AlaskaStar has indicated, for the record, that he is NOT the person to whom The Boss refers in his statements that I quoted above. The Boss must have been thinking of someone else. So at least Ainslie got something right.... she apparently hasn't been engaged by AlaskaStar before now, according to him.

Ainslie's insulting and mendacious comments about my videos hardly rise to the level of "critiques". She does not even try to refute specific points with outside checkable references, facts, or proper demonstrations of her own. She repeats over and over silly things that have long been known to be false, or which are easily demonstrated to be false simply by looking and paying attention to the content of my videos. Further, it has been clear for a long time that even the "tenth-grade" level of pitch is too much for her. She does not have the academic prerequisites, the intellectual capacity, or the proper mental models necessary to grasp or understand what is happening in my videos, even though they are as simple as I could possibly make them.

Just ask her what the mosfet Drain voltage should be in "her" circuit when the mosfet is ON and conducting, and see what she says.

Yes, her cheap, basic Chinese Function Generator always has the chassis, and the BNC shields, connected to the line cord's Ground wire. The only way to isolate the "black" output lead from the chassis and line ground is to cut off the ground pin in the cord, or use a line ground-lift adapter. However, my F43 Function Generator, a superior bit of test equipment made in the USA, has, in addition to its 40 V p-p output, also a built in Chassis Isolation switch and all its BNC connectors are insulated from its chassis. Simply by flicking this switch, I can isolate the F43's "black" output lead from the chassis and line-cord ground. Of course, using a BNC patch cord to connect the FG to another, grounded instrument re-establishes the ground connection. All of this is waaaaaay over the head of Ainslie and her crew, though. Since my instrument does not have "numbers in boxes".... she believes that it is somehow inferior to hers, when in fact the truth is the exact opposite.

(Image shows the F43's rear panel chassis isolation switch; I have since moved this function to the front panel for convenience.)

Yes, it can be dangerous to interrupt an instrument's chassis ground. The isolation switch on the F43 does not isolate the instrument's chassis/power supply section from the line cord ground, it only isolates the "signal ground" from the chassis (and so from the system's line cord ground.) It is very rare that this function is needed or desired, hence the original switch location on the rear panel of the instrument. My "rack" is so tightly stacked, though, that it is difficult for me to reach around behind the instrument, so I installed a switch in the front panel.

I believe Ainslie found out for herself just what a good groundloop can do, when she decided to take a reading "across the load" while she had all her other probes hooked up as normal. Recall that her early Quantum article work was done with a fully isolated Fluke 123 or 199 ScopeMeter, which allows 600 volts difference between the channel ground references, so one may connect this scope any which-a-way with relative impunity. Not so the LeCroy! All the probe references are connected together at the chassis and also back to the line cord. So she wound up hooking one probe's reference to the 72 volt battery negative, and another probe's reference to the battery positive, when she tried to scope "across the load". I believe this was the event that caused her to have to purchase the borrowed scope, and have it sent out for repair and calibration.
This is not the only "oops" that Ainslie has committed wrt her equipment, either.

My, my how things change over the years.

Remember when Ainslie's claims were like "the batteries don't discharge at all, because energy is being created in the circuit elements and returned to the batteries, while boiling water with no measurable current drawn from the source" ?

Now it appears that Ainslie's claims have degenerated -- perhaps "decayed" is a better word -- to something more like "two batteries, powering two different loads with two different discharge schedules, will last different lengths of time before they reach some low terminal voltage."

Well, triple-whoopie-dingding!! Send in the clowns! What an earthshaking result that is! .......... NOT.

There is just one Little problem: The energy OUT from the batteries will never exceed the energy put INTO the batteries to charge them up in the first place, and the energy SUPPLIED TO EACH LOAD (in this case the complete circuit, whatever it might be) by the batteries, or DC control power supply, will never be less than the ENERGY DISSIPATED BY THOSE LOADS during the experimentation.

