New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[markdansie]

hi this is my final article
many thanks to Mark E
I did not involve any commentators form here, I just wanted to give Rosemary a chance to express her side and  for an strong argument why her claims from 2002 were in question.


http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/18/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/


Please do not shoot the messenger. We have a wider audience that does not understand the technical issues.

[TinselKoala]

I'm sorry but it is right on the main PESN.COM page:
Ainslie's Recent Test Does Not Confirm 2002 Thesis - "In June and August 2013, demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this paper. As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts."
LINK:  pesn.com

Yep, you are sorry all right, because you apparently can't tell the difference between
http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/08/17/1678/8502367_ainslies-recent-test-does-not-confirm-2002-thesis/
which is a BLOG, pureenergyblog.com  NOT THE PESN MAIN PAGE as you mistakenly claim,
and
PESN.com, Pure Energy Systems News
http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/
which is where Ainslie makes her various claims, lays down her insults and disrespect, has links to her "papers" and DOES NOT have a prominent posting of her "withdrawal".


Go ahead, show me a single case where you click on a link to any of Ainslie's papers and you find the retraction statement. Show me a version of the papers that does NOT contain the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot. You cannot. Ainslie's "withdrawal" is another of her Rosie Poses, not sincere, complete, honest or true.
She can issue STATEMENTS of retraction out the wazoo.... but if she doesn't actually retract the papers, what good are the statements? They are just as false as the Not-Really-Retracted papers!
 

[TinselKoala]

I'm guessing he knows better now.

Then why does his name still appear on the papers? Does he still endorse the bogus data, the false claims?

Why, for that matter, do the papers themselves still appear?

I'm guessing that Ainslie is lying to him, too. Remember how obviously unprepared and apparently surprised he was at the June 29 demo? He wasn't even aware of the issues around Figure 3, apparently.

[TinselKoala]

hi this is my final article
many thanks to Mark E
I did not involve any commentators form here, I just wanted to give Rosemary a chance to express her side and  for an strong argument why her claims from 2002 were in question.


http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/18/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/


Please do not shoot the messenger. We have a wider audience that does not understand the technical issues.

I'm not shooting the messenger, I am just interested in accurate reporting.

She sneaks in a link to her Quantum magazine article, without mentioning the FACT that the article is incontrovertibly WRONG, so she is again making false claims from the outset.

The schematic included with that article cannot possibly make the duty cycle she claims to have used. This has been confirmed over and over again, most recently and definitively by Mark Euthanasius, as shown in the image of the scopeshots above.

So either one of two situations exist: Ainslie used the schematic in the article, which means the "ON" duty cycle she reported is FALSE and the claims made are WRONG.... or the circuit was operated with some other schematic! Or both!  Which makes the entire Quantum magazine article FALSE, another lie.
Further, Ainslie has known about this discrepancy since 2009, when I FIRST DISCOVERED AND POSTED ABOUT IT, (.99 also noted this discrepancy back then)  yet she has made no corrections, no retractions of the article and in fact has even allowed her friends, like GMEAST, to build the device without even informing him of any problems. His famous posting of his discovery is appended below.

I say again: either the schematic in the article WAS used, in which case the duty cycle reported and the data gathered are BOGUS, or the schematic in the article WAS NOT used, in which case the entire experimental situation, including the data collected, is false, bogus, another compendium of lies and false claims. There are no other alternatives!

Further, and even more hilarious, is the FACT that the Quantum circuit is just the unclamped inductive test circuit from the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet, with the substitution of the 555 timer instead of the FG the data sheet specifies. Even further.... the circuit is the same as the presently discredited 5-mosfet circuit, just without the "Q-array" of the four backwards-wired mosfets.

Are these undeniable and incontrovertible facts made clear in the article about Ainslie? Or is she to be allowed to continue to use your webpage as a forum to push her false claims, like the link to the Quantum magazine article which DEFINITELY contains false statements and claims?

I am amazed at the "defense" of the Quantum article that appears. It seems that the issue of publishing a FALSE SCHEMATIC is again considered unimportant, and I am utterly amazed by this.

Mark E's analysis is commendable. He came into this story rather late in its development but he has come "up to speed" rapidly, due to his knowledge and experience. Is it too technical for your wide audience, though? Suffice it to say that  the article as published by Ainslie is simply bogus and should not be referred to or linked to without a clear statement of this FACT.

[TinselKoala]

Simple mistakes such as component value transcription or transposition of components cannot account for such extensive circuit modifications. This author concludes that the authors either did not use a circuit resembling what they published, or that they did not obtain the operating frequency and duty cycle that they reported.....
..... Therefore, barring further corroborating evidence, the findings and conclusions offered by the authors Ainslie and Buckley in the subject paper are shown to be based on serious errors and must be rejected. The authors are encouraged to either produce corroborating evidence and make appropriate corrections to their paper or they should retract their claims.

From the Report by Mark Euthanasius.

I will go further and state, most emphatically, that the article should and must be retracted NOW, since it is manifestly and incontrovertibly false as it stands. If they want to correct and re-do the experiment and THEN post another paper, that is their prerogative. However it is undeniable that the present Quantum magazine article is wrong.


I would also like to emphasize that the "long and protracted debates" mentioned are the fault of Ainslie and her alone. She resisted actual tests of what her replicators were telling her and simply resorted to ad-hominem abuse of such magnitude that many of her former co-workers simply washed their hands in disgust, until they were replaced by new fodder for Ainslie's delusions. Had Ainslie simply cooperated, as she finally did this past month, there would have been no need at all for any of the long and protracted debates, or even this present "debate".  The issues have been resolved, long ago, for everyone except Ainslie herself, and the new, uninformed victims that happen to click on one of her links to her bogus claims.