Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

I do not challenge the incidents that you describe.  What I am trying to say is that no matter what someone else says or does, we can choose to stick to the data and only the data.  If another person acts badly let that be their action alone.  If they refuse all counseling, all tutelage, then let that be on them.  If they constantly assert against reality, then defend the facts.  In other words, if we choose to treat other people as though their errors are innocent, we spare derailing ourselves or the technical discussion.  It doesn't matter whether someone else is the Mother Theresa or Joseph Goebbels of science.  Sticking to the technical facts keeps the discussion focused on the topic.  Over time even well crafted propaganda does not stand up against clearly articulated science.  Sooner or later most people are smart enough to notice the difference between those who consistently offer compelling evidence with their argument versus those who argue with empty hands. 

On the other hand, veering off on personal issues creates many opportunities to muddle topics and in some cases play into the hands of unscrupulous debaters.  This can frequently seen in political debates where one debater works their opponent until their opponent lets loose with a fit of anger.  At that point the audience reacts to the opponent's anger and not their argument. Some politicians are very good at using this trick.

[poynt99]

poynt99 you've done some really good investigative work on this.  It is terribly unfortunate that Ms. Ainslie elects to dismiss your fine work and cast dispersions on you.

Thanks Mark.

It is unfortunate indeed. Rose and her colleagues could learn a great deal if they would only put aside their pride and listen. And if they insist I am wrong, a cogent explanation as to why would be expected, but we never get one.

Ms. Ainslie now charges that the sound protocols that you suggested, and that she accepted were "FAR from satisfactory".  Ms. Ainslie does not elaborate on what it is that she finds lacking in those methods, or why she chose to use protocols she believes to be unsatisfactory in her demonstrations, or why she agreed with the measurement results that those methods produced as can be seen in the demonstration video. 

I am uncertain to what she refers actually. Rose objects to essentially everything I write, so if she wants an answer, I would suggest she be more specific as to what protocol she is referring to.

This is most readily observed during measurements reliably taken at the batteries themselves, which is a set-up that you skillfully suggested, and Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators accepted.

Is Rose now suggesting that the battery power measurement should NOT be performed right at the battery? Or is she saying that the battery power measurement is irrelevant somehow?

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie has set herself up as an object of ridicule and mockery. The scientific issues have been settled, years ago. There has been nothing new to emerge in years of discussion except the Quantum "box" and its smoking gun: the 555 chip made in 2007. Ainslie has no clue about her circuit or how to measure any aspect of its performance. She still doesn't know the difference between a Joule and a Watt. (Are a "mile" and a "mile per hour" the same thing?) She parrots terms without understanding their meaning and won't bother to learn the standard terminology of her topic.

Take a close look at her Figure 9. This cartoon was drawn by her _before_ they realized that the Q2 mosfets are in backwards, and has never been revised. Note that she has the Source of Q2 connected to the Source of Q1, and the Gates of the two connected together. This cartoon represents her "understanding" of the operation of the circuit.... and it doesn't even correspond to the way the circuit is wired!

I've included a few more post images that show Ainslie's attitude, as well. Note her repeated lies, her name-calling, her unfounded ridiculous accusations, the libels and threats.

Do you see, Mark E., that it is Ainslie who chooses the tone of the argument, not I?

[MarkE]

Thanks Mark.

It is unfortunate indeed. Rose and her colleagues could learn a great deal if they would only put aside their pride and listen. And if they insist I am wrong, a cogent explanation as to why would be expected, but we never get one.
I am uncertain to what she refers actually. Rose objects to essentially everything I write, so if she wants an answer, I would suggest she be more specific as to what protocol she is referring to.
Is Rose now suggesting that the battery power measurement should NOT be performed right at the battery? Or is she saying that the battery power measurement is irrelevant somehow?

Poynt99, I am afraid that I have not seen anything more specific by Ms. Ainslie than what I described.  If I were to take a guess it would be that she is now discounting the validity of battery voltage and current measurements taken right at the battery.  In her own demonstrations, those measurements showed both that the wild battery voltage swings as measured at the breadboard did not exist at the batteries, and that the batteries supplied net power during both the Q1 on and off phases.  Those measurements taken at the batteries established that as your simulations and demonstrations had already shown long before the demonstration that wiring inductance between the batteries and the measurement points fouled the battery voltage and current measurements.

On her blog, Ms. Ainslie recently declared that the demonstrations did not show net battery power draw during both Q1 on and off phases when the fact that they did is readily observed in the August 11 demonstration video.  Ms. Ainslie has not elaborated on what she relies on to make these declarations that are at clear odds with her own demonstration. 

[MarkE]

Ainslie has set herself up as an object of ridicule and mockery. The scientific issues have been settled, years ago. There has been nothing new to emerge in years of discussion except the Quantum "box" and its smoking gun: the 555 chip made in 2007. Ainslie has no clue about her circuit or how to measure any aspect of its performance. She still doesn't know the difference between a Joule and a Watt. (Are a "mile" and a "mile per hour" the same thing?) She parrots terms without understanding their meaning and won't bother to learn the standard terminology of her topic.
...
Do you see, Mark E., that it is Ainslie who chooses the tone of the argument, not I?

Each of us choose the tone in which we offer our arguments.  My view is that by staying focused on data, and avoiding personal issues discussions stay on track, and the important messages: the ones that concern the data, are the ones that are heard by most of the audience. 

It is obvious that Ms. Ainslie made gross errors concerning the concepts and measurement units for work and power.  It is also apparent from very recent comments on her blog that she may well still be struggling with those concepts.    I suggest to you that all are best served by simply pointing out what is wrong and what the correct facts are.   That may seem trying when someone engages in personal attacks.  I find that under most circumstances people who make personal attacks only get as much power as we give them.