Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axWB4-Tl7Z4

[Pirate88179]

Hey Bill...
I hope you don't mind, but I used the Etch-a-Sketch image in the latest video data timelapse....


I'll post a link when it's done uploading.

Cheers----
--TK

Of course I don't mind.  I am honored.  Please feel free to use as you want.

Bill

[TinselKoala]

Just as I predicted, Ainslie once again displays her ignorance and her inability to interpret oscilloscope traces. What an overweeningly arrogant and obnoxious old fool she is. She continues to whine and wail, flop and flail, moan and fail. It has been utterly amusing to see her make such a complete fool of herself, in virtual public. She lies over and over about what I've done and what it means.

When I illustrate ERRORS in measurements in boxes, and explain them as INSTRUMENTAL ERRORS, she thinks that the error values are the real values, just as she has done with her own fiddle-faddling mismeasuration.

As everybody except Ainslie knows, the VBatt amplitude is affected seriously by battery lead inductances, this has been known and demonstrated to Ainslie and even BY AINSLIE many times. Here is YET ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION of that fact: I have made no changes in anything, except I've added a bit of lead inductance to the battery supply wires. And I've made plain the ACTUAL duty cycle by marking ONE COMPLETE PERIOD and the PORTION ABOVE ZERO for the current trace, so that even the most blind and densest member of the Ainslie mob might, just barely, be able to SEE THE TRACE and compute the duty cycle properly from that.

But whatever. Where is Ainslie's time-temperature plot of the heating obtained using HER equipment at whatever settings SHE likes? Nowhere, that is where, and you will NEVER SEE one from her because she knows it will indicate just what we know it will indicate: Poor heating efficiency compared to straight DC.


Doesn't this strike you as High Comedy? Ainslie is chasing instrumental and procedural errors and claiming validity when there is none, and even when those errors are DUPLICATED and illustrated as being utter and complete ERRORS, invalid mismeasurements and artefacts, she still wants to claim that the ERRONEOUS measurements have some cosmic meaning. What a hoot this all is! Instead of using proper measurements on a properly designed circuit -- the Steve Weir designed and built Shifting Paradigms board -- I am forced to reproduce and illustrate Ainslie's ERRORS and make measurements using those errors, simply because she is TOO IGNORANT AND ARROGANT to clean up her own work, eliminate her errors, and do it properly. She would rather just lie about it! Much easier.

[TinselKoala]

What is really amusing about all of this is that Ainslie keeps on making these absurd pronouncements, like the lying claim that my traces show "Precisely 91.26 % of the waveform is ABOVE ZERO" when they clearly do not. Anyone with eyes can see that the numbers she reads from the measurement boxes are incorrect AS I POINTED OUT, and the reasons for those errors have been pointed out and explained.... yet she still wants to misrepresent what is RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER EYES. And she does this over and over, and when she is finally and utterly proven wrong she just sweeps it under the rug, revises nothing, and emits some further absurdity.

What is preventing the Great Scientist from presenting data that actually SUPPORTS her claims, instead of presenting her lies and instrument errors? Nothing at all.... except the FACT that she cannot support her claims with valid data, because her claims are UTTERLY FALSE... and I think she knows it.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie continues to wail and moan about the use of DMMs and whether or not they yield valid measurements.

Does Ainslie think that the DMMs are _overestimating_ the values they display? Why, then, do they agree with the oscilloscope measurements of the same signals, as I have demonstrated over and over? Does Ainslie have evidence that the heating I'm seeing can be produced with _less power_ than my meters are indicating? Where is this evidence? Nowhere except in her mendacious Little Brian...er, brain.

Does Ainslie think that the DMMs are _underestimating_ the values they display, since she thinks they can't integrate the spiky signals? Well, then.... that means that the power levels I am stating as DC input powers to the experimental trials are also UNDERESTIMATED, that is, smaller than the true values. Doesn't it?

So it really takes EVEN MORE power than I am citing, to produce a given temperature rise in the load using the various Ainslie circuits and modifications. And of course this means that the Ainslie circuits are _even less efficient_ than I am calculating.

Poynt99 and Steve Weir have both "published" or posted work that demonstrates the validity of DMM measurements. I've posted five or six different crosschecks showing that the DMM and the oscilloscope agree to within 5 percent, and often much better than that. If Ainslie desires to complain, object, whine and flail..... let HER produce some contrary data that refutes Steve Weir, Poynt99.... and me. SHE CANNOT !  And it's patently absurd for her to demand "publications" of anything when her own submitted efforts have ALWAYS resulted in total, complete and utter rejections.

She can only bloviate, whine, flail and flop, like the plucked turkey she so resembles. She cannot produce any data that actually supports her claims.... day after day, month by month, year after year. All she can produce is garbage repeats of her own old moldy garbage, that SHE HERSELF... or rather her puppet minion DONOVAN MARTIN ... has proven to be garbage, in the June 29 and August 11 2013 "demonstrations" which were really just long, ugly, disorganized and arrogant insults to her viewers and critics.

She could be using the SWeir board to make proper measurements, but she doesn't have the wit or the intellectual honesty to do so. She could be publishing complete reports with true descriptions and real data gathered under repeatable conditions.... but she won't, because she knows what they will show.  Just look at the statement she made to Poynt99: she will refuse to share any of her data UNLESS Poynt99 acknowledges that it shows a "breach of unity barriers" or whatever.

How is that compatible with Science, with the Open Source philosophy? Eh, Ainslie? You have no justification for your arrogance and your well-defended ignorance. Every bit of my work is out in the open, fully specified and fully repeatable by anyone, and when I make errors they are caught by my critics, or by me, and are corrected ASAP. What happens when people try to repeat YOUR work, Ainslie? They find it full of UNCORRECTED errors, unrepeatable performances and OUTRIGHT LIES like the Figure 3 scopeshot or the 5 different schematics you claimed to use for the 5-mosfet circuit.  Meanwhile.... you flail and flop and cannot present any data that supports your ridiculous claims. Yet you continue to whine and wheedle, even though your emissions are easy to disprove and your lies increasingly transparent. What an exhibition you are! It is truly remarkable, and will go down in history as the most outrageous example of the Dunning-Kruger effect anyone has ever seen.