Author Topic: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013 (Read 100873 times)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #120 on:** August 11, 2013, 07:45:59 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPFoL2V5GkE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tReHHljgdjQ

poynt99 · « **Reply #121 on:** August 11, 2013, 10:02:03 PM »

TK,

The idea, if I understand the outline correctly, was to allow their team to adjust the FG settings to however they wished until they were happy with their wave form and Pbat results. Then it was to be left alone for the bulk of the following tests.

Sure, Phase 5 was not performed (until today after the demo), but neither was Phase 4 either today or yesterday. The most important tests WERE performed and the results were black and white.

So obviously the FG setting is not that critical when all they are doing is making sure there is virtually no current from Q1 (hence the <+4V pos. excursion), and ensuring there is a nice oscillation in Q2 with an associated negative MEAN Pbat of some starting point value. Every MOSFET is going to have a different Vgs, so matching the FG voltages to the mV is overkill. If anything you may want to just try to match their Pbat value with your own setting, or perhaps match the V-swing on the battery or CSR trace.

I've given you the FG values as per the settings used for the demos yesterday and today, so what's the problem? The only one you need to adjust is the negative excursion, and it is going to be between -14V and -15V, as per the scope shot, which I have attached here. There are also 3 other scope shots Steve captured.

.99

poynt99 · « **Reply #122 on:** August 11, 2013, 10:53:49 PM »

TK,

Further to the Phase 5 scope shot, you will notice that the positive excursion shown is close to 5V magnitude. Unfortunately, this shot was taken after the demo had been declared "over", and Rose was tweaking the settings on the FG in anticipation of trying that other test with the Q1 oscillations.

Obviously during the demo testing the POS excursion could not have been set to 5V (it was actually set to about 3V as seen in the "Phase2_function_generator_preferred_settings.png" scope shot). So it is possible the negative excursion was something other than -14V or -15V. We DO know that the OFFSET setting for this shot was at the original position for the testing. Analyzing the scope shot, it appears to swing from +5V to -14V. If the setting used in the demo testing was with a +3V positive excursion, and the OFFSET was not changed, the negative excursion would have been -12V, if I have done my math correctly.

So, I submit that the FG settings used for the demo testing were:

FG Frequency: 1kHz
FG Duty Cycle: 20%
FG POS: +3V
FG NEG: -12V

I also know that the OFFSET was NOT adjusted to the full negative setting except for the "Phase2_function_generator_max_negative.png" scope shot.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #123 on:** August 11, 2013, 11:20:31 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on August 11, 2013, 10:02:03 PM

TK,

The idea, if I understand the outline correctly, was to allow their team to adjust the FG settings to however they wished until they were happy with their wave form and Pbat results. Then it was to be left alone for the bulk of the following tests.

Yes, that is right and that is what was published and what was agreed to by all parties. So why wasn't it done?

Never mind, I know why.

Quote

Sure, Phase 5 was not performed (until today after the demo), but neither was Phase 4 either today or yesterday. The most important tests WERE performed and the results were black and white.

So obviously the FG setting is not that critical when all they are doing is making sure there is virtually no current from Q1 (hence the <+4V pos. excursion), and ensuring there is a nice oscillation in Q2 with an associated negative MEAN Pbat of some starting point value. Every MOSFET is going to have a different Vgs, so matching the FG voltages to the mV is overkill. If anything you may want to just try to match their Pbat value with your own setting, or perhaps match the V-swing on the battery or CSR trace.

You are missing the point. An experiment examines the effect of an Independent variable under the control of the experimenter, upon a Dependent variable that is the "output" measurement. In this entire Ainslie affair, the only real "independent variable" is the Function Generator Setting! A real scientist would have, in fact, plotted the relationship between the negative offset voltage and the resultant computed negative power product (or correctly computed one) to find the "optimum" setting for whatever effect was desired! This might have taken an entire afternoon, to generate a proper series of plots of the relationship between the _exact_ FG settings and the observed calculated power. The same thing should have been done relating the FG settings to the heat output measured at the load resistor ! This might have taken an entire day to do... by a team of real experimenters who understood how to elucidate the behaviour of a circuit.
Instead, after THIRTEEN YEARS.... we now have a single data point: a function generator setting and a corresponding power output. But how do we know that this is optimum? We do not. Perhaps Ainslie just needs to tweak the offset a tiny bit more or less, or use a tiny bit more amplitude, for her magic to appear in spite of the proper measurements. Without knowing the relationship.... you are hand-waving just as much as she is.

