Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Yes, but that will only be because you are part of a group dedicated to suppressing new discoveries using those weapons of mass fantasy destruction called facts.

[TinselKoala]

I can buy a hypothesis that the swapped source and gate connections of the Q2 MOSFETs were something that neither Ms. Ainslie nor her collaborators recognized until Poynt99 figured it out.

But there is some evidence to the contrary. Ainslie's statements at the time that Poynt99 showed it publicly contain her claim that she knew it all along but wanted to keep it secret; she has a blog post that says "there was a small variation to the circuit, we made full disclosure" , or something like that,  but that might be an after-the-fact meaning-changing edit, something else she is well known to do.

At first I thought that these were just self-serving attempts at saving face: better to be found a liar than a fool, sort of thing, pretending to have covered it up knowingly sounding better at the time than admitting that neither of them had a clue until .99 poynted it out.

But now I know better. She's a conniving schemer. Sure, they probably made the connection accidentally at first, but by the time of the March 2011 demo, they knew all about it.

[TinselKoala]

Some relevant posts:

[MarkE]

I don't know and don't care which it is.  In either case she had to knowingly lie about import facets of her apparatus.  That is fatal to one's credibility.

As to why Steve hasn't said much, I think he really doesn't care.

[TinselKoala]

WARNING: Rosemary Ainslie is once again LYING about my data and my demonstrations in an attempt to bolster her ridiculous claims. I say again, what she says in this post about my work is a LIE.

I did indeed "replicate" the test and the scopetraces and I showed what I showed, which is that we cannot trust her report that the shot was obtained with a period of 20 milliseconds, because at that slow period the entire screen would only contain a tiny portion of the entire period and a large Q1 ON time would not even show up on the scope at all, being set to 500 microseconds per horizontal division.

I have already explained the very same thing that .99 has said and that she is arguing against. The high heat and char marks on the PHENOLIC, not ceramic, tube that my nichrome heating element wire shows, matched for resistance and inductance to her _claimed_ values, were caused by an extended period of Q1 ON time. The Q2 oscillations produce very little heat in the element, and the battery MOST CERTAINLY DOES discharge normally during both phases of the circuit's operation.