New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[TinselKoala]

It is now Tuesday evening, suppertime, about, on the 13th of August, in Cape Town.

Yet the links to the two false and mendacious Rosemary Ainslie - Donovan Martin "papers" are still up, still active on Ainslie's blog.

Both papers, with their schematics that conflict with each other, as well as with the Truth, are also still up, still posted on Rossi's JNP blog.

No statements of retraction or error accompany these false and mendacious papers bearing the names of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin.

Furthermore, the "EIT" paper is still available on ScribD, and the Quantum article is also still up. Every one of these documents contains the same faulty data, the same bad measurements and the same false claims. In addition the Quantum article contains yet another false schematic, or a false representation of the duty cycle they used, and this has been known since 2009 at least.

When will these false and mendacious documents and claims be retracted? Every day... nay, every _minute_ that they remain up is a separate outrage, because the authors KNOW that the papers and the claims they contain are WRONG.

[TinselKoala]

This is an excerpt from the "open letter" to "Academics"  that Ainslie had Mark Dansie post on his website.

A small team of us, here in South Africa, have attempted to alert you to the experimental evidence that contradicts this creed, this belief, that is loosely based on QED which, itself is only a partial theory.  These efforts have spanned a dozen years and have been systematically resisted.  Your own representatives, Professor Gaunt (UCT) and Deon Kallis (CPUT) have allowed a peripheral engagement and both established certain target results which, having been reached, they both claimed would represent 'conclusive' proof.  We have reached and indeed, exceeded those targets.  Therefore is the proof incontrovertible, based as it is on experimental evidence and carefully measured results.  It has been widely replicated on open source.  And it is certainly repeatable and demonstrably so.  Therefore, also, does it fall within the required parameters of 'science'.  The results raise profound questions related to the material structure of current flow – which is widely, but erroneously, assumed to be the flow of electrons.   And it points to the promise of an energy supply source that, potentially, could rid us all of our grid dependencies.

Since she now knows and acknowledges that all of this is wrong, false, error ... then she will OF COURSE be writing a corresponding Open Letter of Retraction to these same "academics" that she has sought to mislead, to be posted on Mark's blog.

Won't she?

Would that not be the HONORABLE thing to do? What would YOU do, Sea Monkey?

[TinselKoala]

And OF COURSE, since she is "Honorable", she will be writing a letter to Sterling at PESN, apologizing for and correcting the false claims made in the letter she wrote to HIM, posted on PESN and copied here in part:

Dear Sterling,

Thank you for your contribution to our cause in publishing our demonstration for academic experts, intended for today, being June 1. Sadly our learned and revered have expressed no interest in attending it.  However, as the 'mountain won't go to Mahomet' we've proposed that 'Mahomet go to the mountain'.  To this end I made a proposal - yet to be agreed to - that we take our experimental apparatus to campus.  I've also been explicit in that proposal that we do not  require the attendance of all, or indeed of any of those staff members - in the science faculties.  While attendance would be preferred, it is enough that we do that demonstration at the appropriate address to show the following anomalies.

1 - We have incontrovertible measured proof that there is more energy being returned to a battery supply source than was first delivered.

2 - We generate an alternating current over a circuit during a switching period when the battery is disconnected.

3 - We generate anomalous heat signatures over a resistor element

4 - We propose that we are exposing a hitherto overlooked benefit in counter electromotive force where one half of each cycle is generated from the circuit material itself.  This conforms to Einstein's mass/energy equivalence.

5 - We further propose that we are exposing the locality of the Higgs Boson being in a magnetic field - that we further propose comprises this material structure.

6 - Our model predicted the exposure of these measurement anomalies and our experimental apparatus was designed to prove this material structure to both a magnetic field and electric current.

Our quest to bring this to the attention of academics is required, because the burden of proof on all exotic claims has been placed on open source to promote this evidence.  And Open Source is grossly infected with with a rash of disclaimants who are not personally accountable for their comments nor for the scientific merit of their proposed arguments against the evidence.  This has resulted in noise that has dogged the heels of all such claims and has greatly contributed to the general impression that over unity research is related to 'pathological science'.  Over unity research cannot ever be managed while all claims are accompanied by freely expressed denials that have little if any scientific merit.

Ainslie, you have done more to contribute to the "general impression that over unity research is related to 'pathological science' " than any other individual I can think of, with the possible exception of Joe Newman.

"...the scientific merit of their proposed arguments against the evidence...."

Well, we now know where the scientific merit lies, and it certainly isn't with you, Ainslie, or your foil Donovan Martin. All your critics have been right all along, and it is because they know and understand just what "scientific merit" consists of: Well formed falsifiable hypotheses, tested by solid experimental procedures, measured and analyzed properly and interpreted in the light of all available information, reported factually and honestly for review by knowledgeable others. None of which were engaged in by the team of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin.

[TinselKoala]

Honorable?

Posting yesterday, posting today, in various threads, even threads whose very titles are insulting....

But no postings for well over a year in the "Corrections" thread.

And of course, the links to the bogus and false "papers" are still up.

[SeaMonkey]

Rosemary will probably not deconstruct error
in the manner or on the timetable which certain
male belligerents would demand, but I have faith
and confidence that in due time it will be done.

After all, even in the esteemed worlds of Academia
and Scientific Research, retraction of error generally
does not occur immediately, if ever.  Patience Boys,
remember you're dealing with a Woman!

Most Women respond very favorably to kindness.

Why not show us your empirical results?

In essence, I already have.  In fact, I've provided more
than I typically received during my Advanced Training
in Problem Solving where we were expected to digest
minimal specifications; then proceed to innovate, improvise,
research, evaluate and experiment until we produced the
desired effects or results.  Sometimes spectacularly.

Exact Replication of any project has its pitfalls.  When
our imaginations are challenged we often surprise
ourselves.