New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[markdansie]

I thought I was done in June, However I will save my comments to after the event.


http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/01/rosemary-ainslie-test-objectives-and-open-letter/


I see Milehigh and you TK get honorable mentions


Kind Regards

[TinselKoala]

Mark, if you look at the first post in this thread you will see a quote of the document
"Summary, Skype Conference Call 27.07.2013"
where you will see what Ainslie and Donovan _actually_ agreed to test and demonstrate and the parts they agreed to use. Now, of course, they have unilaterally decided to do something other than what was agreed upon, with different parts.

Further, the "papers" have been shown to be completely flawed. NONE of the data in the papers is reliable in the least, as was amply demonstrated already in June. The papers describe a particular set of experiments.... and now Ainslie has announced her intention to simply replace the questionable scopeshots and other data with new screenshots. This of course is unacceptable and dishonest, but that is par for the course from Ainslie. Her papers must be withdrawn, simply BASED ON THE JUNE DEMO, which showed that ALL of the data is bogus. If she can generate new experiments that can support her work, fine, then she must do completely new writeups OF THOSE NEW EXPERIMENTS.  Sorry to shout, but the person who needs to heed this is blind and deaf apparently.

You can't just change the data in a writeup of a two or three year old bad experiment and think that fixes it! Even to suggest such a thing shows how mendacious she is.


You also say in your article "There was no conclusive evidence of overunity." (emphasis yours).But actually there was NO evidence of overunity AT ALL, conclusive or otherwise, and in fact there was STRONG EVIDENCE that Ainslie and her team falsified data that appears in the first paper. That is right.... data that appears in the first paper was not collected under the conditions claimed. It is false, made of lies, pure and simple, and Ainslie and Martin know this.

Yet they have done nothing to correct the false data that appears in their papers. The schematic and claims of the Quantum COP>17 article are false. The schematic published in the papers, in three different versions, is false. The schematic given in the video of the March 2011 demo is false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE
The Figure 3 scopeshot is false. The claims made concerning ALL of the data from the current monitoring resistors in the papers... are false. The June 29 demonstration proved that ALL of the measurements in the papers are either outright lies, or unreliable due to bad measurement techniques. All of this is thoroughly documented, it is in the recording of the demonstration. For you to say "there was no conclusive evidence of overunity".... greatly understates what was in fact demonstrated: Ainslie's entire data set is bogus, contains deliberate misrepresentations, and cannot be repaired by "do-overs".

If you are going to give Ainslie a platform by publishing her "letters", you really should also provide facts that represent the actual situation, not her distorted view only. As always, I encourage you to copy or refer to my comments here, so that the record will remain straight on Ainslie, her claims, and the real situation. You should also INSIST that Ainslie provide the six scopeshots that S. Weir guided the team to make at the end of the last demonstration. You can hear her and Martin agree to publish a corrected schematic and these shots at the end of the recording. Where are they? Ainslie will not publish them because they demonstrate unequivocally that the paper's Figure 3 is a lie. Not a simple honest ignorant mistake, but rather a deliberate misrepresentation. The Figure 3 scopeshot is deliberately "cooked" data, and without the pressure from .99, picowatt, milehigh, and me.... it would still be out there, unchallenged and uncorrected.

[TinselKoala]

 

It seems rather that they're intended to discourage the claims and the claimants both with such energy – such persistence – such dedication – that one is inclined to see an agenda behind these attacks from a well paid group of players who work under a mandate.  And, since the ONLY beneficiaries of these attacks are our energy suppliers – then the question is this.  Are they secretly and silently funding that protest?  It certainly seems so.  Because how else would someone like Tinsel Koala (Mr Little), for example, be able to spend day after day, month after month, year after year, doing NOTHING but shout down our own work in this regard?

What an amazing lot of paranoid ranting!
Who is this Mr Little that Ainslie keeps talking about? She thinks, in her mendacious paranoid deluded haze that passes for consciousness, that I am someone called Bryan Little, that I am well paid by "our energy suppliers" to do nothing but shout down her "work". But she can provide NO EVIDENCE OR SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for any of these ridiculous assertions of hers. She has persisted in this absurd fantasy for years, and every time she mentions Bryan Little she makes an ever larger fool of herself. Where is DONOVAN MARTIN and why does he not care about her false claims and paranoid rants? Ainslie badly needs a keeper; she is becoming dangerous to herself.

[Tseak]

Quote from RA
"NOW.  I think we're nearing the end of our little romance - my sweet.  I've been able to access Professor Jandrell - who acknowledges that he insisted on 'taking out' that rather significant data related to battery draw down tests.  I'm yet to be given an explanation for this."

Rosie, Rosie,
The world is a small place. These little pork pies come back to haunt one. Professor Jandrell is a friend of mine. He says that he has not spoken to you for years.

By the way Professor Jandrell is one of the academics that you are trying to attract to your project. He is well respected in both the academic and engineering worlds. At the time of the Quantum publication he was head of the electrical department at Wits University. You are unlikely to get the right sort of attention by attacking such people.

[markdansie]

I removed conclusive.
I have exercised what I call professional tolerance up to date hoping I was providing an exit strategy for everyone.
However as I said I will be fair, and wait till the tests are completed. I do believe given the failure of the last tests from a equipment and technical point of view, Rosemary (on advice from Mr Weir) be given another opportunity so technical, measurement failures can not be used as an excuse..
Stay Tuned, I did not earn the name Darth Dansie for no reason.
Mark