TinselKoala, this time around they at least have experience with using better experiment and measurement methods.  Whether they do better than before or fall back into bad practices: only time will tell.   From the procedures they say they intend to use the likelihood that they will produce reliable data is pretty poor.

Mark E. as a relative newcomer to the Ainslie farce, perhaps you aren't aware that Ainslie actually sent, or so she claims, her entire actual apparatus off to a laboratory, allegedly in the USA, for testing and evaluation, a year or two ago. Unfortunately for Ainslie, this laboratory did NOT lose the apparatus, nor was anyone fired for testing it. They returned it to her intact, with extras. This laboratory failed to confirm her claims wrt excess heat, battery charging, battery longevity, and etc. They did see, as have we all seen, the "negative power product" and they explained it to her as instrument artifact caused by the same reasons we have explained: her poor procedures, bad choice of components and ignorant interpretations of instrument indications. When the apparatus was returned to her, they actually told her how to improve her testing, and suggested tests for her to perform. They even included, according to Ainslie, some "special resistors" for her to try. I think, had she followed through with their suggestions, the demonstrations of last June and August would have gone very differently, had they proceeded at all.  Since Ainslie has been uncooperative and uncommunicative about this testing, we still don't know the part numbers of these special resistors or whether they were to be used as non-inductive current-viewing shunts, or perhaps alternate loads. Nor have we ever seen any information as to the identity of this laboratory, who the principals are, and we haven't seen their official report.... and we never will.
She was able to use the excuse of having sent off the apparatus, to "explain" why she didn't do any testing at all for a long time, contrary to her earlier promises and claims.

Ainslie has a long and documented history of not reporting data that does not, in her mind, support her claims.

TinselKoala, that's an interesting story.  I don't expect much of any value to come from Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.  If however they do produce interesting data, I am willing to evaluate it.

Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 10:28:05 AM
TinselKoala, that's an interesting story.  I don't expect much of any value to come from Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.  If however they do produce interesting data, I am willing to evaluate it.

Even though you know, or might believe based on previous track records, that the data will be heavily cherry-picked, selected carefully and heavily edited?

Do you know: the first "edits" of her daft manuscripts that appeared on her vanity honey-pot forum actually had some of the channel baseline markers deliberately edited out from some of the scopeshots, so that observers would not be able to read the traces themselves? When we noticed and commented on this, the excuse was made that this was a result of "compression" or other file transfer artefacts. Curious compression artefacts that deleted ONLY this critical info, and only from scopeshots where it was indeed significant......

Of course once these discrepancies failed to get past her audience, the unedited original images which included the baseline markers were restored.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: One cannot trust ANY data from the Ainslie mob unless it can be replicated at home by oneself.

TinselKoala, unreliable garbage does not interest me.  It's true that a person's track record is a reasonable barometer of what to expect from them.  It is not a 100% predictor.  We will see if they publish anything and if they do what it looks like. 

BTW: Steve hasn't said anything to me about having any involvement with what they are doing.  If they are getting guidance from anyone it is probably not from Steve.