Hi Mark, we crossed posts there.

I would gladly leave her to her peace... but she refuses to cease and desist with her insults and libels against me (and you, and Sterling, and Stefan, and .99, and just about everyone else who has ever criticized her). And she's got a couple of sock-puppet sycophants who parrot her insults and add their own filth to the mix as well. She offended me greatly with many of her libels and her homophobic slurs and her threats, and as long as she persists I will stand up for myself and my work. I will not tolerate people lying about me or misrepresenting my work, even if they are doing it on an obscure and silly blog that contains nothing else of significance. Not only that, I am proud of my expensive education, and I have credentials that I worked hard for and earned at great expense, and my teachers and advisors were people at the top of their fields. Ainslie is an uneducated barbarian who thinks that reading Gary Zukov's popular book constitutes a physics education. I will not sit still for insults and disrespect from overweeningly arrogant and ignorant fools like Ainslie. Besides.... I've got some time on my hands, and it's kind of fun seeing what she comes up with next, how far down her own throat she can stick her foot, like in the August fiasco "demo" of incompetence and ignorance. She learned one lesson then: never give actual data or details, because they _will_ be examined and fabrications will be uncovered. So now we just get claims from her, no data or descriptions at all, and that's all we will be getting in the future.

Thanks for the note, I'm glad you are still watching. Look at it as sport, because that's really all it is. As you note, from a scientific and technical aspect she has been utterly put down, long ago, and all that is left of her "work" and her "thesis" is a twitching mess, full of holes, contradictions, falsehood and fabrications.

Cheers--
--TK

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 04:16:57 AM
You must be referring to your water power law work from many years ago, because lately, I'd put you pretty strongly in the "claims without evidence" camp, when you aren't actually in the "supporters of claimants who don't provide evidence" camp next door.

LOL. Err ... I would prefer you called them hypotheses. After all Avagadro didn't have any evidence and Mendeleev's system wasn't exactly free of holes.


I bet Newlands kicked himself for not having the intestinal fortitude to stick to his guns when he was being mocked and howled down.

Had he done so we would now know it as the Newlands system.


No, I am not referring merely to the discovery of the equations of state for water vapour but my whole body of work both published and unpublished (i.e. internal notes of the Road Research Laboratory, now TRRL and the Building Research Station, now BRE).

One thing we can say about Rosemary. We know who she is. She doesn't hide behind a stupid anagram.

You claim to have all these wonderful qualifications but where is the evidence? You could be a complete bullshitter.

I believe you in spite of the lack of evidence for the same reason I believed Mylow because I believe in trusting people until I am given good reason not to.



Edit: Incidentally , the work on water vapour was done after I retired. I can't recall offhand exactly when but if it were forty years ago I would now be over 100. Though my mother lived to 102 and I hope to emulate her I can assure you that I'm not that old.


Trust me. ;-)

Frank, the very real evidence for whatever "qualifications" I have can be found in my posts and my many YT videos. I use YT as my "lab notebook" as well as for instructional and demonstration videos. Anyone can repeat anything I do for themselves; the things I post on this forum can be confirmed and are supported by evidence that is checkable by anyone willing to do the homework. If there is anything I have _ever_ posted, anywhere, that you think is lacking empirical support please point it out to me specifically and I will do my best to correct the omission. When I speculate or hypothesize I hope that I always indicate it clearly, and when I satirize I hope it's obvious, even to you.

Now... let's see if any of that applies to the "known" Rosemary Ainslie. Does it, or not?

The reasons certain people wish to remain anonymous on the internet should be clear to you, Frank. But there are plenty of people reading this post who know exactly who I am, how to reach me, where I live, etc. Just because you don't know me, doesn't mean that I am not known. Ainslie has stalked me off of the internet and on it, by calling and emailing people who she thinks might know me, and she has threatened me, in addition to stating her insane beliefs that I have somehow had something to do with breakins and computer hacking at her walled compound in Cape Town. Do you want a paranoid, unstable, clearly mentally disturbed person with an axe to grind, even one a world away, to know just where YOU live and where you bake your bread?


Why don't you answer the true-false quiz? Don't you need the extra credit? And why do I need to "trust you"? Is there some question about you that I must take on faith, that you can't or won't prove unequivocally? Are you that unreliable that I must be exhorted to "trust you" in order to believe your words? Nobody need "trust" me: they can simply see for themselves. As Gary H. says: Make up your own damn mind.

That gets another rofl.

Do you see the kind of pitiful lying she's engaging in now?

