Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Yes, do continue and do take the advice to heart. I would like to see Gmeast's results from those well-conducted thermal experiments too. If he gets reliable and valid results, then there is much I can do for him to further his research, and I don't mean my video experiments. It would not involve me at all, after the handshakes.

Now, however, let me address a couple of Gmeast's points.

She has made some good arguable technical points as have you.

What valid arguable technical points has Ainslie made? I think I must have missed them. Please provide a link to a valid technical point that Ainslie has made, that someone else didn't tell her first. On the other hand, if you want to see some INVALID "technical points" that Ainslie has made, they exist by the multiple myriad, and I can give you links if you like. Here's one that contains many completely invalid such points, and their invalidity has been demonstrated by Ainslie herself under the guidance of Steve Weir on August 11, 2013.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679

You'll never be happy until she agrees with you and visa versa.

That's absolutely wrong. I am happy indeed that she does NOT agree with me. She proved to me that she is incapable of learning due to the blinders imposed by her "thesis" all the way back in 2009. Every video demonstration she ignores, every silly accusation that I am faking anything, is further proof of that fact. I am happy to point out to the world that she is utterly wrong, that she lies and misrepresents her own work and the work of others, that she is disrespectful of knowledge, skills and education since she has so little of any of those herself, and so on. I am particularly happy that she currently is stuffing her foot down her throat with her pronouncements about my tests, which after all can be easily reproduced by anyone. Why don't you yourself try the test in the video she so stupidly objects to? You will obtain my exact results, UNLIKE those who attempt, say, her Quantum-17 experiment with the 555 timer circuit she published and still hasn't corrected or retracted. And I'm quite sure that she would rather spit on my grave than see me agreeing with her--- something that I would gladly do if only she were right about something. Did you know that the Solstice, or maybe the Equinox, occurs in July in South Africa? According to Ainslie, it does. Have you worked for yourself ANY of the "calculations" she has posted in support of her "thesis"?  And so on. I might feel some sense  of satisfaction if Ainslie actually  learned something, stopped lying and insulting, and stopped making her false claims, but I've known for years that she will never do so. So I'm having fun illustrating for the world, or whatever portion is interested, the phenomenal case of Dunning-Kruger Effect that Ainslie is, and along the way I know some people are learning some things from me, and I've learned much from others as well. That kind of thing makes me happy. Seeing a deluded and delirious old woman twisting in the wind, hanging from the rope of her own calumny and false claims, doesn't really make me happy, rather, it makes me sad to know that a life has been wasted, that someone with obvious native intelligence can be so poorly educated, that an arrogant and foul disposition has taken over her life.

As to the damage that Ainslie has done: No, she isn't conducting a slick fraud, but she has attempted to gain monetary awards and has indicated that she will again, based on her false claims and lies about her experimentation. (Note that the manuscripts refer in several places to the Temperature of the Water, and then recall that Ainslie has admitted to us that she never actually measured the water temperature, for just one example of her overt misrepresentation of her own diddling). Go over to Energetic Forum and ask Aaron and Ashtweth if they felt their experience with Ainslie was valuable and if it taught them anything. Well, I do know that at the beginning of the affray they could not even use a simple DSO properly, and by the time she got banned from there they could at least display a stable waveform screen, so that's something.

[TinselKoala]

Hi TK,


Being accused of "faking" results re: scientific experiments is one of the most upsetting things a serious experimenter will experience. I don't condone those types of accusations. Those kinds of comments often occur during the heat of debate. They're inexcusable without question. It happens. Even though I have participated in hurling injurious comments myself, it's wrong for anyone to do it. The truth is, when passions flare, this crap happens.  Rosie is not a technician and admits to not being the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to the details of circuit design, but she IS a good theorist. As I said ... my take on all of this conflict is that the injurious comments (including my own) have ALL been hurled in the heat of debate with equal passion on both sides.


I answered you question I hope. Regards,


gme

No, it seems that you are avoiding answering the question, which was "Do you agree with her" that I faked the data.

(That's the "short form" of this:"Do you deny, for example, that I have shown how the Q2s are turned on in the circuit by Grounding the Gate and Lowering the voltage at the Source pin of the transistor, something that Ainslie clearly believes, still, to be impossible, in spite of the references I have given her to the Common Gate Amplifier configuration?")

