"YOU THEN ALLEGED THAT YOU LIKE TESLA HAVE FOUND THE SOURCE OF INFINITE ENERGY."


That is a lie, AINSLIE, you know it is a lie (therefore you are CULPABLE since you claim not to be insane) and I want your apology RIGHT NOW along with a retraction of the statement here and on your forum. A POLITE retraction and a SINCERE apology.

Well, so what's become of the Ainslie claims?

She claimed in the Quantum paper to have used the 555 timer circuit to make a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle to do the experiment. That is MANIFESTLY not true, as has been shown several times by both her detractors AND her supporters. Perhaps some other system or circuit was used instead. Whatever... Ainslie is responsible SOLELY and ULTIMATELY for anything and everything published UNDER HER NAME, and the Quantum article is FALSE.

She claimed lots of things in the present case.

She claimed to "bring water to boil". But by her own admission she did no such thing. The water wasn't boiling, and in spite of WHAT IT SAYS IN THE PAPERS, the water temperature was never even measured, by her own admission.
Yet... Ainslie is responsible SOLELY and ULTIMATELY for anything and everything published UNDER HER NAME, and the paper's claims are FALSE. 

She claimed to have measured COP>infinity. This is also MANIFESTLY UNTRUE. The NERDS, whoever they are, CALCULATED their COP>Infinity result, from measurements of VOLTAGE and VOLTAGE ONLY. All else is INFERRED and CONCLUDED from the results of calculations performed on VOLTAGE and TIME readings ONLY. (Oscilloscopes ONLY measure voltage and time, that is all. All else: frequency, current, phase, all the rest  is CALCULATED from measurements of Voltage and Time only.)
And the CALCULATION of a COP> or = infinity was performed incorrectly on improperly gathered data. Thus, the CALCULATION of COP is bogus, wrong, and irrelevant, since ANYONE, making measurements with the same innocence of training, reason and education as Ainslie, will obtain the same values on systems that are manifestly UNDER unity in performance. Thus, these claims too are bogus and refuted. Yet...Ainslie is responsible SOLELY and ULTIMATELY for anything and everything published UNDER HER NAME.

She claimed that her batteries do not discharge. Well... they do. Her laboratory in the USA reported that their batteries DID discharge using AINSLIE's OWN APPARATUS. Thus, her main claim and all her hypotheses based on it are soundly REFUTED AND FALSIFIED. And of course... Ainslie is responsible SOLELY and ULTIMATELY for anything and everything published UNDER HER NAME.

Certainly... there are no Ainslie claims left that are of importance here.  She's been soundly put away, on the shelf with the other pickled oddities and freaks of nature.

"I, Rosemary Ainslie, did state and assert the following, addressed to TinselKoala:

"YOU THEN ALLEGED THAT YOU LIKE TESLA HAVE FOUND THE SOURCE OF INFINITE ENERGY."

This is an untrue assertion on my part; I did not read carefully what TK actually said, and I now acknowledge that he neither said that thing, nor implied or suggested it. I therefore RETRACT the statement made in error, and herewith extend my sincerest and heartfelt apologies to TK for distorting and misinterpreting his words. I know that TK would never make such a claim casually and without the strongest of proofs, unlike some others I could mention but won't. TinselKoala, please accept my apology, and I promise to strive to read carefully and accurately from now on, because I recognize that this has been a continuing problem with me, and not just with your posts, TK, but with everyone's."

SIGNED...................................................................... "



Well, Ainslie... I've done your homework for you AGAIN. All we need now is your signature.


Or perhaps you cannot tell that it is WRONG to make assertions like that, putting words into people's mouths that they did not say, and then arguing with them about it. If you cannot tell RIGHT from WRONG, and expect to NOT be held responsible for your actions... well, like I said before, look up the McNaghten rule.

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on July 14, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
Guys,

My own reputation is not the issue.  The worst that TK can do there is IRRELEVANT.  I am old.  And quite frankly - it is NOT likely to make a blind bit of difference in my life.  What's important.  What's really at issue is the importance of these numbers that we're getting.  Please keep that in full focus.  We have repeated and demonstrated proof of COP infinity. There is NO reasonable explanation for this in terms of standard physics.  This fact is acknowledged by every self-respecting scientist in the world.  Yet we have three or four dedicated contributors to this thread who repeatedly advise you that this is NOT IN FACT HAPPENING - or alternatively - IT HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE.

THIS REACTION IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE.  So. I beg you all.  You may read TK's calumny and I'm sure there are many of you who are even amused by it.  I don't know.  I don't even care any more.  But Please.  On bended knees - just know this.  He is also trying very hard to assure you that there's no significance in our work.  And he does this at the cost of your own best interests and in the best interests of your children and grandchildren and your own futures.  And he does this at the cost of the best interests of science itself.  And what it particularly disgusting is that he PRETENDS that he is an authority on science. 

It is ONLY IMPORTANT that the work survives - notwithstanding this unmerited and orchestrated and I believe well funded ATTACK.  It is the thing that keeps me awake late into the night.  I would be very sorry to find that these disinformation tactics ACTUALLY work.  Not when I've gone to such extraordinary lengths to keep this information OPEN SOURCED.  It means that Open Source is NOT the way to go.  And that would be a tragedy of ENORMOUS proportion.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

added

Well, then. You will OF COURSE provide a statement or two from some of these self-respecting scientists who acknowledge that there is no explanation for your results in terms of standard physics.And, since your project is OPEN SOURCE... you will OF COURSE immediately provide the spreadsheets where your calculations are performed and your raw data is preserved.

Won't you.

Of course, you won't.

Guys, TK has published the names and telephone numbers of a list of players associated with our early COP>17 accreditation and even on our earlier circuit before we built the COP>17 apparatus.  Here's the the thing. There are at least 3 and possibly 4 of those players still in the active business - one of them being the technical director of a public company. I am entirely satisfied that I have NEVER made their names public.  Nor will I.  I must, however and sadly, report to them that TK - a member of this forum - has not only put their names on public view but that he as also included their telephone numbers.

He could ONLY have got this information from Harvey Gramm or from rifling my computer - if not directly - then indirectly.  His culpability is in making that list public.  I am now obliged to report this to them which I will do on Monday.  Meanwhile, for the record - I am entirely satisfied that they will NOT tolerate having their names bandied around on a thread - and in public - and CERTAINLY not on a thread of this disgusting standard.  It not only has rather unfortunate racist implications - but the standard of posting is considerably less than legally or morally acceptable.  I disclaim ANY RESPONSIBILITY in making their identities public and INDEED have resisted any mention of them.

Regards,
Rosemary