New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[TinselKoala]

I don't want this to get buried. The Papers are still up, on Ainslie's blog and on Rossi's JNP. It has been known for over a month that the data in those papers is fraudulent and erroneous. (Figure 3 Paper 1 is fraudulent because it was not made under the conditions claimed, all the rest are errors _at best_ due to the factors which are now fully understood and accepted. Right.)

Oh, it is not over, not by a long shot. It won't be over until Ainslie and Martin perform the following acts.

1. Rosemary Ainslie MUST remove all versions, all links, to the two papers IMMEDIATELY. She MUST contact Rossi's JNP and retract those posts of those papers there right away and issue statements of retraction with explanations to be posted there, as soon as possible.

2. Donovan Martin MUST assure that Ainslie complies. He surely does not want or need to have his name associated with these papers that contain FABRICATED DATA, misrepresentations of experimental procedures, outright lies, and totally false claims of excess power and energy. Donovan Martin should, by all rights, issue HIS OWN statement of retraction/repudiation, as he has been used, mercilessly, by the dishonest Ainslie to further her own goals, without regard for accuracy or fact.

3. The Quantum Magazine article, which includes a schematic that produces the exact inverse of her claimed duty cycle, MUST be retracted as well, since it contains the same bogus measurement technique and makes the same unfounded claims, in addition to having the impossible schematic.

4. Ainslie MUST issue a full and comprehensive ERROR REPORT that describes her errors, how to correct them and what the conclusions are when correct data is collected and proper analysis and interpretations are performed.

5. Ainslie MUST write retractions and explanations for the "open letters" and failed demonstration announcements that she has recently made on PESN and Mark Dansie's Revolution-Green websites and discussion forums. This should be done as soon as possible.

Anything short of full and honest and direct performance of the above will indicate that the team of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin are not interested in science at all -- for those things are WHAT SCIENTISTS DO when their data, or data they are associated with, is proven wrong.

Further:

6. Ainslie MUST issue INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL apologies, sincere, complete and public apologies, to those she has insulted, lied to and slighted with disrespect over all these years. Here is just a partial list:

-The Boss, one of her longest-term critics, who has been following her case for 13 years or more
-The Naked Scientists Forum and their moderators
-The Energetic Forum, and Aaron and Ashtweth in particular
-FuzzyTomCat (Glen Lettermeier) -- she has especially slighted Glen and he deserves a totally abject and complete apology from Ainslie.
-Harvey -- ditto.
-Tektronix (for misrepresenting their involvement when she had a loaner scope from them)
-Coast-to-Coast Radio, George Noory and Art Bell
-Professor Kahn
-this forum, Stefan Hartmann in particular
-PicoWatt, MileHigh, poynt99 and other individuals on this forum

Anything short of full and honest and direct performance of the above will indicate that Rosemary Ainslie is bereft of conscience, incapable of shame, doesn't take responsibility for her actions,  and is a troll queen of the first magnitude.

(She has even admitted that she doesn't really believe that my name is Bryan Little.... she has just been deliberately trying to "push my buttons" whenever she uses that name in reference to me!!! In short, the very definition of an internet troll.)

[poynt99]

Steve Weir's updated version of the Demonstration Outline.

[poynt99]

TK,

You need to calm down.

[poynt99]

Yes, that is right and that is what was published and what was agreed to by all parties. So why wasn't it done? 

Never mind, I know why.

It was done. The FG settings as far as I know, weren't changed until the demo was over.

You are missing the point. An experiment examines the effect of an Independent variable under the control of the experimenter, upon a Dependent variable that is the "output" measurement. In this entire Ainslie affair, the only real "independent variable" is the Function Generator Setting! A real scientist would have, in fact, plotted the relationship between the negative offset voltage and the resultant computed negative power product (or correctly computed one) to find the "optimum" setting for whatever effect was desired! This might have taken an entire afternoon, to generate a proper series of plots of the relationship between the _exact_ FG settings and the observed calculated power. The same thing should have been done relating the FG settings to the heat output measured at the load resistor ! This might have taken an entire day to do... by a team of real experimenters who understood how to elucidate the behaviour of a circuit.
Instead, after THIRTEEN YEARS.... we now have a single data point: a function generator setting and a corresponding power output. But how do we know that this is optimum? We do not. Perhaps Ainslie just needs to tweak the offset a tiny bit more or less, or use a tiny bit more amplitude, for her magic to appear in spite of the proper measurements. Without knowing the relationship.... you are hand-waving just as much as she is.

