Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Sure.... but that requires being able to read data from a graph, something that about 1/4 of the population just can't seem to do. Ainslie has never demonstrated any ability actually to read scope traces, which are of course simple plots of voltage (the DV on the ordinate axis) against time (the IV on the abscissa). Any guesses as to whether Ainslie falls in that 1/4, or in the other 3/4 that can?

Now, please don't berate me for mocking someone who is "disabled" in that manner. After all, nobody but her chose her to play in a field where reading graphical data was important. I don't do too much ballet dancing, myself, because I just can't do it. But if I tried to do a grand-plié anyway, and fell on my face in public, I'd think that mockery was pretty appropriate, wouldn't you?

[MarkE]

History indicates that it is very unlikely that Ms. Ainslie is going to come around to reality.  She is highly vested in her false beliefs.  She has made the mistake of making them a personal issue.  Admitting reality would mean eating all her attacks on the various professors and skeptics she has rabidly attacked.  She has made it so that a graceful exit would be extremely difficult to manage.  What would she say to any of the professors: 

"Oh, sorry for all those scathing accusations of unprofessional conduct I lodged against you.  It never occurred to me that having no training that I had no idea what I was doing.  It was inconceivable to me that even though I was completely lost 99.99% of the time.  It never dawned on me that even though my mistakes were pointed out over and over again that I could have been wrong.  I just assumed that people who disagreed with my proven wrong ideas were evil lackeys for big oil, including you.  Oops.  Say hello to the Mrs. for me.  Cheerio."

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie has no history of making sincere apologies to anyone.  She once did apologize to me over the duty cycle issue, but as you know, that went the same way as the "retraction".... it was retracted, and she continues to persist in the false claims around that issue. But since then she has been proven wrong about many things she's said about me, over and over and over again, and there has been no hint of apology or correction. As expected from a person with her.... charms.


But I want to pick at that Figure 8 scopeshot a Little more, since she brought it up with her silly, cynical strawman "challenge".

The text of the manuscript clearly misrepresents the truth. The scopeshot shows only 5 ms of the the Q2 oscillation portion of the total 20 ms period, and shows neither the switching "transitions" nor any of the Q1 ON time. We know that the Q2 oscillations only produce relatively minor heating in the load. Ainslie represents the Q2 oscillations in this scopeshot as being responsible for the high load heating she observed, though. I think this is even more dishonest than the Figure 3 and the other shots made with improper connections (if that's the actual reason, which I still am not sure of.) It's dishonest because it's clear -- to those who know how to read an oscilloscope screen -- that a full cycle is not shown, and the important Q1 ON time is not considered, and I believe this is a deliberate obfuscation attempt on the part of Ainslie and her co-authors. The claim that the shot shows the switching transitions is just another Ains-lie. She wants people to believe that the load heats even when it is "disconnected" during the Q2 oscillations and that no power is drawn from the battery at that time, and she offers this carefully selected and set-up scopeshot as evidence for that claim, when it is no such thing. This constitutes the grossest kind of misconduct... I almost typed "scientific misconduct" but of course there is no science anywhere near Ainslie's manuscripts. It's pseudoscientific misconduct of the worst kind, data selection and misrepresentation. Some strange quirk of Ainslie's personality, though, makes her reveal the critical facts that allow her critics to demolish her artifactual edifice, lie by lie. The 20 ms period, the 500 microsecond/division horizontal setting, are examples that allow analysis of the Fig 8 shot to reveal the facts. It is because of her ignorance that she cannot even construct a believable lie!

Of course she could claim, now, that instead of a 20 ms period she really meant a 20 microsecond period. She has made this mistake before.  In that case the scopeshot would look the same, pretty much, with the apparatus operating at a frequency of 50 kHz.... The lack of detail this time resulting from showing 25 full cycles in every horizontal division, 250 full cycles across the screen. This would indeed make the switching transitions stand out. However I can only count 14 peaks per division on the scopeshot, not 25. This is consistent across the screen, so it might not be due to aliasing effects. 14 cycles per 500 microseconds is 28 kHz, and a period of about 36 microseconds.


(What's wrong with ignorance? Nothing, per se. I myself, believe it or not, am ignorant of many things. (Now watch the trolls latch onto that one.)
The difference between me and Ainslie, though, is that I recognize my ignorance and I do not engage in fields where I am ignorant, before I mitigate that ignorance with a Little study, if at all. You won't find me telling motherboard designers how to route their traces, for example, and I'm not about to tell NASA how to launch rockets. Ainslie, however, is not deterred by her ignorance: it is willfull and she does nothing to remedy it, except to play lip service to people like Poynt99 and SWeir who try to relieve it. She happily engages power supply designers and mosfet manufacturers to tell them their subject, even though she doesn't even know where PI comes from or why it equals 3.14 (approximately). It is here where ignorance, defended by ego, becomes an unforgivable failing.)

[TinselKoala]

I am getting SICK AND TIRED of your LIES about me, Ainslie, troll queen.

It is morally contemptible therefore - to PRETEND to a 'higher' or a 'rarified' knowledge which CANNOT ALSO BE RENDERED IN CLEAR LANGUAGE BASED ON LOGICAL CONCEPTS.  Which is PRECISELY what our disclaimers rely on.  You may recall our Little TK's adventures into theoretical physics where he identified the electron as the carrier particle for the electromagnetic force. 

