mile" and a "mile per hour" the same thing?) She parrots terms without understanding their meaning and won't bother to learn the standard terminology of her topic.
...
Do you see, Mark E., that it is Ainslie who chooses the tone of the argument, not I?
Each of us choose the tone in which we offer our arguments.  My view is that by staying focused on data, and avoiding personal issues discussions stay on track, and the important messages: the ones that concern the data, are the ones that are heard by most of the audience. 

It is obvious that Ms. Ainslie made gross errors concerning the concepts and measurement units for work and power.  It is also apparent from very recent comments on her blog that she may well still be struggling with those concepts.    I suggest to you that all are best served by simply pointing out what is wrong and what the correct facts are.   That may seem trying when someone engages in personal attacks.  I find that under most circumstances people who make personal attacks only get as much power as we give them.

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8369
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #205 on: January 12, 2014, 03:39:14 AM »
I have been lambasted by Rose with libelous claims and insults and I am just an observer of these proceedings.  I think is is because I no longer defend her.  It is too bad that the "science" (if any) gets lost in all of the drama with her.

TK and .99 have documented many, many postings which seem to be ignored.  Hell, I watched that online demonstration  (the one with the cell phone camera) and had no idea what the heck was going on.  As it turns out, no one doing the "demonstration" seemed to know either.  My advice:

If you don't know how to use a scope, or a camera, or do not understand the circuit that you are demonstrating, then do NOT do a demonstration.  Pretty simple really.  That demo left a lot more questions than it answered.

If Rose claims otherwise than, I have no idea how to respond to that.  .99 did his level best to try to guide them but, they either had no idea of what he was asking or, they knew the circuit was bogus from the get-go.  I was not impressed.

Why was the paper retracted and then un-retracted when there is no evidence making this un-retraction valid?

These folks are just lost.  I almost feel sorry for Rose,....almost.

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #205 on: January 12, 2014, 03:39:14 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #206 on: January 12, 2014, 03:46:11 AM »
Bill, the June 29 demonstration went very badly including the dead air, their resistance against poynt99's guidance, their confusion concerning Q1 oscillations, and most of all their shifting of the goal posts when it was immediately apparent to them that their demonstration was contradicting their claims of being able to reproduce Figure 3 using the set-up of Figure 1.  For those patient enough to sit through it, including the more than one and a half hours of dead air, they did eventually take useful measurements.  Those measurements showed unequivocally that Figure 3, Figure 6, and Figure 7 in the paper were the result of measurement error.

Offline hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #207 on: January 12, 2014, 04:11:19 AM »
Rosemary's claims are proof of perpetual motion and cop >1.

Her ridiculous claims keep resurfacing in a perpetual motion cycle as she Craps On Perpetually about her silly cop > 1 circuit !

Unfortunately, it seems there is also a perpetual number of people who discover her claims for the first time and resurrect discussion about it.

It really should have died a perpetual death years ago!

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8369
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #208 on: January 12, 2014, 04:29:54 AM »
Rosemary's claims are proof of perpetual motion and cop >1.

Her ridiculous claims keep resurfacing in a perpetual motion cycle as she Craps On Perpetually about her silly cop > 1 circuit !

Unfortunately, it seems there is also a perpetual number of people who discover her claims for the first time and resurrect discussion about it.

It really should have died a perpetual death years ago!

I perpetually agree with you.  But, Rose will not admit that she is, and was, wrong so....the beat goes on.

Bill

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #209 on: January 12, 2014, 07:36:07 PM »
The "demonstration" from June 29 showed their utter contempt for their audience, as well as their own incompetence and ignorance. The entire 4 hour recording is nearly impossible to watch, so I've excerpted the important parts and put them into a playlist on YT, along with a few of my own demonstrations that illustrate the issues.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q


Here's one of my favorites: Determining Frequency With A Digital Oscilloscope

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6659TrVblYE


(From one of the comments:
Every single trace screen has, at the very bottom line, just to the right of the words "LeCroy"..... a frequency number displayed. "f=1.48376MHz" or whatever. The scope constantly computes the frequency of the triggering channel, you can't even turn this function off. All he needed to do was to press the "Auto" button, turn the timebase two clicks to spread an oscillation block across the screen, then read the bottom line. The pompous dolt.)

 

OneLink