Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[CuriousChris]

Honestly Tinsel. What are you trying to achieve?

It was obvious to my from my minor run in with RA a couple of years ago she has a serious disorder. Clearly she is intelligent but 'confused'

You will achieve nothing. People dumb enough to believe her will continue to believe her. They are the 'followers' of the world and have difficulty with critical thinking.

Best leave the likes of RA and her followers to their fate.

Lastly I must say I LOVED your LENC* videos, true classics.

CC


*LENC - Low Energy Nuclear Cheese

[TinselKoala]

Honestly Tinsel. What are you trying to achieve?

That is exactly what I am trying to achieve.
Honesty, from Ainslie, and from her "team" which I now understand a lot better.

I think now that she is being manipulated in the most cynical manner by Donovan Martin. Think about it: Ainslie herself has no skills in this matter. She did not build the apparatus, she did not put the test suite together.... we don't even have any evidence that she actually even operates it herself (she has admitted that she is not an experimentalist, is afraid of it and of electricity in general.)

It was obvious to my from my minor run in with RA a couple of years ago she has a serious disorder. Clearly she is intelligent but 'confused'

I would love to hear this story, and if there are supporting materials I'd like to put them into my database.

"Confused" doesn't really capture the disorder very well. She is the absolute most fully-blown case of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have ever seen. I don't think she's confused at all, I think that most of what she does is completely deliberate and calculated. No amount of "confusion" can result in the trolling, the constant insults and disrespect, the utter refusal to think through matters or engage in real dialog. She is simply narcissistic, overweeningly arrogant and disrespectful, and is a bright child in an adult world, and the people around her are treating her just exactly like that: a bright twelve-year-old with a big vocabulary and an evil temper, so to avoid a screaming, crying tantrum they treat her with kid gloves. Well... guess what, I am a bright precocious child too, and I don't wear kid gloves. She carries on a deliberate campaign, even outside these forums, to insult and disrespect and denigrate me... and I will not turn the other cheek. Every time she refers to "ickle pickle", the letters GRE, or the name Bryan Little, I will know about it and I will respond. Yes, it is personal, and she made it so. She also has the ability to make it stop.

You will achieve nothing. People dumb enough to believe her will continue to believe her. They are the 'followers' of the world and have difficulty with critical thinking.

On the contrary. She went for a couple of years telling people she had a patent, and I at least put that lie to rest. And, for example, when she started her BS on PESN and then on Mark D's site, the information I provided to Sterling and to Mark caused them to dampen their enthusiasm over Ainslie a bit, and to start paying attention to the fact that she lies and otherwise distorts the true record of her activities and data.
I doubt if I will be able to educate Ainslie herself, she is too well protected by her ego defense mechanisms to accept that she is ignorant and has a _lot_ to learn. But at least I can point out where she is wrong and then let the "followers" make up their own minds after hearing both sides of the Ainslie story.

Best leave the likes of RA and her followers to their fate.

Happily... as long as their "fate" doesn't include constant insults and libels against me, or bogus attempts to get monetary prizes awarded on the basis of her bogus claims, or moving from website to website, forum to forum, making the same old discredited claims yet again and yet again. People contact me regularly with "Hey, have you heard about Ainslie? She has replications, solid scope data, publications, everything! And an easy circuit to build! And it has been verified by SPESCOM, PB, and COCOL." Or whatever. Then I have to tell a whole new set of people about Ainslie, her lies and her bogus claims. Do you think this pleases me? For instance, the "June 1" demo thread here wasn't started by me until _after_ she had "postponed" her announced and highly hyped demonstration and started, once again, insulting me and lying about her circuit and its data.

Lastly I must say I LOVED your LENC* videos, true classics.

CC


*LENC - Low Energy Nuclear Cheese

Thanks! I am glad you were amused, and I also hope that my alt.snakeoil videos provide you with much food for thought. They are not just for fun, you know, there is a deep message within every one of the alt.snakeoil Video Reports.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie, on her forum, makes the following statement:

... The questions that still need to be answered are related to the measurements which are reflected in the scope's math trace values.  We need to find out IF these are dependable or if they're result of RF or any other artifacts in the equipment.  What Weir has acknowledged - unequivocally  - is that with an AC waveform as is generated from that oscillation - then one can most certainly argue for battery recharge in terms of standard analysis.  BUT.  The anomaly may then be that there is NO recharge - notwithstanding this waveform.  THAT's likely to involve CONSIDERABLY more rather costly research and investigation than I can manage.  Which is all the more reason to get this to campus.  But there are less costly tests which we'll certainly do - which will, at it's least give 'indications'.  And the battery draw down is one.  This based on the final argument that IF application of switches increases the battery efficiency - then this would encourage its use.  But I don't want to close this long argument on merely 'evidence of efficiency' IF I can help it.  I'd FAR rather get to conclusive evidence of unity breaches.  Because that is the ONLY thing that will help the cause.
...

