Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Years ago there was a scientist whose comments I admired who had a tag line something like:  "patience, persistence, truth".  I think that is a very wise approach.  I try as I can to emulate his philosophy by focusing on the data.  In terms of dealing with Ms. Ainslie I am interested in any data she presents as it relates to her extraordinary claims.

Yes... and the problem with that, as you may have noticed by now, is that you cannot rely on data she "presents" unless you can confirm it by checkable independent references. She has willfully misrepresented data and events, over and over again. How can you possibly tell what is true and what is not, coming from her, unless you can verify it independently?

If only we had reliable data from Ainslie in the first place, with complete and accurate descriptions of procedures and apparatus, much of the difficulties people have had with this project would never have happened. Had we encountered an attitude of "patience and truth" from Ainslie, a cooperative and honest attitude, we likely would not be here today discussing her "retracted retraction" comedy of errors. Certainly we have had an attitude of "persistence" from her: persistence in error, in mendacity, in amazing arrogance, in willfull ignorance of her chosen topic.

[MarkE]

Yes... and the problem with that, as you may have noticed by now, is that you cannot rely on data she "presents" unless you can confirm it by checkable independent references. She has willfully misrepresented data and events, over and over again. How can you possibly tell what is true and what is not, coming from her, unless you can verify it independently?

If only we had reliable data from Ainslie in the first place, with complete and accurate descriptions of procedures and apparatus, much of the difficulties people have had with this project would never have happened. Had we encountered an attitude of "patience and truth" from Ainslie, a cooperative and honest attitude, we likely would not be here today discussing her "retracted retraction" comedy of errors. Certainly we have had an attitude of "persistence" from her: persistence in error, in mendacity, in amazing arrogance, in willfull ignorance of her chosen topic.

Yes, there are definitely large discrepancies between what Ms. Ainslie asserts and what verifiable evidence shows.  I don't care about the cause so much as the fact.  In this case, I enjoy the luxury of having read about her projects only after others such as yourself had found major problems.  For that I am in your debt.

Whatever the reasons why Ms. Ainslie has represented the things she has that have proven untrue, at this point I don't see that it is of value to me to try and determine why.  It may be a combination of factors that I would never correctly guess.  What matters is that she has disproven her energy gain claims.   Allowing that there is always a tiny chance that despite all the current evidence that she might yet have been onto something, if she, or a supporter should someday come back with tangible and reproducible evidence of something extraordinary then that evidence should be fairly evaluated like any other. 

[TinselKoala]

Yes, of course I agree that new data should be evaluated on its own merits, if and when it is presented. Ainslie's present course of action, repealing her retraction and reiterating her claims without presenting a shred of new data, nor refuting any findings from her critics, while at the same time continuing with her insults and misrepresentations of fact.... is all the more pseudoscientific misconduct and only dampens the chances of herself or others like her being taken seriously in the future. Ainslie is her own worst enemy, as others have noted as well.

Meanwhile, the image below shows the fundamental "calculation" that led Ainslie to make her silly claims. Ainslie has never taken the trouble to correct this "calculation" to arrive at a correct answer, nor has she demonstrated a grasp of the basic quantities involved (the Watt and the Joule), or the reasons why her "calculation" is so wrong. When one uses her own stated input data, and the correct value for the capacity of her batteries (60 amp-hours) one arrives at a very different conclusion. It is instructive to work through this example.

Notice her amazingly arrogant tone, even in the midst of displaying her monumental ignorance. "Do the math" indeed. One LOLs....

[MarkE]

The only place where we depart is that I do not see value in attempting to assess Ms. Ainslie's motivation or character.  I think that is potentially distracting from evaluation of her claims.

Her misunderstanding of Joules and consequent irrational multiplication by time is a gross scientific error.  Someone with better formal education in science would not be expected to make such an error and/or to have checked their work much more thoroughly.  It may be that she erroneously multiplied the required heat by time as a misunderstanding of how to treat thermal leaks.  I disagree with the idea that errors, even gross errors should be a basis for ridicule.

I think that mistakes are a natural and critical component of learning.  I think a defining quality of a person is not how many mistakes that they make, but what they do to try and find their own mistakes, and what they do once a mistake is found.  I think as engineers and scientists it is important to encourage those around us and the generations coming up behind us to challenge themselves without fear of ridicule when they make a mistake.

Peer review works and is necessary because anyone can make a mistake, even a big mistake.  I think it is sufficient to point out the error and the correct calculation.  Yes, her lack of understanding of basic physical units strongly suggests that her assumptions and calculations are far more likely to be wrong than an experienced professional.  However, we would be mistaken to assume that all of our own work or that of any experienced professional is free of debilitating errors. 

Whatever Ms. Ainslie's behavior, and whatever her mistakes, I think that it is valuable to stay focused on the data and not the person.  If a person can be taught, then that is one more person with tools out looking for the truth.  If a person cannot be taught, then that eventually becomes self-evident.  Most of the community will be on notice to be wary of that person's declarations. 

We are unfortunately at a point where Ms. Ainslie has recently made and continues to make statements that are at great odds with proven facts, including proven facts she has herself demonstrated, acknowledged and previously accepted.  And Ms. Ainslie does herself no favors by making rude remarks and wild accusations.  However, I think it is up to us as responsible technical professionals to stick to the facts, and present them as objectively as possible without attacking individuals.

[TinselKoala]

I have no argument with the above, in principle. However, Ainslie is no naive newcomer who deserves benefit of doubt: she has been banned from at least three forums (Naked Scientists, Energetic Forum, this forum several times, and some other forums as well) because of her insulting behaviour, her non-cooperativeness and her arrogant ignorance. She utterly refuses to be taught, to learn from others or to educate herself in her topic. She utterly disrespects the learning and credentials of those who disagree with her, yet she is grossly undereducated and has no credentials of her own. Her former collaborations, with Glen Lettenmeier, "Harvey", Ashtweth, Aaron Murakami, and others, which initially started out with them believing in her and supporting her claims, have always dissolved in acrimony when her true nature and the true facts have come to light. If she was just someone who made a few mistakes, that would be one thing. But the fact is that she routinely misrepresents material matters and routinely insults, disparages and even threatens those who would try to correct her errors and to find out the truth.

For example, here are the blog and forum posts where she posted and made public the video of the 2011 demonstration, where the 5-mosfet device was presented as having all 5 in parallel.... and then the posts where she denies having posted the very same video.

Note that in the blog post she refers to the video as "the proof" of her claims. Yet a year later she wants to deny posting the video completely and to deny its relevance to her claims. Why? I know why.