Interesting point TK about Freedom of speak, if we had a responsability to make sure people are telling the truth the newspapers would have nothing to report (imagine imposing that rule on a journalist reporting politics)
People like sterling Alan could not report anything.
In reality telling Rosemary's story allowed many others to express their view like Magnetic man etc outside of of forum. I really struggled as I feel people like this should perhaps not be given publicity, but there again the stage is set for a demonstration. i just want a conclusion.
Have you ever heard the term give them enough rope
In 6 days we see a demo, if we do not watch my next article.
Mark

Fair enough, Mark, we shall see what we shall see, in six short days.

Meanwhile, our analysis and further research continues.

Here's some more background information for you:

When I first encountered her claims the very first thing I found was that she claimed to have a patent on the original one-mosfet circuit. While I found that wasn't true and struggled with her to change her language and admit that a WIPO application is very different from a patent, legally and morally, I was also building and testing.

I put the apparatus together as she described, hooked it up to supply, load, and scope-- my Tek 2213a analog scope-- and turned it on. Lo and behold.... a 3 percent ON duty cycle and _massive_ heating in the load! I reproduced her effect, her data and even appeared to support her major claim!

Amazed by this I started examining my construction and scoposcopy... and what did I find? I found that I accidentally had the "trace invert" button pressed IN on my oscilloscope and in fact, the Ainslie published circuit actually produced a 96-97 percent ON duty cycle-- the exact inverse of her claim-- and the load was consequently receiving full battery power nearly all the time. The circuit published by Ainslie as the Quantum magazine circuit _cannot possibly_ produce the short ON duty cycles that she claimed, it makes the exact inverse..... and it is this exact inverse and the heat profile it produces that proves that the published circuit isn't a simple "typo" or mistake, but in fact IS the circuit Ainslie actually used. Again, anyone can check this for themselves with a few dollars worth of common parts and an oscilloscope.... IF they know what they are doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
(Posted almost exactly four years ago!)

How could a person make such an elementary mistake and carry it through to claiming COP>17? It is because Ainslie did not then and probably still does not understand that in her circuit, when the mosfet is OFF, the voltage at the mosfet Drain pin will be HIGH, at battery voltage, and when the mosfet turns ON, supplying power to the load, the voltage at the Drain pin drops to near zero. Hence she thought that a Drain voltage that showed a 3 percent HIGH duty cycle meant a 3 percent ON power-to-load, when in fact it means the exact inverse.

In short, I reproduced her experimental results very accurately during that early work, using the circuit she published and under the conditions she claimed. And I showed exactly where the major error was in her work and how it lead to her false conclusions about the heating performance of the circuit. I also tested different mosfets and found one that worked better than the IRFPG50 for both heating and the "reverse current" that she claimed, and cost about 1/3 as much.


Please ask her about the results from the Independent Laboratory to which she sent her entire apparatus, last year. Why has she not provided the report, or even the Name, of this laboratory?

QuoteI thought we were going to be ENTIRELY transparent in this exercise.

If its any comfort I have upset her and she is not very happy with me. I have tried to plead with her to listen and address many of the questions asked. Even if not you TK for personnel reasons, but Mark E and others. I pointed out academics will ask the same questions.
I wll have to be patient and bite my tongue for a little longer,
Thanks for the background
mark

Quote from: markdansie on June 23, 2013, 11:17:26 PM
If its any comfort I have upset her and she is not very happy with me. I have tried to plead with her to listen and address many of the questions asked. Even if not you TK for personnel reasons, but Mark E and others. I pointed out academics will ask the same questions.
I wll have to be patient and bite my tongue for a little longer,
Thanks for the background
mark

Heh... no, there's no comfort to be had there. (But maybe you now understand better why I named my replication "Tar Baby".)  She turns against everyone eventually. She'll even start making snide remarks against people on her forum while still talking sweetly and sending her "best regards" to them out front. She's spun around on .99 so many times it's hard to count, and is getting ready to spin on him again.

She often blames her critics for her not performing any tests that really test her claims.
But here's the real reason she hasn't been able to perform any real testing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQ498owHYE

Great video, you have the best collection.
I will be featuring some in my April 1 addition of breakthrough energy news next year.
Mark