Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[profitis]

she hasnt claimed a 2nd law breach as her angle of attack @mark E but she seems to be fully aware of it.ive discussed it with her live somewhere on this thread or other thread a few months back and she definitely knows about it judging from her many references to the weakspots of it on her website.i wouldve much prefered for her to take the 2nd law angle of attack as her predominant theme.

[profitis]

perhaps @tk but she,s got the necessary hardened attitude plus determination to succeed.and she has access to the necessary tools of the trade so if she takes a thousand stabs with those tools and misses who knows where the next stab is going to land?maybe straight onto the bullseye.a woman,s styles may be better than a guys styles for this purpose in this instance (-:

[TinselKoala]

Ahhh.... no. Ainslie hasn't got a chance in Hell of discovering anything, and the reason is that she is blinded by her "thesis". Ainslie already KNOWS everything there is to know.

In addition to the psychological blinders, her utter incompetence at experimentation, operation of apparatus, record-keeping, reporting, and interpreting results make her the least likely person to contribute _anything_ of value to a technical discussion. She is far more likely to damage test equipment than to gather valid data with it... and this is proven by the record. Batteries, clipleads, the oscilloscope itself, a function generator -- I wouldn't let that woman anywhere near _real_ test equipment like the 30,000 dollar oscilloscope that I used for some of my testing. Her ignorance is such that she doesn't even bother to learn the standard terminology in use by millions of EEs and other electronics researchers and tinkerers around the world, and her flubbing of math and engineering units is literally comical -- half a day's study and practice and self-checking would have prevented many of those errors YET THEY PERSIST to this day.

Please don't forget that I have read every word Ainslie has posted publicly since early 2009. In addition I have a thick sheaf of "private" communications between her and some other people I know. There is literally nothing there, except the fascinating (to me) psychology of a sociopathic, narcissistic woman with delusions of grandeur and an internet connection.

[TinselKoala]

In case the point isn't driven home firmly enough.....

OK, if you want to present some New Science that modifies or corrects or expands upon Old Science.... you are going to have to demonstrate your competency and understanding of the _Old Science_ first. If you are going to be basing your claims and conclusions on a mathematical computation like Ainslie does... by GOD you had better be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide without errors. And if your analysis depends on advanced concepts like integration and differentiation, but you've never been exposed to the Calculus and can't communicate using that common language .... then you can go piss up a rope, as far as I am concerned.

Go on, work through the calculations she presents below. Her conclusions are based primarily upon these two calculations and similar ones she has posted over the years.

Just ignore for the moment that she still cannot tell the difference between a Quantity (the Joule) and a RATE (the Watt)..... and DO THE MATH (tm Ainslie).

For example, say you have a stack of 6 ea. 12 volt, 60 A-H batteries. How much energy is IN FACT expected to be contained in those batteries?
Let us calculate together. We have 72 volts at 60 amp-hours. This is 72 volts at 60 amp-hours x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute, or 72 volts at 216000 amp-seconds, or 15,552,000 Watt-seconds (Joules).  Or to  string it all together Ainslie-style without including the units that might have saved her from error, we have 6 x 12 x 60 x 60 x 60 = 15552000. Right? This is the energy in the battery stack. Yet look at Ainslie's figure, and the conclusion she draws from it. Far from being overunity, the actual battery capacity could have run her experiment for several hundreds of hours, as she dissipated less than 2 megaJoules in 54 hours. 10 joules/second x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute x 54 hours = 1944000 Joules. See how the units work out correctly, as well as the numbers?

Joules/second x seconds/minute = Joules/minute.  Joules/minute x minutes/hour = Joules/hour.  Joules/hour x hours = Joules. This is simple algebra... another subject that Ainslie omitted from her schooling. But Ainslie doesn't even realize that "PER" indicates a division operation! So how could she possibly understand cancelling units algebraically. "Joules/second"... how do YOU read that out in English?

Do you see? Taking Ainslie's OWN DATA and analyzing it without making silly math errors yields the completely opposite conclusion from that which Ainslie has drawn, bragged about and tried to slip down your throat for five years or more.

Yet Ainslie has NEVER ONCE corrected any of the bogus math she has spouted. The closest to a correction is the "vanishment" of the original claim in the early versions of the daft manuscripts that she somehow dissipated 5.9 megaJoules in ninety minutes.... gone without a trace, that one is.

Read this page from the old thread:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/1125/

Note that there, she says that she will never correct the calculations, they are a "tad out" (sic) (reply 1136) and further on she states clearly that once water is boiling... it doesn't take any more Joules to keep it boiling. (reply 1138).

[profitis]

depends how one looks at it @tk. i can at least declare with totalitarian certainty that she,you,or anyone playing with electromagnetic circuitry is 1)going to have to violate kelvin rule to be successful and 2)going to have to violate kelvin rule via the cyclic flipping of magnetic domains somewhere in the circuit to be successful.thus i think i am expanding on the science,at least for overunity-hunters,by zooming in on what must happen for success.no fancy math required for this statement.