Never have I EVER "identified" the electron as the carrier particle for the electromagnetic force. NEVER. Ainslie, you cannot provide any reference that supports your lying claim, AS USUAL, you reprehensible liar.

Pages and pages of PURE nonsense.  IF he has now moved to a 'belief' in the photon is the carrier particle he needs must justify it.  Because of a CERTAINTY the photon does NOT qualify.

The only pages and pages AND PAGES AND PAGES of PURE NONSENSE are the pages emitted by YOU, Rosemary Ainslie, liar.  Grow up and read a book, for heaven's sake.  Ainslie, you are so full of yourself that it's a wonder you can even breathe. YOU ARE A LIAR, plain and simple. YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY REFERENCE FOR YOUR IDIOTIC CLAIMS ABOUT ME. It is CERTAIN that the electromagnetic force is carried by PHOTONS, and any physics book will confirm this to be true, and I have NEVER said or suggested otherwise. The electron is the carrier of the UNIT NEGATIVE CHARGE, which is far different from the "electromagnetic force", which is transmitted by PHOTONS.  You cannot support your idiotic claims with EVIDENCE, not a whit. I demand that you STOP LYING and STOP MAKING FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT THINGS OF WHICH YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE. I am really mad about this now, you dirty filthy lousy liar.  Of course I know that you will continue in your lies anyway, since you have no moral compass at all. Or... as some have said lately... perhaps your mind is deteriorating to the point where you will need to be hospitalized soon.

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR. Sound familiar, you liar?

IF Mark Euthanasius is insisting that capacitance is the 'root cause' of our extraordinary measurements and equally the root cause of our misconceptions then?  Presumably he has SOME argument for this? 

First, you filthy liar, let's see you provide a REFERENCE for your claim about what Mark E has "insisted". YOU CANNOT, because you are lying again.

Well?  Let's hear it.  IF our Poynty CLAIMS that he's already proved that the current flow through the function generator is zero - then SHOW US THAT ARGUMENT. 

What? YOU can't even keep your own story straight, a typical failing of the chronic LIAR.

Poynt99 has provided you with the exact analysis of the circuit, and he AND YOU have shown just how much current DOES flow through the FG during the Q2 oscillations. It is during the Q1 ON , non-oscillating period of the cycle that the main current path is not through the FG, and it is this part of the cycle that produces high heat in the load, and the battery most certainly DOES DISCHARGE, during both Q1 and Q2 phases of the cycle, and YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS HAVE SHOWN THIS TO BE TRUE.

I am ever astounded by the depths of your mendacity and the heights of your ignorance, Rosemary Ainslie. Each and every day you post, you overtop yourself, by emitting more and more STUPID STATEMENTS that you cannot back up with references or facts.

Futhermore, you cannot even ADDRESS the real issues: Cut the wire connecting the Sources of the Q2s to the FG, and then produce some oscillations. You should be able to, since your claim is that the Q2s are already disconnected. Surely cutting a LITTLE wire can't make any difference then. But you already KNOW that this will defeat the oscillations, so you can't even bring yourself to lie about it, you won't even discuss it and you certainly won't actually DO the simple, highly scientific, true experiment that tests your claim, cowardly lying troll queen that you are.

The rest of your stupid vapid post is not even worth addressing because it has already been debunked over and over, even by YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS.

[MarkE]

The current crop of Ms. Ainslie's misconceptions:

1) That she measured 14App AC current in her circuit.
The fact is that during the June 29, 2013 demonstration, Steve Weir showed team Ainslie to their own satisfaction that the Figure 3 oscilloscope shots could be reproduced by connecting the channel 1 scope probe, the current sense channel, to the wrong side of the current sense resistors.  This happened to be the location furthest from the circuit common that most people would have naturally thought was the Q1 Source terminal side of the current sense resistors.  Due to the kooky wiring under the white breadboard, it is really the circuit common side.  The physical side of the current resistors closest to the circuit common posts was actually wired to the Q1 source terminal.  Ms. Ainslie does not publish the June 29th video on her web site, but it is available around the web.

The upshot is that the Channel 1 voltage readings were not the result of I*0.25Ohms, because the oscilloscope probe was not connected across the 0.25 Ohm resistor array.  The 14A that Ms. Ainslie is currently quoting did not actually exist in her circuit.  One of your excellent videos demonstrates that a similar reading as obtained by Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators can be obtained without making any direct circuit connection.

2) That current does not flow from the Q2 source through the function generator during the oscillations.

Ms. Ainslie's August 11 demonstration proved both the current flows through that path, and that the function generator supplies net power to the circuit.

3) That the oscillations cause great heating in the heating element.

Ms. Ainslie's August 11 demonstration proved that the oscillations only a small amount of power equivalent to about 3W through the heating element, resulting in a temperature rise on the element itself over ambient of ~20C.

4) That on August 11, battery current did not flow during the "Q1 On" times. 

This is correct, it did not.  The function generator drive during those intervals was restricted to about +2V, below the threshold to cause Q1 conduction.  The battery was shown to conduct at the times when current flowed through the heating element:  the "Q1 Off" times.

5) That somehow the measured ~15W average power drawn by her test apparatus from the batteries and ~20C temperature rise at the heating element resistor; corresponding to ~2E dissipation according to Ms. Ainlie's prior calibration tests, indicated over unity operation.

6) That the heating element temperature rise over ambient was not stable.
The August 11 video shows that the temperature readings were stable.