Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

And guys, I might just add this point.  Our little TK with his MUCH VAUNTED skills in electronics - and NOTWITHSTANDING his unending boasts and brags related to his CLAIMED GENIUS - is SIMPLY UNABLE TO REPLICATE THE WAVEFORM THAT GLEN LETTENMAIER MANAGED WITH EASE. 

Somewhat less than competent.  Clearly.  Certainly CONSIDERABLY less than he likes you all to think?  I've said it before - and OFTEN.  When anyone tries to advance any impression of 'excess intelligence' it's simply to hide their lack of this. SELF-EVIDENTLY our little pickle is somewhat bereft. 

Again,
Rosie

Yes... again, Rosie, you lie. Falling behind, too. Poynt99 posted the "approved" waveform from Glen up above, which by the way is made at a very different set of settings than you claimed, and in just a few minutes later I posted my own duplication of it, using the same scope settings (as far as possible) on my DSO, with a FG driving the circuit, NOT the 555 timer that Glen used. The settings Glen used are nothing like what you reported in the Quantum article, though.
I even used the mosfet you _specified_ but apparently _did not actually use_. There is no problem duplicating your RAW DATA when you REPORT IT CORRECTLY and there never has been. But you haven't even had the common courtesy to do that!

Self-evidently you are a lying troll and you cannot refute me, and not only that, you can't even make a coherent factual challenge.

[TinselKoala]

Well well well. The "lost" apparatus that Ainslie "found" in the shed DOES NOT HAVE THE CIRCUIT PUBLISHED in the Quantum magazine article. SWeir took the time and trouble to trace out the actual present configuration of the "found" apparatus.

Not even close. There are major differences throughout, but the 555 timer circuit is nothing like what is in the Quantum article. The actual circuit in the apparatus DOES produce a short ON duty cycle, with limited adjustability. Only a single pot is used, with a fixed "on" time. The pot controls frequency and since the "on" time is fixed, the duty cycle is also varied at the same time. The range I get with my casual breadboard build of the "lost" circuit is from about 6 or 7 percent ON at around 200 Hz at the low frequency end, up to a bit over 1 percent ON at a little over 2 kHz.  I don't think the circuit can produce the exact 3.7 percent at 2.4 kHz claimed, but it can get a nice short ON time at around 2 kHz. Allowing for the usual 20 percent tolerance in cap values, maybe it could make the exact parameters claimed.

HOWEVER..... the published schematic in the Quantum article is very different and shows 2 potentiometers for independent adjustment of frequency and duty cycle. The apparatus itself also has a second potentiometer, that has been connected to something at some time, but is now not connected to anything. What can this mean? Can it mean that the 555 circuit that is in there NOW isn't the one that has always been in there? That's what I think it means.

But regardless of that: the published schematic is very different from what is in there now. (The power section is different too, but we shall leave that for later.) Now I would like a moment of silence, in memory of ALL THOSE HOURS, days, weeks and months that ALL THOSE PEOPLE wasted, discussing a false schematic, trying to get the false schematic published under Ainslie's name to work properly as she claimed. And all this time, the actual apparatus was just a few footsteps away, not "lost" at all.

Now perhaps we can move on, and get some kind of explanation as to why Ainslie might believe that this rat's nest would work, when the 5 mosfet apparatus didn't.  Did I mention that the apparatus doesn't even have the same mosfet part number as what she has been claiming all this time? That's right, apparently not only was the 555 timer not as claimed in the article, but not even the mosfet itself was as claimed.

I think there are a lot of former "replicators" that are getting pretty steamed up at this point. Or they would be, if they knew about it and still cared at all. This deception of Ainslie's even tops the March-April 2011 deception about the 5-mosfet schematic!


(ETA: The circuit certainly cannot even come close to the frequency shown in Glen's scopeshots. It tops out at a bit over 2 kHz, and Glen's shots showing the "Ainslie approved oscillations" are at around 400-500 kHz.)

ETA2: I made an error in my build of the circuit just now, the frequency range I reported above isn't correct. I had a capacitor stuck in the wrong hole on my breadboard!

The true frequency range is quite a bit higher... so I don't think it can go as low as 2.4 kHz, OR as high as 400 kHz but is actually somewhere in between. I'll make more precise measurements after I've had a bit of a kip.

[TinselKoala]

While we are at it....

Ainslie says:

And Guys, apparently Mark Euthanasius subscribes to the adage  that 'unusual claims require unusual proof'.  There is NOTHING unusual in back electromotive force.  What's UNUSUAL is that no-one before has has taken this much trouble to prove that it's a source of energy.  And ALL we're doing is suggesting that certain assumptions related to back electromotive force - be REVISITED.

