Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[picowatt]

@PW: take a look at this forum post she made LAST AUGUST, promising an immanent video demonstration, where she explicitly says what she will be demonstrating. It appears from this that she does, or did, understand the features, if not the cause of them. Of course... she never did make that video, did she. Why not?

Now does everybody understand why I make these kinds of records?

TK,

I had (pleasantly) forgotten all the excuses she originally gave.  First was that the scope wasn't being read correctly, and that the scopes offset numbers needed to be calcuated in, a call to LeCroy confirmed the scope was being read correctly.  Then it was the "scope needed to be in AC coupled" excuse.  Here we have the function generator's offset somehow needing to be accounted for.

If she would just acknowledge that the FG trace in FIG3 does indeed show that +12volts is being applied to the gate of Q1, possibly things could move forward a bit.

EVERYONE else that looks at FIG3 can plainly see that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle, and as long as she continues to deny this most very obvious fact, how can she expect anyone to take any of her data seriously?

Does she really expect that an academic would want to associate his reputation with someone claiming that FIG3 does not show +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1?  Does she expect that no one else will actually look at the scope captures but instead will only read and agree with whatever she writes or says?

If she cannot even admit that +12 volts is applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG 3, then nothing much has changed, as she has either learned very little, or she just plain refuses to admit to being wrong.

Either way, there is little point in rehashing any of this until she is willing to change.

PW

[TinselKoala]

@tk..water can easily exist as liquid at 104degrees c,depends on altitude,weather humidity,vapour pressure etc.tap water,s bp alone is slightly higher than distilled water due to dissolved salt impurities etc.

I will be very happy to watch you raise some Cape Town tapwater, at 30 meters elevation above sea level, to 104 degrees C in an unsealed container. Your choice of relative humidity and ambient temperature. Bonus points if you can do it with no current flowing in your heater element.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

I had (pleasantly) forgotten all the excuses she originally gave.  First was that the scope wasn't being read correctly, and that the scopes offset numbers needed to be calcuated in, a call to LeCroy confirmed the scope was being read correctly.  Then it was the "scope needed to be in AC coupled" excuse.  Here we have the function generator's offset somehow needing to be accounted for.

If she would just acknowledge that the FG trace in FIG3 does indeed show that +12volts is being applied to the gate of Q1, possibly things could move forward a bit.

EVERYONE else that looks at FIG3 can plainly see that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle, and as long as she continues to deny this most very obvious fact, how can she expect anyone to take any of her data seriously?

Does she really expect that an academic would want to associate his reputation with someone claiming that FIG3 does not show +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1?  Does she expect that no one else will actually look at the scope captures but instead will only read and agree with whatever she says instead?

If she cannot even admit that +12 volts is applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG 3, then nothing much has changed, as she has either learned very little or just plain refuses to admit to being wrong.

Either way, there is little point in rehashing any of this until she is willing to change.

PW

I agree with the "little point" part... .so why does she promise and tease, why does she continue making false claims, continue to agitate, libel and insult then? As long as she continues doing stuff like making the "june 1" promise, harassing professors, and calling me "ickle pickle" or Bryan Little, I will fight against her, with FACTS, checkable references, and demonstrations that refute her all down the line. If I can't get help from the other people whom she has libelled, like you, then I'll just continue doing it on my own, as long as I have a voice and somebody who is willing to host my posts.
The papers are bogus, the data they are based upon terminally flawed, even misrepresented by her, and the claims and conclusions are false. The papers must be withdrawn, errata issued, and Rosemary Ainslie must apologize to all those whom she has misled, lied to, and slighted.

Here's what she says about measuring gate voltages: (capture from Sunday, August 5, 2012)

[TinselKoala]

Do you see? She has no clue even what her own scope traces represent, but she is quite willing to libel, insult and accuse.

In the first instance we have NEVER taken a measure of the voltage applied to the GATE of Q1 or indeed to any gate ever, anywhere.

[profitis]

@tk..well i hope she will give us a circuit that anybody can copy,and get identical results.reproduceability is utmost importance in this game,a clean 6watt-minutes out the source and 20watt-minutes into the water then this case will be closed.