Quote

I've given you the FG values as per the settings used for the demos yesterday and today, so what's the problem? The only one you need to adjust is the negative excursion, and it is going to be between -14V and -15V, as per the scope shot, which I have attached here. There are also 3 other scope shots Steve captured.

.99

The problem -- in addition to the basic IV-DV thing -- is that my input was not accepted, it was ignored, I was frozen out, and even now you don't think that the issues I have identified are important. That is a problem. How many hours do you think I have expended, working and explaining all features of this circuit to whomever was interested, and using accessible equipment and procedures? I have made _half a terabyte_ of instructional and research video material on this circuit alone.

Another problem is that there is seemingly no video record of anything significant. Today's demo showed at least 45 minutes of setup and scrambling around, and the really important stuff happened, apparently, after the feed cut off.... and probably would not have happened at all if I wasn't jumping up and down about it. And yesterday.... by the prophet's beard. I will never get to see whatever happened then.

How would YOU feel, .99, if you had not been allowed to be there, yesterday or today, and could not get a simple basic measurement done that would take three minutes for a competent "team" to perform? You have done a lot of work too.... and S Weir is only there because one of his friends read _my posts_ on another forum and got interested. So for me to be "cut out" by the newcomers is really galling and I know that you felt the same way when you thought you might not be allowed to participate.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #124 on:** August 11, 2013, 11:22:02 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on August 11, 2013, 10:53:49 PM

TK,

Further to the Phase 5 scope shot, you will notice that the positive excursion shown is close to 5V magnitude. Unfortunately, this shot was taken after the demo had been declared "over", and Rose was tweaking the settings on the FG in anticipation of trying that other test with the Q1 oscillations.

Obviously during the demo testing the POS excursion could not have been set to 5V (it was actually set to about 3V as seen in the "Phase2_function_generator_preferred_settings.png" scope shot). So it is possible the negative excursion was something other than -14V or -15V. We DO know that the OFFSET setting for this shot was at the original position for the testing. Analyzing the scope shot, it appears to swing from +5V to -14V. If the setting used in the demo testing was with a +3V positive excursion, and the OFFSET was not changed, the negative excursion would have been -12V, if I have done my math correctly.

So, I submit that the FG settings used for the demo testing were:

FG Frequency: 1kHz
FG Duty Cycle: 20%
FG POS: +3V
FG NEG: -12V

I also know that the OFFSET was NOT adjusted to the full negative setting except for the "Phase2_function_generator_max_negative.png" scope shot.

Thank you for proving my point.

The settings used are unknown, and can only be inferred or guessed at from the circumstances.

"We DO know that the OFFSET setting for this shot was at the original position for the testing"
Actually I don't think you know even that much. The knob was set back to the "dot" on the bit of tape during the public feed ... but the power value was different slightly the second time it was set back to the dot. So the setting was probably off a little bit. Without actual measurements you can't know!

You can know this though: Unlike your HP pulse generator, the FG that Ainslie uses sets the amplitude Peak-to-Peak. This means you cannot simply leave the offset set to "negative 12" and then freely vary the amplitude knob so that the positive voltage goes from three to five volts... without also resetting the offset knob to maintain your "negative 12" or whatever. Even if the knob is on the negative stop, changing the amplitude will still change the voltage (or current) levels at both the HI and the LO portions of the signal until the actual rails of the FG are reached.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #125 on:** August 11, 2013, 11:45:53 PM »

I don't want this to get buried. The Papers are still up, on Ainslie's blog and on Rossi's JNP. It has been known for over a month that the data in those papers is fraudulent and erroneous. (Figure 3 Paper 1 is fraudulent because it was not made under the conditions claimed, all the rest are errors _at best_ due to the factors which are now fully understood and accepted. Right.)

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2013, 03:58:26 PM

Oh, it is not over, not by a long shot. It won't be over until Ainslie and Martin perform the following acts.

1. Rosemary Ainslie MUST remove all versions, all links, to the two papers IMMEDIATELY. She MUST contact Rossi's JNP and retract those posts of those papers there right away and issue statements of retraction with explanations to be posted there, as soon as possible.

2. Donovan Martin MUST assure that Ainslie complies. He surely does not want or need to have his name associated with these papers that contain FABRICATED DATA, misrepresentations of experimental procedures, outright lies, and totally false claims of excess power and energy. Donovan Martin should, by all rights, issue HIS OWN statement of retraction/repudiation, as he has been used, mercilessly, by the dishonest Ainslie to further her own goals, without regard for accuracy or fact.

3. The Quantum Magazine article, which includes a schematic that produces the exact inverse of her claimed duty cycle, MUST be retracted as well, since it contains the same bogus measurement technique and makes the same unfounded claims, in addition to having the impossible schematic.

