Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Here are a couple of relevant documents.

Useful info on the test protocol and wave forms.

Unfortunately all the image files linked-to (EF posts) at the end of the IEEE submission were removed.

In the second file you linked, we see the diagrams below.

YET ANOTHER schematic is presented as the "quantum magazine schematic". But this one has DIFFERENT COMPONENT VALUES LISTED and also does NOT INCLUDE ANY recirculation diode.

Furthermore, the Block Diagram shows a scope probe attached to the Drain of the mosfet. This location will of course show a voltage that is HI, at battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF and will show low, near zero volts, when the mosfet is ON.

And of course no waveforms showing Ainslie's "oscillations" are given in either of the "papers".

The Energetic Forum posts have been removed by Aaron and Ashtweth because they found Ainslie's claims to be false!

Note the different component values in the "new" schematic. Can this schematic produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle at the claimed frequency? Which of the THREE DIFFERENT schematics claimed was actually used? Nobody knows and nobody will ever know unless Ainslie posts photos along with her data taken at the same time.

[TinselKoala]

@Poynt99 and ANYONE ELSE:

Can anyone show me a screenshot of the "approved" Ainslie oscillations using any of the three DIFFERENT circuits she has claimed were used for this experiment? Or made by use of a FG or other equipment in place of the 555 timer section?

Ainslie herself has certainly never shown any interpretable shots from this experiment.

[TinselKoala]

Guys - sadly I can't get those photos up today.  Hopefully tomorrow.  I need someone to operate that camera and he's not available until then.

We will score that as another FAIL on your part then, Ainslie: within 48 hours you said, and later today you said.... now you say "hopefully tomorrow". Well, we will believe it WHEN WE SEE IT and not before.

Then.  Neither I - nor any of you - have further reason to pay any attention to the absurd nonsense that TK manages to regurgitate - ad nauseum - through pages and pages of RIDICULOUS denials and accusations.  He's lost the plot.  Clearly.  All I can assure you is that the BEST interpretation one can put on those horribly ambiguous terms he uses here...

The Article presents a schematic and makes claims about its performance. The claims are NOT TRUE. The schematic presented CANNOT make the duty cycle and frequency claimed, and in fact makes the _exact inverse_ duty cycle,  - is that one must then assume that the duty cycle is NOT 3% ON but 97% ON.  Unless - as is evidently the case - he's applying his own weird definition to the terms 'EXACT INVERSE' which is outside of common parlance.

No, Ainslie. It is YOU who do not understand COMMON PARLANCE, much less the technical language that your chosen subject requires. Take a look at this video made and uploaded in JUNE OF 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
As anyone can PLAINLY SEE, the circuit that is published in the Quantum magazine makes the EXACT INVERSE of the claimed duty cycle, in both COMMON PARLANCE and technical language. Where you believe, Ainslie, that it makes 3.7 percent ON it actually makes 96.3 percent ON, and so on, throughout its frequency range. It makes the EXACT INVERSE duty cycle. When the scope probe is located at the MOSFET DRAIN, as shown in the block diagram above, the probe will indicate HI, or battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF.

And as for the rest of that preposterous claptrap...

'something that could not have happened by a mere "accident" or typo concerning the 555 circuit.  Either the circuit used by Ainslie was NOT the published circuit that bears her name... or the duty cycle used was NOT the 3.7 percent ON that Ainslie claims. Either way the article lies. There are no other alternatives!'

Actually.  The alternative is that our little pickle is trying to throw smoke over the claim - by quibbling.

You call it a "Quibble" that you have published THREE FALSE SCHEMATICS for the single experiment, YET AGAIN? That's a QUIBBLE? You take the cake, Ainslie. Nobody would believe it if they didn't see it for themselves, which is why I take images of all your absurd posts.

I shall post those photographs tomorrow. 

Shall you? We shall see whether you do, or don't.

We most CERTAINLY could and DID make a 3% ON duty cycle. 

Perhaps you did, who knows. What is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN is that you did NOT do it with any of the schematics YOU CLAIMED TO USE.

And IF Mark Euthanasius and Tinsel Koala are trying to UPEND the claim based on a POSSIBLE misrepresentation of the circuit diagram - THEN WE ALL KNOW WHY.  They have - very obviously - a STRICT AGENDA to deny all over unity results and to SACRIFICE THE REPUTATIONS OF ALL CLAIMANTS IF and AS necessary.  TK's ONLY genius is in his UNTIRING EFFORTS TO DO THE LATTER.  Thankfully - and typically - he over plays his hand.  He's got the finessing abilities of a bull elephant in musk. 

No, mendacious troll Ainslie. We have a STRICT AGENDA, or at least I do, to prevent YOU FROM PROMULGATING YOUR LIES.

And the term is "Musth" not "musk", you willfully ignorant and overweeningly arrogant troll.

[TinselKoala]

As usual.... Ainslie insults, whines, bloviates and lies.... but she cannot address the issues and she cannot refute me with checkable outside references, facts or demonstrations of her own.

Three separate, different, schematics claimed for the SAME EXPERIMENT! An altered schematic posted AFTER problems with the original were pointed out! People trying to "replicate" based on a FALSE SCHEMATIC! Ainslie getting banned from forum after forum as her lies and insults emerge!
It's deja vu all over again!

Insult me all you like, troll queen Ainslie... it only makes you look all the more stupid, because you are utterly wrong Yet Again, you cannot refute me and the facts are easy for anyone to check. And it all goes into your Permanent Record.


What is especially hilarious is that so many of Ainslie's little trolling points are utterly and totally refuted in these old videos I'm posting. But she is so arrogant and uncurious that she won't even watch them.... and so she keeps babbling and squawking on about things like "variable duty cycles" and "inverse meaning nothing" when EVERYBODY WATCHING MY VIDEOS knows and understands how utterly and abjectly foolish she is.

[markdansie]

Hi TK
I will responding in full with another Article.Mark E has provided a lot of material for it already.
Can I use some of your materials from here? 
Mark


I am thinking of calling it the Zombie Technology...it doesn't want to die