And yet, there is no end...

Dear picowat,

It seems that you are proposing that our IRFPG50's have degraded to the point that they cannot pass any current coming from the battery supply source.  Your evidence is based on the fact that the applied signal from the function generator is at 12 volts.  Which under all other circumstances should then enable the flow of current from the battery supply.  Yet we clearly do not have the flow of current during this 'on' period of the duty cycle - coming from that supply.  Therefore do you propose that our MOSFETS's are no longer functional.

At least, it seems, she is now acknowledging as "fact" that the FIG3 scope shot does indeed show +12volts being applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle.  As she has denied this many times, it is refreshing to finally see this admission. 

She also, apparently, agrees that applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 should cause Q1 to pass current.

As well, she agrees that there is no current flow observed by the CSR during the application of the +12 volts to the gate of Q1.

So, to rephrase, she has _fiinally_ admitted that with regard to FIG3, during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  As well, she agrees, as would most everyone, that +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 should turn Q1 fully on, and yet, during that same portion of the cycle, no current flow is observed at the CSR trace, which can only mean that Q1 is not turning on.

As I have stated many, many times, there are only three possible explanations for Q1 not turning on when it should in FIG3.  During the FIG3 tests, Q1 was either defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.

Although TK has made a very good case towards Q1 being defective (as in damaged) during the FIG3 test, based soley on what can be gleaned from looking at FIG3, it cannot be known for certain which of the three possible explanations for Q1 not turning on is the correct explanation.  However, it is for certain, that during the FIG3 test, Q1 was either defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.

If she (or her "team") has another possible explanation as to why Q1 is not turning on as it should in FIG3, she should state her case.  But for now, she at least admits that there is indeed +12volts being applied to the Q1 gate and that Q1 should be turning on and that it is not.

So, great news, she is finally in agreement that there is something amiss with Q1 in FIG3!!

Unfortunately, there is more...

   
The question that we suggest you should be asking yourself is HOW it is possible for those transistors to pass any current at ALL - IF, as you propose - those MOSFETs have been so degraded?  Because, self-evidently - there is a great deal of current passing both to and from that battery during the 'off' period of that switching cycle.  We would be MOST intrigued to see your answer to this.  If you take the trouble to explain it then that would be considered appropriate as we are now going to some CONSIDERABLE lengths to show you that indeed we DO what you claim is IMPOSSIBLE.

Q1 is NOT passing current in FIG3 when +12 volts is applied to its gate because Q1 was either defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic during the FIG3 test.  There are no other possible explanations.   FIG5, which does show current flow during that similar portion of the cycle, depicts the correct waveform as one would expect from looking at the schematic in the first paper.

The fact that there IS current flow observed during the portion of the cycle when Q1 is turned OFF and Q2 is turned ON is totally unremarkable.  Would not she, or any one else, expect that there would be current flow observed during the time when Q2 is turned on?   Why would there not be?  Q1 is a minor player during the portion of the cycle when Q2 is turned on (i.e., during the oscillations). 

When the FG output is a negative voltage, Q2 is biased on and Q2 oscillates.  DC current flows thru Q2, the FG, and to the CSR or battery negative (dependent upon where the FG signal common is connected).  AC current during the Q2 oscillations flows primarily thru the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances to the CSR.

There is no mystery here.  It has all been explained many, many times, to those who actually listen and learn. 

She apparently thinks that the oscillations are strictly ringdown from Q1 turning off and the inductance at the drains discharging.  This is not the case.  She apparently does not recognize that there are TWO simple circuits contained in her schematic.  The first is Q1 which is being used as a simple switch.  The second is the Q2 portion of the circuit which is configured as an oscillator.

And of course, as she believes herself qualified to even discuss electronics, she adds a little condescending tripe that only further demonstrates that she, and whatever team is behind her, have no skills whatsoever in the field of electronics.

 

Meanwhile we would also like to thank you for your contribution to the cause.  You have set us a remarkably easy test to disprove your rather noisy dismissal of our evidence - and we trust that you'll 'enjoy the show' - so to speak.  Please understand that this demonstration is ONLY for your benefit.  And we trust that once you've seen the evidence that you will then be silent on this matter.  But I am well used to disappointment in such things - and rather expect that you'll probably need to do a lot of hand waving - as is your wont - in order to trivialise our results.  I, in turn, look forward to the entertainment THAT will offer.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

The fact that Q2 oscillates normally in FIG3 is in no way a "test" with regard to Q1 that proves anything about Q1. 

Q1 is not turning on in FIG3 because Q1 was either defective, disconnected, or not-connected as per the schematic during the FIG3 test.  There are no other possible explanations.

FIG3 should look similar to FIG5 with regard to the CSR trace depicting current flow when the gate of Q1 is made positive.   


However, from the above paragraph, it looks as though she continues to state that she will indeed duplicate FIG3 with a properly functioning Q1 connected as per her schematic that demonstrates no current flow when +12volts is applied to the Q1 gate.

As this cannot be done, she apparently is promising to commit deception and/or trickery...


PW

@PW: yes, it is remarkable that she still repeats the same errors.

As I've said before, she thinks that mosfets can only be ON with zero resistance (she ignores the Rdss) or OFF with infinite resistance. She does not grasp the linear operation response region of a mosfet at all. Thus she does not understand that the Q2 oscillations _are_ indeed turning Q2 slightly on and slightly off at the oscillation frequency, hence passing a small amount of power to the load, as well as dissipating some power internally. (Actually since it is impossible to balance the parallel mosfets in Ainslie's circuit, only one of the Q2s will be carrying most of the oscillation current, and so only this one Q2 will generally get warm during oscillations, but even this current is small so the Q2s are never in danger.)

TK,

Didn't you do a video in the past where only Q2 was installed and oscillating (i.e., with Q1 pulled)?

PW

Several times.
Here's the most recent one, from last week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I

TK,

So, in your video, even with Q1 removed from the circuit entirely, at around 9:34, one can see that the Q2 portion of the circuit continues to oscillate.  Moreover, the degree of clamping on the positive portion of the oscillation waveform on the CSR trace looks closer to FIG3 than it did when Q1 was installed.

With Q1 installed correctly and functioning properly, your waveforms look very much like FIG 5.

Point being, merely showing that the Q2 portion of the circuit continues oscillating when there is no observed current flow thru Q1 is no proof whatsoever that Q1 is functional or connected properly.

In her upcoming video, she must show that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 as she now agrees that FIG3 indicates.  She must also show that Q1 is connected properly as per the schematic.  She must also show that during the time that +12volts is being applied to the gate of the properly connected Q1 that there is no current flow observed via the CSR trace.

Short of attempts at trickery such as using AC coupling, use of a faulty MOSFET, or connecting Q1 not as depicted in the schematic (reversing the Q1 source and drain legs, intentionally not connecting a terminal, etc), she cannot duplicate FIG3.   

Applying +12 volts to the gate of a functioning Q1, connected as per the schematic, MUST turn Q1 on and produce a waveform similar to FIG5, wherein current flow is indicated by the CSR trace when a positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1.

At least, for now, she has finally agreed that we are reading her scope capture correctly and that +12 volts is indeed being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3 and that Q1 is not turning on.   



If she believes FIG3 is correct, I wonder how she would then explain the observed current flow thru Q1 in FIG5 when only +6volts or so is applied to the gate of Q1...


PW

Hopefully she has changed her mind about doing a "live only" demo this Saturday.  Posting it on YT would allow her "evidence" to reach a much greater audience in differing time zones.

Does anyone know when the show is supposed to begin?

PW

Now she's putting words into PicoWatt's mouth again. Another favourite tactic of the mendacious and willfully ignorant Ainslie: she doesn't understand a given explanation, so she makes up something that she thinks someone else said, then proceeds to twist and tangle and err along, sticking her feet further and further down her throat.

With every single post she makes, she reveals her abysmal ignorance. She does not understand the linear operation of mosfets. She thinks they are either fully ON or fully OFF and she doesn't understand that a gate signal that fluctuates around 4 volts or so will cause some conduction and will support oscillations in an amplifier that is feeding back. She does not understand how the Q2s are biased into the linear operation region or even that voltages are _relative_. Her only mental model of a mosfet is that it is a simple switch. In spite of demonstration after demonstration, explanation after explanation, she still fails to understand this simple fact. And she still believes that she can attain heat in the load without measurable current flow, even though her own data show otherwise.

How will Ainslie prove that her mosfets are "in tact" before and after the demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot, coming up in four days on June 22, live streaming over the net? She doesn't even understand _how_ they work, so how will she show that they do?