If you do not agree that the video demonstration was faked, please say so directly. Note that she has had plenty of time to "cool down" , and that I have produced several further videos showing the same thing since that one, and she still today accuses me of faking it.  I know you can repeat my demonstration in minutes in your own lab, and I know it would do Ainslie a world of good to actually understand what I am demonstrating in those videos. You are someone she trusts and believes in. So stop being a politician and be a scientist for a while, please.

(And by the way, note that the scopeshot that STILL appears as "figure 3" in Ainslie's first manuscript is definitely "fake" and that this was proven by Ainslie and Martin themselves under the guidance of Steve Weir in the latest demos posted by Ainslie.)

[gmeast]

No, it seems that you are avoiding answering the question, which was "Do you agree with her" that I faked the data.

(That's the "short form" of this:"Do you deny, for example, that I have shown how the Q2s are turned on in the circuit by Grounding the Gate and Lowering the voltage at the Source pin of the transistor, something that Ainslie clearly believes, still, to be impossible, in spite of the references I have given her to the Common Gate Amplifier configuration?")

If you do not agree that the video demonstration was faked, please say so directly. Note that she has had plenty of time to "cool down" , and that I have produced several further videos showing the same thing since that one, and she still today accuses me of faking it.  I know you can repeat my demonstration in minutes in your own lab, and I know it would do Ainslie a world of good to actually understand what I am demonstrating in those videos. You are someone she trusts and believes in. So stop being a politician and be a scientist for a while, please.

No, I don't agree you faked anything. But understand that I have NO first-hand knowledge of anything relating to that but I give you the benefit of the doubt.  At the same time, it's illogical to ask such a question ... how would I know? But there's so much of that whole picture I've either avoided or don't understand or care about. I'm small potatoes anyway. I know I stated here that I could never get the 555 timer to operate at the Hz and DC (PW) as published, but I don't consider that important at all. I'm sure you know the great number of circuits that are posted on these forums that DON'T work as published and they seem to ALL require some 'tweeking'. I did get the 555 circuit to work with very nearly the same resistor values as shown, but I had to add another POT and then it worked. But I remember how you made such a big deal of it as if to say " ... see, see ... it's fraudulent..." or something. That detail was just not important in any way. Remember, I also stated that I never fully followed the whole Q-Array circuit and arguments ... mostly because they had nothing to do with the direction of my research and circuit ... which is really just a simple PWM motor control heating an Element rather than running a motor. Remember, I wasn't there for the beginning of all of this. So, If you think I'm acting as a politician, well I'm not ... I'm replying based on what I know and what my experiences are and trying to be objective ... at this point. MarkE seems to be able to do the 'objective' thing pretty well from what I can tell.


I'm not on anyone's side but my own regarding this 'energy stuff'. Please understand that.


Regards,


gme

[TinselKoala]

OK so you do not agree with Ainslie that the demonstration was faked. Thank you for stating it directly, I hope she doesn't start savaging you because of it.
We differ on the importance of supplying correct information in a scientific report, evidently, but let's let that pass for the moment.

The specific demonstration that Ainslie has accused me of faking is very simple, and it would take you  moments to set it up and see for yourself what happens. The later ones are even simpler to set up, requiring only one mosfet, one light bulb, one load resistor, a function generator and an oscilloscope, and a few inches of wire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWpzpgNnzew

Only slightly more complex is the current measurement and 74 volt battery demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a1plHZwmWg

Have fun! I'll bet it would take you less than half an hour to perform that experiment for yourself.

[MarkE]

Greg here is the analysis that I performed on the control circuit (555 portion) of the 2002 magazine article.  I think that the duty-cycle claims were a matter of confusion.  I went to great effort to analyze and test 555 circuit variations to show what could and could not be done with either the published schematic or the published schematic with variations.  The bottom line is that without substituting at least four components, it is simply not possible to get the timing that the magazine article claimed.  However, it is trivial to get the exact complementary timing with the schematic as shown in the article.  Since the article did not include any oscilloscope shots, we are left to deduce what was really built and tested.  I conclude that what was built is the schematic and that the timing was the listed frequency and complementary duty cycle.