Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013 (Read 219412 times)

picowatt · « **Reply #195 on:** June 18, 2013, 05:58:57 PM »

She has apparently resorted to either outright lies, or her ability to read and comprehend is sorely lacking:

Quote

Guys - I'm not sure that this is clear. But let me see if I can explain this. What picowat is ACKNOWLEDGING is that the current from the battery supply CAN'T move through the source leg of Q2. But he's proposing it doesn't need to. He CLAIMS that it simply bypasses that drain/source thing - and moves through the function generators terminal - and then comes OUT at the probe - which, in turn is on the GATE of Q1. Then it IGNORES the negative signal AT THAT GATE OF Q1 and continues - merrily - down to the negative terminal of the battery.

Picowatt actually states that when Q2 is turned on, current from the battery supply DOES pass thru the source of Q2 and thru the function generator.

What picowatt (two "t"'s), as well as many others, has actually "acknowledged" and stated, over and over, is the following:

Referring to the schematic in the first paper, when the function generator output is a positive voltage, Q2 is turned off, and if the function generator output is above the threshold voltage of Q1, Q1 turns on and conducts current. Current flows from the battery positive, thru Rload, thru Q1, thru the CSR, and returns to the battery negative.

When the function generator output is a negative voltage, Q1 is turned off and Q2 is turned partially on. When Q2 is turned on, DC current flow is from the battery, thru Rload, thru Q2, thru the function generator, and returns to the battery either directly or thru the CSR, depending upon whether the function generator signal common is connected to the CSR or the battery minus termnal.

Q2, configured as a common gate amplifier, is only partially turned on (biased on) by the negative voltage applied to the Q2 source terminal due to the FG's 50 ohm output impedance. Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation.

When Q2 oscillates, the bulk of the AC currents flow primarily thru the intrinsic capacitances of all 5 MOSFET's (a smaller amount of AC current also passes thru the function generator).

Now, from this simplified explanation, how could anyone arrive at the nonsense she writes? Mark E., in a recent post at PESN, even drew her a nice shematic showing the DC current flow thru Q2, as has .99 and others as well. There is no mystery regarding her circuit's operation to anyone but her.

Her posts read like an act of desparation. She should simply admit the error regarding Q1 not turning on when it should in FIG3 and at least retain some degree of personal integrity and honor.

It is all becoming very sad...

PW

TinselKoala · « **Reply #196 on:** June 18, 2013, 06:19:36 PM »

PW said,

Quote

She has apparently resorted to either outright lies, or her ability to read and comprehend is sorely lacking.

These are not exclusive. She has "resorted to" outright lying many times before, AND her ability to read and comprehend "EE speak" is sorely lacking.

She does not understand that a mosfet can function as a linear amplifier! She thinks they must be ON with zero resistance (she neglects Rdss, doesn't understand what it means nor does she understand power dissipation in this resistance) or they must be OFF with infinite resistance. So how can she ever even begin to understand the oscillations in Q2s or the current paths?

She is willfully ignorant and overweeningly arrogant. Her statements prove this, because NOBODY HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE Q2 MOSFETS BEING DEGRADED IN ANY WAY. (I'm shouting for the benefit of the willfully ignorant and mendacious person who wants to pretend that we have.)
It is only the Q1 mosfet that is put in stress by her arrangement including 6 batteries at 72 volts plus (ironically indeed, because the "rejected" schematic diagram that originally appeared in the second paper, first version, would not have done so) and it is ONLY THE Q1 MOSFET's FAILURE to perform that is indicated in the Fig 3 scopeshot.

Quote

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.

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.

