Is Rose actually claiming that Mylow did indeed have a free energy magnet motor?  Even after he admitted his fakery?  Even after TK and other smart guys here on OU proved it was faked?  I was one of the folks that enhanced a still shot from his video clearly showing the fishing line to the motor on his couch.  Sterling banned me from his site for pointing this out.

So, if she is now claiming that Mylow was not showing fakery, and she is now claiming that her original results were indeed more output than in, what are we to believe?

I know what I believe.  Rose has to be smart enough to know that we all know she is lying right?  What is her point then?

What might happen if Rose hooked her unit up to Mylow's motor?  Would it cause a rift in the space/time continuium?  That might be dangerous.

Bill

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 08:07:31 AM
The Quantum magazine article clearly states:


And the Figure 1 schematic has been given here and elsewhere many times. But as I and many others have proven, over and over, that circuit cannot make the claimed short ON duty cycle. Ainslie whines and moans about this, forgetting that anyone can build it and see for themselves that she is lying, baldly and blatantly, about this circuit's performance.

One may wonder, therefore, why that precise circuit as depicted in Figure 1 was NOT used subsequently, and was instead replaced, sometime AFTER MAY OF 2007, with a completely different circuit, the one that Steve Weir analyzed from the photographs. A completely different circuit that:
1) operates at a much much higher frequency than the original Quantum circuit;
2) contains only a single adjustable potentiometer instead of the two depicted in the "precise circuit" of the Quantum article;
3) contains a DIFFERENT MOSFET, the IRFP450, instead of the very different IRFPG50 that Ainslie has always... ALWAYS.... claimed they used;
4) contains a 555 timer chip manufactured in May of 2007, proving that the circuit in the box could not have been used for any of Ainslie's published or posted data;
5) contains many other components such as chokes and diodes that were never mentioned in any of Ainslie's material;
6) is essentially a "replication" of Glen Lettenmeier's circuit performance parameters.

Indeed one may wonder... or may simply conclude that the more knowledgeable members of Ainslie's "team" knew and understood the problems with the "precise circuit in Figure 1" and chose to use Glen's circuit instead... since it makes waveforms that Ainslie approved at the time.

Ainslie has never adequately explained these discrepancies, instead preferring to libel me and her other critics, but never, NEVER providing any evidence or proof of her ridiculous and indeed insane assertions. For years in this forum she even claimed that the box was LOST, when it in fact was in her possession the entire time, even including her several moves of household. Somebody modified that box after May of 2007.... it was never "lost" at all, that is just another one of her and Martin's lies, constructed so that she could continue with her dog-and-pony show without providing evidence. But now her "finding" of the box has backfired, because the photos show the "smoking gun" of the circuit and the date code on the timer chip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4

OOOOHHHH ... "Date Code". You're my hero sleuth. I can't tell you how much fun it is to watch you go crazy over the nonsense claims and accusations you make. You just get so frenzied ... like you're saving the world or something or made some great discovery. You are insignificant. It's entertaining for sure though. You are truly a psychotic wreck and narcissistic prick. You can just sense your cranial pressure building .... POP! and R.I.P.

Oh, so now you are deliberately antagonizing me with insults, in the hope that I will have a cerebral aneurism, POP, and die? Remarkable. Some might call that attempted internet murder!

Never the less, troll sycophant idiot GMeast, the date code is on the chip. This is REALITY. Take a look up above! Do you deny that that is a photograph of the 555 chip that is presently in Ainslie's box? Do you deny that it has the numbers on it that it has? Do you deny that that is a date code? Did you check the reference? I even gave the link to how to decode STMicro date codes. The 555 timer chip was manufactured in May of 2007, there is no doubt about that. And there is absolutely no doubt that the box has been altered! Look at the pictures. It no longer contains the Quantum Magazine circuit, many components are obviously disconnected (and didn't appear at all in the Quantum article's schematic) and it doesn't even use the "right" mosfet. Instead of whining your insulting posts why don't you LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE and explain or refute it if you can. But you cannot.

QuoteHi Guys,

Our Little TK has risen from the dead and is back lurking on his Hate Thread at OU.com.  And being the little fairy that he is, he's parading his usual amateurish sleuthing skills in loud screams that would, typically, be the envy of your average Banshee.  Apparently there's some chip included in our apparatus that was manufactured in 2007.  I have NO idea what the significance of that chip is.  I have never altered nor changed any aspect of that apparatus.  I simply do not have the skill set.  Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has there been any REASON to change anything at all - as we have quite simply not used that demonstration model since 2003.  So.  I challenge the ALLEGATION that this chip was only manufactured in 2007.  If it's true then through a miracle of no mean dimension - it has somehow assimilated itself onto our apparatus.  His authority for this claim is about as comprehensive as his claim that I authored this post. http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg5034.html#msg5034  Effectively I would be more inclined to believe this IF and ONLY IF we had a full report on the subject by that chip manufacturer.  My eyes are not the best but I see too that he interprets an '8' on the last digit?  Not sure that this is right.  BUT.  In either event ... SO WHAT?

Here again Ainslie admits her ignorance and lack of research skills, even though I cited the reference for the date code in the photo analysis above. She pretends to talk about circuitry but cannot even identify a 555 timer chip ON HER OWN PHOTOGRAPH.  She also again LIES BLATANTLY claiming the box was not altered or used since 2003.

