I'm sorry that I gave the impression that I might not think Ainslie _believes_ in her claims.

Of course she believes them! She believes in her "thesis" so strongly that she is willing to distort experimental results so that they fit her ideas; she routinely ignores data that falsifies her conjectures due to the opacity of her belief system. She distorts descriptions of events, gets all kinds of details wrong, refuses to correct her obvious errors, and still clings to the conclusions she drew from the horrible computations that I have illustrated, even though she knows that the calculations are wrong. (She can't produce the correct calculations from the data, though, since she still confounds the Joule with the Watt, and simply multiplies everything in sight until she gets an adequately large number.)

If she is now willing to perform adequate experiments and measurements, this is something that is new to her psyche; for the last 5 years at least, people have been giving her advice as to how to do it properly and, until her association with Steve Weir, she has always either flatly refused, stalled indefinitely, or completely botched the process, as when she went out and bought a big expensive motor-start capacitor when Poynt99 was trying to get her to filter her battery supply measurements with appropriate capacitors -- in spite of his providing exact specs and even part numbers for her to order. The idea of doing a literature search, to see how other people do simple calorimetry with precision and accuracy, is completely foreign to her.

I'm all for her using proper experimental technique. That's what I've been trying to demonstrate for years in my videos concerning Ainslie's claims. But she refuses even to believe that my approach or my demonstrations are scientific! Just look at the insults she levies against me, without even knowing what my videos contain. It's laughable in the extreme! She has no clue what the Scientific Method actually means.

One thing is certain: it will be hard for them to top the high comedies of the June 29 and August 11 demonstrations. But I'm eagerly awaiting their next chapter. Here's my prediction: we will see stalling, and delayed reports if any at all, because if they _do_ manage to do some proper work, they'll find _YET AGAIN_ that there is no OU, no unusual behaviour, nothing, nichego, zip, zilch. Nothing but Ainslie's fantasy. Not even this will deter her, though.

Ms. Ainslie says that she is going to seek Steve's blessing on whatever test set-up that she decides to use.  When I saw him at DesignCon last week, Steve did not mention anything about this.  He told me that the last time he had heard from Ms. Ainslie was around Thanksgiving. 

Ainslie continues to emit statements that reveal her willfull ignorance and her overweening arrogance.

As anyone _except Ainslie_ knows, I've been using mineral oil for proper thermometric testing of her claims for YEARS, and demonstrating the same on YouTube videos.

Her continuing attacks upon me, her false claims and libels concerning me, have attained such proportions that not even her erotic fascinations with my pickle or my GRE scores can keep up with them. She continues to make a total laughingstock of herself with these absurd pronouncements and restatements of her own ignorance.

Just for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMthOsvbVU  (April 12, 2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xs_ZsGhK9o  (May 20, 2012)


And of course the graph below, which I have reproduced here several times, is from data obtained from the single-mosfet circuit in 2009.

All throughout this project, from the beginning of my involvement in 2009, I have produced more accurate, more relevant, and procedurally correct temperature data than Ainslie has _EVER_ shown.... since all of her reported temperature data comes from the incredibly naive direct attachment of her thermocouple to the metal housing of the resistor element, dangling in mid-air or perhaps inserted, _after already heating up_ , into a plastic jug of water. By her own admission, Ainslie NEVER actually measured the temperature of the water, in spite of the direct, and false, claims in the daft manuscripts concerning water temperature.

Once again, Ainslie simply lies arrogantly when she misrepresents my work, just as she has done many times before ... or continues to emit her silly statements out of pure willfull ignorance. Or both.

On record. Yes, indeed... the record shows who is right and who is wrong, and about what.

Ainslie is utterly wrong, and has never been able to refute a single fact that I illustrate in my videos. How could she--- she doesn't even know what they contain, and probably couldn't understand them if she _ever did_ watch them, even though a bright eighth grader probably could.

Ainslie has YET AGAIN made statements that are easily demonstrated to be utterly WRONG. She has emitted so many such statements that it is impossible to count them all. Practically with every post she makes she makes YET ANOTHER lie, YET ANOTHER misrepresentation, YET ANOTHER simply WRONG statement. Many times, as at present, she piles them up until practically every _sentence_ of her posts contain these silly and idiotic "mistakes".

Ainslie has no basis for objecting to any of the work of her critics, because she simply has not the educational background or the practical experience necessary to do so. She cannot even follow the simple math, nor understand explanations of common terminology of her chosen topic as given in textbooks or even on Wikipedia. We've demonstrated this utter ignorance of hers many times, using her own words. "No such animal as inductive reactance!" "A Joule is a Watt, the terms are interchangeable!"  "Castrol GTX !" If I listed them all in one place it would take pages.

Her only real contribution to the research concerning her claims is the comedy value. Literally _everything_ we actually know and trust about the Quantum single mosfet circuit, the later circuit that appears in the Box today, and the 5 mosfet circuit is _in spite_ of Ainslie herself, and actually comes from her strongest critics. Ainslie has contributed literally nothing to the understanding, except lots of LOLs.

TinselKoala it is plain as day that in your various videos you state that you use mineral oil in your heater vessels.  I guess you could have used a: ladle or honey dipper to visibly demonstrate the viscosity of the oil.

The good news is that Ms. Ainslie says that she is going to use mineral oil.  The not so good news is her declaration that she does not intend to perform rigorous tests.  I think that she should reconsider.  She is already going to take considerable time and expense to do her new tests.  It is not particularly more difficult to perform rigorous tests that would be accurate to a few percent than it is to conduct sloppy tests that suffer very poor accuracy.  She can use your videos as a guide on how to perform good quality tests at low expense and moderate effort.

She is talking about using a liter vessel.  That will hold one of her heater elements, but will not hold the existing circuit board.  The perforated paperboard material if immersed will also absorb quite a bit of oil.  So I think the plan is to just immerse the heater element of the existing circuit and compare that to an immersed control experiment resistor.  In that case, she is going to find out rather quickly that the results replicate the ~20% power efficiency measured August 11.