Liar. Ainslie is a sarcastic insulting ignorant liar.
Only the Q1 mosfet is in question. Picowatt has never said or implied otherwise and neither have I.
"Considerable lengths." It took me less than fifteen minutes to make my demonstration of the problem, including showing what correct and blown traces look like, and even including testing the mosfet. But all Ainslie can do is insult, whine, lie and make excuses.... and further postpone what she says is "easy" to demonstrate.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #197 on:** June 18, 2013, 06:30:39 PM »

@Tinman:
I see that you have asked about mosfet types. I have tested the previous single-mosfet circuit with many mosfets; I found that the 2sk1548 worked the very best of any I tried in that circuit, much better than the IRFPG50, and it was about 1/3 the cost and was carried in stock by my local supplier. Great fast HV collapse spikes due to much cleaner switching than the PG50.
For the present circuit with 5 mosfets, I don't have any k1548s any more but I've got a handful of PG50s, and I did a long comparison using IRF830 and a shorter one using IRF530ns. The smaller mosfets have greatly reduced gate charges and so will make the circuit oscillate at a higher frequency-- and that's the only difference, as long as current and heat dissipation limits are respected. The 830s oscillated at around 4MHz, iirc, whereas the PG50s in exactly the same config (wirelengths, etc) oscillated at 1.2-1.4 MHz. I even got a version to work with 2n7000s.
The key is the long lead wires to the mosfets to make and sustain the oscs, and increased inductance in the battery wiring to increase the amplitude of the oscillations. If you use "conventional" tight layout, buswires and short jumpers, you may not be able to get spontaneous oscs at all. I didn't with my first version, with all mosfets on buswires and in a circuitboard space about the size of a business card.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #198 on:** June 18, 2013, 06:40:30 PM »

@PW:
I hope you didn't miss my post about the heating element and the possibility that it might contain an overtemp thermal fuse. It's just barely possible that an RV water heater element might be designed with a bimetal thermo-fuse that will trip open when the max temp is exceeded and close again after things cool off. (Many kinds of equipment have such fuses, like microwave ovens and even my old Tek RM503 scope has one mounted to its chassis.A RV water heater element might be a very logical place to have one.)

Obviously, we need some assurance that the heater element does not have any kind of temperature-sensitive switch built into it -- or formed inadvertently somehow -- that could open its circuit when it gets really hot.

I'm not sure what an open load will do to the rest of the scope traces, though.... I'll have to check quickly to see if the idea of an open circuit at the load is even viable, given the presence of the oscillations.

Later...:
OK.... I've just tested TarBaby, and with the load disconnected it won't oscillate. So for my build, at least, the presence of the oscillations indicates that the circuit through the load is not open. So I suppose that eliminates a thermal cutoff switch as an explanation for the Ainslie Figure 3 trace.

picowatt · « **Reply #199 on:** June 18, 2013, 06:47:47 PM »

TK,

The reason I have not responded with regard to a method for testing Q1 is that if she duplicates FIG3, it will immediately reveal that she has resorted to deception. She no longer argues that the FIG3 scope capture is being read incorrectly and agrees that +12volts is indeed being applied to the gate of Q1.

She knows that she cannot apply +12volts to the gate of a functioning Q1 connected as per her schematic without Q1 turning on and passing current. To show otherwise would require an act of deception. So why would some test of Q1 after the fact not be part of that deception as well?

I agree with your prediction that the FIG3 demo will never happen.

If she has her circuit all set up and ready to run, why doesn't she just admit there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and repeat her tests? Doing so would at least allow her to retain some degree of dignity and honor.

PW

picowatt · « **Reply #200 on:** June 18, 2013, 06:55:49 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 18, 2013, 06:40:30 PM

@PW:
I hope you didn't miss my post about the heating element and the possibility that it might contain an overtemp thermal fuse. It's just barely possible that an RV water heater element might be designed with a bimetal thermo-fuse that will trip open when the max temp is exceeded and close again after things cool off. (Many kinds of equipment have such fuses, like microwave ovens and even my old Tek RM503 scope has one mounted to its chassis.A RV water heater element might be a very logical place to have one.)

Obviously, we need some assurance that the heater element does not have any kind of temperature-sensitive switch built into it -- or formed inadvertently somehow -- that could open its circuit when it gets really hot.

TK,

I doubt that there would be a resettable thermal fuse in the element. If that were so, the hysteresis in its response time would surely have shown up in the captures.

But, if Rload was actually being turned on and off by a thermal fuse, Q1 would not be connected "as per the schematic" anyway.

PW

TinselKoala · « **Reply #201 on:** June 18, 2013, 07:00:47 PM »

"If she has her circuit all set up and ready to run, why doesn't she just admit there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and repeat her tests? Doing so would at least allow her to retain some degree of dignity and honor. "

The reason, of course, is that the claims about Fig 3 are fundamental to her "thesis" and all the rest of both papers. We've already demolished her bogus mathematics that caused her to claim that the circuit provided vastly more energy to the load than the batteries contained. The other fundamental claim is that she can produce high heat in the load without measurable current from the battery-- and the evidence for that is the Figure 3 shot and a couple more like it (that I've posted earlier but aren't in the papers.) So if the Fig 3 shot falls, so does her entire house of cards. She will have to retract both papers, and since we know she can't support any of her claims with real, proper experiments.... that will be that, for a while anyway, until she finds a new group of hopeful experimenters who haven't yet heard all her lies.

She has no dignity, no honor to retain. Just read her threads, you'll see that she has none of either.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #202 on:** June 18, 2013, 07:01:58 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on June 18, 2013, 06:55:49 PM

TK,

I doubt that there would be a resettable thermal fuse in the element. If that were so, the hysteresis in its response time would surely have shown up in the captures.

But, if Rload was actually being turned on and off by a thermal fuse, Q1 would not be connected "as per the schematic" anyway.

PW

Agreed, and also I confirmed by experiment that the Q2 oscillations don't happen if the load circuit is open, at least not in my TarBaby.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #203 on:** June 18, 2013, 07:10:33 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on June 18, 2013, 06:47:47 PM

TK,

The reason I have not responded with regard to a method for testing Q1 is that if she duplicates FIG3, it will immediately reveal that she has resorted to deception. She no longer argues that the FIG3 scope capture is being read incorrectly and agrees that +12volts is indeed being applied to the gate of Q1.

She knows that she cannot apply +12volts to the gate of a functioning Q1 connected as per her schematic without Q1 turning on and passing current. To show otherwise would require an act of deception. So why would some test of Q1 after the fact not be part of that deception as well?

Right.... but if she does perform a blatant deception with the production and then the testing, and if she has other "qualified engineers" there with her...... the implications of that are rather staggering. I know and agree that the Fig3 scopeshot is "impossible" under the conditions stated, but I'm willing to accept that there is a tiny chance that I'm missing something somehow or that there is some peculiarity of the equipment, or whatever. Thus I want to see the full Monty, as she has promised and as any real scientific demonstration demands: test to confirm integrity before the duplication run, and also immediately after the duplication run. And this testing should be something quick and unequivocal. Therefore, it would be "nice" to know and understand, and possibly critique, the intended method beforehand. Of course now we have another whole week to think something up, due to the most recent "postponement".

Quote

I agree with your prediction that the FIG3 demo will never happen.

If she has her circuit all set up and ready to run, why doesn't she just admit there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and repeat her tests? Doing so would at least allow her to retain some degree of dignity and honor.

PW

She finally did manage to pull off the demo of March 2011, so it's not impossible that she might do it again. But just like that demo, which contained obvious lies and deceptions, if she does do another one it won't be properly done and it won't resolve the issues.

picowatt · « **Reply #204 on:** June 18, 2013, 09:00:19 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 18, 2013, 07:10:33 PM

I know and agree that the Fig3 scopeshot is "impossible" under the conditions stated, but I'm willing to accept that there is a tiny chance that I'm missing something somehow or that there is some peculiarity of the equipment, or whatever.

But then, of course, one would have to ask why Q1 was operating just as it should the month prior in FIG5.

She knows that applying +12 volts to the gate of a functioning Q1, connected as per her schematic, must turn on Q1. "Even a child could understand that", as she would say.

And she has never debated that point. That mode of MOSFET operation is the only one that she somewhat understands. She has always instead argued that we are not reading the FIG3 capture correctly and that it does not show +12volts being applied to the gate of Q1. Even to the point that I finally contacted LeCroy to confirm I was indeed reading the capture correctly, and suggested that she contact LeCroy as well.

Now that she agrees as "fact", that there is indeed +12volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, there is no place left to go but admit to the error in FIG3 regarding Q1 not turning on as it should.

PW

TinselKoala · « **Reply #205 on:** June 18, 2013, 10:30:03 PM »

That's what you think. Ainslie has shown over and over that she is willing to go far beyond any logical stopping point.

Quote

In the final analysis - as has been pointed out - IF there was any genuine and scientific interest in our claim - then FRANKLY - even a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy.

She claims to be talking to her "team"..... and now the idea of a blown mosfet has entered her claims. Just wait.... in a couple of days, she'll be claiming that they've discovered that having a blown mosfet at Q1 will be _necessary_ for the magic to occur.

Notice how she still claims "incontrovertible proof" of her bogosity. The "incontrovertible proof" she claims to have is the bogus calculation that we have shown here many times !! And she claims that she has qualified engineers on her team. Engineers that can't even tell her how HUGE a unit a Farad is.

(At least she finally figured out that "intact" is one word in English. But how is she going to do this miraculous feat? She has no clue.)

Is a "trillionth" the same thing as "two thousand six hundred trillionths"? If you put four mosfets in parallel you wind up with 10,400 trillionths of a Farad. Is that the same as a "trillionth"? Or is it actually ten point four nanoFarads? And what does the capacity of a capacitor have to do with how much power it can transfer anyway? Nothing at all. Look at my videos showing 200 and 400 trillionths of a Farad passing the power from a flyback transformer. Look at my videos showing a 10,000 pF capacitor... chosen why?..... passing the signal and power from my Function Generator at 1.5 MHz like the cap was a straight piece of wire.
But she won't. Claim after claim of hers I've refuted in my videos, which she has promised to refute point by point but CANNOT. HEY AINSLIE ENGINEERS: you really should take a look at my videos which refute Ainslie's absurd and ignorant claims, and educate yourselves as to the true issues.

picowatt · « **Reply #206 on:** June 18, 2013, 10:36:31 PM »

Quote

Meanwhile - here's the consensus. Our evidence is that we can generate EXTRAORDINARY gains from harvesting back, or counter electromotive force. This advantage has been grossly overlooked. And the evidence that we measure is absolutely NOT permissible under the strange and varied reasons that have been put forward by them. From what was discussed - and I'm open to correction - but I believe that the capacitance in those MOSFETs is measured in the picofarad range. Which is MINUTE. One trillionth of a farad? Is that right? It's something like that. Way too small to account for that rather robust oscillation - no matter WHAT is assumed to be amplification - and no matter how this is proposed to take place. In the final analysis - as has been pointed out - IF there was any genuine and scientific interest in our claim - then FRANKLY - even a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy. It should not be DISMISSED as reasons to also dismiss the claim. And our claims PERSIST. Especially as it relates to our claims detailed in Figure 3 PAPER 1. We have the incontrovertible and repeated proof that there is MORE energy being returned to the battery supply than was EVER delivered. AND - more to the point - we will show that our MOSFETs are INTACT after than demonstration. And IF as is now being intimated - we are falsifying that data - then there are an AWFUL LOT OF US involved in this fraud. That would be reckless INDEED.

The amount of capacitance in the IRFPG50 is not at all an insignificant amount. This was discussed long ago. Most high voltage MOSFET's have inherently large capacitances. And though typically measured in picofarads, with regard to the IRFPG50 they are in the _thousands_ of picofarads.

The 4 Q2 MOSFETs in parallel have a combined Ciss that varies from 10,000pF to 28,000pF as the drain to source voltage varies. That represents a very significant reactance at frequencies between 1 and 3MHz for current to flow thru. This is why the bulk of the AC currents during the Q2 oscillations flow thru the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances, as the reactance of the MOSFET capacitances is typically much lower than the 50 ohms of the function generator at the oscillation frequency. For example, at 1.5MHz, the reactance of the lower 10,000pF value is only 10.6 ohms. As well, the Ciss of Q1 is also in parallel with and must be added to the Q2 capacitances. As the voltage at the drains of the MOSFET's approaches zero during the Q2 oscillations, the value of the combined MOSFET capacitances rapidly increases and can readily approach 30,000pF or more, which is no small amount.

As far as her now seeming to say that her circuit shows merit regardless of whether Q1 was functioning or not in FIG3, I attempted long ago to suggest that as an out. I specifically stated that having Q1 not functioning in FIG3 might, in the end, prove serendipitous (and then she bit my head off for suggesting that, and all the love was lost...). Had she repeated her tests back then, with and without Q1 installed, she would have known by now whether this was true or not.

Because Q1 was not functioning properly during the tests related to FIG3, retractions and/or corrections are in order. If she truly believes in her technology, she would admit the error, repeat her tests, and collect new data.

With regard to her negative power measurement, I am sure .99's upcoming replication will enlighten us even further than he already has on that subject.

PW

TinselKoala · « **Reply #207 on:** June 18, 2013, 10:43:11 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo
A video I posted nearly a year ago.

Note how many of Ainslie's claims and misconceptions are debunked in this video.

The function generator acts as a power source. She has claimed that is impossible.
The function generator can be placed in series with a battery and "pass current from its terminal to its probe from an external battery to a load." Again, impossible according to Ainslie.
The 10000 trillionths of a Farad capacitor... chosen because it approximates the value of some paralleled IRFPG50s.... passes current with only a small attenuation at 1.5 MHz. Ainslie calls this impossible.

And further: The functioning of the AC vs. DC coupling feature of oscilloscopes is explained and illustrated.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #208 on:** June 18, 2013, 11:00:42 PM »

PW said,

Quote

With regard to her negative power measurement, I am sure .99's upcoming replication will enlighten us even further than he already has on the subject.

I'm looking forward to hearing about .99's testing too, but I'm wondering why this measurement is still even an issue. Tar Baby reproduced it well over a year ago, the Altoid pocket demonstrator was specifically designed by .99 to reproduce it and it does so on demand, and both of them reproduce it when running solely on capacitors. (Which, by the way, demolishes Yet Another absurd assertion of Ainslie's: that there is something special about batteries that capacitors don't share. She hasn't explained why capacitors can make the IDENTICAL negative power measurement, but still not "work". Because when she's confronted by inconsistencies like that she just insults someone and repeats the same silly claims only louder.)

And if Ainslie tested her circuit using an appropriately sized capacitor bank she will find the identical negative power waveforms she's getting now, until the caps run down. The ONLY difference between capacitors and batteries in her circuit is that you cannot reasonably make a cap bank big enough to run for more than a few minutes. In the Ainslie circuit, caps run down, and batteries do too, and they do it at the same _current_, that is, charge per time. There is no other difference, and I can prove it (and have already done so, in another video that she won't watch.) Ainslie claims there is a difference.... but can prove nothing.

MileHigh · « **Reply #209 on:** June 19, 2013, 02:00:12 AM »

I have to jump in to point this out.

Guess who:

Quote

Guys, I've spent an exhausting afternoon/evening in discussion with the team. It is a source of continual comfort that I have them 'at my back' so to speak. And more to the point - that I can count on their input when and as required. For the record - we have a policy in place. They do not engage in these forums. They're professionals and - to a man - rely on their skills to earn their living. It would be suicidal to those interests for any of them to come forward on these forums and enter into a discussion with the likes of picowat et al. Their aggression is too untrammeled - too unprofessional and WAY TOO UNSCIENTIFIC to merit the risk of engagement. They'd be 'sullied' by association.

Oh my God the sleaze factor is so gross. How things can get so topsy-turvy in the creepy little world of Rosie Posie is beyond me. I have seen her trash good skilled people over and over again. It's simply disgusting.

Then we have a kind of concession juxtaposed with Club Wackadoo oozing more woo:

Quote

even a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy.

And this woman claims that she has a "team" behind her backing her up, "They're professionals and - to a man - rely on their skills to earn their living."

Well, I hope that they are reading here. I hope over the next few weeks this nonsense gets swatted like a bug and never comes back. I am so sick of it.

MileHigh

Quoting Genesis (the musical group):

There's something solid forming in the air,
The wall of death is lowered in Times Square.
No-one seems to care,
They carry on as if nothing was there.
The wind is blowing harder now,
Blowing dust into my eyes.
The dust settles on my skin,
Making a crust I cannot move in
And I'm hovering like a fly............. waiting for the windshield on the freeway.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013 (Read 219412 times)

picowatt

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

picowatt

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

picowatt

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

picowatt

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

picowatt

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

MileHigh

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013