Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Ms. Ainslie chooses to trust whatever combination of things seem to comport with her "thesis".  If the measured power at a power source comes out the 15W and the measured power at the load comes out at 3W she chooses to simply disregard one or both measurements as invalid.  It does not seem to be important to her to find a root cause for the supposedly errant measurement, nor to produce a measurement that both corresponds to her ideas and can be shown is valid. 

I think that there is a certain amount of pedagogical value to identifying this sort of behavior.  I have seen some cases where learned people have done the same sort of thing:  If the data doesn't fit, chuck the data without figuring out what is really right and what is really wrong.  It is in this context that I really appreciate the transparency of your experiments.  If something seems amiss then anyone can see and comment on it.  You chase seeming anomalies down until you establish a full account.  It is the right way to perform experimental science.

[TinselKoala]

Thank you for that vote of confidence.

Ainslie has, after all, no real idea of what the Scientific Method is, nor how it is carried out by the performance of True Experiments. Her naive mentions of "standard measurement protocols" and the "Standard Model" and the rest of the big words she parrots are just further examples of the depths of her willfull ignorance. Even though people have told her that her methodology is flawed and is far from applying real standards of measurement and instrument usage... even though she clearly doesn't know what the Standard Model or Quantum Electrodynamics really consist of, she prattles on about how her "experiments" and her "thesis" are somehow connected to any kind of Science or coherent method at all. 

There are several basic research methodologies in the Scientific Method, one of them being the True Experiment. Of all the different basic methodologies only the True Experiment can establish _causal_ relationships, cause-and-effect, between the variables in the system under test. Other methods yield correlations or case-study observations of single cases and cause-effect can not be determined from these.

Ainslie's "demonstrations" only superficially resemble anything that a scientist might call a True Experiment. In an experiment, a scientist has an hypothesis, well formed and operationalized, concerning the relationship between several variables and/or constants in the system under test.

Typically, this hypothesis can be stated in words as an "if-then" statement, and "operationalizing constructs" means that the terms and variables in the "if-then" statement of the hypothesis can be put into numerical, or at least quantifiable, and measurable terms.  It is decided beforehand what kind of data would support, and what kind would fail to support, the hypothesis being examined in the True Experiment.

The experiment itself proceeds by varying the value or level of one or more "Independent Variables" and observing the effect of this variation on one or more "Dependent Variables", holding all possible other influences either constant, or fully accounting for their effects, or randomizing conditions such that variations in these stray "third variables" are scattered across the data and generally cancel out.  Sometimes this process requires a great many trials under identical conditions in order to get consistent and interpretable data.

Once data is gathered and collated -- without selection as to "how good it looks"! -- then it is examined by various statistical tests-- perhaps as simple as comparing counts or averages -- to see if it supports or fails to support the hypothesis according to the previously defined criteria. Truly "bad" data, that is, unreliable data where something went wrong with the apparatus, say, will be identified at this statistical analysis stage and can be dealt with appropriately once it is flagged. It is completely wrong and unethical to regard data as "bad" simply because it does not fit your "Thesis" predictions.

Now here's the catch.... the real process is "inverted" in that the working hypothesis is turned around into a "null" hypothesis: IF I do A, I will observe B becomes "If I do A, I will _not_ observe B". And then the experiment is designed and performed in an attempt to _disprove_ the null hypothesis. For, contrary to the rantings of the Great Scientist, it is indeed possible to disprove something by experiment, and a carefully constructed null hypothesis, when _DISPROVED_ by the experiment.... provides very strong support indeed for the original, right-way-round working hypothesis.

To make all of this a bit more real, we can map it to the Ainslie affair. Ainslie has an overarching "thesis" which she claims makes certain "requirements", what perhaps a real scientist might call "predictions of the theory". Out of this thesis, one can generate many specific working hypotheses of the "if-then" format.

"If I set up a circuit thus and so, oscillating at F and at D duty cycle, with positive spikes at voltage V and measured input power W, then I will see a temperature rise in the load that is greater than can be accounted for by the electrical input power to the circuit."

So the constructs may be operationalized: the circuit is specified exactly, the frequency and duty cycle are defined, the term "spike" is defined quantitatively, the temperature measurement methodology is worked out and specified, the power measurements, the term "input", all of that is part of operationalizing the constructs in the experiment.

Now you form the null hypothesis: If I do all of that, I will _NOT_ see any extra anomalous temperature rise.

Now you design the experiment in an attempt to disprove, or more technically to falsify, that null hypothesis. When you _fail_ in your attempts to falsify the null, no matter how hard you try..... then you are SUCCESSFUL in providing support for the original working hypothesis, which then _may_ be considered some kind of support for the original overarching thesis.

Ainslie, however, proceeds exactly backwards. She knows the "thesis" is true because it has the nature of Divine Revelation, having come to her in a series of dreams. Therefore there is no need to go through all that trouble that I outlined in very simplified form above. One only need demonstrate some phenomena that look like, for example, excess power dissipation in a load.  See, there it is, you can duplicate these measurements (most of them) yourself, QED the "thesis" is  proven to be true. No effort is made to _disprove_ the validity of the measurements.... after all, a five thousand dollar digital oscilloscope cannot be wrong, can it? And Standard Measurement Protocols like VI/dt (sic) are being used, right? What Ainslie is doing is the very definitive example of Pseudoscience.... and to top it all off, she still has to resort to conscious lying and fabricating data! In other words, Ainslie is engaging in _pseudoscientific misconduct_ and the whole thing cracks me up. Yes, great pedagogical value indeed, but let's don't forget the lulz!

[TinselKoala]

The Shifting Pair of Dimes board with 4Q2s and the Real Figure 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAPvZrcG5bI

And here's a demonstration of how I get the data into my computer using some simple Linux programs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFryh0EAm1g

[TinselKoala]

And now... just as I predicted .... the Great Scientist begins to turn against Steve Weir.

In addition to misrepresenting and lying about my work, she also now proceeds to lie about what is clearly on the record: her own measurements and her acknowledgement of them.

What she _actually said_ :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w

And now it seems that she is admitting that her thermal power measurements, all of them, are so inaccurate as to be unusable.

YOUR "PAPERS" ARE GARBAGE, AINSLIE, AND THE MORE YOU SQUAWK AND SQUEAL THE MORE OBVIOUS IT IS.

[TinselKoala]

This "VI/dt" thing that Polly Parrot has been squawking lately really cracks me up.

Go ahead, Ainslie.... work a problem, do a calculation, showing just how "VI/dt" is part of any kind of power or energy analysis. Explain what happens when you multiply V times I and then divide that by the differential time slice dt.

Here's how the REAL standard measurement protocol calculates average power. Where is the "VI/dt" ? Where is even "P/dt"? Nowhere except in Ainslie's mathematically ignorant imagination, that's where. She does not even have the wit or courtesy to study her own chosen field.