Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Sure. But you would think that an honest researcher who genuinely believed in her claims and data would at least _try_ to provide data to support them, wouldn't you? And I've shown that the process of running the experimental trials is actually very easy to do and doesn't take a lot of time. So why don't she and her minions run some trials and report the data, good OR bad, like any real scientist would do?  Well, I know why. What they will wind up doing, if anything, as the most recent scopeshot seems to indicate, is that they will happily repeat their old and stupid measurement errors and assert that they are actually valid measurements.

[MarkE]

Sure. But you would think that an honest researcher who genuinely believed in her claims and data would at least _try_ to provide data to support them, wouldn't you? And I've shown that the process of running the experimental trials is actually very easy to do and doesn't take a lot of time. So why don't she and her minions run some trials and report the data, good OR bad, like any real scientist would do?  Well, I know why. What they will wind up doing, if anything, as the most recent scopeshot seems to indicate, is that they will happily repeat their old and stupid measurement errors and assert that they are actually valid measurements.

Ms. Ainslie herself says that she lacks the skills to perform such experiments.  How she convinces herself that she has the discovery that she claims when her own demonstrations soundly rebuke her ideas is anyone's guess.  Why there is anyone who would continue to give her self-refuted ideas any credence is an even bigger mystery.

Without detailed descriptions and/or pictures of what they are doing it is hard to say for certain just what they are up to. Given their history of completely inept bungling, and demonstrated extremely poor understanding of science, it is a safe bet that the information value of anything they do by themselves will be very low.

[TinselKoala]

Ms. Ainslie herself says that she lacks the skills to perform such experiments.  How she convinces herself that she has the discovery that she claims when her own demonstrations soundly rebuke her ideas is anyone's guess.  Why there is anyone who would continue to give her self-refuted ideas any credence is an even bigger mystery.

Without detailed descriptions and/or pictures of what they are doing it is hard to say for certain just what they are up to. Given their history of completely inept bungling, and demonstrated extremely poor understanding of science, it is a safe bet that the information value of anything they do by themselves will be very low.

You seem to forget that their history also includes much deliberate prevarication, misrepresentation, mendacity, and collusive lying about what they have done, are doing and will do. These are not "errors", bunglings, ignorances or lapses in competence. They are deliberate, conscious attempts to alter history, to spin facts and details in their favor. These emissions from Ainslie and her co-authors, especially Donovan Martin, are deliberate lies.

-the Quantum Magazine circuit itself and the claims made in that article
-the story of the Lost Grey Box, its history, its whereabouts, its circuitry and its usage
-the "taking water to boil" story
-the Figure 3 and other bogus scopeshots which still remain and are still claimed to be valid by Ainslie
-the March 2011 demonstration video, where Ainslie and Donovan Martin are consciously lying about the circuit used
-the sudden disappearance from all of her 4 YouTube channels of that video in an attempt to cover up the evidence it contains
-the repeated shouts of "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" when there are many forum and blog postings from her that PROVE she did post it to HER YouTube account
-the continuing claims of high heat evolution without "measurable" power drawn from the battery supply
-the promises to release raw data spreadsheets
-the promises to release the scopeshots made under Steve Weir's supervision
-the bogus "retraction" which was never sincere, just a delaying tactic
-and then the "unretraction" based on no new data, repudiating the findings of Steve Weir in the "public" stealth demo
-the continuing lies and misrepresentations of the work of others, notably Glen Lettenmeier, Poynt99, and myself

And the list goes on and on, and is added to almost every day by further lies and prevarications from Ainslie.

So I submit this: You cannot believe or trust _anything_ coming from the Ainslie mob unless you, or some other trustworthy researcher, can actually _repeat_ the findings for yourself. Just watching them or looking at diagrams and photos _they_ submit are not sufficient in this case, due to their proven track record of lying and misrepresentation, in spoken word, forum and blog posts, photographs and videos. All of it is tainted and cannot be believed without outside confirmation. And whenever anyone HAS actually tried to repeat any of Ainslie's posted "work" they encounter the discrepancies right away.

For example.... ALL of my work, contrary to more lies from Ainslie, on this topic is publicly available on my YT channel in complete detail; anyone who likes can look up any particular experiment or demonstration of mine and repeat it for themselves, and IF they find some contrary data or performance, they can discuss it with me rationally and in detail. Just try that with Ainslie's reports. Remember what happened when GMeast tried it? Insert ROFL here !!