1. The Figure 3 scopeshot cannot be reproduced using the schematic and setup claimed by Ainslie and Donovan Martin in the manuscripts posted under their names. Yet the major claims of the manuscripts depend on conclusions drawn from this and similar -- also non-reproducible, invalid -- scopeshots.

QuoteUtter nonsense.  We replicated these PRECISE numbers publicly late last year under the watchful eyes of Steve Weir.

ROFL! Everybody that watched that demonstration knows that Ainslie COULD NOT produce those "precise numbers" at all. This is on PERMANENT RECORD that can be checked by anyone.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q


2. The Quantum magazine published schematic cannot produce the short ON time duty cycle claimed in the article.

QuotePossibly.  But it's IRRELEVANT.  Who cares?  The actual apparatus has been technically evaluated to do what is claimed.

No, it is not IRRELEVANT that a publication exists with FALSE SCHEMATICS and which makes FALSE CLAIMS about "the precise circuit" used. It is NOT IRRELEVANT that many people tried to reproduce that work, using the published schematic, and wasted many many hours of time and effort doing so. It is also NOT TRUE that the Quantum circuit was "technically evaluated to do what is claimed." Evidence, remember? There exists NO EVIDENCE supporting Ainslie's claim of "technical evaluation" of the Quantum magazine article circuit... except the work that was done by me and many others showing it could NOT produce the claimed duty cycle reported in the article.
The appropriate reference here is the Quantum article itself, where one can see Ainslie claiming that the "precise circuit" must be used to obtain her claimed effects.

3. The recently found Quantum magazine apparatus contains a 555 timer chip that was manufactured in May of 2007, along with a different part number mosfet,  and other parts not found in the original schematic.

QuoteI simply do not believe this and won't.  Not until I see a comment from the manufacturers.  I have changed NOTHING.  I'm not capable.  And there was NO REASON to change anything.  EVER. To the best of my knowledge that apparatus has not been used since 2003.  This is pure fabrication.  Very much in line with those posts that you CLAIMED were authored by me but were your own paltry efforts.  If I can find it I'll post a link.

Ainslie lies when she accuses me of altering ANY of her posts, or claiming something that I wrote was written by her. The link she  pretends to provide goes nowhere, so I have no idea what she is talking about.
And it makes no difference whatever what Ainslie "believes". The chip has the date code that it has, and if Ainslie doesn't believe it... maybe she should do some research on her own to find out. But that is contrary to Ainslie's philosophy.
This statement of hers here is enough, on its own, to condemn Ainslie as a bald-faced liar, overweeningly arrogant and incapable of doing her own research. The STMicro company date codes are available to anyone who searches for them... and it was Steve Weir himself who first gave me the information about that chip's date code, after I asked him about it. I subsequently confirmed the STMicro date code from several other sources. Ainslie is lying, plain and simple, and doesn't even have the integrity to CHECK A REFERENCE which proves that she is doing so.


http://application-notes.digchip.com/005/5-9794.pdf

4. The "box" circuit diagrammed by Steve Weir differs substantially and significantly from the Quantum magazine article circuit, both in performance and construction. 

QuoteThe 'box' was constructed to enable a variety of circuits.  The Quantum article simple published an 'extrapolation' of that circuit used for the Quantum paper.

The Quantum paper specifies "the precise circuit" to be used, in so many words ... but that "precise circuit" is not now in the "box" AT ALL, only remnants of it. The circuit in the "box" now is RADICALLY DIFFERENT from the circuit published under her name and has nothing to do with that earlier circuit... at all. Ainslie simply lies when she claims it does.
The reference here is Steve Weir's reconstruction of the circuit in the box now, and the Quantum article schematic. Look for yourselves. Build and test.... you will see the differences immediately. The circuit in the box NOW doesn't even contain the mosfet part that Ainslie has always specified: IRFPG50, but instead contains the very different IRFP450. Ainslie lies when she claims this box hasn't been altered since 2003, as is PROVEN by her own photographs.

5. Ainslie attempted to cover up the "mistake" that led to the "Q-array" of the 4  miswired mosfets, after the release of her first video demonstration in 2009. She lied about the schematic in use and even told .99 that she wished she could have continued the deception longer. Over 400 forum posts here alone discussed the WRONG CIRCUIT, with her conscious knowledge that she was deceiving everyone. 

QuoteNo 'mistake'.  We attempted to HOLD BACK on a release of the actual circuit until we'd managed academic accreditation of both that circuit and the consequent oscillation.  Our concern was that Glen Lettenmaier and others would try and STEAL authorship as they attempted on our Quantum circuit.  In point of fact our Poynty resolved this dilemma to our entire satisfaction.  After his exposure there would be NONE who would claim it was NOT designed by ourselves.

