Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[TinselKoala]

Determined to show me? Well, what are you waiting for, Ainslie? You could have done it ages ago. You could have done it on June 1st. You could have done it when .99 asked you about it. You could be doing it RIGHT NOW.

If, that is, it were possible at all. So let's see you do it.

YOU CANNOT.

Note what we have here people. EVERY competent person who has examined the scopeshot and the schematic and the claims in the paper has acknowledged the problem with the Figure 3 scopeshot. NOBODY, but nobody, has come out endorsing the shot as even possible, much less correct. The shot can be easily explained by a missing, miswired or inoperative Q1, and conditions in the circuit (heat) are such that the mosfet is endangered. Ainslie has repeatedly made the claims in the letter to Mark D above, that it's "all over the internet" etc. She has the apparatus necessary, no more excuses about missing batteries, funerals, etc. Yet she STILL has provided no evidence, no repeat of the shot. Do you not think that she would, if she could? If YOU were in her position, and knew you were right, would you not rush to provide the evidence?

She's wrong, she knows she's wrong, and she will continue to avoid doing anything that might test her veracity. "Bend over backwards"... what a laugh.  Five minutes with the scope and the video camera is all it would take. But she cannot do it.

[picowatt]

Determined to show me? Well, what are you waiting for, Ainslie? You could have done it ages ago. You could have done it on June 1st. You could have done it when .99 asked you about it. You could be doing it RIGHT NOW.

If, that is, it were possible at all. So let's see you do it.

YOU CANNOT.

Note what we have here people. EVERY competent person who has examined the scopeshot and the schematic and the claims in the paper has acknowledged the problem with the Figure 3 scopeshot. NOBODY, but nobody, has come out endorsing the shot as even possible, much less correct. The shot can be easily explained by a missing, miswired or inoperative Q1, and conditions in the circuit (heat) are such that the mosfet is endangered. Ainslie has repeatedly made the claims in the letter to Mark D above, that it's "all over the internet" etc. She has the apparatus necessary, no more excuses about missing batteries, funerals, etc. Yet she STILL has provided no evidence, no repeat of the shot. Do you not think that she would, if she could? If YOU were in her position, and knew you were right, would you not rush to provide the evidence?

She's wrong, she knows she's wrong, and she will continue to avoid doing anything that might test her veracity. "Bend over backwards"... what a laugh.  Five minutes with the scope and the video camera is all it would take. But she cannot do it.

TK,

To be sure she fully understands what is being discussed regarding FIG3, maybe you should draw some nice black arrows on FIG3 and FIG5 pointing to the areas being discussed.

In FIG5, when the FG output goes positive, as expected, the CSR trace also goes positive.

In FIG3, when the FG output goes positive, the CSR trace remains at zero.  Therefore, in FIG3, Q1 must be defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.  There can be no other explanation. 

One wouldn't think she could be that slow, but who knows?  Remember the Ms. Gate and Mr. Source days?

PW   

[TinselKoala]

Of course I remember, and the thought has occurred to me that she simply doesn't know what we are talking about wrt Figure 3 (SCRN0253). She has demonstrated many times that she cannot actually read and interpret graphical data including oscilloscope traces. She relies totally on "numbers in boxes" from digital instruments. Again, she has had ample opportunity to learn these things, and even in spite of her lack of prerequisite background in mathematics and science in general, she could have educated herself from these forum threads and the references she has been given. Any bright twelve-year-old child could have come up to speed in a short time... had she been paying attention in class and doing her homework.

I've pointed out graphically several times what is the problem. Here's yet another graphic. It won't do any good, though. If she doesn't understand your excellent verbal explanations she isn't going to understand one of my graphics, that much is certain.

The first attachment is the Figure 3 shot, the second one is SCRN0150, used by Ainslie as Figure 5. I prepared the latter one some time ago.

[TinselKoala]

Here's a screenshot of the Paper1 Figure5 page. Note that the verbal description does not match the Battery Voltage used.
She is trying to describe the Test 2 condition but refers to numbers that apply to Figure 3, not Figure 5. Most especially where she says 6 batteries.... when anyone can clearly see that only four were used to make the Figure 5 scope traces. Note the battery voltage trace on the scopeshot.

This page is taken from my stored copy of the version initially posted to Rossi's "jnp". I know she has made some revisions; I don't know if this page has been revised or not, but it is the "official publication".

Note also that the text implies that this "test 2" was done AFTER the previous "test 1". But look at the dates of the oscillograms.

[TinselKoala]

Reading along further to examine Test 3 in the first paper, we encounter this claim:

The element resistor (RL1) was then immersed in about 0.85 liters of water and the water temperature then steadied
at approximately 82°C. The switching period was then increased and set to approximately 1.25
milliseconds as evident in Fig. 7. The temperature of the water then rose to 104°C in less than 10
minutes.

Yet she has repeatedly said, when challenged about the "104 degrees" figure, that she DID NOT MEASURE the temperature of the water, most recently just a few days ago.

So why does the paper say that she did? What is the truth? Do you really expect to get the actual truth from Rosemary Ainslie, unless you can verify it several different ways? Did she or did she not measure the temperature of the WATER to be 104 degrees as the paper claims? How can water exist as a liquid in an unpressurized container at 104 degrees C? Does she mean Fahrenheit degrees, maybe?

Nearly every page of these daft manuscripts contains further errors, misrepresentation of facts, and totally contradictory statements.

(The link that she gives in the post excerpt below apparently leads to... that same post!! Facepalm.)