Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Well, just as I predicted, Ainslie is attempting to "retract" her earlier fake retraction of the two daft manuscripts which contain DOCUMENTED and PROVEN falsified data, along with all the other major nonsense they contain.

She forgets, as is typical, that she cannot reproduce the data in the manuscripts, such as the famous Figure 3 scopeshot upon which the outrageously hilarious OU conclusions are based. She also forgets that the manuscripts contain conflicting schematics and that they both lie about the actual circuit used. She also ignores the fact that even her colleague Donovan Martin has been caught in misrepresentations and outright lies on Ainslie's behalf. None of this prevents her from making her continuing claims without presenting a shred of credible evidence. She continues to lie about me, as well. In short, the Ainslie comedy continues. The goalposts keep moving, the claims mutate, the excuses and rationalizations, the insane theorizing, all continue apace, but what you will never see from Ainslie and her collaborators is an honest, repeatable set of experiments using proper measurement and analysis methodology.

She knows better now, than to publish actual schematics or real data!

[poynt99]

Just when Rose thought you were down for the count.

[markdansie]

TK Check you PM
Mark

[TinselKoala]

Well.... I see the lying Ainslie is back at it in full form.

It seems that our Little TK is sinking down to the very bottom of his own pickle barrel.  You will recall that he based his ENTIRE refutation of our Quantum paper on the CERTAINTY that we had inverted our duty cycle - that we were running at a 10 percent OFF / 90 percent ON.

That's a clear, outrageous and outright lie. The circuit published in the Quantum article has been analyzed fully and CANNOT make the claimed duty cycle. Further, the "found" apparatus does not even contain anything like the same circuit published in the article and doesn't operate anywhere near the same frequency range. This has been proven over and over again. Ainslie is true to her lying form here once again.

He certainly convinced the most of those members on OU.com - which speaks to the efficacy of pure REPETITION of an allegation.  Clearly all that's needed is to say something often enough for it to be believed. 

No, all that was needed was for anyone to build and test the circuit... which they did, and found that I am correct and that Ainslie lies. Everything I say is supported by demonstrations that are repeatable by anyone, and by outside references and images provided by Ainslie herself.

BUT.  That allegation was finally contradicted by the evidence. By a miracle of good fortune we found our original apparatus.

The apparatus that Ainslie and her dupe Donovan Martin both repeatedly lied about when they said it was "lost." The apparatus that contains a chip that was manufactured well after the date of the Quantum article. The apparatus that does NOT contain the circuit published in the Quantum article but an entirely different circuit. The apparatus, in short, that Ainslie continues to lie about to this day.

And Steve Weir did the required analysis to PROVE that we could and did have the capability of tuning to less than 10% on AS WE CLAIMED - IN THAT PAPER. 

On the contrary, lying troll Ainslie. Steve Weir analyzed the circuit from the photos and showed that it WAS NOTHING LIKE the circuit in the Quantum article, and cannot produce the FREQUENCY that is claimed in the Quantum article, but operates at a much higher frequency. It also contains a chip with a manufacturer's date code that PROVES that it could not have been used at the time of the Quantum article. The entire statement of Ainslie concerning Weir's findings and the "found" apparatus is a total lie.

This ENTIRELY negates his BEST argument.

On the contrary, Ainslie: the photos and Weir's reverse-engineering PROVE my argument: the found apparatus IS NOT the circuit claimed in the article and WAS NOT used in the experiment described. This is INCONTROVERTIBLE; the photos clearly prove my point here and show that Ainslie continues to lie baldly and without compunction.

His other arguments are too varied and confusing to follow. 

For an uneducated overweeningly arrogant fool as Ainslie, no doubt. But others follow and agree with my arguments.

The bulk of them claim is that I ...LIE.  Which is CLEARLY just a case of gross projection.

No, Ainslie. Your lies have been documented over and over and over again, from the "I did not post that video" lie to the "taking water to boil" lie, to the lies about the true schematic used for the "papers"... and on and on. Your lies are manifold... and documented.

His own facility in the art of deception - his MENDACITY, which is his preferred term - is EXTRAORDINARY.  It shows a flair for innovation which, one hopes, would at least have secured him SOME kind of financial compensation.

Ainslie cannot point to a single instance of my "mendacity". She accuses without a shred of evidence. Whereas, I have documented references and images of many many lies that have been uttered by her and have shown them many times in this and other threads.