The FACT that the miswiring was initially an inadvertent mistake is PROVEN by the cartoon diagrams in the second daft manuscript which pretend to explain her "thesis" as it relates to the experimental procedure. The cartoons show the Q1 and Q2 mosfets in STRICT PARALLEL, all sources connected together. Ainslie probably didn't actually realize this "mistake" for some time, perhaps not even until .99 discovered it and revealed it publicly.
The FACT of Ainslie's attempts at cover-up are well known and even acknowledged by her. This is amazing: she lied, mislead and continued to try to do so, long after many people told her that there was something wrong since their replication attempts didn't behave like her scopeshots indicated. She LIED, blatantly and outrageously, for nearly a solid MONTH, over 400 forum posts, discussing the WRONG CIRCUIT. Either she lied at the beginning of that period, or the end, when she claimed to know about it already. These are FACTS and I've provided the references many times. Ainslie made material misrepresentations of the schematic used, and got Donovan Martin to lie for her multiple times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE

6. Ainslie repeatedly claimed that she "did not post that video", referring to the video of the first demonstration that she posted to one of her four YouTube accounts. 

QuoteIn all my life - I have NEVER posted any youtube video anywhere at all.  I do not know how it's done.  I rely on others to do this.  It's a failing that I don't usually bring to public attention.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g/videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont/videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising

Any questions? Here are three of Ainslie's YouTube accounts, with many videos that SHE HERSELF uploaded.  It is of course a VIOLATION of YT's terms of service to let someone else use one's account logins. The earlier demo video, with all the lies and smoking guns, has been removed... also by Ainslie herself... but still exists on my channel for anyone to view. Check the location of the Black FG lead in that video, and you will see another one of Ainslie's lies... because it is at the Common Battery Negative, as it is in every other available photo of any of Ainslie's apparatuses.

7. Ainslie and her co-conspirator Donovan Martin both claimed that the apparatus was sent off somewhere and never returned.

QuoteNo idea what you're on about.  We had a second demo set made as a duplicate of our own - which was shipped to ABB Research in North Carolina - for Colin Bowler.  THAT was the kit that was NEVER RETURNED AND FOREVER LOST.  Our own apparatus was first lost and then FOUND.

Where is the evidence for these claims? Nowhere. Not a shipping receipt, not a photo, nothing. We only have the word of a PROVEN LIAR that any of this ever happened. We have Ainslie claiming that the apparatus was LOST since 2003.... but it has been altered at least twice, the latest time sometime AFTER May of 2007. This is proven beyond doubt by the photographs of the contents of the box, and Ainslie's own admission that she sent some components of the box to Aaron and/or Ashtweth for their own researches... sometime around 2009.

8. The postings of the two manuscripts on Rossi's blog contain different schematics purporting to describe the same apparatus. In some other versions the schematics agree with each other... but not with the reality of the apparatus as she used it.

QuoteQuite right.  So WHAT?  They address two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES.

So what? The papers lie and don't even agree with each other.... and Ainslie replies "SO WHAT" ? That's pseudoscientific misconduct of the worst kind.

9. Neither of those schematics is actually correct, because Ainslie and her crew always used a different location for the Black FG lead than is shown on those schematics.

QuoteThe function generator probes are CORRECTLY detailed for the measurements shown in those waveforms. 

This too is a manifest LIE. The FG Black lead was never located where it is indicated on the schematics. In EVERY photo of Ainslie's apparatus it can be seen at the common ground, NOT the transistor side of the CVR as is proper. The original schematics included with the very first postings of the "papers" showed it, if they showed it at all, at the common ground point, and the schematics weren't changed until AFTER several people pointed out that the location ACTUALLY USED allows a current path to bypass the CVR.

10. Ainslie's own data show clearly that her batteries do discharge over the course of several days of experimentation, contrary to her claims.

QuoteWHY would I claim this when the data contradicts it?  And WHY would I draw attention to this discrepancy in the paper itself if I was trying to HIDE SOMETHING as you're implying?

Why indeed? I know why: it is because Ainslie cannot interpret graphical scope displays and doesn't understand what they actually indicate. Furthermore, anyone can point to many times when Ainslie claimed her batteries did not discharge... but as I have shown previously several times, an inspection of scopeshots that Ainslie posted herself (and which she falsely accuses me and others of "rifling" from her computers, LOL) shows that the battery voltages do decline over the course of several days of testing during which she claims very clearly the exact opposite.


Do you see: Every item in the Little Quiz, she lies about,  and she cannot provide ANY REFERENCES OR EVIDENCE for her continuing series of lies and false claims. While every FACT that I mention is supported by checkable outside references and demonstrations.