Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[Rfacts]

It is blatantly obvious that Rosemary Ainslie is clueless about the operation of her circuit and has limited knowledge about electronics in general.  She couldn't follow TK's MOSFET tutorial videos, even when her basic circuit was built right on top of her schematic.  If she weren't so clueless she would realize the damage she is causing to herself and the OU community she purports to champion.  From big picture perspective, the OU community actually benefits from commenters like TK, ME, P99 and MH who provide a reality check and are willing to provide technical help.  But some OUers are blinded by their quest and they turn science into personal dogma which incorporates double standards, deflection, baseless accusations and conspiracy theories.  This attracts more blind followers but drives away true experimenters thus hurting their cause.

Note: The following quotes from Rosemary Ainslie can be found at http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.660.html

...he now presented an argument based on the EVIDENCE, if you please, of a function generator applying a signal to the SOURCE LEG of Q2 - WITH NO GATE OF ANY MOSFET CONNECTED ANYWHERE to either the probe or the terminal of that function generator.  He'd CUT THE ONLY OTHER FUNCTIONAL MOSFET OUT OF THE CIRCUIT.  Which calls for a miracle of no mean dimension.  It's understood - within the standard model - and in line with EVERYTHING that is known about a MOSFET - that the signal from the function generator - be it positive or negative - needs MUST be applied to that GATE.  Else it cannot pass it's signal to switch that current."

When you cut the MOSFET out of the circuit on that Q2 Array - you've got the probe of the function generator attached ONLY to the SOURCE LEG OF Q2.  It CANNOT SWITCH THE CURRENT FROM THE SOURCE LEG.  IT NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE GATE.  ANY GATE.  And you've taken the only gate AWAY - out of the picture.  Therefore it CANNOT switch."

And yet he insults his viewers with an uncluttered view of Q2 connected ONLY by its SOURCE leg - with it's gate 'floating', unattached - free as a bird.  And he INSISTS that he's switching that circuit.  Not so.  Just not possible.  I'm adding this for clarity as this is still not obvious to those dull witted trolls.  The GATE leg of Q2 was attached ONLY to the SOURCE LEG OF Q1.  WITHOUT THAT CONNECTION THEN THERE CAN BE NO SIGNAL APPLIED TO THE GATE OF Q2.  THE CIRCUIT IS OPEN."

Then he argues that the voltage at the source is lower 'relative' to the voltage at the Gate.  Quite possibly - if there WAS a Gate connected somewhere in his apparatus.  But there isn't.  He disconnected it.  Snipped it off.  Away.  Out of the picture.  Leaving only 1 connection to Q2 at it's SOURCE LEG.  He effectively OPENED THAT CIRCUIT - TURNED IT OFF."

A common gate amplifier requires - AT ITS LEAST - a signal to the Gate of the MOSFET.  If the Gate is FLOATING it CANNOT DETECT A SIGNAL.  It's an OPEN CIRCUIT."

When Rosemary Ainslie makes erroneous statements like those above and doesn't retract them she further exposes her dishonest character and her irrational and ignorant behavior.  She stated at least these 5 times that there was no connection to the referenced Q2 MOSFET gate.  Her circuit is both audibly and visually explained and traced out for her in the recent Electric OU video that TK addressed to her.  In her irrational state she doesn't comprehend that the Q2 MOSFET gate on her circuit also connects to the battery (-) through the CVR (0.26 ohm shunt resistor).  The Q2 MOSFET gate doesn't just connect to the source of the Q1 MOSFET that TK cuts out.  She continued to ignorantly and arrogantly argue as if she had expertise in this subject matter but her above comments confirm that in reality she has none and is oblivious to it.  If she can allow herself to be this oblivious about something as basic as this, and continue to argue against this reality, what other reality wouldn't she accept?  Anyone who observes these types of errors and allows the person making them to move on without acknowledging the error and retracting/correcting it would be accepting bad data and irrational and unprofessional behavior which has no place in science.  Only blind followers/supporters look the other way and allow proven errors or unsubstantiated accusations to be made by someone in their community.  This obvious and verifiable example provides another wake up call to your integrity.

