Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Shall we take the points one by one?

Another little 'x' rated communication for our 'ickle pickle' who vociferously DENIES that he is LITTLE - in any sense of the word.

Hello my dear little thing,

Ainslie has never produced, and CANNOT produce, any evidence whatsoever that I am someone called "Bryan Little" or any other LITTLE at all, by anyone except her, and she does it completely deliberately in order to get a rise from me. In short: the very definition of TROLLING.

While I know that - on the whole - you're entirely untrammeled by any need to impartiality and while I also know that you are not further handicapped by holding a 'cool' head on those little shoulders of yours - I would caution you that we are about to photograph that equipment responsible for the results in our quantum paper.  It's likely to disturb that extraordinary lack of decency and constraint that you manage.

No, Ainslie, I have been asking you to prove your assertions with evidence since 2009, and you claimed all this time that that apparatus was LOST... and even got Donovan Martin to say the same thing. Now you've suddenly found it... and I think that is GREAT. Show your photographs, because they will show either that you DID NOT use the 555 timer circuit you have claimed, or it will show that you DID use the circuit you claimed. Either way, it is going to be bad for you. Of course what I expect is that you will not show any 555 circuit at all.

Sadly I will show you the use of a variable duty cycle that enabled that rather extraordinary self oscillation condition - that you deny is possible.

Sadly for you... I have NEVER DENIED that self-oscillation is possible, and you cannot provide any evidence that I have done so. Further, I have never denied that your published 555 circuit's duty cycle can be varied, and you cannot provide any evidence that I have ever done so. As I clearly demonstrate in at least 4 different videos since June of 2009, the duty cycle and frequency can OF COURSE be varied.... but the 3.7 percent On duty cycle at 2.4 kHz as claimed IS OUT OF RANGE OF THE POSSIBLE SETTINGS of the schematic published under your name in the Quantum article. Once again, Ainslie, your lack of education and your arrogance and willfull ignorance have caused you to put your foot into your mouth by making up delusions and then protesting against them... .and ignoring the FACTS.
Sadly for you indeed; you cannot provide any evidence for your ridiculous assertions, as usual.

Which will put paid to about 6 years of hard work in DENYING EVIDENCE.

More bad math from Ainslie. I first encountered Ainslie in early 2009.  DO THE MATH...hint:  it is now August of 2013.

I see you're MOST anxious to let the subject fall off the page.

I laugh at you. YOU are most anxious that it does NOT fall off the page, drama queen of trolls. That's why you keep insulting me, because you know I will respond! You are a troll, a most amusing one, toothless and a laughing-stock. Nobody takes you seriously!

But that won't help you my sweet.  It will be ON RECORD - that your agenda is actually to DENY OVER UNITY - REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD. 
Ever rosy but never your...
Rosie Pose

Records are indeed being made, Rosie Poser, and my agenda is unimportant and irrelevant to the fact that you are wrong, utterly wrong, and you have been proven to be so, many times over.

Shall we continue?

Hi Guys - for those who follow these earnest communications to our little pickle - aka Tinsel Koala - and allegedly and erroneously referred to as MR BRYAN LITTLE - here's the next item on the agenda.  You'll see for yourselves how critical this is to the general science discussion.

Ainslie, you know nothing of Science, general or otherwise, and you constantly refuse to discuss issues in a competent and respectful manner, as anyone reading your posts can see for themselves. Every time you refer to Bryan Little, you stick your foot deeper down your throat, and I record these instances with great amusement, for they reveal your inner sickness and disturbed soul.

My Sweet,

I see that you're rather perturbed that I compared your subtlety of argument to that of an elephant in musk.  You prefer the term 'musth'.  Which is a fair and reasonable complaint.  In future I will do so.

Maybe you should have used a dictionary before you started insulting. Oh... wait.... this is another case of Words Mean Whatever Ainslie Says They Mean. Like solstices in July, like Joules=Watts, like "inverse" meaning nothing.

(Skip a lot of nonsense)

Especially with your INSISTENCE that a MOSFET is NOT a MOSFET but a mosfet.

A WHAT? What is this MOSFET that you keep referring to, Ainslie? Surely you cannot possibly mean "Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor" because if you did... you would TYPE IT OUT FULLY every time. Bloviating idiot!

You can't address the issue of the THREE SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT SCHEMATICS you publish under your name, the false claims about duty cycle and measurements and diodes, so you worry about whether or not I capitalize "mosfet". And you don't even realize how stupid that makes you look. Or care! Astounding, but totally par for the Ainslie course.

And then there's your interpretation of 'exact inverse' which means 'exactly nothing at all'.

It means something perfectly understandable and coherent, and it is even fully correct. Once again you display your willfull ignorance, overweening arrogance and total lack of shame. YOU HAVE BEEN REFUTED, but like a toothless zombie queen you refuse to realize it. But every body else does realize it.

Meanwhile how 'goeth' it with your GRE?  I trust that it too is in MUSTH - and that it 'floweth' out of your mouth unhindered by the activity of your cerebral cortex.  I look forward to seeing yet more evidence - in due course. 

Take care there my dear little pickle and look after your MUSTH.  It's plentiful - but nonetheless RARE.

I always provide evidence for my assertions, Ainslie. Always. But you don't, you just insult and bloviate, call people names and make a greater and greater fool of yourself, in public yet. It's all going into your Permanent Record, along with all those other records of your mendacity, your arrogance, your ignorance and your trolling insulting behaviour... and your false claims of overunity.

[TinselKoala]

Hi TK
I will responding in full with another Article.Mark E has provided a lot of material for it already.
Can I use some of your materials from here? 
Mark


I am thinking of calling it the Zombie Technology...it doesn't want to die

Absolutely, Mark, use whatever you like, and I have much more besides. The person who has done the most work on this early version is FuzzyTomCat, and he would be a very valuable contact, has tons of his own material and has the "inside story" on a lot of the scuttlebutt.
Please let me know if you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them with materials from my archive.

[poynt99]

Here are posts where Glen notes a few mods, including a 15k to replace the 10k trimmer to achieve the 3% duty cycle.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-100.html#post71373

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-101.html#post71870

[poynt99]

The data from Test #13 is the one they chose to use for the IEEE paper submission, as it showed the most "benefit" as I recall. The images from all the other tests would be nice, but Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 from Test#13 are really the only ones required, as they show the gate drive (CH3) (close to 50% duty cycle and between 200kHz to 400kHz frequency), Vcsr (CH1), Vbat (CH4), and Vdrain (CH2).

Attached is the "100ns" scope shot for that test (Fig. 6 in the IEEE submission).

ETA: Now that I've found Glen's cache of data, here also is Fig. 4:

[poynt99]

Here is an active link to the IEEE submission still on SCRIBD:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems