So how did her claims of "ten times more" become five times more, and the required resistor power become five Watts instead of, what, 7 or 8 that she has been claiming? I think she should have to prove her actual claims, not some watered-down version that she wheedled out of Weir. But there it is, along with an additional 20 percent "fudge factor".

At least they plan to use all six batteries, and to set the FG and leave it set at one set of settings during the entire demonstration.

It is important to realize that the load resistor will likely heat substantially _during the setup and tuning phase_ , Test Phase 1, before the desired waveforms are attained and the FG is "locked down" to those settings. It is also possible that the new 1 ohm, 5 Watt resistor at the Battery Negative Pole will be overstressed during this tuning phase, because with six batteries the circuit is capable of drawing 5 amps or more with certain FG settings. (I see that they have this resistor shorted on the schematic during this phase. OK, that will protect it.)

It is also +very important+ to assure that there is NO Q1 ON time at all, that the Vgs during Gate HI times is well below the turnon threshold. With a battery supply of 72 volts or more, even a tiny bit of Q1 current will allow the load to dissipate more than 5 Watts -- and Ainslie will claim that "since the Q1 is off" all the power must be from the oscillations. A Vgs of +4 volts WILL MOST DEFINITELY turn the Q1 on significantly.

Did I miss something? I don't see anywhere in the document the specification that the Function Generator used -must- be ground-isolated ("lifted", floating"), since its Black output is connected in a different location from the grounded Scope Probe references. I think it is important to have this specified and agreed to in writing, for the record. The scope traces will reveal instantly whether or not the FG is properly ground-isolated, if the schematics in the document are actually used by Ainslie and Martin. (How will the correct wiring be verified?)

I am somewhat disappointed that more of Ainslie's specific claims aren't going to be examined in detail. I would especially like to see her boil 750 mL of water, at 104 degrees C, using the settings she claimed to do this with in the papers.

I think this is the link
(Google not youtube)
https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/e16faa026ec218fc5658b1e6909b700137672b1d


I received a message to pass it on
I hope that is ok


Kind reagrds

I think this is the link
(Google not youtube)
https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/e16faa026ec218fc5658b1e6909b700137672b1d


I received a message to pass it on
I hope that is ok


Kind reagrds

Hi Mark,

Something is 'fishy' with that link. I have a google mail account which is needed for to proceed (besides Google + ) but when click on the above link, the Google + says: "My browser is no longer supported, please upgrade." and offers Chroma, Internet Explorer, Firefox and Safari. The thing is I use Firefox, latest version...   So others like TK beware... LOL

Thanks and this is no problem for me of course,

Gyula

all is well for tomorrows public demonstration
I will post the youtube link when I have it
Many Thanks
Mark

We need a new category: Top Secret Open Source.

Summary:

Phase 1 Pbat = -112W
Phase 3 Pbat = +4.6W

As a result Rose has conceded she has been wrong all along.

Ding dong the (free energy) pitch is dead!

All that talk by Rosemary about "science" when she was clearly anti-science.  Her willful refusal to listen to people that are EXPERTS and her willful refusal to accept EVIDENCE like Poynt's video clip from a month ago that showed her mistakes and the proper measurement technique are a testament to her quixotic megalomania.

Time to turn the page...