Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Permit me to offer a somewhat alternate explanation.

Last August she was not found to have erred, she was caught out in a multiple, compound lie. In her arrogance she believed that her fabricated data would hold up to scrutiny, since she has no theory that actually works and cannot herself interpret an oscilloscope screen, but instead relies exclusively on numbers in boxes. She cynically believed that, since she knows best, nobody would be able to see her deception, just as for the 2011 demonstration. Leopards do not readily change their spots. She never acted "honorably" at all. When it became apparent that her lies were indeed found out and demonstrated, during her cynical "cooperation" with Steve Weir, she rapidly shut down the deliberately badly shot and presented demonstration before it became even more obvious.  Her "retraction" was never sincere, it never resulted in an actual withdrawal or even a revision of the daft manuscripts, and as soon as the dust settled a bit, as I predicted, she was back with the same old same old thing, making the same lying claims from the same fabricated data. She may have exacted some promise from Steve to leave her alone or he may have simply lost interest. I am surprised that he did not make any public comment about Ainslie's retracted retraction -- except of course to tell us that the saved screenshots would not be released, contrary to the agreement made during the demonstration. 

The June 29 demo was another deliberately obfuscatory and disrespectful joke.

Now that she is once again in a position where her false claims, outright lies and ignorance of circuit behaviour and facts in general are again made evident, she chooses to do what she has always done when challenged: she lashes out with the most ridiculous arguments based on her "thesis" which is no such thing, it is barely a WAG, a conjecture based on a dream based on a bit of underdone potato.

[Farmhand]

This is not just about Rosemary either in my opinion, it serves as notice to all OU claimants, there are people with the knowledge to see through the mistaken or fraudulent claims and will debunk them. I can spot a fake by intuition but I cannot go to the great detail and complexity to show them up that way. What I can do is replicate some of the claims made and show it is nothing special. We can all do our bit.

Good job Tinsel and all the guys involved. The inductive heater of Rosemary Ainsley is bogus as it can be even I can see that. Being a heater makes it easier to get higher efficiency due to usually heat is unwanted and we can all make things hot if we want. It is a bigger challenge to keep things cool with high power throughput.

As for you tube subscribers I think i have more than her  I have 160. But I also have almost that many video's as well on numerous different subjects. 

Cheers

[TinselKoala]

The irony in all of this, of course, is that the actual definitive tests of the hypothesis that the circuit creates more energy out than in, have never been done. Not even close.

Due to Ainslie's mendacity, arrogance, ignorance of proper scientific methodology, bad math and general incompetence, what she _claimed_ was known isn't known at all. An honest researcher could have in fact tested the hypothesis rigorously and definitively in a year, gotten a real publication in a peer-reviewed journal or two out of it even "if" excess energy was not, for some odd reason, actually found to be produced. Yet the arrogant Ainslie instead had her "thesis" to promote, and so stooped to endless delay, fabrication of data, changing goalposts and just about every other dishonest ploy there is in order to _prevent_ any real research into her original claim of excess energy output.

For goodness sakes, we are still trying to get her to realize how the circuit even does what it _does_ do, much less find out what it "might be able" to do. Without an understanding of the basics of mosfet behaviour how can she hope to contribute anything real to the discussion? With a pre-ordained "thesis" that she is sure is correct, because it was revealed to her in a dream, she cannot even allow herself to see real data for what it is, nor interpret it properly if it conflicts with her "thesis".

Now we might all "know" that the circuit cannot produce excess energy of any kind. So we can either decide to do the experiment to see, or let it go and go play somewhere else. But if we decide we want to _do_ the experiment to find out once and for all, then it must be done properly, and a very important part of that is to understand the basics of electronics well enough to be able to apply Ohm's Law appropriately. Another very important part is the honest and dispassionate reporting of accurate and precise results. Yet another is to be "thesis-free" in that one attempts to do everything one can to _disprove_ the hypothesis by experiment. Only when one FAILS in earnest attempts to DISPROVE one's own hypothesis can one legitimately say it has support. This is the basis of the Scientific Method, something which Ainslie has never shown any inkling of understanding.

[MarkE]

Permit me to offer a somewhat alternate explanation.

Last August she was not found to have erred, she was caught out in a multiple, compound lie. In her arrogance she believed that her fabricated data would hold up to scrutiny, since she has no theory that actually works and cannot herself interpret an oscilloscope screen, but instead relies exclusively on numbers in boxes. She cynically believed that, since she knows best, nobody would be able to see her deception, just as for the 2011 demonstration. Leopards do not readily change their spots. She never acted "honorably" at all. When it became apparent that her lies were indeed found out and demonstrated, during her cynical "cooperation" with Steve Weir, she rapidly shut down the deliberately badly shot and presented demonstration before it became even more obvious.  Her "retraction" was never sincere, it never resulted in an actual withdrawal or even a revision of the daft manuscripts, and as soon as the dust settled a bit, as I predicted, she was back with the same old same old thing, making the same lying claims from the same fabricated data. She may have exacted some promise from Steve to leave her alone or he may have simply lost interest. I am surprised that he did not make any public comment about Ainslie's retracted retraction -- except of course to tell us that the saved screenshots would not be released, contrary to the agreement made during the demonstration. 

The June 29 demo was another deliberately obfuscatory and disrespectful joke.

Now that she is once again in a position where her false claims, outright lies and ignorance of circuit behaviour and facts in general are again made evident, she chooses to do what she has always done when challenged: she lashes out with the most ridiculous arguments based on her "thesis" which is no such thing, it is barely a WAG, a conjecture based on a dream based on a bit of underdone potato.

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.  I have not seen any evidence that they have ever understood these simple circuits.  Whether that hypothesis is correct or alternately Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators knew what they had done prior to the demonstration, in the end she an her collaborators did lie about material issues one way or another.  That's the sort of thing that can cause a highly paid tenured professor to find out they need to find another university or retire early.  It's just a really stupid thing to do, because once one destroys their credibility pulling a stunt like that, there is really no getting it back.

[TinselKoala]

(sorry crossed posts, this is not a reply to the above, it's just a general rant.)

Look at it this way. Suppose my hypothesis is that it is raining outside. I assert that it is absolutely and positively raining outside.

Fine, you say, what is your evidence in support of your claim?

HA, I say, look here, the street is wet. QED, it is raining outside.


OK, have I in fact proved to you that it is indeed raining outside? After all, everybody knows that the streets get wet when it rains. SO I've given you strong evidence in support of my claim that it is raining. Haven't I?

Well, maybe. Have you tried any other methods of testing for rain outside?

No, why should I, we both agree that the street is wet. And so on and so on.

SO positive evidence in favor of a claim does not prove the claim at all because there may be a myriad of other reasons that produce the same evidence. The fire hydrant was opened by some kids down the block. The dam burst. My neighbor is playing a trick on me. My street-dryness detector is broken. The ice truck dumped a load accidentally.  Etc etc.


But what happens if I look outside and I find that the street is in fact DRY, that there is no cloud, nobody is carrying an umbrella and the sun is shining brilliantly.

Then I KNOW FOR SURE that the original hypothesis is wrong, it is not raining outside.