Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

I think that there are a few points that deserve highlighting.

Ms. Ainslie's 555 circuits as she depicted them in the "Quantum" magazine article have been proven unable to produce the waveforms represented in the article.
Ms. Ainslie did say that she intentionally misrepresented the circuit used in the "five parallel" MOSFET demonstration.
Ms. Ainslie's own demonstrations of June and August 2013 established that the measurements in the Paper 1 and Paper 2 publications were not as represented.
Ms. Ainslie's own demonstrations showed that her circuits draw much more battery power than her heating elements evolve as heat.
Ms. Ainslie ran her demonstrations to the point that she was satisfied that there was no hope of them demonstrating the gains that she wanted, and then cut the demonstrations short.

Let us add and _emphasize_ here that Ainslie was UNABLE to reproduce the "Figure 3" scopeshot and other similar ones, unless her scope was either improperly connected, or not connected at all, to the testpoints stated.  This demonstrates once and for all that Ainslie and her team posted FABRICATED DATA. Indeed, these particular scopeshots represent the MAIN CLAIMS in the manuscripts: that no current flows during high heat evolution, as shown in the Figure 3 scopeshot. Yet NO CORRECTION, no editing, has ever been done. Ainslie's left-handed and cynical fake "retraction" of the manuscripts does not mention the fake data and the fake scopeshots STILL APPEAR, being as they are the CORE DATA, in all of the various editions and edits of the daft manuscripts. The definitive experiment PROVING these facts was performed by Ainslie and her team themselves under the guidance of Steve Weir and Ainslie-- as you can hear above-- acknowledged the impossibility of producing those scopeshots honestly. Yet they remain in the "papers" to this day.

Ms. Ainslie withdrew the papers 1 and 2 based on the results of her own demonstrations :  June and August 2013.
Ms. Ainslie later decided without new data to "reinstate" the papers.
None of Ms. Ainslie's supporters have produced evidence that supports Ms. Ainslie's claims for any variation of her circuits.

[MarkE]

Let us add and _emphasize_ here that Ainslie was UNABLE to reproduce the "Figure 3" scopeshot and other similar ones, unless her scope was either improperly connected, or not connected at all, to the testpoints stated.  This demonstrates once and for all that Ainslie and her team posted FABRICATED DATA. Indeed, these particular scopeshots represent the MAIN CLAIMS in the manuscripts: that no current flows during high heat evolution, as shown in the Figure 3 scopeshot. Yet NO CORRECTION, no editing, has ever been done. Ainslie's left-handed and cynical fake "retraction" of the manuscripts does not mention the fake data and the fake scopeshots STILL APPEAR, being as they are the CORE DATA, in all of the various editions and edits of the daft manuscripts. The definitive experiment PROVING these facts was performed by Ainslie and her team themselves under the guidance of Steve Weir and Ainslie-- as you can hear above-- acknowledged the impossibility of producing those scopeshots honestly. Yet they remain in the "papers" to this day.

I thought the points covered the infamous Figure 3 that was to be gloriously demonstrated June 2013.  When Poynt99 asked them to run a quick initial test, they hemmed and hawed, and then admitted they could not reproduce.  Then Ms. Ainslie tried to go off on some other tangent of "benefit".  That is before they went off to dinner without telling anyone.  The wait proved worth it when Steve guided them through measurements that showed to even Ms. Ainslie's satisfaction that Figure 3 was the result of connecting the scope probe on the wrong side of the current sense resistors.

I think it is difficult to say with certainty that they knew Figure 3 was BS when they published Paper 1 and Paper 2.  If they did they would much more likely refused Steve's guidance.  I think it is moot now, because Ms. Ainslie did withdraw the papers based on her own demonstrations. As far as I am concerned, she fabricated the data when she "reinstated" the papers having already found out for herself that the representations are false.  I think that is similar to the license Ms. Ainslie gave herself when she announced that they had misrepresented the five "parallel" MOSFET demonstration.  Ms. Ainslie does not seem to understand that taking a license to lie comes at great cost to one's own credibility.

[TinselKoala]

So you think that a set of instrumental readings that indicates an _impossible_ condition, the zero current flow when the mosfet is receiving 12 volts to the Gate... should just be accepted as accurate by the claimants, including the engineer Donovan Martin,  and find its way into not one, not two, but at least FOUR different manuscript versions and IEEE journal submissions, without being checked for accuracy and reproducibility by the claimants?

And then that those same instrumental readings are not withdrawn _even after they are proven and acknowledged_ to be impossible, incorrect, "errors"... since, after all, they are the main supporting bits of data for the claims made in the manuscripts. Without those claims of anomalously high heat without corresponding current flow... the entire "thesis", which is really just a bunch of hand-waving conjectures, collapses under the weight of prevarication and misrepresentation.

Well, considering the incompetence, prevarication, disrespect and outright lies we have seen soundly demonstrated in three video presentations... I suppose that is possible.

Next you will be trying to convince me that Donovan Martin didn't know he was... er... misrepresenting...  "what you see before you" in the first Demo.

[MarkE]

So you think that a set of instrumental readings that indicates an _impossible_ condition, the zero current flow when the mosfet is receiving 12 volts to the Gate... should just be accepted as accurate by the claimants, including the engineer Donovan Martin,  and find its way into not one, not two, but at least FOUR different manuscript versions and IEEE journal submissions, without being checked for accuracy and reproducibility by the claimants?

And then that those same instrumental readings are not withdrawn _even after they are proven and acknowledged_ to be impossible, incorrect, "errors"... since, after all, they are the main supporting bits of data for the claims made in the manuscripts. Without those claims of anomalously high heat without corresponding current flow... the entire "thesis", which is really just a bunch of hand-waving conjectures, collapses under the weight of prevarication and misrepresentation.

Well, considering the incompetence, prevarication, disrespect and outright lies we have seen soundly demonstrated in three video presentations... I suppose that is possible.

Next you will be trying to convince me that Donovan Martin didn't know he was... er... misrepresenting...  "what you see before you" in the first Demo.

No that is not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that as ridiculous as what they published is, I can't prove what they knew when they published.  But, there is no question as to what Ms. Ainslie knew when she decided to "reinstate".  The fact that she has very deliberately elected to put her name and her fellow authors' names to what she has emphatically acknowledged is completely false is academically intolerable.  Why anyone, especially Mr. Martin allow their names to be associated with what they know is false boggles my mind.  The only thing that I can think of is that they feel the publications are so obscure that this will not come back to haunt them.  They could be right about that.

[Rigel4]

TK,
Please check your PM.
R