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 Posts: 514274
  • *Total Topics: 15303
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 7

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 248807 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #210 on: January 12, 2014, 08:08:23 PM »
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.

Don't you find it at all ironic, or significant, that most of what is _actually_ known about these circuits and their behaviour comes from Ainslie's detractors? The data that we can trust doesn't come from Ainslie at all, it comes from others who have examined her output and who have simulated and built her various claimed circuits.

Her critics and detractors have determined the following, from the trustable data:
The Quantum published schematic cannot do what Ainslie claimed.
The circuit, minus the timer, which Ainslie attempted to patent (claiming it as her own), is in fact the simple unclamped inductive test circuit given in every power mosfet data sheet.
The "5 mosfet in parallel" circuit, claimed by Ainslie in the 2011 video, blog and forum posts, is no such thing.
The Figure 3 scopeshot and others like it are bogus, making Ainslie's claims that depend upon them also bogus.
The batteries used in these circuits do indeed discharge, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
No water was actually boiled by Ainslie in the experiments described in the manuscripts, contrary to Ainslie's deliberately misleading language.
The "box" contains a vastly different circuit than was claimed in the Quantum article and operates at a vastly different frequency, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
The "box" contains a chip manufactured in May of 2007, whereas Ainslie claims it hasn't been touched since 2003.

And on and on. Most of what we know is _in spite_ of Ainslie's mendacity and incompetence, rather than being due to her honest reportage and cooperative discussion.


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 #211 on: January 13, 2014, 05:41:22 AM »
Don't you find it at all ironic, or significant, that most of what is _actually_ known about these circuits and their behaviour comes from Ainslie's detractors? The data that we can trust doesn't come from Ainslie at all, it comes from others who have examined her output and who have simulated and built her various claimed circuits.

Her critics and detractors have determined the following, from the trustable data:
The Quantum published schematic cannot do what Ainslie claimed.
The circuit, minus the timer, which Ainslie attempted to patent (claiming it as her own), is in fact the simple unclamped inductive test circuit given in every power mosfet data sheet.
The "5 mosfet in parallel" circuit, claimed by Ainslie in the 2011 video, blog and forum posts, is no such thing.
The Figure 3 scopeshot and others like it are bogus, making Ainslie's claims that depend upon them also bogus.
The batteries used in these circuits do indeed discharge, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
No water was actually boiled by Ainslie in the experiments described in the manuscripts, contrary to Ainslie's deliberately misleading language.
The "box" contains a vastly different circuit than was claimed in the Quantum article and operates at a vastly different frequency, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
The "box" contains a chip manufactured in May of 2007, whereas Ainslie claims it hasn't been touched since 2003.

And on and on. Most of what we know is _in spite_ of Ainslie's mendacity and incompetence, rather than being due to her honest reportage and cooperative discussion.
Oh, no I do not find this surprising at all.  This sort of thing happens a lot with people amateurs who think they have discovered a new big thing.  Whether they choose to acknowledge it or not: Ms. Ainslie, her collaborators, and basically anyone interested in her claims owe skeptics such as yourself and poynt99 who have applied their time and skills dissecting the claims and the purported tests a great debt for all the verifiable facts that you have collectively revealed.

With the possible exception of ever boiling water, and with only tiny doubt about the device date code yes you undoubtedly are correct on all the remaining points.

Whether Ms. Ainslie boiled water or not is less certain to me.  A 72V supply such as they had could apply nearly 500W to an 11 Ohm heating element such as they had.  To go from 25C to 100C and 100C liquid to vapor requires ~2600J/gm, or conversely they could boil about 12gm/minute.  So depending on duty cycle, water volume, and run time, boiling was possible with her fixture.

For all of her mistakes, reversals, contradictions of proven fact, and untoward behavior, nothing forces rude behavior or ridicule in return.  I suggest things work out best by leaving personal squabbles behind as insignificant noise.  The way things are, Ms. Ainslie or someone who thinks her ideas have merit are on the line to show that they do.  It does not seem that either Ms. Ainslie or anyone else is going to take any effort in that direction.  Thanks to the efforts of people like you and poynt99 her claims have for all effect been put to rest.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #212 on: January 13, 2014, 09:02:22 AM »
In an effort to resolve your remaining doubts, I have attached below the STMicro Application Note that gives their date code marking schemes. I've already  posted the image of the chip, taken from Ainslie's photograph, up above. STMicroelectronics did not exist under that name in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics
Therefore the "7" in the date code must refer to 2007.

