Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[TinselKoala]

You should make her show the reproduction of the Figure 3 scopeshot, first, because if she can't do that (with the usual: the schematic claimed, the six batteries, the functioning mosfet in place and wired correctly, the small heatsink as used at the time of the paper, the load at "water to boil" temperature, the 160-second period, all of that)...if she can't do that, and show afterwards that the mosfet is still 100 percent functional.... then what's the point of going further?
And if you don't insist on examining the direct "smoking guns" like this one, then she'll be able to do the same old dog-and-mirrors show she's been doing for years: a repeat of the 2011 demo, or another dodge like the June 1 2013 demo. Hold her feet to the fire!

[profitis]

@markdansie thats a fantastic idea mark,i accept the nomination but i dont want to look at  papers. i want her to show evidence that evry1 can undastand,i want to see her do my experiment suggestion.ive got a silent rule of thumb that i say to myself when i contemplate a overunity effect,'will this convince both a scientist and a garden boy ',is what i always ask myself and if it only convinces one of them then its not worth persuing. 

[profitis]

@tk im going to try think of an alternative way for her,using the circuit that she has,to prove beyond a doubt her claim given the size of those cells involved.i really do want a south african to be the worlds first officialy proven overunity,it,l swing doors open if that happened and let me tell you the newspapers here are not shy to print or announce such a thing if it happened.

[TinselKoala]

You seem to be missing a huge point here, profitis.

Ainslie has misused her instruments to give her false readings which she has then interpreted incorrectly, to make wild claims about something _that isn't happening at all_. She is literally deluded.

It's not a question of whether or not an ordinary mosfet, in the same circuit that can be found in mosfet data sheets as the "inductive clamp test" circuit, can give overunity. Don't you think that frigging car stereo designers or power supply designers using switched mosfets and inductive loads would have noticed by now? It is a known technology and there is no overunity to be had there. The idea has no "face validity" at all. 

The question--- or point rather--- is the bogus "research" based on ignorance of electronics, math and basic science, combined with the utter overweening arrogance and wilful ignorance of the Ainslie personality, which has been harassing research forums like this one with her false claims and her sly bullying mendacity for over thirteen years.  Ainslie is making false claims about the actual performance of the work, about the equipment and apparatus used (It was nearly a year before she actually stated the make and model of the function generator she used, and she still claims it cannot "pass current from its terminal to its probe", and we still don't know the actual amp-hour rating of the batteries she used---they have vanished). She is making claims based on math errors and poorly performed temperature measurements, she does not know how to operate or interpret her own oscilloscope and she doesn't even understand the difference between "0.8" and "one-eighth".  (Every statement I make is supported by my images of her own words in forum and blog posts. If you want specific illustrations let me know.)
You _must_ read the daft manuscripts, because then you'll see the thought processes, the bad reasoning and the outright uncorrected errors and the fudging, along with the false claims one after the other, that they are filled with. You should also read her posts in her forum threads concerning me and her other critics.
You see, when she encounters a fresh audience and trots out all those false claims about having been tested by SPESOL or the other alphabet agencies, or having a patent like she used to do until I came along, or her "incontrovertible" proof that she talks about -- well just read the PESN page for what she claims -- people believe her at first. Some even look at the papers and think, because they believe what she says about things like Figure 3, that she's worth paying attention to. But once they actually build and test, research and learn, read her history and her statements for themselves, they learn better. Why is there not ONE SINGLE REPLICATOR, out of at least six that I can name, who endorses her claims?

I know why.

It's OK to make mistakes, it's OK to be a difficult personality, it's OK to waste your own time on circuits that other people think have no hope of doing anything unusual.

What is NOT OK is to remain ignorant in spite of excellent help, to refuse to correct outright errors, to denigrate others who have genuine educations and experience and knowledge, and to continue to make false claims when they are known to be false. What is NOT OK is taking a dog and pony show around from place to place making the same old false claims, distracting and insulting people at every stop, making false promises that she never intends to keep, harassing professors who don't snap to attention when she demands their attendance at one of her performances. What's NOT OK is to leave errors in manuscripts long after they have been identified, to fail to withdraw manuscripts that are based on false data from failed equipment, and to claim support and endorsements from people who have never heard of her. What's NOT OK is to libel and lie about other people, make claims about them without support, and threaten them and accuse them of ridiculous things like stealing information from computers on the other side of the world.

OK?

[TinselKoala]

From her recent "open letter" to Sterling A.:

........
Frankly Sterling - it worries me that you're co-operating in this effort to keep this information away from our public based on the absurdly irrelevant opinion of some people that I may be 'difficult'.  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you're actually NOT advancing over unity interests at all.  I do hope that this is correctable.  I trust you'll explain yourself - in due course.  And may I add - it seems strange that you should care.  Do you DEMAND that Yildiz - Rossi - or anyone else first be 'LIKEABLE' before you will allow their communications?  Before you yourself will engage?  Do you also send them one line emails with no formal or courteous address and say - 'you are cantankerous'?  Or is this simply the treatment you mete out to old women?  Is this a 'gender issue?  Or A 'religious issue'?  God forbid.  I have been ENTIRELY non confrontational in my relationship with you.  You, on the contrary have been positively combative.  Not that I care.  I only care that you post my responses on your forum - in the interests of furthering over unity claims. 

Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie

Sterling posts a web page announcing and promoting her demonstration, and has given her a voice and published her claims and a couple of letters of "correction" and her letter to Mark Dansie. Yet look at how she treats him, says he's "cooperating" in keeping her information from the public!
But whose fault was it that she didn't demonstrate anything on June 1 as she promised and announced on his very web site?

Why, from the letter above, if I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that Rosemary Ainslie is a cantankerous, difficult, confrontational and combative old woman, who turns on those who try to help her and who is really really good at the "poison pen" style of writing. "Kindest regards" from her means "Drop dead you vermin".