On the contrary. As usual Ainslie has not done her homework. Any reader of this thread can point to literally dozens of experimenters and devices that attempt to "prove" that BEMF can be utilized as a source of energy. Almost all of them have done a much better job of it than Ainslie has. John Bedini even seems to be making a fairly good living at it, with many different models of motors and solid state circuits that try to do what Ainslie claims is "UNUSUAL". Most of those researchers actually  know the difference between a Watt and a Joule, too!

But for all that - IF as is suggested - we require UNUSUAL PROOF - then we've SUPPLIED IT.

No, Ainslie has not SUPPLIED any UNUSUAL PROOF. What she has done is CLAIMED various things. All of the claims that have been tested properly have been shown to be FALSE. Without solid evidence, any CLAIMS that Ainslie makes can safely also be taken to be FALSE, since she has a 100 percent track record of fails.

We got accreditation from experts within multiple companies all of whom are LISTED and PUBLIC.  The onus is not on me to PROVE that accreditation.  It is on him to DISPROVE it - if he's so inclined.

Wrong again. Anyone who makes such assertions needs to provide the evidence. I can claim that General Electric has bought my design for the modified Dirod for a million dollars, twelve years ago. Is it up to you to disprove that, if you contest it? Have you called every single possible person at General Electric who might have had something to do with it? Well then, you must believe me.    NOT.
The kinds of "accreditation" that Ainslie claims will always include a written, signed report with real data in it. Ainslie has never provided a single bit of evidence of any kind for these claims. And we know how she garbles things said to her last week... much less twelve or fourteen years ago.

Again - under all decent methods of science investigation - the authors are not called LIARS.  They are innocent UNTIL PROVED GUILTY.  For some reason Mark seems to see a need to UPEND this civilized approach to things and call all and sundry LIARS - unless proved otherwise.  And this JUSTIFIED?  SOMEHOW?  Because we've got an UNUSUAL CLAIM?  I think not.

That's right, Ainslie and Martin are not called LIARS because of their unusual claim. They are called LIARS because they have been proven over and over to be LIARS.

- Ainslie claimed to hold a Patent, when she actually had only filed an application and never pursued it further. Her claim of a Patent was a lie.
- Ainslie claimed that she DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO, or make it public, referring to the March 2011 demo video... but she did  post it to her YouTube account, did link to it on this forum and in her blog. Her claim that she did not post the video was a lie.
- Ainslie and Martin claimed in the video and for a month afterwards that there were five mosfets in parallel. This claim was a lie.
- Martin claimed that the oscillations could not be simulated. He lied, and even showed false data while doing it. As soon as the correct circuit was revealed the oscillations were simulated with ease, and in the most recent demonstration but one, Martin admits that the oscillations can be simulated in software. His earlier claim that they could not be, and the presentation of the false data, was a lie. (The data was a lie because it did not accurately represent the actual circuit in the software.)
- Ainslie published the Figure 3 scopeshot that is impossible to make with the hookups claimed. The publication of this scopeshot, and the claims made around it, are lies, that still persist in spite of her left-handed "retraction".  She repeatedly claimed that she could reproduce the shot... which was a lie.
- The Quantum magazine article presents a schematic and makes claims about it that are false. Ainslie has known about the objections to that schematic since at least 2009 and has never until now done anything about it other than claim that IT WAS THE SCHEMATIC USED. Now we see that the apparatus she claims was used, has a completely different schematic. Here, Ainslie has lied for over four years about the actual schematic in the apparatus.
- Ainslie refers to people by names that do not belong to them. Every time she asserts that TK is someone named Bryan Little, she lies.

Every one of these lies, and many more, are fully documented in Ainslie's Permanent Record by images of her posts and references to the actual proofs that they are lies.

Again,
Rosie

And again and again. There is one sure way for Ainslie to avoid being called a liar... and that is for her to tell the truth.

[markdansie]

I am trying to figure out what is motivating her,
Anyway will publish the article soon. There is nothing there and where she could have held a lot of respect in letting go gracefully it is a shame to go out bitter and non accepting.
Mark

[TinselKoala]

I made an error in my build of the circuit just now, the frequency range I reported above isn't correct. I had a capacitor stuck in the wrong hole on my breadboard!

The true frequency range is quite a bit higher... so I don't think it can go as low as 2.4 kHz, OR as high as 500 kHz but is actually somewhere in between. I'll make more precise measurements after I've had a bit of a kip.