Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

In the procedure write up for the August 11, 2013 demonstration I think they were supposed to show the function generator open circuit voltage, but never did.   Typically a function generator that is offset to one extreme or the other is restricted to either positive only or negative only values.  So, the waveform shown is unlikely to be the result of the controls set as they described.  Really, who cares?  We know that whatever they did for their papers it was essentially useless.  They proved that with their demonstrations.  I would just get on with your valid experiments.

Really... I CARE. Ainslie has presented these daft manuscripts as "scientific reports of an experiment". They do not rise to the standard of anecdote, even, since they contain so many misrepresentations, inconsistencies, fabricated or covered up data, and outright lies. In addition she has carried on a campaign of relentless insult and disrespect for me and for all of her critics. I will not rest until every bogus point in Ainslie's entire opus is revealed, explained and if necessary refuted. She's a liar, a troll, a fool, and an idiot, and I am not just repeating the experiment to higher standards, I am exposing Ainslie and Martin for what they are.

Furthermore, since she so vehemently denies the validity of what I am doing, I am actually _pre-empting_ her by removing the valid methodologies from her armamentarium. She won't use the methods I am using... she can't, she dare not, without revealing her ignorance and hypocrisy yet again. This gives me the lulz to the max.

[MarkE]

Really... I CARE. Ainslie has presented these daft manuscripts as "scientific reports of an experiment". They do not rise to the standard of anecdote, even, since they contain so many misrepresentations, inconsistencies, fabricated or covered up data, and outright lies. In addition she has carried on a campaign of relentless insult and disrespect for me and for all of her critics. I will not rest until every bogus point in Ainslie's entire opus is revealed, explained and if necessary refuted. She's a liar, a troll, a fool, and an idiot, and I am not just repeating the experiment to higher standards, I am exposing Ainslie and Martin for what they are.

Furthermore, since she so vehemently denies the validity of what I am doing, I am actually _pre-empting_ her by removing the valid methodologies from her armamentarium. She won't use the methods I am using... she can't, she dare not, without revealing her ignorance and hypocrisy yet again. This gives me the lulz to the max.

What I see that is valuable is the record you are publishing of how to perform good experiments with various types of apparatus, and how to find and cope with real limitations, including a budget.  I don't personally see value in tying any of that good work to the irrational rants of someone whom very few take seriously at all.

[MarkE]

There are many kinds of fakery, some more egregious than others. The fakery that consists of ignoring contrary data, doing only demonstrations that "prove" the thesis, and misrepresenting the work of others as well as one's own work, could be semi-unconscious. It happens all the time and is called "confirmation bias". It is no less of a sin for all of that.



The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman

The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. -- Richard Feynman

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Yes, but what did Richard Feynman ever do except massively refine our understanding of quantum mechanics by inventing and developing the field of Quantum Electro-Dynamics, serve as an impeccable teacher to thousands, author definitive lectures on physics, and stand up against a nattering incompetent bureaucracy at NASA following the Challenger disaster?

[TinselKoala]

I think I'll commence experimental runs with the Quantum Box circuit that Ainslie shows in the photographs and which Steve Weir has decoded and schematized.

I have the thing built up already, the exact circuit Steve drew up, with the same NE555N (although mine is Philips not STMicro brand), the same Spectrol Model 534 ten-turn 50 k wirewound pot and the same IRFP450 (not PG50) mosfet that is shown in Ainslie's photographs of the "lost" box that was "not actually" ever lost at all.

The circuit of course produces nothing like what the original Quantum publication schematic does. This circuit makes short, highfrequency ON duty cycles, no oscillations, but some ringing when the Gate series resistance potentiometer is very low.  The frequency range is about 20 kHz - 185 kHz -- far faster than the original claimed circuit -- and the duty cycle is not adjustable, so the "freq" control is really the "off" time control and the "on" time is fixed by the RC programming components of the 555 circuit. In constrast to the claimed Quantum magazine circuit there is only the one adjustable pot, not two. I've left in the series Gate resistance control present in the original Quantum schematic because it does have some effect on the circuit's performance.

This is the circuit that was installed in the Lost Grey RatsNest Box sometime after 2007, so that the Ainslie mob could reproduce Glen's (FuzzyTomCat's) work in preparation for the submissions, rejected of course, to the IEEE journals.  At the time, Ainslie was ecstatic and endorsed the waveforms that Glen produced as "authentic" and proper for the performance of the experiment to show excess energy production from this circuit.

[TinselKoala]

A blast from the past:


(By the way... if any of the screen images of Ainslie's posts don't bear the date, because they may have been captured the same day as they were made.... just look at the date of creation of the image file.)