The only reason people even know _at all_ what circuits Ainslie might have used is because of the analyses BY HER CRITICS !!

[MarkE]

You seem to forget that their history also includes much deliberate prevarication, misrepresentation, mendacity, and collusive lying about what they have done, are doing and will do. These are not "errors", bunglings, ignorances or lapses in competence. They are deliberate, conscious attempts to alter history, to spin facts and details in their favor. These emissions from Ainslie and her co-authors, especially Donovan Martin, are deliberate lies.

-the Quantum Magazine circuit itself and the claims made in that article
-the story of the Lost Grey Box, its history, its whereabouts, its circuitry and its usage
-the "taking water to boil" story
-the Figure 3 and other bogus scopeshots which still remain and are still claimed to be valid by Ainslie
-the March 2011 demonstration video, where Ainslie and Donovan Martin are consciously lying about the circuit used
-the sudden disappearance from all of her 4 YouTube channels of that video in an attempt to cover up the evidence it contains
-the repeated shouts of "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" when there are many forum and blog postings from her that PROVE she did post it to HER YouTube account
-the continuing claims of high heat evolution without "measurable" power drawn from the battery supply
-the promises to release raw data spreadsheets
-the promises to release the scopeshots made under Steve Weir's supervision
-the bogus "retraction" which was never sincere, just a delaying tactic
-and then the "unretraction" based on no new data, repudiating the findings of Steve Weir in the "public" stealth demo
-the continuing lies and misrepresentations of the work of others, notably Glen Lettenmeier, Poynt99, and myself

And the list goes on and on, and is added to almost every day by further lies and prevarications from Ainslie.

So I submit this: You cannot believe or trust _anything_ coming from the Ainslie mob unless you, or some other trustworthy researcher, can actually _repeat_ the findings for yourself. Just watching them or looking at diagrams and photos _they_ submit are not sufficient in this case, due to their proven track record of lying and misrepresentation, in spoken word, forum and blog posts, photographs and videos. All of it is tainted and cannot be believed without outside confirmation. And whenever anyone HAS actually tried to repeat any of Ainslie's posted "work" they encounter the discrepancies right away.

For example.... ALL of my work, contrary to more lies from Ainslie, on this topic is publicly available on my YT channel in complete detail; anyone who likes can look up any particular experiment or demonstration of mine and repeat it for themselves, and IF they find some contrary data or performance, they can discuss it with me rationally and in detail. Just try that with Ainslie's reports. Remember what happened when GMeast tried it? Insert ROFL here !!

The only reason people even know _at all_ what circuits Ainslie might have used is because of the analyses BY HER CRITICS !!

I am well aware of  debacles like the MOSFET wiring in the 2011 demonstration not being as represented, and Ms. Ainslie's later declarations that she intentionally misrepresented the circuit.  Her representations with regard to  the magazine article circuit are equally bizarre.  Ms. Ainslie has said that to effect that she was "ordered" to publish a circuit, so "they" just grabbed one from the internet.  Does the gross incompetence make the intentional misrepresentations moot?  Do the intentional misrepresentations make the gross incompetence moot?  Or do they both just say:  There is nothing there to see?  Ms. Ainslie will most likely keep barking at the moon.  She may think she has some audience.  She may hold out hope that one day she will impress experts when all she has done is consistently push experts away.  Her hopes will not be realized.

The work you have done researching the claims has been very good.  Point by point you have conducted reliable and repeatable experiments that show the falsity of Ms. Ainslie's confused ideas concerning science in general and electronics in particular.

[memoryman]

Mark E and TK: I wonder why you two spend so much time on RA and her ramblings. Given your very high level of competence, are there not vastly more important issues you can address? As an electronics professional myself for 50 years, I realised that I had little to contribute to your posts, so I did not bother.
Similarly for Mr.Wayne's silly ZED. I did not accept his invitation because
a: I have no need/desire to spend two day listening to an explanation of HOW the ZED works, when it can not be demonstrated, and
b: There will be no practical way to rule out a hidden power source with a device that is anchored to the ground.
Just curious.