Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[profitis]

 @poynt 99..thus perpetual confusion as opposed to perpetual motion.the more complexities inbetween the battery and the measurements the less certainty.it seems even breathing on probes can effect them thus the need for microsystems which require micro sized,definite quantified power supplies.my huge emphasis on cup-of-oil calorimetry alongside a controll being the prefered indisputable way to prove anything beyond doubt.

[profitis]

by the way guys,if you are going to do calorometry with your circuits never EVER throw the inductors in the tank.the inductors MUST remain outside the tank for thermodynamic reasons,they are supposed to suck in extra heat from the environment and spit it out on your load thus they will cancel if both are in the tank.

[TinselKoala]

Did Ainslie, or did she not, just demonstrate that she and her team could NOT repeat the Figure 3 scopeshot? I think it is clear that they could NOT repeat the shot, that the mosfet gets +hot+ when they try, and that the shot in the paper must have been made with either the misplaced probe or a blown mosfet.

Do you want to give her another opportunity to make the Figure 3 scopeshot, and to "bring water to boil 700 mL, 104 degrees C" with traces like Figure 6 and 7? Fine, let her demonstrate her failures as many times as she likes. Do you think she'll take MH's advice, to bring her video up to _at least_ the standard of my videos? Do you think profitis will ever notice that I _do_ use "oil-cup calorimetry" when I test Tar Baby, and Ainslie does not, not even "water cup" calorimetry?

At some point, though, the endless series of postponed demos that fail to demonstrate her claims has got to stop, don't you think? She had four hours and more, she had her "team", she had advice from several people she apparently trusted over the 'net. Yet she still could not reproduce her major claim, in spite of her previous overweening arrogance and unjustified confidence. Will we learn anything more from doing more demonstrations of the same thing? It will be like watching the same Keystone Kops feature, again and again. The "NERD" team, after all this time, still does not even know how to operate their own test equipment to best advantage, nor how to display data coherently. At 1:10:00, roughly, the "presenter" can be heard to ask just what it is they are supposed to be replicating !! Even he has no clue, to this day.  Ainslie herself apparently cannot even operate the apparatus -- else why did she not herself try to make the traces before yesterday?

The Ainslie failure to produce the Figure 3 scopeshot means that her "thesis" is not supported, actually, and that the data upon which her conclusions are based are bogus. The papers, in their entirety, must be withdrawn, errata issued, and apologies made by her to everyone she has slighted and insulted over the years. 

Are these things the right and proper and honest things for her to do? Yes, they are, since her data has been proven, by Ainslie herself, to be bogus.  Do I think she will do these things? Of course not.

[profitis]

@tk i want to ask you a very very important question: was ainslie,s inductor inside the calorometer tank or not.

[markdansie]

I think you make some good points TK
lets see if they can do another demo with Mr Weir's help and address them
It not a matter of who was right or wrong in the past its what is the status of the methodology and data that is generated today.
Mark