Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[TinselKoala]

Sketching it with colored pencils .... yeah, that would work. Don't forget to sketch in the high load heat, and the incredulous audience standing around the table with their teacups at the ready.



This right here is why she can't find any "academics" willing to waste their time attending one of her "demonstrations."  Anyone who has worked with mosfets and oscilloscopes can look at the schematic, look at this scopeshot, and tell immediately that something is wrong, and it has nothing to do with COP INFINITY.

People here and elsewhere have flamed me over and over; I have borne the brunt of the worst series of insults from True Believers that anyone has ever seen on this website and others about my stance wrt false claims and fraud. So why doesn't someone step up to the plate here and use this fine opportunity to PROVE ME WRONG and get rid of me forever? According to Ainslie it is very simple to make these traces. I agree-- it is very simple, all you have to do is remove the Q1 mosfet or use one that is blown. But that is not what Ainslie claims in the manuscripts; her entire house of cards depends on this scopeshot being taken with fully operational mosfets wired as shown in the circuit she claims to use.

Where are Ainslie's supporters now? THE SCOPESHOT IS BOGUS, therefore the papers are bogus, therefore the "thesis" is not supported, therefore Ainslie must retract, issue errata, and apologize for all those years of insults and mendacity.

[markdansie]

Hi TK
I guess many did not step up to the plate as you did such a good job. I was approached and realized quickly after getting some technical advice from my science and engineering friends that there was nothing there or worth the risk to even go and test. As a result I started receiving the usual flaming anyone gets if they do not agree or will not test.
The silent majority is 100% behind you TK and always have been.
Getting flamed (I was after my last Smartscarecrow for calling a Stan Myer replication BS without data) is really a way of enhancing ones reputation. You even flamed me once (with good reason).
So please understand...there is a silent majority and they agree with you
Kind Regards
Mark

[TinselKoala]

Thanks Mark, and don't forget the long and hard work that .99 did on simulations, and all the extremely patient attempts he made at explaining her circuit and fundamentals of measurement and circuit operation to her. And of course, going back years now, we credit the work of FuzzyTomCat, Harvey, and her other former collaborators who now no longer support her or her claims.

Now she is harassing professors at UCT who aren't snapping to attention and bowing to her demands. But she forgot to send Professor Peteresen a copy of the letter she wrote to somebody called Bryan (or is it actually Brian) Little at the same time, so I'll reproduce it here. And I just might send it along to the good Professor as well, so that he can understand a little more about just what he's dealing with.

This, among other reasons, is why the Ainslie affair must be taken seriously and must be dealt with. She isn't just some crackpot posting on internet forums, she is actually harassing people in the real world and often winds up threatening them with her lawyers, while at the same time accusing them of things like burglary and computer hacking. And the scopeshot Figure 3 is the key. She cannot reproduce this scopeshot with functioning mosfets and the circuit claimed in the papers!

If it were possible at all, she could have done it in five minutes with the apparatus shown in the recent photos on PESN.

But she cannot, and nobody else can either. It would have taken her less time than it took her to write these two letters. But she cannot. The scopeshot, the interpretation of it, the papers based on it, and the claimed support for her "thesis".... all are nothing more than "horse manure" coming from the claims of Rosemary Ainslie.

(Notice how she says she will "respect" the decision, and then in the very next breath she proceeds to disrespect it and demand a reversal.)

[TinselKoala]

@Markdansie: Well, Mark, it looks like you've been offered a "private viewing", even by remote control. Amazing, isn't it? This issue has been before us for over two years now, and she has never before actually taken any opportunity to reproduce the scopeshot for anyone. Not even in the previous demo video did she do it. Especially she didn't do it on this past June 1, which would have been an excellent opportunity. But she's going to do it for you!
I certainly hope that you take up her offer.

Remember, it is the Figure 3 scopeshot we are interested in, reproduced below once more for your reference. I'm also putting a "normal" scopeshot below, which shows normal current flowing in the Q1 mosfet when it is getting a sufficient positive gate signal. Also, I'm attaching for reference the schematic from the paper, which she said yesterday is the one she will be using in her next demonstration, and is the one claimed to have been used to make the scope traces.

