Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

I see that Aaron, in addition to his other cognitive difficulties, has trouble with the concept of hypothesis testing. Several of my hypotheses have been shown, BY ME, to have been incorrect, and I freely report that fact. In addition, testing those hypotheses has revealed what is ACTUALLY going on in the circuit.

Perhaps if Aaron repeats his lies even louder and brighter, someone will believe him.

Meanwhile, anybody who is interested can watch my videos and reproduce what I'm showing on a decent oscilloscope for themselves.

And the last three (uploading now) show yet again that Aaron either is deliberately trying to mislead, or simply does not know how to use and interpret an oscilloscope.

Meanwhile we still see absolutely nothing from a genuine Ainslie circuit--except of course MINE.

Isn't it ironic that most of what is actually known about this circuit comes from me and those whose analysis follows conventional electronics?


That reminds me--the stuff about Ainslie's theories from the Naked Scientists thread.
Ainslie says some pretty ignorant things about Quantum Electrodynamics without, apparently, realising that QED is the most accurate theory, in terms of prediction of experimental quantities from first principles, that humans have ever constructed. QED makes some predictions that have been found to be accurate to over 13 significant digits. The formulae and relationships of QED allow engineers to design and construct, for example, massively integrated circuitry with millions of components per square cm, and to understand and predict exactly how it will behave. For just a single amazing example.
Yet Rosemary sees problems with this all-encompassing theory, which is the life work of people like Feynman and DeBroglie and Hawking, and seeks to replace it with zipons and antitruants in a theory that makes not a SINGLE quantitative prediction, much less an accurate one.

And one wonders why TK is so irate.

[TinselKoala]

THbbppbb. I thumb my nose at Aaron and his aaarogance.

I have shared my finds and failures and I have shown how you make a hypothesis and test it and revise hypotheses and discard them as new experimental data become available. I have nothing to worry about, my conscience and record are clean.

Please see the very latest video, PART H one and two, (uploading now) for my latest on the matter. While Aaron is shooting his colors off and looking for a leg to stand on, I am doing proper research and am identifying several key issues.

For example, now it will be easy to drive the mosfet into the "desired" mode by using an FG at 1.64 MHz with an appropriate waveshape. Forget duty cycle, IF this is the desired operating mode.

And so, that is another red herring in the original paper. If this is the desired operating mode of the mosfet, just drive it with a roughly sinusoidal wave with a bit of noise at 1.64 MHz, and then you will be able to make tea for six on one D-cell battery.

Or maybe not.

Regardless of the circuit, it is still to be shown that this has anything at all to do with Ainslie's claim of 17 times more heat energy out than electrical energy in.

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi Everyone,

I have been asked by Rosemary Ainslie in deep regret the event that RAMSET was not available to post this from Energetic Forum .........

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61955-post1081.html

Quote:

Fuzzy - if you're there please take my last post across if Ramset's too busy to do so. I'd be obliged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.energeticforum.com/61949-post1079.html

Quote :

TK. My own suggestion, for what it's worth would be to stop talking to us and about us. I would assume that you've now debunked?? I do hope we can at least conclude that much. Except perhaps to write that paper - in due course - or hot on the heels of? Please do. I certainly won't contest your findings. Not now or ever. Indeed I'd be pleased to see your hard faught efforts translated into something publishable. We all would.

Will that now be enough? Except perhaps for a predicted period of gloating and a few sad moments to parade all that ego? I think you've completed your mission - to the best of your ability. I would add that I have found your thread really entertaining. Personally I enjoy a good turn of phrase and there are those moments when yours shine, usually and paradoxically when you're slinging yet more of the stuff that archeologists politely refer to as copralites. I confess I've often found myself rolling with laughter.

But what moves through the underbelly of your thread like a keel hauled sailor - is an entire want of moderation and objectivity. To be entirely plausible you should have given this a little more air. Just way too much testosterone. I can't say whether it's damaged your credibility. Some readers will think one way and others will think another. History will no doubt judge it fairly.

Anyway OC - if you haven't got your boy back quite yet, I think you're a few short days away? Meanwhile I take it as read that you've disproved our circuit, exposed all claims as 'wishful' at best, 'fraudulent' at worst. Our experimental standards not up to par, and - for my part - probably wilfully withholding the required information for your revered and exclusive evaluation.

And thank you for the attention you've given us. I'm just sorry it wasn't more in our interests. And good luck with Don Smith's invention. And there is one rather questionable video on offer to the public that I personally can discount in its entirety. Be that as it may. Cheers TK   May you have as much sucess on your next mission to debunk.

Perhaps Ramset can oblige and post this across? And please feel free to block access to OU.COM if you want to. I've finished with it for now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuzzy 

[TinselKoala]

His analysis is fraud or incompetance. In either case, it is bogus. He couldn't even see his mosfet oscillating until he used my circuit and got it right! I guess I shouldn't say stole because I give it away from free. At least he has something that works now that he can learn from since nothing he built works right.
__________________
With Gratitude, Aaron

Your hypocrisy is matched, just barely, by your idiocy. You are grossly misrepresenting my position, my findings, and my ability. In other words, you are full of bullshit and lies.
Take any of those assertions in that last statement of yours.
Fraud or incompetence: that's slander, my non-friend, and I should sue the britches off of you. I am in fact extremely competent--and would be happy to prove it in front of witnesses-- and if there is fraud here it is coming from your Queen.

I can see and make a mosfet oscillate at any time. I reported what I found during some specific work with specific circuits, using partial and misleading information from YOU.

That circuit is not yours. You got it from Forrest Mims, and it is a well known circuit that produces the most wildest behaviour you can get from a 555, ON PURPOSE to interest kids making science fair projects.

And a lot of stuff that I make works just fine--I'll put my designing and building skills up against yours any day of the week. Watch some of my early YT videos to see some of the things I build that work just fine. How about a 60,000 volt generator that you can put in a shoebox and turn with your fingers?

I'm a lot closer to what you are seeking than you are, Aaron, and that makes you angry, I know...but when you become enlightened you will see that you are in fact full of bullshit. So your signing your note "with gratitude" when you feel no such thing for me, is, like I said, the greatest hypocrisy.

thus, i refute thee

[TinselKoala]

What?? Did I miss something while Aaron distracted me with his straw men burning?