Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

WARNING: Rosemary Ainslie is once again LYING about my data and my demonstrations in an attempt to bolster her ridiculous claims. I say again, what she says in this post about my work is a LIE.

I did indeed "replicate" the test and the scopetraces and I showed what I showed, which is that we cannot trust her report that the shot was obtained with a period of 20 milliseconds, because at that slow period the entire screen would only contain a tiny portion of the entire period and a large Q1 ON time would not even show up on the scope at all, being set to 500 microseconds per horizontal division.

I have already explained the very same thing that .99 has said and that she is arguing against. The high heat and char marks on the PHENOLIC, not ceramic, tube that my nichrome heating element wire, matched for resistance and inductance to her _claimed_ values, were caused by an extended period of Q1 ON time. The Q2 oscillations produce very little heat in the element, and the battery MOST CERTAINLY DOES discharge normally during both phases of the circuit's operation.

Like I said, she is very detached from reality.

[TinselKoala]

For your amusement, here is the Massive Oscillation screenshot from the video where Ainslie accuses me of fakery.

Please note, O Great Troll Scientist, that I am NOT claiming that these high amplitude voltage readings, translated into currents using the indicated values and Ohm's law, are real currents flowing through anything. The actual currents in the system are far lower.

[MarkE]

For your amusement, here is the Massive Oscillation screenshot from the video where Ainslie accuses me of fakery.

Please note, O Great Troll Scientist, that I am NOT claiming that these high amplitude voltage readings, translated into currents using the indicated values and Ohm's law, are real currents flowing through anything. The actual currents in the system are far lower.

During the June 29, 2013 demonstration Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators demonstrated that the voltage registered across their current sense resistor was not:  V=I*0.25.  Donovan Martin showed that the current sense voltage during the oscillation intervals was essentially the same whether or not the oscilloscope probe was connected to the Q1 source side of the current sense resistors or the circuit common side.  This irrefutable evidence that the vast majority of the signal amplitude was independent of the current sense resistors and therefore a property of wiring goes right over Ms. Ainslie's head.

[TinselKoala]

Hey, Poynt99!

How does it feel to be trying to reason with, and explain things to, someone who lies about what her own data shows?

Test 3 shows, of course, the famous Figs 6 and 7, which have been proven to be fabrications, with plenty of Gate drive voltage shown but no Q1 current. There is no "poynt" in discussing these fabrications further, the data is fake, garbage, BS.

Test 4, according to the text, was taken with a 20 millisecond period, but the scope horizontal timebase is set to 500 microseconds per division, so IF the 20 millisecond period is TRUE, then the whole screen only shows a tiny portion of one cycle, and there could be Q1 ON times for as much as 15 milliseconds... since what is shown only covers 5 milliseconds of the 20 millisecond period.
OR.... if Ainslie "meant" to say that the period was 20 microseconds, then each horizontal division of 500 microseconds contains 25 full periods of the waveform and it is impossible to determine the Q1 ON interval.
However I can count only 14 peaks per horizontal division, all the way across the screen.

Furthermore, we know that the data in the daft manuscripts, ALL OF IT, is invalid because of the _actual_ location of the FG's Black output lead, which was NOT located where the schematics say it was, but rather where they always located it in every test they ever did, until August 10-11, 2013. They had NO GROUND LIFT ADAPTER and didn't understand the groundloop issue so they could not have used the location in the schematics in the manuscripts, and EVERY photograph and video of their apparatus shown since 2009 shows the Black FG lead in the common circuit negative rail. The schematics in the manuscripts are lies, deliberate lies, and all the data, which was NOT taken with that schematic, is invalid for that reason alone, although we also know other reasons that invalidate _all_ data in the two daft manuscripts.

You are arguing with someone who will lie about what the data from others shows, and she clearly is happy to lie about what her own "data" shows.

[TinselKoala]

Is that some Polly Parrot squawking I hear?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjBCjfB3Hq8