(emphasis  mine)

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4491/  Scroll down to Reply # 218.


I received today a personal communication from Mr. S. Weir.  I know that this is indeed from him, although I do not know him personally. With his permission I am reprinting it here, in full.

(Sorry about the font and formatting. I can't seem to change it.)

[cite] S. Weir, personal communication [/cite]

Rosemary Ainslie statement   "What Weir has acknowledged - unequivocally - is that with an AC waveform as is generated from that oscillation - then one can most certainly argue for battery recharge in terms of standard analysis. " Does not accurate reflect what I have said.  A fair statement of what I have said is: IF an ACCURATELY MEASURED CURRENT waveform that is similar in APPEARANCE of the PRESENTLY KNOWN INACCURATE CURRENT MEASUREMENT, then there would be current driven back into the battery for a portion of the cycle.  IE the battery would be recharged during a portion of the cycle.  IE the circuit would be doing something conventional theory does not expect it to be able to do. IE there would be an anomaly. The present measurements are badly fouled by an L*di/dt term that is much larger than the R*I term when the circuit oscillates.  The L*di/dt term must be reduced to a value much smaller than the R*I term in order for the net measured voltage to translate to current by dividing out R. As of the demonstration it appeared that there was agreement by Rosemary and her helpers that the current measurements are invalid when Q2 oscillates.    Sent to: TinselKoala .

[TinselKoala]

Let us note please, that TODAY, after the disastrous demonstration where she, or rather Donny, fumbled around for four hours trying and failing, she is now claiming that she can produce the Figure 3 waveform with 4 volts on the Gate. (see above.)

Of course she cannot! The Figure shows 12 volts on the Gate! How is she going to produce a waveform that shows 12 volts on the Gate, if she only uses 4 volts on the Gate?  Perhaps she means that she can produce _some selected features_ of Figure 3 using a 4 volt gate drive.

So what? A stopped clock produces the correct time twice a day.... which is twice as much as Ainslie can do. The PAPER shows 12 volts and zero current flow. That CANNOT be reproduced by Ainslie or anyone else under the conditions claimed in the paper, and four hours of our time was wasted on Saturday by a team that ALREADY KNEW THAT, but they carried on their little obfuscatory charade in spite of that.

Donny pretends, passive-agressively, not to understand just what it is that is desired from a Figure 3 replication. What... make ALL the little colored lines and numbers in boxes in the live version look JUST LIKE they did on the Paper's version? What a concept, apparently completely foreign to Donovan Martin. I don't think they actually even had a copy of Figure 3 in front of them.

Someone needs to take this woman in hand, sit her down and explain some basic facts of life, and electronics and test equipment, to her. Clearly it cannot be Donny, so who is left, I wonder, who can actually make her shut up and listen? Mr. S. Weir, perhaps? She is going to have to stop misrepresenting him and start paying attention to what he says, then. Like the fact, which she apparently admitted to yesterday, that NONE of the measurements involving Q2 oscillations are valid, but today she wants to repeat them in just the same manner as before. And of course.... shots like Figure 3 and the demonstration events prove that the Q1 measurements are bogus as well.

She has learned NOTHING in thirteen years, she learned NOTHING at Saturday's demonstration, and she still shows that she has no understanding whatsoever of the operation of Donny's circuit, her function generator or her Etch-a-Sketch.... er, I mean her oscilloscope. But that doesn't prevent her from bloviating and insulting and distorting and even lying about what happened. It never has, and never will.

[TinselKoala]

I can jump off of a four-story building and land gracefully on one foot, without even spilling my chocolate milk. I can do this easily, at any time, and there is a photo of me doing it, taken three years ago. (Of course you can't see the building or how high it was...)

Look, there is a 4-story building, here is my foot, and here is my glass of milk. And here is a footstool, six inches tall. To prove my initial claim, I will climb up onto this footstool, live on cellphone, and four hours later I will jump down from a height of six inches,  landing one foot, and I won't spill a drop of my milk.

Then tomorrow I will crow proudly that I have fully demonstrated the truth of my initial claim.

What? You can't prove you can jump off a four story building? But I CAN... by using a six inch footstool.

And it is up to the technicians at LeCroy and Tektronix to prove I am wrong.