Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[Tseak]

TK,  now you've let the secret out. You're not really interested in OU or Ms Ainslie, quantum etc. You're quietly building arcade games.

[TinselKoala]

What I remember Steve telling me about that was that they did not reproduce those different results for him.  I can ask him again.

I have no doubt that they did not reproduce those different results! He was watching them! Ainslie's remarkable results happen only when no one is watching, except her and her mob.

[MarkE]

I have no doubt that they did not reproduce those different results! He was watching them! Ainslie's remarkable results happen only when no one is watching, except her and her mob.

I think that has a lot more to do with their competence than any effort at fakery.  Had they fiddled with the function generator offset knob, for example by pushing it in then Q1 would have been on during the high portion of the waveform and they would get lots of heat out and draw lots of power from the battery. 

[TinselKoala]

Well.... it appears that it is impossible to underestimate the Learning and Erudition of the Great Scientist. Witness the latest emission of stupidity and illogic from the Queen of Trolls... and then tell me where and when the Queen of Trolls ever refers to the RATE of temperature change in any of the daft manuscripts.

From the first daft manuscript:

A. Measurement of Wattage Dissipated
Measurement of the energy dissipated at the resistor element (RL1) was determined by comparison
with results from a control to establish empirical measurements while avoiding the complexity of
factoring in power factor corrections. A constant voltage was applied from a DC power supply source
in series with RL1. The voltage was then steadily increased in increments of 1 volt each from 1 volt
through to 22 volts. The wattage was then determined as the squared product of the voltage over the
resistance of RL1, or P=V2 / RL1.
The temperature of the resistor was then recorded against the applied wattage and the temperature
difference above ambient determined the level of wattage as represented in Fig. 2 and Table II.

In the first place we see again the continuing inability of Ainslie to discriminate between a RATE (power, in Watts = Joules PER second) and a QUANTITY (energy, in Joules). No measurement of "the energy dissipated at the resistor element" was in fact performed by Ainslie, since she does not know and cannot know the thermal leak rate of the apparatus. The most she can determine is the power dissipation, but even that is improperly done, since it must be determined at a _stable_ temperature and a _constant_ DC power setting.

But do we see anything there about the RATE of temperature rise? No, we do not. We only see samples taken and power levels BEING CHANGED at varying seemingly arbitrary intervals. We cannot derive valid RATE data from her information at all, because her calibrations are improperly performed and improperly displayed. It is impossible to point to a power level and say "at this power level the temperature rises at x degrees per minute" nor the other way around. It is clear that the temperature rises in the table build upon each previous rise, rather than being determined from the ambient temperature baseline.

It took them, according to their chart, a few minutes over three hours to obtain all their temperature/power data, for 22 separate data points of temperature measurements covering the _entire_ power range they tested.  And in the accompanying table and plot in the daft manuscript we see very clearly that the temperatures she cites are _not_ stable temperatures at all (else the resulting Fig. 2 plot would be linear.) There are only 22 samples covering the entire power and temperature range they examined, over a three hour period.

Unfortunately for her.... my data contains both RATE and absolute magnitude information, and it's properly displayed, but more importantly, I CAN PROVE I DID THE EXPERIMENT AND THAT THE DATA IS AS I STATE.... something that Ainslie cannot do at all.

I performed  _TEN_ complete one-hour runs, ten different power levels, each one starting from ambient temperature, and I took 60 evenly-spaced one minute data points for EACH run. Six hundred data points, all valid, all traceable back to the raw data, all preserved photographically and in video. Anyone who can read a graph can see both the RATE of temperature change and the magnitude of the final stable temperatures in my calibration for EACH power level. Stable, in my data, means changing at a rate less than 0.05 degree (half a tenth of a degree C) per minute. IOW, two or three consecutive minute samples at the same temperature measured to the tenth of a degree indicate "stable enough" to be called the endpoint temperature. My data is repeatable by anyone, my procedures and materials fully documented and my raw data is preserved and can be seen on request, for example here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sp2l41x-8k

(The time-lapse display of all 60 datapoints in the one-hour run, played back at one point per second.)

What is the Great Scientist's definition of "stable temperature" and how do we know it was attained in her calibrations? She never defined it, and we DON'T know. Where is the Great Scientist's raw data that proves she performed the calibration and shows it was properly done? Where is the necessary information so that someone else could reproduce her calibration data on their own? Nowhere, that is where.

Of course, we also already know that Ainslie belongs to that unfortunate portion of the population that cannot interpret graphically displayed information. And we know that when she is threatened by the Truth, she degenerates even further into absurd flailings and even more ridiculous insults and lies. Witness:

[TinselKoala]

I think that has a lot more to do with their competence than any effort at fakery.  Had they fiddled with the function generator offset knob, for example by pushing it in then Q1 would have been on during the high portion of the waveform and they would get lots of heat out and draw lots of power from the battery.

There are many kinds of fakery, some more egregious than others. The fakery that consists of ignoring contrary data, doing only demonstrations that "prove" the thesis, and misrepresenting the work of others as well as one's own work, could be semi-unconscious. It happens all the time and is called "confirmation bias". It is no less of a sin for all of that.



The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman

The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. -- Richard Feynman

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman