Hi TK
I have received an open letter she has asked us to Publish. To be honest I do not know if I should or should not. If I do there will be no censorship on the comments box (unlike free energy news)
I am between a rock and hard place. We intend to report many things but not declaring anything to be real or true unless backed by credible data.  A bit like Smartscarecrow "Let the audience make up their own damn minds"
On the otehr hand we want to maintatin credability.
Mark

Mark,

She has stated that she will be making a video on the 22nd that will prove that the waveform in FIG3 can be duplicated with a functional Q1 connected as per the schematic.

The issue with Q1 in FIG3 is simply that the light blue scope trace is indicating that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 during the portion of the cycle when the function generator (FG) output is a positive voltage.  +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 should turn Q1 fully on and the subsequent current flow should be indicated by a positive voltage at the current sensing resistor (CSR), as would be indicated by the dark yellow CSR trace.

However, there is no current flow indicated, as the CSR trace remains at or very close to zero volts during the time +12 volts is being applied to Q1, indicating that Q1 is not turning on.

The only possible explanations for Q1 not turning on in as it should in FIG3 are that Q1 was either non-functional (damaged), disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic during the FIG3 capture.

Looking at FIG5, one can see an example of a scope capture wherein Q1 is functioning properly and its subsequent current flow is indicated by a positive voltage on the dark yellow CSR trace during the portion of the cycle when the light blue FG output trace is a positive voltage.

It is very likely that during the FIG3 tests, she did not realize that Q1 was damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.  When originally asked about this, all she had to do was acknowledge that there was an error, repeat her tests to generate a new FIG 3 with a properly functioning or connected Q1, and correct or replace her data with the data from these new tests.

Instead, she denies that the scope indicates +12 volts is being appied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, or erroneously claims that the scope needs to be AC coupled.  She has accused those that ask about Q1 in FIG3 of not knowing how to read a scope, how to read schematics, attacked them as being unqualified sufficiently in electronics to discuss Q1, or threatened legal action.

In any event, her continual refusal to admit that there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 has only blown this issue into the large proportion it has become, and she herself has now referred to this issue as a "litmus test".  In many ways, it is indeed a litmus test, but not of her technology and theories, but of her integrity and believability.

She claims she will be creating a video this coming weekend (22nd) that will prove that there is nothing wrong with Q1 or its connections in FIG3 by duplicating the waveforms as indicated by FIG3.

Anyone that understands electronics to even the smallest degree, can see from looking at her schematic that there is no way the FG output, which is connected to the gate of Q1, can output +12 volts without Q1 turning on and current flow subsequently being indicated by the CSR.

One would have to attempt deception, to some degree, to intentionally reproduce the FIG3 waveform using her schematic, such as disconnect Q1, connect Q1 differently from the schematic, or use a damaged MOSFET for Q1.  Alternately, one could attempt to AC couple the scope, or a probe point, and adjust the waveforms so that they appear similar to FIG3, even though they would not be (as would be indicated by properly using DC coupling throughout).

My advice to you regarding your "rock and a hard place" decision would be to wait and see how and what she does in her upcoming video to reproduce the FIG3 scope shot.

As she says, it is a litmus test...

PW   

Profitas
Can you read a scope and know how to hook one up?
Mark

Mark,

Was this question actually directed at "Profitas" or was it meant to be in response to my (picowatt's) previous post?

PW

Let's also not forget just what needs to be demonstrated: The Figure 3 scopeshot in the first of the two manuscripts, under the conditions claimed for it in the paper.

1. Q1 mosfet on the original, small heatsink that was used for the work described in the paper.
2. The full 6 batteries in series, supplying at least 72 volts to the circuit, as described in the paper and as indicated on the Fig. 3 scopeshot.
3. A period of about 160 seconds with a "high" signal of +10 to 12 volts for 10 percent of the time (10 percent duty cycle) or about 16-17 seconds ON per period, as indicated on the scopeshot.
4. Bringing 800 mL of water "to boil", as claimed in the paper, using the signals as indicated on the Fig 3 scopeshot.

Failure to demonstrate this full set of conditions, as described in the paper, will of course mean utter and total failure on Ainslie's part, once again, to support her claims with truth. And further, her failure will demonstrate unequivocally that the data in the papers are bogus, the claims based on them ridiculous, the conclusions unsupported and the papers must therefore be withdrawn, and errata and apologies tendered to those whom she has insulted, denigrated and misled for all these years.

It's all so fantastical, don't you think?  We have this grinding battle over a waveform that clearly shows that a MOSFET is not working or there is a circuit connection problem.  What should not be a dispute at all is a knock-down drag-out fight.  Another fight for months and months about how a function generator works when again there should be no dispute.  And that's just scraping the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

I hope that Rosie sees with her own eyes how she is wrong about the MOSFET waveform issue from her own build.  I hope that Poynt does his build and presents his data and analysis.  One would hope that Rosie will have no choice but to accept the facts that will be clearly and unequivocally presented by Poynt.  It seems like that's the only end game possible because Rosie will not accept the learned opinions and real-world analysis done here.

It's just crazy and I can't follow it in detail any more.  It's just nuts.  It's like a battle of Cold War ideologies, and we all know how that one ended.

