Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[orbut 3000]

Don't worry.... those aren't really barks, they are just the squawkings of a plucked Polly Parrot, pretending to be something she's not.

Nice. Now you even rifled her selfies from her digital camera.


Shame on you, 'tinselkoala'.

[Pirate88179]

Nice. Now you even rifled her selfies from her digital camera.


Shame on you, 'tinselkoala'.

Orbut:

I will have you know Sir that your post has caused me to spew beer all over my keyboard.  This is going to take some time to clean up and I blame you for it.  I suggest that, in the future, if you are going to make such a hilarious posting, that you somehow warn folks beforehand, thereby avoiding the little accident I have had.  I do have to add that it was worth it though.

Bill

[Tseak]

Clearly the circus is not leaving town. That would have been a pity. There's much amusement in seeing what BS comes next.
I'm dying to see which academics are engaged. Apparently only well recognised people - maybe like Ian Jandrell, well known in the engineering world and Dean of Witwatersrand University engineering faculty. Or after viewing this thread, maybe not. The head of electrical dept at University of Cape town - uum?

[MarkE]

Clearly the circus is not leaving town. That would have been a pity. There's much amusement in seeing what BS comes next.
I'm dying to see which academics are engaged. Apparently only well recognised people - maybe like Ian Jandrell, well known in the engineering world and Dean of Witwatersrand University engineering faculty. Or after viewing this thread, maybe not. The head of electrical dept at University of Cape town - uum?

Ms. Ainslie has at various times obtained help and advice from various distinguished individuals.  She has returned the favor with insane accusations against those learned people.  She has in direct correspondence with me accused Professor Jandrell of forcibly removing key supporting evidence from the 2002 magazine article.  I find such accusations highly dubious.  Seeing that she recently accused Steve Weir of being part of some conspiracy against her, I suspect she suffers mental illness of some kind.  I did fairly recently come across a letter from a professor, I believe his last name is Khan who stated he would have nothing to do with her.  It seems to be a common theme among the learned who have dealt with her.

[TinselKoala]

It's a funny kind of circus, where its Joules are really Watts and vice versa, and there ain't no such animal as inductive reactance. And why is the Head Clown dressed up as a plucked parrot? (I know why).


And as far as using the wires to steal her files..... heh. Her paranoia strikes deep, into her life it do creep. She probably thinks I'm in Texas, or maybe Tennessee, USA. But after all.... she has just as much proof of that as she did for me being someone called "Brian Little".

She probably wouldn't believe it if I showed her a picture of this little apartment just up Signal Hill in Bo-Kaap.


Meanwhile, I see that she is still squawking about my use of DMMs. She thinks that the DMMs can't capture the energy in the spiky waveforms, or something.

Leaving aside for the moment that I always show the agreement of the DMM reading with the scope's calculated means, and that I use the scope's values with the DMMs as live crosschecks, and that I use the scope's values in efficiency calculations,  and that Ainslie has never shown DISAGREEMENT between her scope's measurements and what a properly connected DMM would read .....

THINK ABOUT THIS, AINSLIE, IF YOU CAN:   If the DMMs don't capture the energy in the spikes, then the DMMS are UNDERESTIMATING the true DC power that I am supplying to the system. What does this mean? Think hard now, Polly Parrot: it means that, to reach a given final temperature, or to produce a given RATE of temperature RISE (for which you have no data at all) ..... the true power supplied by the battery is GREATER than the DMM values I am reading. Yet the temperature rise, or RATE of RISE (for which you have no data at all), is still less than that produced by straight DC power alone. That means that the circuit is in fact EVEN LESS EFFICIENT than a calculation using the DMM's displayed values would yield.



When will someone show me a connected data set that supports a claim of COP>1?

Obviously, the data set must contain the following items, at least:

Correct circuit used.
Operating parameters clearly stated.
Oscilloscope traces of all relevant waveforms.
Load parameters properly and accurately specified.
Properly conducted control experiments for DC calibration of the load cell.
Properly obtained thermal vs. time data.
Results that are repeatable by other researchers.

That is, data sets that contain WHAT MY DATA SETS CONTAIN.... but that also support a claim of excess temperature or rate of temperature rise produced at the load.

I've shown over and over again that it takes less than four hours to set up for a run, document everything properly and in sufficient detail for replications, run the experiment and take the data, collate and graph it, and produce a video that shows the actual experiment and proves the data set was actually gathered under the conditions I state. And I am working 100 percent ALONE, except for suggestions and evaluations from the members of this forum.

So come ON, people. WHERE IS YOUR DATA THAT SHOWS ANY COP>1 ?

Are you just too busy to take four hours out of your day to prove the miracle that will save mankind from the Tyranny of Big Oil?