Next, I've attached the image of Ainslie's blog post describing the _single trial_ that is the basis for the report and "taken to boil" claim in the manuscript. (This is also the trial described by the "So. Do the math." bad mathematics in the post up above.) Why do you think she uses the convoluted language "taken to boil"?

Note that the scopeshot that accompanies that post is another of the problematic ones, where there is no current shown in the yellow CVR trace in spite of the ample gate drive during Q1 ON portions of the duty cycle.

Further, according to Ainslie's methodology, the thermocouple is attached directly to the heating element, and by Ainslie's own admission.... they _never measured_ the actual temperature of the water at any time. The claim of "taking water to boil" is completely bogus.

Quote
It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles...
Quote
We have NEVER measured the temperature of the water...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #212 on: January 13, 2014, 09:02:22 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #213 on: January 13, 2014, 10:42:20 AM »
SGS Thomson as it was known up to 1998 looks like they used the slanted ST logo prior to 1997.  I have been able to locate data sheets from as early as 1995 with the slanted ST logo.  I think you are right that the chip was made in 2007.  But I am not certain.  A picture of a 1997 chip would resolve this question.

In the additional quotes that you've posted, she stated that she did not evaporate the water, IE she did not actually boil it.  I concede your point.

I would be cautious about interpreting any current sense waveforms that she has ever posted prior to June 29 due to the errors shown during the June 29 demonstration.  Erroneous placement of the probe on the wrong side of the CSR was shown to generate Figure 3 like waveforms where no current appeared to flow during Q1 on time, when in reality multiple amps were flowing.  At the same time oscillation currents show up on their fixture during Q1 off times no matter which side of the CSR they used for their probe.  Which side does not affect the amplitude much, and the amplitude is an artifact of parasitic inductance in their wiring and their probe set-up.  Poynt99 demonstrated these latter issues.







Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #214 on: January 13, 2014, 01:24:38 PM »
Ms. Ainslie continues to assert claims that her demonstration videos contradict.  At this time she claims that measurements taken August 11 at the battery show zero battery power draw during the Q1 off intervals.  These are the intervals when the circuit oscillates.

"the voltage waveform taken directly at the negative terminal of the battery - shows a current delivered during the 'ON' period of the duty cycle.  During the 'OFF' period the current defaults to zero.  This indicates that the current that is measured to flow through the circuit during this 'OFF' period is somehow generated from an energy supply that is NOT from that battery supply.  The indications therefore are that provided only that there is a continual negative signal applied to the Gate of Q1 (which represents the OFF period referred to) then that current flow can be perpetuated.  The implications of this are extraordinary."

The tests measurements taken at the battery can be seen in the video from about 1h 3min to 1h 5min.  The Q1 'OFF' period current oscillations are plainly evident as is the net battery power draw both graphically, and from the numerical measurements generated by the oscilloscope.  The battery power drain as computed by the oscilloscope is seen to be ~14W.  Shortly thereafter, the heater thermocouple reading was taken at 39.1C, and the ambient temperature thermocouple reading at 18.0C.  The heating power associated with that 21.1C temperature rise as measured by Ms. Ainslie's calibration reported in Paper 1 was between 2.4W and 3.4W.  The approximately 20% output over input power efficiency is not as Ms. Ainslie declares 'extraordinary'.  It is very poor.  Most of the power drawn from the battery is wasted in the four "Q2" power MOSFETs that are linearly biased during the oscillations.

Ms. Ainslie goes on to say:

"My early retraction was based on the irrefutable evidence that there was NO oscillation during the 'OFF' period that could be seen or measured at that battery negative terminal.  "

However, her now withdrawn retraction stated as the reason for the retraction was the far less than unity performance demonstrated.  The retraction makes no mention of missing Q2 oscillations.  And, as the video shows, the Q2 oscillations were in plain view.

"In June and August 2013 demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this
paper. The 2013 experiments were conducted under more stringent protocols than the originals. The experiments conducted: June 29
August 10, and August 11 failed to reproduce the results reported here.

