Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Posting? For a moment there I thought you were serious. Ah.... but it's just a bunch more delusional nonsense that reveals both the depths of the Great Scientist's misconceptions and the heights of her arrogance.  Ranting, more like it.

Meanwhile...

I've been working on this Arduino-based time-lapse data logging made simple. Not only is the necessary information captured, but a visual record of the experimental runs is preserved. There can be no doubt about this kind of record-keeping. This video just illustrates the system, it's a "shakedown" to see if I could actualize my conceptions. I think the process worked pretty well, all things considering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXH4ikaMUM0

It looks good.  You might want to prop the meters up slightly depending on the camera angle.

[MarkE]

Sometimes little reminders are in order:

"The experiments conducted:  June 29, August 10, and August 11 failed to reproduce the results reported here."

"We therefore obtained heat output that was only a fraction of the input power."

"As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts."

In the educated world, when one cannot reproduce an extraordinary result, the extraordinary result is suspect:  It cannot be relied upon as valid.  There is always the option to determine the root cause for the unreproducible result.  One could for example note ways that the apparent result can be reproduced as the result of one form of error or another.  For example if a measurement appears to anomalously no current over a 14 second interval when other evidence suggests copious current flow, one could investigate and find that the experimenters did not connect their oscilloscope probes correctly as the Ainslie team discovered June 29, 2013.  Or if for example, a very large AC current appears to flow, one might investigate and find as the Ainslie team discovered June 29, 2013, that the AC signal they read was not across a non-inductive current sense resistor, but across a wiring inductance.

There are unfortunately those who cannot be educated even by their own direct observations.

[TinselKoala]

Did you know that if something isn't copied over, mentioned or explicitly refuted, it is thereby ENDORSED?

That's really good to know, since it means that the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie thereby ENDORSES all of my video demonstrations she doesn't mention, the ones that explain all the features of the circuits, and that prove that she is utterly and hopelessly wrong in her silly claims.


Or does it? We've seen before that the Great Scientist isn't subject to the limitations or requirements of ordinary mortals. What's good for the gander apparently isn't good for the goose, in this case. Perhaps Ainslie can't tell that her rants, which only display her continuing ignorance, misconceptions and mendacities, are not rising to the level of significance worth noticing. Does one need to "refute" or even mention every housefly buzzing, every parrot squawking, that annoys one during important activities like naptime? Of course not.

[MarkE]

Did you know that if something isn't copied over, mentioned or explicitly refuted, it is thereby ENDORSED?

That's really good to know, since it means that the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie thereby ENDORSES all of my video demonstrations she doesn't mention, the ones that explain all the features of the circuits, and that prove that she is utterly and hopelessly wrong in her silly claims.


Or does it? We've seen before that the Great Scientist isn't subject to the limitations or requirements of ordinary mortals. What's good for the gander apparently isn't good for the goose, in this case. Perhaps Ainslie can't tell that her rants, which only display her continuing ignorance, misconceptions and mendacities, are not rising to the level of significance worth noticing. Does one need to "refute" or even mention every housefly buzzing, every parrot squawking, that annoys one during important activities like naptime? Of course not.

Did you know that if someone doesn't object to your thoughts even if you don't express them, that constitutes endorsement?  This is all starting to fit together.  This "If someone doesn't come and argue whatever silly thing I say or think, they endorse my ideas." reasoning could explain a lot.  Think about all the endorsements that Ms. Ainslie has claimed but has been woe to evidence.  They could all very well be the same sort of imaginary endorsements of which she currently speaks.

[TinselKoala]

Sure, but it is even more likely that they are complete fictions, total fabrications. They allegedly happened 12 or 14 years ago and there has never been presented a scrap of evidence, not so much as an email, that the alleged vettings and endorsements actually ever existed. Look at how she distorts and misrepresents the events of six months ago, of three years ago, and even of the present time, where records actually DO exist! I think that she is just making it up, with perhaps a tiny kernel of reality that has been embellished, sculpted and encrusted upon over all these intervening years. As I've said many times before, you cannot believe _anything_ that Ainslie says unless you can find some independent outside confirmation. They, meaning Donovan Martin and Rosemary Ainslie, are demonstrated and admitted liars, and if there is no evidence presented to support their contentions, you are not required or even expected to believe them. In fact, by disbelieving _everything_ they say, you are more likely than not to be correct.