You lose credibility, trust and respect  by your own doing when you jump to conclusions before confirming facts, when you do not objectively consider verifiable analysis about your work, or when you do not stand corrected when proven wrong.  This is all you basically need to know about a person's character to make this reasoned judgment about them.  In the context of forums like this one, it means that a person of this type of character is an irrational experimenter /scientist /theorist that is not interested in discovering real knowledge through well conducted repeatable experiments, empirical data and rational analysis - and they can not be taken seriously.  The person making a claim has the burden of proof and can not and should not be allowed to shift this responsibility away from themselves by arguing from ignorance.

[TinselKoala]

That's a nice summary. She is still even today accusing me of faking the screenshots, or faking something, in several of those videos.

But seriously... I really don't think she has any followers left. After the cringeworthy demostrations last summer, I can't imagine that even her erstwhile co-authors would want to be seen with her in public.

The role of Donovan Martin cannot be discounted. He is all tangled up in this as well. But associating with Rosemary Ainslie is not going to look all that good on his CV -- especially when that March 2011 demonstration is considered.

[eatenbyagrue]

I have to ask, why are you guys still beating this dead horse?  It seems it has been years.  Generally, when research is erroneous, it gets ignored quickly.

[TinselKoala]

Bad data and false claims are bad, and wrong. But when Ainslie refused to accept the data from her OWN demonstration.... the only one she has ever done even half-way properly, guided by the expert powersupply analyst and designer SWeir..... and cynically "retracted her retraction" and refused to stop pushing her silly agenda.... and when she chose to continue the insults and disrespect, and most especially when she chose to continue abjectly lying about her own "work" and the work of others.... that is pseudoscientific misconduct of the worst kind. She has once again announced her intention to claim at least three monetary prizes that have been offered for real OU performance. She is a menace to the credibility of the entire "ou" or "free energy" research effort, because she is so visible. People "in the know" and those who control purse strings will encounter Ainslie and her daft manuscripts and begin backing away, carefully watching so that she doesn't come after them with her vitriol, insults and overweeningly arrogant ignorance.  Just look: she is STILL trying to tell people who know better, how a mosfet works... yet she herself has no clue. She has finally "snapped" and, due to my demonstrations and the explanations of someone who apparently gave her a small bit of counselling over the weekend, has admitted something she has always claimed was impossible, that the Common Gate Amplifier circuit with grounded Gate does in fact operate. But she still can't seem to assimilate the fact that the mosfet is NOT just a switch, that it has its own internal resistance and significant power dissipation and more importantly operates in the linear conductance region of its performance curve when oscillating. Her ignorance, deliberately protected, combined with her amazing arrogance, keeps her posting about things she does not understand, it keeps her insulting her critics instead of responding rationally and it keeps her making the absurd paranoid allegations that you see at present.  Were she to honor her retractions, realize and admit the falsity of the "data" in the daft manuscripts, and take a Little vacation from the false claims and absurd "thesis".... all would be well. However she will not do this, and continues her personal attacks upon me especially and upon others as well. She cannot refute me or the other critics, so as you see, she resorts to actual lies about what our work consists of and what it shows.... and even tells her readers NOT to try to repeat my demonstrations! She is afraid, very afraid, but still doesn't have the sense or the integrity to stop. And as long as she refers to "Little TK", the initials GRE, or a pickle..... then I will be there to set her straight. That arrogant scheming ignoramus will never get away with what she is trying to do, which is to perpetrate a fraud, as long as I have an internet connection and fingers to type with.

There, does that explain things a little bit?  I am watching Ainslie twist in the wind, and I am reporting on the course of her demise. If you find it boring you do not have to read, but I do appreciate your contribution, anyway.

[TinselKoala]

It's hilarious! I can tell when Ainslie watches one of my videos using her friend's account or one of her own that I don't know about yet. She just can't restrain herself from leaving a drive-by thumbs-down vote!  She has almost gotten caught up, but still needs to watch this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPCN_E5nveQ
and also to go back and pick up on some of the chapters she missed while out basketweaving. She just may accumulate enough credits to avoid flunking out yet again! But don't forget: she cheats on exams.