Fuzzy, thanks for posting those patent applications. A blast from the past...

This is where I came in, in fact. Someone from this forum PMed me about Ainslie, who was at that time posting on Naked Scientists, a well-moderated forum consisting mostly of professionals discussing "real" scientific issues of a more technical nature, with a "theoretical" section containing more speculative discussions. She was over there, doing exactly what she's been doing here, pushing her "thesis" and telling experts that they know nothing and she knows everything. She was claiming to have a patent at that time, and was talking to the people on NS -- some of whom actually DID hold granted patents for mosfet circuits and switching power supplies using mosfets and so on -- as if she should be considered a peer. She engaged in several threads there, theoretical and practical, and was trying to get someone to build and test the COP>17 claim from the Quantum magazine article. I searched and found that she in fact had no patent, just the applications which had lapsed and never been pursued, and most particularly had never been GRANTED. So her claim at that time to "have a patent" was a lie, and she knew it. When I started engaging her in dialog about this patent issue, it was like pulling teeth to get her to admit that she held no patent at all. I think someone must have advised her that it is illegal to claim you have a patent when you don't, because she finally stopped claiming that she "had a patent" on her kludge.
Of course she was banned from Naked Scientists in short order. But the threads where she was posting are still available from their archive... and read pretty much like the Ainslie threads here, and on energeticforum -- eventually banned there too, and wherever she pops up. Hsn't she been banned here too, at least once, and reinstated ON CONDITIONS.... that she appears not to have met?

@MH:  Ever feel like life imitates art?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0

BTW, did you see my longer Lissajous video, with speakers playing the tones and the counter displaying the frequency ratios?

Has the new math from Rosemary been posted yet?
No? (Gasp! Shock!! No!!!)
Until she posts that, she's just making noise...
Where is the new math Rosie??
Face it, you have been found out as a fraud. Now go away and find another forum to 'spin' your web of lies. Nobody here believes you anymore Rose.
TK showed you in excessive detail how the circuit works, yet you focus on distractions, denials, old posts, lame, lame, lame.... Admit that you are out of your depth. Learn! Move on.
From what I've been reading, you can't admit defeat because your world view is skewed. You can't be taught anything because you already know everything. You won't listen to anyone because you're too busy cutting their posts to pieces and trying to turn the focus away from your LACK OF PROPER TESTING METHODS, BAD MATH, and A POOR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPTS UNDER DISCUSSION.
Your attempt to discredit others here is as transparent as is your lack of expertise. Any 'spin' that I have run across in your threads has come from YOU trying to 'spin' how you discovered some imaginary 'dark energy' when you can't even use your scope properly, OR DO PROPER MATH. YOUR MATH IS SPIN. Get that?
Spin: "...a heavily biased portrayal of an event or situation..."
Sounds like Rosemary talking about her circuit, or her demonstration, or her views in general...
Where is your new math?!?!?
Hello hello Rosemary: Where are your NEW calculations?
We are waiting... Have been waiting a while actually...
Post your new numbers.
Or post some of your 'threats' if you can find them (without the 'spin' if you can manage it).
Or post something relevant to the circuit that MAKES SENSE. Do a Dim Bulb Test... Do SOMETHING besides repeating yourself, it is getting old. Post the numbers or shut up already!!
Funny how this fact keeps getting ignored isn't it??

A daily reader,
PC

(Edited to remove the word 'for' from the first sentence...)

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:33:01 AM
Fuzzy, thanks for posting those patent applications. A blast from the past...

This is where I came in, in fact. Someone from this forum PMed me about Ainslie, who was at that time posting on Naked Scientists, a well-moderated forum consisting mostly of professionals discussing "real" scientific issues of a more technical nature, with a "theoretical" section containing more speculative discussions. She was over there, doing exactly what she's been doing here, pushing her "thesis" and telling experts that they know nothing and she knows everything. She was claiming to have a patent at that time, and was talking to the people on NS -- some of whom actually DID hold granted patents for mosfet circuits and switching power supplies using mosfets and so on -- as if she should be considered a peer. She engaged in several threads there, theoretical and practical, and was trying to get someone to build and test the COP>17 claim from the Quantum magazine article. I searched and found that she in fact had no patent, just the applications which had lapsed and never been pursued, and most particularly had never been GRANTED. So her claim at that time to "have a patent" was a lie, and she knew it. When I started engaging her in dialog about this patent issue, it was like pulling teeth to get her to admit that she held no patent at all. I think someone must have advised her that it is illegal to claim you have a patent when you don't, because she finally stopped claiming that she "had a patent" on her kludge.
Of course she was banned from Naked Scientists in short order. But the threads where she was posting are still available from their archive... and read pretty much like the Ainslie threads here, and on energeticforum -- eventually banned there too, and wherever she pops up. Hsn't she been banned here too, at least once, and reinstated ON CONDITIONS.... that she appears not to have met?

Hi TK,

Yep, to think this has been going on for years especially the patent references that still to this day exist that never has been corrected for some "ODD" reason like the Rosemary Ainslie Blogspot http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/  with the "filed patent can be found here"

The reference to the Rosemary Ainslie Blogspot is still at her "SCRIBD" account http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising  under one of her many aliases "aetherevarising" 

To this day no corrections or retractions to information in this bogus Blog site on her "NOT" having a patent from Rosemary, with the appearance of a tool used for investor scams to recruit fresh device project funding from the deep pockets of the uneducated believers.

Fuzzy

HO HUM.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AM
At various times, the battery capacity of the Ainslie Raylite silver calcium lead acid batteries has been given as 40, 50, or 60 Amp-hours. The model number of these batteries has never been given by Ainslie but guesses have been made and it appears that 60 Amp-hours may be the correct value. But this is NO THANKS to Ainslie, who should have specified the exact model number and amp-hour capacity in the "papers". Since the claim is based on exceeding the capacity of the battery.... the capacity of the battery must be known with some accuracy and precision. A 30 percent uncertainty in this fundamental value... with the best estimate being a "guess" as to battery model, based on looking at images from a video, rather than a battery data sheet.... is unacceptable.

And so it goes.  Round and round.  Not ONE accurate statement anywhere evident.  Battery performance NOWHERE a part of the claim.  We still have not established those battery capacities.  They're UNMARKED and right now their rating 'untraceable' - possibly as they were not made available for sale.  We were DONATED those batteries. 

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AMThe two "papers" that seem to refer to the same set of "experiments" contain two distinct and different schematic diagrams for the circuit. Perhaps one or the other is the correct one or perhaps we are to believe that both were used somehow. Either way, this ambiguity must be officially addressed by the authors in an edit or erratum statement. To do otherwise, but to continue to refer to these "papers" as containing anything of veracity or importance... is unacceptable.

There is only ONE circuit diagram

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AM
The "papers" contain a reference to the equipment and apparatus allegedly used in the "experiments". The function generator is not listed by type at all in one of the drafts, and in the other it is given as "IsoTech GFG324". Yet in the video demonstration the function generator can be seen to be an InsTek GFG 8216a or similar model. An internet search for "IsoTech GFG 324" or variants comes up empty, although IsoTech does manufacture or rebrand many function generators. The function generator used in these demonstrations is a critical component and Ainslie has made claims for its performance that do not correspond with the performance of standard function generators. So we MUST be allowed to have more information about the "GFG324" or other function generator used in the "experiments" described in the "papers". The present state of affairs -- either a mistake in the equipment list OR a nonstandard FG used without documentation -- is clearly unacceptable.

There are NO incorrect references on our submitted papers.