Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Exactly. And various versions of schematics that show the same thing your diagram shows, have been submitted to Ainslie many times before. The diagram makes explicit the two utter misconceptions that prevent Ainslie from understanding how her circuit works.

First, she cannot fathom how the Q2 mosfets can be biased into the linear, partially conducting region by _lowering_ the voltage at the Source pins by providing a _negative_ signal from the FG. Hence she cannot understand how the oscillations are produced. She has never yet even demonstrated that she knows what a "linear region" of a mosfet's performance actually is, since she always has considered a mosfet as a switch, that can be either ON with zero resistance or OFF , an open circuit, and nothing in between. Further, the mystery of turning on a mosfet by lowering the Source voltage... doesn't fit in with her silly "thesis" at all, therefore it cannot be happening, according to her.

Second, she believes that the Function Generator is somehow opaque to currents and doesn't participate in completing the current path from the Q2 mosfets back to the battery. She believes that the Q2 mosfets are _disconnected_ from the battery supply, because she believes that there is no conduction path through the FG during the "off" or oscillation portion of the complete period.

Both of these ridiculous beliefs of Ainslie have been thoroughly demolished many times, both by detailed explanations and by simple and unambiguous demonstrations, and if she were an honest experimenter who genuinely doubted the FACTS of the matter, she could set up her own simple experiments to prove them to herself. But she isn't that honest experimenter, she is a deluded and willfully ignorant person with an axe to grind and she cares nothing about any FACTS that go against her holy "thesis". It is for that reason that she will not consider the explanations that we and others have given, she merely rejects them without any thought or rational, point-by-point analysis. And each time she does so, she makes herself look more and more pathetically idiotic.

Where is Donovan Martin in all of this? Why doesn't Ainslie consult with Martin about these issues? Does Martin _agree_ with Ainslie about these two points? Let's hear him say so, then, and let's hear him justify the position, against the arguments we have made. Does Martin NOT agree with Ainslie about these points? Perhaps he should let Ainslie know, then, that she is stuffing both feet down her own throat whenever she continues to emit these absurd "explanations" of her circuit.

[MarkE]

One of the more astounding things about Ms. Ainslie's latest protests is that  Phase 2 of the August 11 experiment measured the function generator current during the "off" phase. For Phase 2, they modified the circuit ever so slightly to put a current sense resistor in series with the function generator black lead.  That resistor clearly showed the current that Ms. Ainslie disputes flowing through the function generator during the "Off" times.  It showed the net power external power contribution of the function generator as well.  Then in Phase 3, they measured the same current flowing through the battery with a sense resistor there, as well they should since the resistor in Phase 3 was schematically simply on the other side of the big CSR resistors from the sense resistor used to measure the function generator current.   Ms. Ainslie either doesn't understand and/or doesn't recall her own demonstration.  She is now arguing against herself.

It is difficult to say whether Donovan Martin is still engaged with Ms. Ainlie's efforts.  If she performs another demonstration, or publishes new material I suppose we will find out.

[TinselKoala]

Donovan Martin's name still appears on the daft manuscripts as second author. He has not issued any statement of retraction or withdrawal of his authorship, as far as I am aware, nor has he ever deigned to post a rebuttal or explanation or justification for the events that transpired during the demonstrations -- events which proved beyond any doubt that Ainslie's claims are false and much of the data completely invalid. In the ordinary course of scientific publication this lack of response would indicate that he still endorses the data and the conclusions found in those writings which bear his name.
He is saved from professional embarrassment only by the fact that the daft manuscripts have NOT been published in any peer-reviewed professional journal -- and never will be published.

[MarkE]

Donovan Martin's name still appears on the daft manuscripts as second author. He has not issued any statement of retraction or withdrawal of his authorship, as far as I am aware, nor has he ever deigned to post a rebuttal or explanation or justification for the events that transpired during the demonstrations -- events which proved beyond any doubt that Ainslie's claims are false and much of the data completely invalid. In the ordinary course of scientific publication this lack of response would indicate that he still endorses the data and the conclusions found in those writings which bear his name.
He is saved from professional embarrassment only by the fact that the daft manuscripts have NOT been published in any peer-reviewed professional journal -- and never will be published.

It could be any:  He believes in the ideas as published despite the demonstrations he participated in, and established science.  Or, He doesn't believe in those ideas and is unconcerned that he has put his name to them.  Or, He doesn't believe but has other pressures on him that keep him from withdrawing his name.  Suppose for example that he does not wish to embarrass or offend Ms. Ainslie.

[TinselKoala]

All of those explanations for Martin's silence are plausible, even probable. None of them are scientific, and none except the first are ethical.

Martin doesn't want to embarrass Ainslie, so he keeps his name on two manuscripts full of errors, inaccuracies, claims that have been soundly falsified over and over both by outside workers and the Ainslie team themselves, and an absurd "thesis" that has no connection with reality. Right.

How about this for an explanation for Martin's silence: Ainslie is known to be trouble around the house, since she is so deluded about the nature of Reality, so Martin and her other friends let her play on the internet to keep her out of trouble. Nobody in their right mind believes her, least of all those close to her like Donovan Martin. Most of her internet correspondence happens with people on the other side of the planet, who hardly exist as far as South Africa is concerned. Allowing her to play on the internet and to pretend to "publish" her fantasies and delusions keeps her busy and prevents her from distracting the maids, cook and gardeners in her walled compound. Any criticism she might receive from the internet is harmless, and gives her something to look forward to. She can insult and disrespect _us_ all she likes and nobody "important" has to suffer her at home. She can feel like she has allies against the evil Internet Troll Company, and no adverse local effects need occur. Just keep her bills paid and her batteries charged up and she'll stay out of the Real People's hair. The Northern Hemisphere of the Earth is irrelevant to South Africa, after all.