The June 29 experiments were unable to bias Q1 as in Figure 3 without current flow also indicated in Figure 3.
The privately conducted August 10, and publicly conducted August 11 experiments were unable to corroborate net zero or negative battery
draw during periods of Q2 oscillation. Reference measurements taken at new sense points directly at the battery bank indicated average net
positive battery drain of 14W to 15W. Maximum heater temperature rise during these experiments was 21C. From our electrical DC power
to temperature rise tests conducted in 2011 and appear as Table II in this paper, a 21C heater temperature rise corresponds to an
equivalent power of between 2.4W and 3.4W. We therefore obtained heat output that was only a fraction of the input power.
As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts.
Details of the test protocols are available as August 11 Demonstration Outline_draft_05.pdf. Test Phases 1 - 3 were conducted during the
live demonstration. We ended the demonstration after Test Phase 3 when it became clear that the net battery power drain was far in excess
of the possible heater output power.
This retraction relates to the this circuit variant and does NOT represent a retraction of the claims in the Quantum paper published in 2002
a copy of which can be found at this link... Paper 3"


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #214 on: January 13, 2014, 01:24:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #215 on: January 13, 2014, 01:36:46 PM »
Ms. Ainslie currently asserts additional disproven ideas:

"What no-one could manage was an explanation for, or an analysis of, the path or the source of that oscillation.  This included Poynty - TK - Picowatt - MileHigh and the rest.  It was variously ASSUMED that the battery was passing current through the probes of the function generator itself - directly from the GATE of Q2 to the Source rail of Q1.  This is IMPOSSIBLE. "

Poynt99 has performed detailed circuit simulations and published those simulations here that show exactly the source of the oscillation.  TinselKoala has posted videos that reproduce the oscillations.  Phase 2 test measurements during the August 11 demonstration show unequivocally that the function generator contributes 250mW - 400mW power to the oscillations, which is in-line with Poynt99's previously published simulations.  The circuit theory that explains both the oscillations, and the function generator's role in the oscillations has been explained by Poynt99, and TinselKoala multiple times.  In short, when the function generator outputs a negative voltage on its red lead relative to its black lead, it biases the Q2 MOSFETs into a source follower configuration.  This is a linear mode of operation, the MOSFETs have high transconductance gains, and the circuit construction has high parasitic inductance.  Together these conditions cause the Q2 MOSFETs to oscillate.  A small fraction: about 2% of the ~15W that circulates through the circuit is supplied by the function generator.  The remainder comes from the battery as shown during Phase 3 of the test.  What Ms. Ainslie declares is "IMPOSSIBLE" and unexplained is: ordinary, fully explained, simulated, and replicated.


Offline profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3954
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #216 on: January 13, 2014, 01:45:50 PM »
heya @tinselkoala.i got an experiment for us to try if your interested.do you have any mim-type diodes lying around perhaps?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #216 on: January 13, 2014, 01:45:50 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #217 on: January 13, 2014, 01:50:36 PM »
Ms. Ainslie further regresses with claims that the August 11 demonstrations showed over unity:

"What I managed thereafter was a detailed explanation for that path of current flow that then REQUIRED that measure of over unity. Which is here defined as more energy being returned to the ELEMENT RESISTOR than was initially supplied by the battery.  " 

Again as seen in the video and noted in Ms. Ainslie's retraction:  The battery supplied ~15W, and the heating resistor evolved ~3W.

Ms. Ainslie insists against her own June 29, and August 11 observations:

"The implications of Test 3 paper 1 are LOUDLY denied by Little TK PRECISELY because we prove that we can SET the signal from the function generator to obviate ALL current flow during that ON period.  We have demonstrated this repeatedly and publicly.  It makes no difference to their DENIALS.  Effectively we are stating that notwithstanding the measured evidence of a current flow during the 'on' period that duty cycle - there is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH THE CIRCUIT NOR THE ELEMENT RESISTOR - NOR ANYWHERE ON THAT CIRCUIT - DURING THIS 'ON' PERIOD.  "

The June 29 demonstrations failed multiple times to reproduce Paper 1 Figure 3.  Waveforms similar to Figure 3 were reproduced when the oscilloscope probe that was supposed to measure the voltage across the current sense resistors was shorted out.  When the probe was connected properly, the oscilloscope showed current flow whenever the Q1 gate drive signal was greater than the threshold value of 4V. This can all be seen in the last forty minutes of the demonstration when Mr. Weir assisted Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.   Ms. Ainslie is declaring observations her videos directly contradict.

I cannot venture a guess how much longer or how much further Ms. Ainslie's protests will continue in direct contradiction to the incontrovertible evidence present in her own demonstrations of June 29, and August 11, 2013.  I invite Ms. Ainslie to point to the portions of her demonstrations that she believes support her assertions.





Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #218 on: January 13, 2014, 03:40:45 PM »
Quote
And Guys - just to state all that more plainly - here's the thing.  With the Q-Array circuit - it is theoretically possible to apply a continual negative signal to the Gate of Q1.
Yes, we know. I advised you of this quite some time ago.

Quote
It is also theoretically possible to apply that signal from the same battery supply source in series with the element resistor.  This will result in a continual oscillation where the only measure of energy discharged from the battery supply will then, theoretically, also replenish those batteries.  This will result in a zero loss of energy from that supply source - while it is, nonetheless, driving a load.
Not quite. If the measurement is performed properly, and noting the implications of the indicated polarity of net power measured, it will be obvious that some power is being used from the source (batteries).
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 06:01:04 PM by poynt99 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #218 on: January 13, 2014, 03:40:45 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #219 on: January 13, 2014, 04:26:24 PM »
Ms. Ainslie expresses great upset at my comments.  My comments are completely and thoroughly backed by the demonstrations Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators performed June 29, and August 11.  The videos of those demonstrations are available on YouTube.  Ms. Ainslie now insists, even swears on: her life, her children's lives, and those of her grandchildren what the videos contradict and Ms. Ainslie herself concedes in the June 29 video.

I urge Ms. Ainslie to refresh her memory by reviewing the videos of her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations.
The June 29 demonstration failed to reproduce Figure 3 under the conditions set forth in the paper.  Figure 3 was reproduced by shorting the oscilloscope Channel 1 probe in an RF loop.
During the June 29 demonstration nearing the very end of the video Ms. Ainslie concedes measurement error fouled Figure 6, which corresponds to the "Test 3" that she now swears was valid.

Ms. Ainslie continues to insist that the August 11 demonstration showed zero current flow during the Q2 oscillation / Q1 off phase.  Again the video record shows otherwise.

No amount of declaration can change established fact.  Ms. Ainslie's stated recollection of the demonstration results is simply and terribly wrong.

Ms. Ainslie's hypotheses concerning operation of her circuits are flat out wrong.  Ms. Ainslie's declared interpretations of the detailed circuit operation explained to her by fully competent working professionals does not reflect what those professionals have explained to her numerous times.

If Ms. Ainslie really believes that either the June 29, or August 11 demonstration reproduced any:  Figure 3, Figure 6, or Figure 7 from Paper 1 following the circuit configuration of Figure 1 from that same paper, even allowing for the relocated connection of the function generator black lead, then I invite her to point out where that may be seen on either video.  I again point out that in the last forty minutes of the June 29 video that the controversy over the apparent zero current oscilloscope readings during the Q1 on phase in each of those three figures was fully resolved, and that it was resolved that those figures appear as they do because they were the result of measurement error by Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.  Specifically, they made the erroneous measurements by placing the Channel 1 probe tip on the wrong side of the CSRs.  It is all on the June 29 video.  There is no reason for debate.

Ms. Ainslie continues to declare that battery current does not move through the function generator during the Q2 oscillation phase.  Again, the August 11 video proved that battery current does move through the function generator and it also proved that the function generator contributes a minor percentage of the overall power dissipated by the breadboard circuitry.

It is terribly unfortunate that Ms. Ainslie has regressed in her positions and is contradicting the hard evidence presented in her own recent demonstrations.  Ms. Ainslie implores that she is calling for additional investigation.  Again, I suggest Ms. Ainslie review the videos of her own demonstrations.



Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #220 on: January 13, 2014, 04:43:51 PM »
I think if everyone just totally ignored and no longer commented then apart from the ignorant true believers nobody would give a toss what Rosemary does. While there is commentary she has a stage and an audience. This will be my last post. You have a better chance of turning a fundamentalist Muslim rebel into a Texas baptist or visa versa.
Mark

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #220 on: January 13, 2014, 04:43:51 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #221 on: January 13, 2014, 04:52:07 PM »
Yes, we know. I who advised you of this quite some time ago.
Not quite. If the measurement is performed properly, and noting the implications of the indicated polarity of net power measured, it will be obvious that some power is being used from the source (batteries).