The more clumsy of those efforts are those that make miniscule variations to the posts that he CLAIMS are COPIES of my own posts and that they're needed FOR POSTERITY?  Lest I alter them?  He even invented a couple of posts and CLAIMED that I authored them.

Another outright and egregious libellous LIE. The images I have made of Ainslie's posts are done with the specific intent of preserving her utterances, since she is WELL KNOWN to go back and change or remove her posts, editing meanings, long after the originals are made. The accusations that I have made up or edited any of these images of Ainslie's posts are simply more of her ridiculous and unsupported lies.

God forbid that I ever use such clumsy language.  In any event,  I think he meant to say that those copious posts were needed for his own PROSPERITY.  But it's all backfired.  I was told that his disappearance from the forums is because he's terminally ill.  Frankly I doubt this.  I think he's been retrenched because he's blown his cover and can no longer enjoy that duplicitous technique.  And since life itself begs a kind of 'terminal' condition - then I'm not inclined to waste sympathy on him.  I too feel that I'm aging at speed - at a terminal velocity.  Which is why I am working this hard to expose those 'techniques' of troll spin.

And it goes on. The Troll Queen cannot provide any evidence or support for her lying allegations.

Poynty - to his credit - tried an intellectual approach.  He firstly recommended that it would be good enough to use the measurements of a standard digital multimeter.  He STRONGLY urged all and sundry to RELY on the average - and OVERLOOK the fact that these instruments CANNOT POSSIBLY GIVE AN ACCURATE VALUE OF ANYTHING SWITCHING AT THE SPEEDS OF OUR SWITCHES NOR THEIR RESULTING OSCILLATIONS.  It was one way of both FUDGING the results AND invalidating them as dependable value by any EXPERT in the field. With this kind of heavily flawed evidence, there was no one who mattered who would EVER take any over unity claims seriously.  Which makes it a SCOOP of no mean dimension.

THEN.  He DUPED me into retracting our own over unity claim in PAPERS 1 & 2 - by showing that the advantages that we were measuring were most CERTAINLY NOT recharging the batteries.  He was absolutely CORRECT.  BUT.  AGAIN.  I was too precipitous with my retraction.  The questions related to that self-perpetuating number teased my mind.  Eventually I did my own detailed analysis and found that INDEED - the advantage did NOT go through the battery.  But it most CERTAINLY was evident in the heat over the element resistor.  It was just that the resonance simply moved backwards and forwards through the resistor without EVER going through the battery.  Suddenly we had both the explanation for that anomalous heat signature as well as an explanation for the discharge of the battery - albeit at a rate that generated an efficiency in EXCESS of the battery's watt hour rating. 

How ridiculous can you get? Ainslie and her "team" of sycophants showed over and over their incompetence, their ignorance, and their inability to reproduce their own FALSIFIED data when being observed. Now she claims falsely that she was "duped" when what really happened is that she finally encountered someone who knows what they are doing and agreed to work with him in public.

Poynt99's clear explanation of Ainslie's circuit and the measurement issues is documented in a series of videos, that I have gathered into a playlist on my YT channel.

Ainslie's own demonstrations proved that there is NO "anomalous heat signature" and that the power supplied by the battery exceeded the power dissipated by the load resistor. This is clearly documented in the video of the most recent demonstration, also available in a playlist on my YT channel.

AND BY THE WAY.  WE'VE NOW OFFICIALLY REMOVED OUR RETRACTION AND AGAIN STAND BY THE RESULTS AND CLAIMS IN THE PAPERS 1 & 2 DETAILED UNDER OUR FLAG

Ainslie refers to the papers that contain false schematics that were never used in the experiment. The papers that contain clearly fabricated data, scopeshots that are impossible under the claimed conditions, and wild claims about experimental conditions that never actually happened. The data that cannot be reproduced under the conditions stated in the paper. The paper that contains a wild and ridiculous "thesis" that has no correspondence with reality and is nothing more than an ignorant mismash fantasy cartoon delusion... and doesn't even correspond to the actual circuit used when it tries to explain it!

The mind boggles at the very thought of it.

[Pirate88179]

So, she has retracted the retraction?

I don't think we even have a word that covers this do we?  Re-retraction? Unretraction?  Retractionous interuptus?

Bill