SO WHAT? It proves that Ainslie is an abject liar, and ignorant of her topic to boot, that is "so what". A chip that was made in 2007, placed in a circuit to make Glen Lettenmeier's waveforms and frequencies, has nothing to do with the Quantum article of 2002 or the data therein.

QuoteSurely?  The requirement here is to disprove Papers 1, 2 & 3 - on the bases of those claims.  And more to the point - with a presentation that is at least as comprehensive and articulate as is presented in those papers.

This has been done, over and over again. Ainslie refuses to look at the disproofs and refutations, preferring to insult and wheedle and condemn things she has never even examined or thought about seriously. She also refuses to recognize that HER OWN DATA disprove her claims soundly.

QuoteIn effect the call is on them all to do their own draw down tests.  THEN.  PUBLISH THOSE RESULTS.  Sadly and for reasons that entirely elude me - they avoid this like the plague.

Here Ainslie lies again, or perhaps displays her overweening arrogant willfull ignorance and denial of facts again. I have performed, posted and discussed MORE and MORE COMPREHENSIVE drawdown tests than Ainslie ever has. Her ignorance, her willfull ignoring of my work and my data and my video explanations does not make them "go away" or cancel what they contain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BK4rx01INY

We have never seen, to this date, ANY DATA on battery drawdowns from Ainslie. None at all. Just claims without any support.

QuoteTK - all of them -  ALL those detractors and disclaimants - employ and enjoy sloppy experimental standards - undefined terminologies - badly constructed circuits with little or no relevance to the circuits under discussion - appalling measurement protocols.

This is incredibly false. Ainslie doesn't know the standard terminology of her topic. The depths of her ignorance are preserved in her own words in many posts. She even thinks a Watt and a Joule are the same thing. As noted above she cannot even identify a 555 timer chip. The famous Box is a rat's nest, as anyone can see from her photos. The 5-mosfet device violates every principle of mosfet amplifier circuit layout and construction. Her "protocols" are childish at best and nonexistent most of the time: she just turns knobs and fiddles about. The circuits I and Poynt99 have examined are the _exact_ circuits that she herself has published, all of them, and other variants, and we have _real data_ on those circuits. The circuits we made produce the _exact_ waveforms that Ainslie herself has posted in her forum posts and manuscripts. Below I will attach her, and then my, versions of the current Box circuit layout, so that the reader may judge and "make up your own damn mind" as to the veracity of Ainslie's current accusations and rants. I will also attach a real graph of real time-temperature data, obtained and presented properly, in stark contrast to Ainslie's silly methods.

QuoteAnd they yet have the temerity to ASSUME that this is adequate for purposes of denial.  And MOST SADLY - it appears that they're right.  NO ONE challenges their authority.  I've said it often.  It is a DISGRACE to science and the quest for discovery. 

And yet not Ainslie, nor anyone else, can refute my analyses or support her claims. The DISGRACE is that Ainslie has returned "from the dead" with her denials of reality and her continuing claims of "overunity" from a vastly INEFFICIENT mosfet circuit.

QuoteWhat is at stake here is the rare proof of measured evidence of Over Unity.  That's a BIG claim.  It needs a skilled and reasoned refutation.  What's been put on the table to counter this is very far from adequate - has very little relevance to science and is promoted by despicable personalities who are compulsively unable to deny their need to bully old women.

Kindest regards
Rosie

And yet... the results and analyses that we have presented can be repeated by anyone with the skills and equipment. Our results can be solidly confirmed by anyone who tries. But what about Ainslie's? How to go about reproducing the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot that is at the heart of her "rare proof of measured evidence of Over Unity"? She herself has shown that this scopeshot is false, but she can't even think past that to realize that the claims based on the scopeshot are therefore untenable... and unrepeatable. Ainslie has no conception of what real Science is about, nor does she understand the Scientific Method or scientific communication. She even refuses to learn the standard language of science: mathematics.

Bully old women, what a laugh. Should she be held to some other standard because she's an old woman? I don't think so. First she pretends to be a scientist, then when she is criticised for sloppy work, falsification of data and unsupported, wrong, claims.... she claims to be a bullied old woman. Cue the tiny violins, my heart weeps for her. The record proves that she is an insulting, hypocritical and ignorant internet poster, no matter what her  or age might be. Some of her posts might have been made by a potty mouth 8 year old.

You know, it's a funny thing. People -- mostly Ainslie sycophants with no skill, credentials, capabilities or understanding of their own -- want to disrespect me, libel me, complain about my lack of technical knowledge and skills.... yet these same people will not analyze and dissect any of my videos or forum posts, in order to refute me with facts, checkable references or demonstrations of their own. Why not? I know why not: they CANNOT. After all, I always provide enough information for anyone to check my work, and I'm certainly unpopular amongst that crowd. So why don't they do their due diligence, like CHECKING THE DATE CODE on the chip in Ainslie's box for themselves? I know why: when they cannot support their contentions against me, they just wind up looking silly, like GMYeast. But if they don't even _try_ to refute me or provide specific information about what they object to, there's nothing to contend with. They can continue making accusations and claims without evidence... since you can't prove "no evidence" to be wrong.

I sympathise TK. I know how it feels.