Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[TinselKoala]

PW and TK:

Well, you have won the 'battle' of the Figure 3 issue and Rosemary has conceded defeat.  More appropriately, the simple truth was verified with experimentation.  It was exhausting and arguably there was no point to it at all.  I don't have any answers.

It's up to you Rosemary to do some soul searching and look back over this bizarre situation where you refused to acknowledge that there was an issue.  Try to learn something from it.

MileHigh

Just where is this concession of defeat? As far as I can tell she is still arguing about it as being insignificant or nit-picking and not affecting her claims.

At this point I think that Donovan Martin has revealed that he is far more involved in all this than we previously realized. We have never seen Ainslie operating her own equipment, and in the demonstration she actually says that she is afraid of it !
He bears as much responsibility as Ainslie does for the bad data. Even more, because he has the education to know better. If he allows his name to remain on the Ainslie manuscripts he is committing an even graver error than simply misplacing a probe: he is engaging in pseudoscientific misconduct of the smelliest kind.

[markdansie]

I will be writing up my final story and report and hopefully getting closure on this in the next couple of days.
I appreciate everyone's comments , analysis and observation in this thread. I am not technically qualified to join in those observations but I do have the ability to grasp the gravity of what is being said.
I have one question for all of you, although you may have felt you already answered. (especially you TK lol)
There is no evidence of overunity that can not be accounted for without reasonable doubt by error measurements or setup,  is there anything or any anomaly worth investigating further with this?
I will be wishing Rosemary all the best with her magnetic monopole project.


Kind regards
Mark

[TinselKoala]

I will be writing up my final story and report and hopefully getting closure on this in the next couple of days.
I appreciate everyone's comments , analysis and observation in this thread. I am not technically qualified to join in those observations but I do have the ability to grasp the gravity of what is being said.
I have one question for all of you, although you may have felt you already answered. (especially you TK lol)
There is no evidence of overunity that can not be accounted for without reasonable doubt by error measurements or setup,  is there anything or any anomaly worth investigating further with this?
I will be wishing Rosemary all the best with her magnetic monopole project.


Kind regards
Mark

Hi Mark
I'm glad you are feeling better, I hope it was the zinc and not just ...er.... time and rest that cured you.   

I know what you mean about Ainslie's project, I know what you are asking.... and I think yes, there is something interesting and anomalous going on, but not in the sense you mean. But the information might still be useful for you someday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y

[markdansie]

Your humor is sick TK, your one sick puppy.
However I guess I am guilty for laughing at it , as always.


You know my role is one of the worst in the world. Its akin to being the one who tells the parents their child just died, In my case it is the inventor , the investor or an engineer who really screwed up. The only time I do take a little pleasure is when I stop a scam artist in their tracks, but sometimes it is genuine delusion. Its often a process everyone gets pissed of, the engineer, the investors and the inventor.


When embarking on another project to test the validity of something as well as making sure the right team and engineers and scientists can assist, its often more like. detective work trying to understand motivation. Often is seeking recognition, sometimes its greed and in some cases its honesty mixed with a skill set that is not adequate for the task being undertaken.


I have reached a few conclusions overt he years, although there is always a new frontier to investigate.


Cheers mate
Mark

[poynt99]

Poynt:

Just a technical question or two.  In all of your CSR current measurements we know that you have a 'compromised' ground reference that is bouncing up and down relative to the true battery ground.  I also assume that all four channels of the scope share a common ground.  So that bouncing ground reference will compromise your measurement of the battery voltage, no?

Yes.

You left the ground reference of the Vbatt channel floating, which is understood, but you still have a compromised battery voltage measurement.

My thought process is that since you know in fact that you do have a stable battery voltage the easiest thing to make the DSO 'happy' would be to emulate that battery voltage.  Have a separate stand-alone battery that is tied to the bouncing ground reference and measure that voltage for Vbatt.  Does that make sense?

Makes sense. And my demos are heading in a similar direction, although using an isolated battery as you suggest is not necessary.

Hint: Look at the MEAN value measurements of both the CSR and Vbat traces shown on the scope. They are very close to correct, and they do not vary much with the change of probe positioning. Rose ought to think about that...