Since Ainslie chooses to remain ignorant of the work of others, while at the same time seeking to misrepresent what they (meaning you and I, mostly) have done... it is no surprise that she utters statements like this, which only make her look more and more foolish. As you say, you told her about this long ago, as did Stefan Hartmann, and I demonstrated it several different ways, also long ago. More recently I've posted a series of videos that fully explain, in terms a bright eighth-grader might understand, just how the Q2s are made to oscillate using the negative bias and how it relates to what the FG is doing in the circuit, as well as how to make continuous Q2 oscillations using an external power source other than the FG.  How does one overcome the willfull ignorance of an Ainslie, though? She is so arrogant that she will not be taught, instead preferring to remain in some fantasy, spouting claims long refuted, and claiming things that she has never demonstrated.... but that we have already done, long ago.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V

I think that the negative bias voltage must be _more negative_ than the main batteries that are powering the load. I doubt seriously whether Ainslie can in fact provide this negative bias using only the main batteries, unless a charge pump inverter is also used -- as I demonstrated well over a year ago.

Further, Ainslie has never demonstrated that she understands the linear mode of mosfet operation. She has always modelled the mosfet as a simple switch. (Recall Donny explaining to her that the mosfet will begin to conduct at a Vgs of 4 volts or even less. Recall her bewilderment as they tried to make the Figure 3 scopeshot and saw the Q1 current rise as its Vgs approached 4 volts.)  Hence, she fails to grasp the fact that the Q2 mosfets are indeed turning partly on and passing current from the battery during the oscillations as their Vgs fluctuates around the threshold value. She doesn't understand that this is why the Q2 mosfets heat a bit during the oscillation phase. It is no wonder that her mental model of the mosfet causes her to believe that Q2 is "disconnected" and that no current can pass, since she doesn't understand the linear operation mode. All of this, once again, is due to her willfully ignoring information and demonstrations that explain and illustrate the issue in simple terms that even a bright child could grasp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pnnNR85XcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbAGWkWFmxM




Offline The Boss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #222 on: January 13, 2014, 05:16:10 PM »
I think if everyone just totally ignored and no longer commented then apart from the ignorant true believers nobody would give a toss what Rosemary does. While there is commentary she has a stage and an audience. This will be my last post. You have a better chance of turning a fundamentalist Muslim rebel into a Texas baptist or visa versa.
Mark


It continues to amaze me that this freak of mother nature, unable to connect to reality still garners attention.
You're dealing with a psychologically diseased person here, unable to connect to reality,
whose delusions will continue for as long as she is still breathing.

Not unlike a raving pyjama-clad lunatic standing on a street corner babbling at anyone who happens to pass by, this always was, and will continue to be about nothing more than an insane, unstable, severely disturbed old woman seeking attention.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #223 on: January 13, 2014, 05:26:11 PM »
I think if everyone just totally ignored and no longer commented then apart from the ignorant true believers nobody would give a toss what Rosemary does. While there is commentary she has a stage and an audience. This will be my last post. You have a better chance of turning a fundamentalist Muslim rebel into a Texas baptist or visa versa.
Mark

Mark, I don't think any of us expects to "convert" Rosemary Ainslie. Of course this is impossible; in fact, I predicted that her "retraction" was lip service only and would not "stick", on the day she made it. We are far beyond the electrical engineering issues, the issues concerning the proper way to do science, the editorial issues. We are way into the psychological realm now. Nobody believes her claims. Ainslie has set herself up as a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect; it is her choice to remain in the public eye and in fact she has once again announced her intention to seek the monetary prizes that are offered by several forums for a reliable OU demonstration. Since her claims are based on invalid, even fabricated data, trying to get money for them would seem to obligate us once again to put her claims up for the strongest criticism and most intense scrutiny. Her reactions and responses to this scrutiny and criticism are true psychological theatre. One observes denial, distortion of reality, failure to discriminate fantasy from reality, paranoia, pressure of speech, projection, and more.

In other words... man, we are in it for the lulz.
 ;)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #224 on: January 13, 2014, 10:49:13 PM »
I agree with Mark Dansie in that I do not see value in an endless battle of:  "Yes it is."  "No it isn't." 

For my part, I am comfortable that I have thoroughly addressed the direct contradictions that I assert Ms. Ainslie is presently declaring against her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations.  I think that anyone who is interested in the debate can view those videos and find that that those videos show what I contend that they do.  I think that anyone who is interested in the operational details of the fixtures can view TinselKoala's and Poynt99's excellent videos, and/or Poynt99's analysis paper complete with circuit simulations, and/or any of the many explanatory posts here offered by TinselKoala, Poynt99, and others.  In summary:  I believe that the physical record indisputably holds against Ms. Ainslie's assertions.

I again invite Ms. Ainslie, or anyone who wishes to defend Ms. Ainslie's recent declarations to rebut any of my assertions by pointing to appropriate times in the demonstration videos where we may see her apparatus performing as she presently claims that she has shown.



 

OneLink