4. Ainslie MUST issue a full and comprehensive ERROR REPORT that describes her errors, how to correct them and what the conclusions are when correct data is collected and proper analysis and interpretations are performed.

5. Ainslie MUST write retractions and explanations for the "open letters" and failed demonstration announcements that she has recently made on PESN and Mark Dansie's Revolution-Green websites and discussion forums. This should be done as soon as possible.

Anything short of full and honest and direct performance of the above will indicate that the team of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin are not interested in science at all -- for those things are WHAT SCIENTISTS DO when their data, or data they are associated with, is proven wrong.

Further:

6. Ainslie MUST issue INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL apologies, sincere, complete and public apologies, to those she has insulted, lied to and slighted with disrespect over all these years. Here is just a partial list:

-The Boss, one of her longest-term critics, who has been following her case for 13 years or more
-The Naked Scientists Forum and their moderators
-The Energetic Forum, and Aaron and Ashtweth in particular
-FuzzyTomCat (Glen Lettermeier) -- she has especially slighted Glen and he deserves a totally abject and complete apology from Ainslie.
-Harvey -- ditto.
-Tektronix (for misrepresenting their involvement when she had a loaner scope from them)
-Coast-to-Coast Radio, George Noory and Art Bell
-Professor Kahn
-this forum, Stefan Hartmann in particular
-PicoWatt, MileHigh, poynt99 and other individuals on this forum

Anything short of full and honest and direct performance of the above will indicate that Rosemary Ainslie is bereft of conscience, incapable of shame, doesn't take responsibility for her actions, and is a troll queen of the first magnitude.

(She has even admitted that she doesn't really believe that my name is Bryan Little.... she has just been deliberately trying to "push my buttons" whenever she uses that name in reference to me!!! In short, the very definition of an internet troll.)

poynt99 · « **Reply #126 on:** August 12, 2013, 12:14:12 AM »

Steve Weir's updated version of the Demonstration Outline.

poynt99 · « **Reply #127 on:** August 12, 2013, 12:23:10 AM »

TK,

You need to calm down.

poynt99 · « **Reply #128 on:** August 12, 2013, 02:17:18 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2013, 11:20:31 PM

Yes, that is right and that is what was published and what was agreed to by all parties. So why wasn't it done?

Never mind, I know why.

It was done. The FG settings as far as I know, weren't changed until the demo was over.

Quote

You are missing the point. An experiment examines the effect of an Independent variable under the control of the experimenter, upon a Dependent variable that is the "output" measurement. In this entire Ainslie affair, the only real "independent variable" is the Function Generator Setting! A real scientist would have, in fact, plotted the relationship between the negative offset voltage and the resultant computed negative power product (or correctly computed one) to find the "optimum" setting for whatever effect was desired! This might have taken an entire afternoon, to generate a proper series of plots of the relationship between the _exact_ FG settings and the observed calculated power. The same thing should have been done relating the FG settings to the heat output measured at the load resistor ! This might have taken an entire day to do... by a team of real experimenters who understood how to elucidate the behaviour of a circuit.
Instead, after THIRTEEN YEARS.... we now have a single data point: a function generator setting and a corresponding power output. But how do we know that this is optimum? We do not. Perhaps Ainslie just needs to tweak the offset a tiny bit more or less, or use a tiny bit more amplitude, for her magic to appear in spite of the proper measurements. Without knowing the relationship.... you are hand-waving just as much as she is.

I think you are projecting your own point to the situation.

I don't recall a single time when "optimization" of the Q2 oscillation was ever discussed by you, me, or Rose for that matter. Sure, it could be done, and could have been done as part of the demo outline, but there was never any emphasis placed on optimization to the degree you are discussing. I think you are over-emphasizing the need to do this, and it is not required at all to obtain reliable results. Are you questioning the results that were obtained in the demos? Were the two Pbat measurements not diametrically opposed to enough of an extreme? Do you not agree that a Pbat of -115W is anomalous enough? Perhaps you have missed the point of the demo; it certainly was not to spend a great deal of time to optimize the Pbat measurement resulting from the Q2 oscillation. That is not even delineated in the demo outline. And I think the -115W Q2 Pbat at the peg board was a reasonable obtained value anyway, and I'm sure Steve and Rose would agree. After all, it was her and Donny that adjusted the FG to their own satisfaction, right?

Quote

The problem -- in addition to the basic IV-DV thing -- is that my input was not accepted, it was ignored, I was frozen out, and even now you don't think that the issues I have identified are important. That is a problem. How many hours do you think I have expended, working and explaining all features of this circuit to whomever was interested, and using accessible equipment and procedures? I have made _half a terabyte_ of instructional and research video material on this circuit alone.