Wait.... isn't that two Little problems? Sorry....

Poynt99, I wouldn't be so worried if I were you. Ainslie's kludgewerk is so drastically _inefficient_ that proper testing will clearly show, just as it always has in the past, that maintaining any given temperature of her load, using her "oscillations", will always require more power input than a simple DC source and straight wires would require to maintain the same temperature in the same load. As you poynt out, simply comparing the battery "capacity" using Ainslie's naive methodology is not a valid test of an overunity claim, but even so, I'd still wager that testing using her own "protocols" would nevertheless fail to support her claims. Which is why we won't be seeing any real data from such tests, coming from her.

"Watts of energy". Again. Still. After all these years.

One awaits eagerly the next Little foot-in-mouth pronouncement from the amazing Ainslie.

Ainslie continues to bleat, like a lost she-goat wandering through the maze of a city's downtown streets. She has no clue as to navigating the landscape so she does what she does best: she bleats. Again she complains about my work.... and as usual she cannot actually refute any single LITTLE thing I've done. She can't take any video of mine and point out the specific details she would like to dispute.... because she cannot dispute my FACTS at all.

Not only that..... but she is slowly lurching towards performing her testing in the manner that I have been using for years. Her "team" of incompetent blunderers must be paying attention, even though she herself is too ignorant and arrogant to understand. Neither has she ever withdrawn the utter lies that she has been telling about me and my work, even after her falsehoods are exposed for all to see in the images of her own posts. Bleat, bleat bleat, the poor lost she-goat wanders through a landscape she cannot possibly ever understand. It would be sad, if it weren't so utterly comical.

She mentions her Doctor Garret in a rather disparaging manner. Do we think that this is the same Doctor Garret who is now Chief Scientist in Queensland Australia? Hmmm.... I really wonder what he himself would have to say about the things Ainslie is attributing to him.

Prior  to joining CSIRO, Geoff led South Africa’s national science agency, the CSIR,  as President and Chief Executive from 1995, following five years as Executive  Vice President: Operations. He was named South Africa’s ‘Boss of the Year’ in  1998, and ‘Engineer of the Year’ by the South African Society of Professional  Engineers in 1999.

http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/about/bio.aspx

Phone: +61 7 3224 7630
 Email: info@chiefscientist.qld.gov.au
 Street address: Level 25, 111 George Street, Brisbane

Dear Professor Garrett

For some years now we have been examining the claims of one Rosemary Ainslie, who believes that she has discovered that a simple electronic circuit, found in the back of every power mosfet data sheet, can somehow produce more energy than is required to operate the circuit. She has mentioned you as being one of the early examiners of her claims and her experiments.

As you can see in the attached image of her blog post, made on Sunday, February 16, 2014, she mentions you rather disparagingly and makes certain definite claims as to your role in the affair. She goes as far as to accuse you of suppressing data. She says that your actions were "immoral" and that you were too "scared" to release her data: "Sadly he did NOT have the courage needed for faithful scientific evaluation to be duly reported and recorded." (sic)

These claims about you are rather remarkable, but are actually commonplace coming from Ainslie. Previous statements she has made have turned out to be utter misrepresentations of the facts. So we are hoping that you yourself can give us a description of your actual role in Ainslie's experimentation in those early days.

Please be aware that Ainslie has mentioned you frequently and indeed seems to be blaming you, at least in part, for the lack of acceptance of her claims in the mainstream scientific community. Some of her critics find these statements of hers to be literally incredible, such as the quote above maligning your scientific integrity.

We would really like to hear your side of the story, to put the matter to rest once and for all.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We will be eagerly awaiting your reply.

Sincerely, I remain
(actual contact info redacted)

attachments: images of posts from Ainslie's forum mentioning Doctor Garrett

I would like to invite anyone who shares my concerns to join me as signatories for the above email, which I will be sending off in a day or two.

You have my personal contact information. Sign me on.