Facepalm. Yes, Wilby, you rotational expert without portfolio, SassyClassE is also 100 percent efficient using the same criteria. Are you already three sheets to the wind? It's not even midnight in Seattle. Or Coral Gables, whichever is closer. Usually your tack is slightly closer hauled.

I could even claim it's more than 100 percent efficient, because it's tapping into the Schumann Resonance of the Earth itself as it hurtles through the Solar System, extracting Bremstrahlung energy as it's curved along its orbit like a giant electron. This energy comes surging up from the ground through the specially-treated copper-gadolinium alloy rod, which has been lubricated into the ground with lemon juice and salt.

And apparently, it would be up to you to prove me wrong, because this is the place for uncritical acceptance of wild theories.

Don't forget... as to the question of efficiency....
The experiment described in the "paper", that is associated with Figure 7 where the claim is made that 5.9 megaJoules were dissipated in 1.6 hours, was described by Ainslie this way, on the day it was actually performed (or perhaps the next day):

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 30, 2012, 12:43:15 AM
but yet not as efficient as rose's heater... which as you noted earlier is 100% efficient.

Really? How many CFLs can Ainslie's "heater" light up, wirelessly, on 30 volts input?

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 12:56:57 AM
Facepalm. Yes, Wilby, you rotational expert without portfolio, SassyClassE is also 100 percent efficient using the same criteria. Are you already three sheets to the wind? It's not even midnight in Seattle. Or Coral Gables, whichever is closer. Usually your tack is slightly closer hauled.

facepalm indeed... your 'load' isn't a heater. measure the 'efficiency' of rose's heater and then measure the efficiency of your crappy little tesla coil "actually doing something useful: make corona and ozone to purify and beautify the environment" with the same criteria you used for rose's circuit and present your data.

you've been ionizing your vodka again haven't you...

She may have provided the data... to somebody, at some time. But it's certain that the spreadsheets are not available for public inspection.
The present refusal to provide the data to MrSean2k is just the first _overt_ refusal. She's promised to provide them several times in the past to other people, including Stefan Hartmann, and has simply "let it slide" without further mention or explanation.

But the excuse currently given is clearly bogus. I mean, Ainslie possesses the originals, right? And a copy could be filed with a notary and kept under seal, so that if any evil debunkers tried to, say..... SELECT DATA THAT ONLY SUPPORTED THEIR HYPOTHESES.... or tried to ALTER OR EDIT OR COVER UP DATA OR IMAGES.... the certified copy could be compared and the perpetrators busted. So it's easy to assure both the integrity of the data sets released and their careful and unbiased examination.... by releasing them.

Keeping them secret, not providing them when asked for.... is a no-no. The first thing a reviewer might do... after checking the basic math and the references... would be to ask for the original data, and if the researcher can't produce them for some reason, out the window the manuscript goes.

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 30, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
... would be to ask for the original data, and if the researcher can't produce them for some reason, out the window the manuscript goes.

and yet here you are... four years later...