I am fully aware of how much work you have put in to this thing, and you should recall how much I have put in also. But the fact is that neither of us was ever able to engage Rose to the point she would do any of the tests we recommended. I am happy that she conceded to do even these two tests, i.e. the Pbat from two locations, and the FG power. Of course there are a dozen or more tests that could have been done, but you and I had no say in that right? Rose chose what tests she wanted to prove and as far as I am concerned, they were enough to put the whole thing to bed. Thank you TK for ultimately causing Steve to come on-board to get this saga resolved. We'd still be arguing about zippons and inductive reactance etc. had this day not come!

Quote

Another problem is that there is seemingly no video record of anything significant. Today's demo showed at least 45 minutes of setup and scrambling around, and the really important stuff happened, apparently, after the feed cut off.... and probably would not have happened at all if I wasn't jumping up and down about it. And yesterday.... by the prophet's beard. I will never get to see whatever happened then.

How would YOU feel, .99, if you had not been allowed to be there, yesterday or today, and could not get a simple basic measurement done that would take three minutes for a competent "team" to perform? You have done a lot of work too.... and S Weir is only there because one of his friends read _my posts_ on another forum and got interested. So for me to be "cut out" by the newcomers is really galling and I know that you felt the same way when you thought you might not be allowed to participate.

We tried a new program to video-capture the desktop, and it turned out to be a bad choice. The program crashed and/or corrupted the video file and it used up a lot of swap disk space which was not anticipated. Sorry, but that is how it turned out. Where shall I go to receive my 50 lashes?

I was fully ready to accept that I might not have the opportunity to witness the Saturday dry run, and I was OK with that. I had 100% confidence that the results would vindicate our case and that Steve would conduct the demonstration in a fair and professional manner. The fact that I got in was pure chance; Rose had already rejected the idea, but I thought I would ask one last time for the heck of it. She reluctantly accepted. But again, yes I would have been disappointed had I not got in, but content enough knowing that Sunday's demo would be available for viewing.

poynt99 · « **Reply #129 on:** August 12, 2013, 02:23:52 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 11, 2013, 11:22:02 PM

You can know this though: Unlike your HP pulse generator, the FG that Ainslie uses sets the amplitude Peak-to-Peak. This means you cannot simply leave the offset set to "negative 12" and then freely vary the amplitude knob so that the positive voltage goes from three to five volts... without also resetting the offset knob to maintain your "negative 12" or whatever. Even if the knob is on the negative stop, changing the amplitude will still change the voltage (or current) levels at both the HI and the LO portions of the signal until the actual rails of the FG are reached.

My assumption, and it may be wrong, is that with an output setting of +5V and negative -14V, AND with the OFFSET knob at its original position, decreasing the P-P level which causes the +5V excursion to drop to +3V, will also decrease the negative peak amplitude from -14V to -12V.

MileHigh · « **Reply #130 on:** August 12, 2013, 03:16:42 AM »

You know, I have looked at YouTube clips of a guy experimenting with magnets, and he is basically clueless. He can't understand what he is looking at and believes that he is observing some kind of amazing phenomenon. However, if you paid attention during Grade Eight General Science class you would easily understand what was happening in this guy's "experiments."

This guy is a leading promoter and speaker in the free energy and alternative science scene.

Rosemary played with a MOSFET switching circuit for years and barely understood what she was doing. She must have been told a few hundred times that the voltages she was seeing were not the true battery voltage, they were due to the inductance in the wiring reacting to the switching. She flatly refused to accept this until it was staring her in the face. She ignored or simply did not understand Poynt's "three measurement techniques" video from a month ago that clearly showed the problem and the solution and the proper measurement showing no over unity. His circuit was a very very good emulation of Rosemary's circuit.

It's all over for Rosemary's circuit when a proper test setup is finally done and there are competent people involved.

John Bedini builds a "Windmill motor" for one of his conferences. People are in awe. But what does it really do? Nobody knows. He makes a laughable and ridiculous comment about the setup having to be different in the Northern hemisphere as compared to the Southern hemisphere. Nobody makes a comment questioning that point.

A few years later the "Windmill motor" is put up for sale and if I recall correctly it is simply sold for scrap metal.

In the vast majority of cases, this stuff is so far removed from serious academia and real-world science and engineering that it's not funny. There is no peer review, there is no serious research, there is no practical technology to engineer into a product. The same thing applies to Sterling Allen's endeavours, they are almost surreal sometimes.

