continued/...

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AM
These are three glaring difficulties with the drafts. How could anyone recommend or consider publication of these draft documents with these problems?

Since they're not applicable these comments are utterly inappropriate. 

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AMFurther analysis of the data presented reveals still further problems that the authors have refused to deal with seriously, such as oscilloscope indications of damaged transistors in the apparatus during certain data runs. Inconsistent descriptions of circuit behaviour, compounded by a "thesis" or conjecture about current flow that has no connection to accepted electronic theory, indicate that the author(s) do not understand basic electronics, test equipment, or power measurement protocols, and outside material available from and about the principal author indicates that she is woefully ignorant about mathematics, physics, electronics in general, test equipment, measurement and analysis protocols, and even the behaviour of her own circuit.

Actionable and criminal slander - everywhere apparent here in these unsupported allegations. 

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AMIn addition, the author refuses to engage in constructive dialog about the questioned points, and has failed to correct a single mistake or answer a single relevant question about these "papers".  Where is the erratum sheet explaining the difference in the circuit diagrams? Where is the information about the batteries, about the function generator? What about the scope traces that appear to show damaged transistors? What about the calculations ... not given in the papers but alluded to ... that mistakenly indicate exceeding battery capacity? None of this has been properly addressed by the author, who prefers to threaten, intimidate, insult, lie and bloviate rather than simply answering the questions with truth, accuracy and more data.

I refuse to co-operate with any thread that flaunts the entirely politically incorrect title of 'tar baby' and that is then littered with the kind of criminal allegation that is evidenced in the context of the previous paragraph and the next.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 05, 2012, 09:08:13 AMSo why is this person given any credence at all? The claims are bogus and not supported, the papers are fatally flawed, the person herself is terminally uncooperative and obnoxious, and further.... the main claim has been refuted over and over. Yet like a zombie on steroids or the Energizer bunny on crank.... it just keeps going and going and going...from forum to forum, burning through collaborators and interested bystanders and eating their brains wherever they are encountered.

THAT is why there is zero co-operation from me TK.  And why there is zero co-operation from my colleagues.  And it is also why you are given zero credibility other than by MileHigh, PhiChaser, picowatt, FTC, and other noisy minorities. 

Rosie Pose

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?

More utterly unsubstantiated nonsense.  I have NEVER claimed to have a patent.  EVER.  I have not even IMPLIED that we have a patent.   I did NOT engage with any EXPERTS EVER - on that forum.  Certainly NOT with anyone who had designed MOSFET's or any TRANSISTORS.  I certainly DID NOT expect or ask anyone to build the circuit.  It did not even occur to me.  I was NOT banned from that forum - in short order.  I was BANNED long after I joined EF.com and then because I posted a portrait of one of their members showing that his head was full of fish.  And I followed this up with an appropriate limerick.  It had NOTHING to do with our work or my thesis.  And I NEVER progressed my thesis on that forum  EVER.

Rosie Pose

Point 1: The battery capacity is an integral part of the claim. Ainslie lies when she says it is not.
Point 2: There are two diagrams in the two papers. Ainslie lies when she says that there is only one.
Point 3: The function generator listed is IsoTech GFG324. There is no such function generator. Ainslie lies when she says that this is the FG used.



Point 1: From the first "Paper":

QuoteSome mention must be made of those aspects of the tests
that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the
batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these
experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10
months. They have been dissipating an average wattage
conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each
working day, during that period, continually subjected as they
were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this
extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss
of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two
batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close
analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before,
during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by
our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to
classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the
energy dissipated at the resistor element was established
empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that
resistor.

QED: The battery capacity is an integral part of the claim.

Points 2 and 3 are proven by the screenshots below. Two distinct diagrams, and the listing of the IsoTech GFG324 non-existent function generator.

AINSLIE LIES AGAIN AND AGAIN and is refuted by her own words and "publications".

Only in the art of SPIN is is possible to interpret the following disclaimer related to battery performance - as an INTEGRAL part of the claim.  This is UTTERLY ABSURD.

Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests
that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the
batteries rated capacity. The batteries used in these
experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 10
months. They have been dissipating an average wattage
conservatively assessed at 20 watts for five hours of each
working day, during that period, continually subjected as they
were, to both light and heavy use. Notwithstanding this
extensive use, they have never shown any evidence of any loss
of voltage at all. Nor have they been recharged except for two
batteries that caught fire. However there has not been a close
analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before,
during or even after their use. This requires a fuller study by
our chemistry experts. Results therefore were confined to
classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the
energy dissipated at the resistor element was established
empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that
resistor.

TK This is taking SPIN to the outer boundaries of any kind of reason at all.  This is meant to be a serious forum.  You're turning it into a farce.

And the papers that you persist in referencing are all of them CORRECTED.  That I have not published a corrected copy on this ridiculous thread is precisely because it would be sullied by association.
Rosie Pose

TK:

I saw the Lissajous clip.  It felt like that "Lost" show minus the hot Latina.  lol

Here is a doobie-liscious Lissajous clip, an "inside the Lissajous" kind of feeling!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFdmNom9xmE

Meanwhile.... life goes on...  *sigh*

Rosemary make some cheese and test your batteries!
Make some cheese and test your batteries!
Churn some cheese and test your batteries!
Eat some cheese and test your batteries!

Make cheese not war.  If there is any cheese to be found...

MileHigh