Why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? It is a vital part of the demonstration. After all, I've shown unequivocally how easy it is to make the Figure 3 scopeshot with a missing mosfet.... suppose I heat up some water, then allow the mosfet to overheat and fail. Then I show the oil temperature of my load, and show the cool (failed) mosfet and the scopeshot.... and stop there. What then? Should I write a paper? Or do I still need to demonstrate to you that my mosfet is still "in tact"? We know that I can demonstrate this in 30 seconds.... because I've shown how to do it in a video. Several times. But how is Ainslie going to do it? She doesn't know how! How can she demonstrate something she doesn't even believe in or understand ?

Now she's putting words into PicoWatt's mouth again. Another favourite tactic of the mendacious and willfully ignorant Ainslie: she doesn't understand a given explanation, so she makes up something that she thinks someone else said, then proceeds to twist and tangle and err along, sticking her feet further and further down her throat.

With every single post she makes, she reveals her abysmal ignorance. She does not understand the linear operation of mosfets. She thinks they are either fully ON or fully OFF and she doesn't understand that a gate signal that fluctuates around 4 volts or so will cause some conduction and will support oscillations in an amplifier that is feeding back. She does not understand how the Q2s are biased into the linear operation region or even that voltages are _relative_. Her only mental model of a mosfet is that it is a simple switch. In spite of demonstration after demonstration, explanation after explanation, she still fails to understand this simple fact. And she still believes that she can attain heat in the load without measurable current flow, even though her own data show otherwise.

How will Ainslie prove that her mosfets are "in tact" before and after the demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot, coming up in four days on June 22, live streaming over the net? She doesn't even understand _how_ they work, so how will she show that they do?

Why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? It is a vital part of the demonstration. After all, I've shown unequivocally how easy it is to make the Figure 3 scopeshot with a missing mosfet.... suppose I heat up some water, then allow the mosfet to overheat and fail. Then I show the oil temperature of my load, and show the cool (failed) mosfet and the scopeshot.... and stop there. What then? Should I write a paper? Or do I still need to demonstrate to you that my mosfet is still "in tact"? We know that I can demonstrate this in 30 seconds.... because I've shown how to do it in a video. Several times. But how is Ainslie going to do it? She doesn't know how! How can she demonstrate something she doesn't even believe in or understand ?

TK,

I see she has bumped her demo to the 29th.

If any of the engineers she claims will be present at her upcoming demo read my response to her and then her interpretation of it, they will likely come up with an excuse to bow out.  I did not bother to read her entire response, but as far as I read the nonsense she was spewing, it is more than obvious that she has issues.  It is no wonder she cannot produce even one supporter willing to discuss her circuit intelligently.  Although she will cling to paranoid theories involving suppression or conspiracy, deep down inside, she must realize that everyone who was ever willing to look at her technology over the years has walked away, and that the only common denominator throughout was herself.

As for testing Q1 before and after, the only way she can duplicate FIG3, that is, apply the +12 volts she has now acknowledged as "fact" in FIG3 to the gate of Q1 and show that no current flows thru Q1 via the CSR, is to commit a Mylow.  Recall how he was willing to commit an outright fraud in an attempt to save his reputation or stay in the lime light.

She has painted herself into a corner regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3.  Had she actually listened to and learned from all the people that discussed her circuits with her over so many years, she would not be in the position she now finds herself.

Possibly .99 will have better luck getting thru, but I have my doubts.

PW

     



     

 

Sadly the test 'presenter' cannot make it for the afternoon of Saturday 22nd.  But he's firmed up on the date for Saturday 29th June.

Can't Ainslie present her own work? Apparently not, since she doesn't understand basic electronics terminology or even how to operate her apparatus.

Will the test 'presenter' be the same person who 'presented' the last demonstration, from March of 2011? Where he lies to his audience over and over, twice during the first thirty seconds alone? (Gestures towards a diagram with a single mosfet and no "black" FG lead shown saying that this is the schematic, then claims that all five mosfets are in parallel....)

Ainslie has attempted to remove this lying video from the internet, to cover up the mendacity and ignorance it shows, along with the smoking gun of the use of only 4 batteries in the "high heat" second part of the demonstration..... a feature which has _never been explained_ by Ainslie, but which is clearly being done to avoid overheating and blowing the Q1 mosfet. In other words, Yet Another Lie is contained in the demo video and is perpetrated by its 'presenter'.
Ainslie has attempted to remove and suppress this mendacious video from the internet. But she has failed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k