Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

I've asked Steve about those screen shots that were supposed to be on the USB stick.  Steve told me that they will not be released.  He did not say why.

Yes, it does seem rather ridiculous and petty, doesn't it? Especially since I have made my own screenshots of the scope display at the times that the Ainslie mob were _supposed_ to be capturing the scope screens. (I've posted these before; if anyone wants to see them again just let me know.)
The shots I made have sufficient resolution to show the important details, so the failure of the Ainslie mob to release their high-resolution images of the exact same things is once again highly revealing. They seek to obfuscate analysis by refusing to release data that shows definitively that they are wrong in their claims, and/or they are so incompetent that they couldn't actually save the shots at all or have lost or deleted them somehow.

I'd love to hear and discuss alternative explanations for this abject and utter failure of theirs to do something they agreed to do in public. Until something comes along that makes more sense, I'm sticking with what I said above: they are deliberately attempting to suppress negative data, and/or they are too incompetent to have made and kept the images in the first place.

[TinselKoala]

And the nonsense from Ainslie  _continues_ !!

Look at how she garbles and misrepresents what people have told her and what they have explained and _demonstrated_ to her. Look at how she fails to grasp the simple explanations and demonstrations I have offered. Look at how she continues to make the absurd claims about function generators not being able to pass current from an external battery!

I don't know how many times I've posted the simple demonstrations that PROVE HER TO BE UTTERLY WRONG about this particular absurd and silly contention. But here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc

Of course it may be too much to ask for someone of Ainslie's intellectual abilities to be able to understand what is demonstrated in these videos.

Here's what is shown:

A function generator is a clocked, positive-negative power supply with an internal impedance of 50 ohms. You can add offsets to the FG's output, just as if it were a battery or power supply, simply by putting another power supply in series with the FG.
The total voltage is then the ALGEBRAIC SUM of the voltage from the FG and the voltage from the series battery or other fixed or even VARIABLE supply like another function generator at any given instant. The FG's internal impedance is usually 50 ohms as standard.

1) The FG is set to produce a slow sine wave of plus/minus six volts.

2) The LED and moving-coil ammeter are in series with the FG's output.

3) The LED is shown to light and the meter indicates CURRENT whenever the FG's sine wave output exceeds about 3 volts.

4) Then the FG's signal OFFSET control is used to offset the FG's signal so that it is entirely negative and the LED no longer lights and of course the meter shows no current.

5) Then... making no other changes and without harming any small animals or components... an ordinary Chinese 9 volt battery is hooked in STRICT SERIES with the system under test.

6) And the LED lights up and the meter shows current flowing just as before, even though the FG is still making only a negative output.

This demonstrates that the FG and the battery are acting in strict series, and the total output voltage is now sufficient at the top of the sinusoidal waveform to LIGHT UP THE LED and ... of course.... pass current from an external battery supply source via its terminal to its probe (sic).

Yet Little Miss Mosfet has proclaimed,
"What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else.  So NO.  I spare me your 'lessons'. " (sic)

OK, LMM, you can go home now, you don't need any more lessons.
You need medication.

[TinselKoala]

Just as a Little reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w

Notice that Steve Weir suggests proceeding on to Phase 4, that is the DC temperature calibration phase... but it is Ainslie and Martin who decide that this is not necessary. Skip ahead to 8 minutes to hear Ainslie say that "this actually represents the end of the demo, we don't need to do any more".
The temperature rise of the load resistor was STABLE. It was no longer increasing. Does Ainslie think that waiting longer would produce a different result? The holes in her thought processes are astounding, the degree of her misrepresentation of even her own work is astonishing.

[TinselKoala]

.

[MarkE]

Just as a Little reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w

Notice that Steve Weir suggests proceeding on to Phase 4, that is the DC temperature calibration phase... but it is Ainslie and Martin who decide that this is not necessary. Skip ahead to 8 minutes to hear Ainslie say that "this actually represents the end of the demo, we don't need to do any more".
The temperature rise of the load resistor was STABLE. It was no longer increasing. Does Ainslie think that waiting longer would produce a different result? The holes in her thought processes are astounding, the degree of her misrepresentation of even her own work is astonishing.

These latest missives from Ms. Ainslie are sad to observe.  Yes, it is clear to anyone who watched or watches the Aug. 11 demo replay that Steve sought to have them execute Phase 4 to obtain an exact match of DC power to generate the same temperature rise.  It was Ms. Ainslie who declined and ended the demonstration.  Steve explained that by skipping the Phase 4 test they would have to rely upon the Paper 1 calibration that showed between 2.4W and 3.4W for measurement points below and above that observed Aug. 11.  Ms. Ainslie declared that she was happy with that conclusion.  As you note the temperature rise was stable.  Now, Ms. Ainslie declares that she is no longer happy with her decisions.  Ms. Ainslie is free to repeat the tests and including the Phase 4, and Phase 5 tests that she skipped.

As far as Ms. Ainslie's misconceptions about if and how current flows during the "off" periods, that has also been explained many times, and demonstrated both in videos that you have published, in writing by you and Poynt99, and was demonstrated as Phase 2 of her August 11 demonstration.  Ms. Ainslie simply does not understand ordinary circuit theory or her own demonstrations.