So there is no reason to take the end of the line for Rosemary's MOSFET switching circuit seriously. Everybody should just chill out now, the Wild Rosemary Zipon, Dog and Pony Show is finally over.

There is a hypothetical crowd funding project out there to document the stories and intrigues that have taken place in the free energy cottage industry. It would make some people blush and really muffle some of the high-profile players in this game. If it went viral it would be a shock to the free energy cottage industry, a tsunami and an earthquake combined. Perhaps some filmmaker out there that is interested in the social and scientific issues relating to these phenomena will one day pick up the torch. The film would be presented from the perspective of the majority. i.e.; a person with average common sense and a decent understanding of science.

Thank God it's over. My advice is for everybody to move on. It was all just a blip, albeit a very long and time consuming blip.

MileHigh

SeaMonkey · « **Reply #131 on:** August 12, 2013, 04:42:37 AM »

Very, very sensible suggestion MileHigh.

TK, your tantrum is most unbecoming.

Where's the Love?

Farmhand · « **Reply #132 on:** August 12, 2013, 10:42:07 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2013, 03:16:42 AM

There is a hypothetical crowd funding project out there to document the stories and intrigues that have taken place in the free energy cottage industry. It would make some people blush and really muffle some of the high-profile players in this game. If it went viral it would be a shock to the free energy cottage industry, a tsunami and an earthquake combined. Perhaps some filmmaker out there that is interested in the social and scientific issues relating to these phenomena will one day pick up the torch. The film would be presented from the perspective of the majority. i.e.; a person with average common sense and a decent understanding of science.

MileHigh

Hi MileHigh, I snipped your post to say. I really like that idea. 100% support here. I would donate and /or participate in that if asked and if I thought it would help,
but I don't think there would be any lack of content for such a documentary, I'm just one of thousands.

And we just like the right to Tinker and experiment
to look for new ways to get some work for "free" ( same as in hydro, wind or solar "free" ) but different. And learn as we go along.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank all you Educated, Trained and Patient guys that do things to help. Much appreciated.

Cheers

P.S. I guess I'm saying I wish the word "hypothetical" from my Quote of you above was not there in the quote. hehe

..

TinselKoala · « **Reply #133 on:** August 12, 2013, 11:56:44 AM »

Do you think it's over? No, it is not over at all. The lying hypocritical troll is at it again.

Here's what she has to say this morning:

Quote

We have always and ONLY reported our findings honestly. With ever greater levels of accuracy - as required. Sadly the ultimate accuracy rather contradicted the first claim. Kudos to those who predicted this. And I need NO justification in ignoring those many who told me our numbers were faulted. I simply do not nor will engage with that or any level of calumny and insult. The very first requirement would be some level of courtesy.

The very FIRST requirement will be for you to STOP YOUR LIES AND INSULTS, Ainslie. The Figure 3 scopeshot that graces your papers THAT ARE STILL UP WITH NO RETRACTION OR ERRATA is FRADULENT, FABRICATED and is a lie. All the rest of your data is wrong and NOT ACCURATE AT ALL. For you to say you reported your findings "honestly" and "accurately" beggars the very definition of those terms. FIGURE 3 IS FRAUDULENT and this was PROVEN by you yourself on June 29 2013.

And there is NO JUSTIFICATION for your overweening arrogance and your willful ignorance. The "CALUMNY" as you call it began when you refused to acknowledge your MAJOR ERRORS around the Quantum Article. Don't forget , lying troll, that I have it ALL DOCUMENTED. I can point to the very first insult YOU dished out to me, lying troll Ainslie.

And here is what the lying troll hypocrite Ainslie has to say in the VERY NEXT POST after the above:

TinselKoala · « **Reply #134 on:** August 12, 2013, 12:03:17 PM »

The idiot can not remain silent, but must continue her insults and hypocrisy. The ignorant troll PERSISTS with her false claims of honesty and accuracy and PERSISTS with her egregious insults.

The bogus manuscripts are STILL UP.

I was willing to let it stop, I did not intend to post. But she has now determined the future course of action.

I WILL NOT REST until the ignorant arrogant troll complies with EVERY ITEM IN MY LIST above, starting with the retraction of the papers.

I WILL NOT REST until Donovan Martin issues some kind of statement of error for HIS ROLE in perpetrating Ainslie's fraudulent claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013 (Read 100873 times)

TinselKoala

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

poynt99

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

poynt99

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

TinselKoala

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

TinselKoala

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

TinselKoala

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

poynt99

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

poynt99

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

poynt99

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

poynt99

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

MileHigh

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

SeaMonkey

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

Farmhand

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

TinselKoala

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

TinselKoala

Re: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013