There have been moments of high comedy also.  Way back when Rosie and pixie faerie Joit had this preconceived notion that "ON MUST BE HIGH" with respect to the MOSFET switching.  That was a two-week battle and TK had to make a clip showing that when the gate input of the MOSFET is HIGH and the MOSFET is ON, then the drain output will go LOW.  This "discovery" of the inversion on the output was a "shocker" for Rosie and her Energetic Forum followers.   And of course Aaron's build was high comedy all around and it was tragicomic to see how this "leader" when it came to free energy circuits had accumulated about TWO WEEK'S worth of bench skills after working on the bench with luminaries like John Bedini and Peter Lindemann for TEN YEARS.

Just please somebody bring this thing to an end!!!  Please make it stop!!!!

@MH: The kerfluffle over the flipped duty cycle in Ainslie's first circuit went on for far longer than two weeks. In fact it still raises its head now and then. Remember when the person who doesn't want to be referred to here anymore started to build that circuit from the link Ainslie gave him? She STILL has not corrected that schematic (because she can't) nor has she issued an errata notice. She refers to that article constantly but never mentions that the schematic makes the flipped dutycycle and that the heat results are wrong because of her errors. For a short while, in the face of incontrovertible proof that I am right and she is wrong, she did acknowledge the flipped cycle and "apologised", but never followed through with a retraction or correction, and then later on actually retracted her apology! And now.... well, just ask her and see what she has to say about it. She's still baffled by the fact that the Drain voltage is high when the mosfet is off in the configuration she uses, and if you read her latest shouts, it's clear once again, as I have been saying all along, that she has no clue about linear operation of a mosfet. Her mosfets, she believes, are either open, or they are "soldered" inside, either fully OFF or fully ON. She cannot understand their operation as amplifiers, nor how feedback oscillations work in amplifiers. Until she can accept this linear, partially conducting response region of a mosfet's operation she will _never_ be able to understand or accept just how her circuit operates. It has been explained to her over and over, and I've demonstrated it in my videos, and millions of high-powered stereo music systems demonstrate it every day.... but she still does not get it.

@Mark D: You should make her show you a video  _first_, I think. She won't, though.



So I ask again. How is Ainslie going to show that the mosfets she uses in her demonstration this coming Saturday are "in tact" before and after she makes the Figure 3 scopeshot, bringing water to boil under the conditions claimed in the paper? Does anyone have any suggestions? I note that Ainslie's mosfets are soldered to long clipleads, except for Q1 which has its soldered leads terminated in crimped connectors bolted into the circuitry. Are we going to see Ainslie take the apparatus apart, test the Q1 mosfet somehow, put the apparatus back together, boil some water while making the Figure 3 traces, then take the apparatus apart again, test the Q1 again, all live on camera ? I can hardly wait. I'll be stocking up on popcorn this week.

Mark,
You are indeed in a difficult position. The "anomalies" are re-iterated in her latest epistle. Here are a few

The amount of energy that is first supplied during the 'on' period of the duty cycle is NIL.  NOTHING.  NADA.  And then the MOMENT that the switch 'opens' or is OFF - that moment when NO current should be enabled - then the OSCILLATIONS START.  AND IT IS GENERATED AT A FREQUENCY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SWITCH.  AND IT PERSISTS FOR AS LONG AS THAT SWITCH IS OPEN.

A FET hard switched with a battery supply that passes no current?

Regarding a complete misunderstanding of the nature of a FET:

The MOSFET is just a simple switching device.

and

Effectively that 'virtual solder' has NOT been applied as there is NO PATH for the current to freely flow from the positive terminal of the battery to the negative terminal of the battery.

Capacitance?
She demonstrates once again that she has no understanding of her circuit and apparently is not interested in learning.

Even more damaging to her claim of zero energy input is :

Then the requirement is that I 'self loop' the system and replace the battery with a capacitor.  Sadly the capacitor discharges to zero.  We show that we require the batteries' innate voltage imbalance to perpetuate each cycle of that oscillation.

Apparently the batteries are required to imbalance the circuit but do not  provide any energy whatsoever? huh!

Ms Ainslee claims to have a team of reputable people who endorse her work.

We have a team of highly qualified engineers - one is writing his doctorate in engineering - two are qualified engineers and one is a technician who is studying further as a senior student for his engineering degree.  One other has a  masters degree in molecular biology.  Our protocols were designed by Professor Gaunt - and our papers written on those tests have been further ratified and refined by 3 academicians.  Our papers have been reviewed prior to publication and we have had very favourable feedback from many academics, most prestigious amongst them being Professor Horowitz. 

I suggest that you agree to the publication of the document following a successful demonstration which is endorsed  by these people or at least the majority of them. Not an unreasonable request seeing that they apparently have already examined the circuit and are happy with it.

10x 7A/h batteries are charging, MOSFETs are found (thank you Glen), 2 MOSFETs mounted on a heat sink, load resistor, CSR, MOSFETs ready for hook up. I will not be building the circuit on peg board, but I will follow a similar wiring layout. I will also be starting with the as-built connections, mainly where the FG is connected to bypass the CSR, as shown in the annotated schematic.

Ready to start testing soon.