Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

I've referenced Poynt99 and Steve Weir on the DMM accuracy issue.... but I don't actually depend upon, nor do I really need to cite, any outside references for the accuracy of the DMMs in the way that I am using them. Because I have produced VALIDATION STUDIES of my own, and I've shown these validations in my videos. For many different waveforms at many different power levels, I have shown, in real-time on video, with one hand operating the camera even, that the DMM's reading of average current is THE SAME as the oscilloscope's computed average for the same current, to within 5 percent or less.

But as usual, Ainslie simply denies the very _existence_ of this data, these demonstrations that disprove her insane contentions. Just as she has repeatedly lied about Glen's (FTC's) data, claiming it is unavailable. It's astounding! And I find it greatly amusing that I am able to provide so many opportunities for Ainslie to demonstrate her ignorance, incompetence, arrogance and mendacity. She just keeps coming back for more.... and it's clear she has indeed forgotten the Safety Words she needs to emit in order for this to stop ..... which are "I retract everything and apologize for all the insults, lies and errors".

[MarkE]

Ms. Ainslie is now saying that she demands that poynt99 "argue the protocols related to the battery draw down tests".  OK, I'll bite.

The tests that Ms. Ainslie has described will do nothing to show that any energy enters the circuit from anywhere but the battery.  This is because her tests as proposed do not measure either the battery energy supplied, nor the energy output accurately.  Further, she has not reconciled how she intends to obtain "an equivalent rate of temperature rise" from her switched DUT and her series control experiment.  She states that the will "monitor the rate of depletion of potential difference, or voltage, across the batteries."  She predicts that:  "The batteries over the control will deplete well in advance of experiment - thereby proving that a switched circuit generates more energy from a supply than is available under standard series applications."  She implies that the control will consist of a series circuit.  What the control heater will be in series with she does not say.   Throwing away power in a series dissipating element would invalidate her stated experiment's intent.

The protocol as stated is junk.

[MarkE]

I've referenced Poynt99 and Steve Weir on the DMM accuracy issue.... but I don't actually depend upon, nor do I really need to cite, any outside references for the accuracy of the DMMs in the way that I am using them. Because I have produced VALIDATION STUDIES of my own, and I've shown these validations in my videos. For many different waveforms at many different power levels, I have shown, in real-time on video, with one hand operating the camera even, that the DMM's reading of average current is THE SAME as the oscilloscope's computed average for the same current, to within 5 percent or less.

But as usual, Ainslie simply denies the very _existence_ of this data, these demonstrations that disprove her insane contentions. Just as she has repeatedly lied about Glen's (FTC's) data, claiming it is unavailable. It's astounding! And I find it greatly amusing that I am able to provide so many opportunities for Ainslie to demonstrate her ignorance, incompetence, arrogance and mendacity. She just keeps coming back for more.... and it's clear she has indeed forgotten the Safety Words she needs to emit in order for this to stop ..... which are "I retract everything and apologize for all the insults, lies and errors".

I too have tested DMM average measurements and reported on that here.  I've gotten results that were always much better than 1% using my Fluke 87 from DC to 20MHz which is the limit of my function generator.

What Ms. Ainslie fails to understand is that the average current is a valid proxy for average power when the voltage approximates a scalar.

[Tseak]

Ms. Ainslie is now saying that she demands that poynt99 "argue the protocols related to the battery draw down tests".  OK, I'll bite.

The tests that Ms. Ainslie has described will do nothing to show that any energy enters the circuit from anywhere but the battery.  This is because her tests as proposed do not measure either the battery energy supplied, nor the energy output accurately.  Further, she has not reconciled how she intends to obtain "an equivalent rate of temperature rise" from her switched DUT and her series control experiment.  She states that the will "monitor the rate of depletion of potential difference, or voltage, across the batteries."  She predicts that:  "The batteries over the control will deplete well in advance of experiment - thereby proving that a switched circuit generates more energy from a supply than is available under standard series applications."  She implies that the control will consist of a series circuit.  What the control heater will be in series with she does not say.   Throwing away power in a series dissipating element would invalidate her stated experiment's intent.

The protocol as stated is junk.

MarkE, your comments on the measurements are not really valid. Not because they are incorrect but because Ms Ainslie has not stated exactly what she intends to do. Your have made reasonable assumptions but reasonable does not necessarily count here. It appears that she considers the energy measurement to be based purely on the RATE of rise of temperature. Recall she stated in an earlier monologue that a steady-state temperature does not show power dissipation - Huh?? One can use the rate of rise as a criterion but it makes things more difficult than steady state conditions. Then there is of course the "series element". Who knows what this is. Under these conditions the only sensible comment that can be made on her"protocols" is your last one - The protocol as stated is junk.

[MarkE]

MarkE, your comments on the measurements are not really valid. Not because they are incorrect but because Ms Ainslie has not stated exactly what she intends to do. Your have made reasonable assumptions but reasonable does not necessarily count here. It appears that she considers the energy measurement to be based purely on the RATE of rise of temperature. Recall she stated in an earlier monologue that a steady-state temperature does not show power dissipation - Huh?? One can use the rate of rise as a criterion but it makes things more difficult than steady state conditions. Then there is of course the "series element". Who knows what this is. Under these conditions the only sensible comment that can be made on her"protocols" is your last one - The protocol as stated is junk.

Tseak she has already started and she has not stated her protocol that I can tell in any more definitive terms than the vague and confused verbiage I quoted.  The only time that she ever stated a protocol that she sort of followed was the August 11, 2013 demonstration guided by Steve Weir.

She has often confused energy and power, as well as done weird things like multiply energy by time.  Your guess is as good as mine by what she means when she says:  "They will show an equivalent rate of temperature rise."  I think she means the same stabilized temperature rise over ambient.  But she could mean delta temperature per unit time measured over some unspecified interval, which would be pretty silly.

So I think we agree:  What we know about her intended methods to show that something other than the battery delivers energy to the heater resistor is that they are junk.