I think you are projecting your own point to the situation.

I don't recall a single time when "optimization" of the Q2 oscillation was ever discussed by you, me, or Rose for that matter. Sure, it could be done, and could have been done as part of the demo outline, but there was never any emphasis placed on optimization to the degree you are discussing. I think you are over-emphasizing the need to do this, and it is not required at all to obtain reliable results. Are you questioning the results that were obtained in the demos? Were the two Pbat measurements not diametrically opposed to enough of an extreme? Do you not agree that a Pbat of -115W is anomalous enough? Perhaps you have missed the point of the demo; it certainly was not to spend a great deal of time to optimize the Pbat measurement resulting from the Q2 oscillation. That is not even delineated in the demo outline. And I think the -115W Q2 Pbat at the peg board was a reasonable obtained value anyway, and I'm sure Steve and Rose would agree. After all, it was her and Donny that adjusted the FG to their own satisfaction, right?

The problem -- in addition to the basic IV-DV thing -- is that my input was not accepted, it was ignored, I was frozen out, and even now you don't think that the issues I have identified are important. That is a problem. How many hours do you think I have expended, working and explaining all features of this circuit to whomever was interested, and using accessible equipment and procedures? I have made _half a terabyte_ of instructional and research video material on this circuit alone.

I am fully aware of how much work you have put in to this thing, and you should recall how much I have put in also. But the fact is that neither of us was ever able to engage Rose to the point she would do any of the tests we recommended. I am happy that she conceded to do even these two tests, i.e. the Pbat from two locations, and the FG power. Of course there are a dozen or more tests that could have been done, but you and I had no say in that right? Rose chose what tests she wanted to prove and as far as I am concerned, they were enough to put the whole thing to bed. Thank you TK for ultimately causing Steve to come on-board to get this saga resolved. We'd still be arguing about zippons and inductive reactance etc. had this day not come!

Another problem is that there is seemingly no video record of anything significant. Today's demo showed at least 45 minutes of setup and scrambling around, and the really important stuff happened, apparently, after the feed cut off.... and probably would not have happened at all if I wasn't jumping up and down about it. And yesterday.... by the prophet's beard. I will never get to see whatever happened then.

How would YOU feel, .99, if you had not been allowed to be there, yesterday or today, and could not get a simple basic measurement done that would take three minutes for a competent "team" to perform? You have done a lot of work too.... and S Weir is only there because one of his friends read _my posts_ on another forum and got interested. So for me to be "cut out" by the newcomers is really galling and I know that you felt the same way when you thought you might not be allowed to participate.

We tried a new program to video-capture the desktop, and it turned out to be a bad choice. The program crashed and/or corrupted the video file and it used up a lot of swap disk space which was not anticipated. Sorry, but that is how it turned out. Where shall I go to receive my 50 lashes?

I was fully ready to accept that I might not have the opportunity to witness the Saturday dry run, and I was OK with that. I had 100% confidence that the results would vindicate our case and that Steve would conduct the demonstration in a fair and professional manner. The fact that I got in was pure chance; Rose had already rejected the idea, but I thought I would ask one last time for the heck of it. She reluctantly accepted. But again, yes I would have been disappointed had I not got in, but content enough knowing that Sunday's demo would be available for viewing.

[poynt99]

You can know this though: Unlike your HP pulse generator, the FG that Ainslie uses sets the amplitude Peak-to-Peak. This means you cannot simply leave the offset set to "negative 12" and then freely vary the amplitude knob so that the positive voltage goes from three to five volts... without also resetting the offset knob to maintain your "negative 12" or whatever. Even if the knob is on the negative stop, changing the amplitude will still change the voltage (or current) levels at both the HI and the LO portions of the signal until the actual rails of the FG are reached.

My assumption, and it may be wrong, is that with an output setting of +5V and negative -14V, AND with the OFFSET knob at its original position, decreasing the P-P level which causes the +5V excursion to drop to +3V, will also decrease the negative peak amplitude from -14V to -12V.