I have no idea how she intends to show that the mosfets are "in tact" (sic), but I've certainly shown several easy ways to do it in my YT videos. You should require tests that are at least as good as those, to show that all the mosfets she uses are "in tact" before and most especially _after_ she makes the scope traces. Since the paper claims that she made these traces "while bringing water to boil", quantity variously given as "about a liter", 700 mL, and 800 mL, this should also be a requirement for her demonstration to you, of course.

So we are looking at the following salient points: a period of about 160 seconds, with an ON time of around 16 or 17 seconds per period. A gate drive signal of 10-12 volts during those ON periods, applied to the gate of Q1 as shown in the schematic. A drain-to-source (battery) voltage of over 73 volts. And ZERO current flowing through the currentsensing resistors during those ON times (shown by the golden yellow trace). Along with this on the scope, we need to see the load boiling some water at the same time. Oh... excuse me, the water wasn't actually boiling, there were tiny bubbles. (Direct quote from Ainslie's blog post describing the moment this Figure 3 scopeshot was taken.)

I don't know how you will be able to verify that she is honestly hooking up the mosfets as described in the schematic, though. Remember the month-long deception as to the true schematic of the 2011 demonstration video? The claim that all five mosfets were in parallel? That shows that she is not above using conscious deception in a demonstration.

[TinselKoala]

Now Ainslie has had Sterling reproduce her "open letter" to Mark right there in the main article on PESN, including her continuing libel about Bryan or Brian Little .... while at the same time they are censoring my comments.
I placed this comment there just now, but I doubt if it will pass the censors. Sterling is evidently happier with Ainslie's lies, false claims and errors than he is with knowing the Truth about her and her silly project.

Sterling
I AM NOT BRYAN or BRIAN LITTLE, and you should do a little fact checking before you allow Rosemary Ainslie to libel third parties on your website.
Ainslie lies whenever she uses that name in reference to me. She can give you no evidence or support for her continuing nonsensical claim that I am Brian or Bryan Little and you really should be careful about what you print from her. Can you imagine your legal position if someone who actually IS Bryan or Brian Little should decide to take offense at Ainslie's continuing libels concerning him? Just check her forum threads for a long series of her references to Brian or Bryan Little, in the most insulting language possible.

The Paper2, Figure 3 scopeshot cannot be made with functioning mosfets in the circuit claimed. She has been challenged on this ever since posting the claims over two years ago and has NEVER provided any evidence that the mosfet Q1 is functional when Figure 3 was made. The by far most probable explanation of that shot is that the transistor is blown and to go any further without CONFIRMING THAT IT IS OPERATIONAL is just silly. However you can see for yourself how Ainslie is avoiding providing that confirmation. She has the necessary apparatus, as shown in your photographs. Why does she not simply perform some demonstration that repeats the Figure 3 traces and then shows the mosfet is functional? If it were possible at all, I could do it in five minutes. But she does not do so because she cannot. Nobody can!

Sterling, if you sign an ironclad NDA with me including a penalty clause, then I will happily reveal my personal identity and contact information to you. Rosemary Ainslie has no regard for the truth and proves it every time she uses the name Brian or Bryan Little in her continuing series of insulting posts that refer to me. She cannot address the real issues and problems with her claims and manuscripts so she has recruited you and your PESN in order to attack me and her other critics with ad hominem abuse, and you are complicit by publishing mendacious "letters" from Ainslie like the most recent one above.

Will Ainslie ever provide the evidence that the Figure 3 scopeshot was made with all functioning mosfets and in the circuit shown in the paper? No, she cannot. Will any of her supporters.... if there are any.... come to her aid and do so themselves? NO.... because they cannot!
Will Ainslie ever provide any evidence for her assertion that I am somebody called Brian or Bryan Little? Of course not, she cannot, because I am not!
Will Ainslie ever apologize to me or to Brian (or Bryan) Little for all the insults and libels she has committed against us? HAH. When hell freezes over, maybe.

There it is people, the huge hole in Ainslie's claims, the giant Smoking Gun that blows her papers, her claims, and her "thesis" right out of the water: the Q1 mosfet is blown when Fig.3 scopeshot was made, the heat in her load is residual, any "large heat" result depends on Q1 working (as she has acknowledged herself) and the claims made in the papers, and the papers themselves, must be withdrawn and errata statements published.