Author Topic: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013 (Read 100872 times)

powercat · « **Reply #150 on:** August 13, 2013, 09:50:14 AM »

Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 13, 2013, 03:18:18 AM

Rosemary is an honorable woman

If that was the case she would immediately retract the paper and her claim of OU, as time goes by it is looking more like she is a deceitful woman and not at all honorable.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #151 on:** August 13, 2013, 11:49:48 AM »

Quote from: powercat on August 13, 2013, 09:50:14 AM

If that was the case she would immediately retract the paper and her claim of OU, as time goes by it is looking more like she is a deceitful woman and not at all honorable.

That is correct. Yet, today, the papers are STILL UP, no retraction or errata report has been issued.... and she has announced her intention to try to reproduce the Quantum Magazine claims!

That is right: She intends to try to reproduce the Quantum Magazine article, that had the 555 timer circuit that CANNOT POSSIBLY produce the duty cycle that Ainslie claimed to use, but rather produces the EXACT INVERSE DUTY CYCLE, which means that she was using a 96 percent ON duty cycle instead of the 4 percent (or 3.7 or whatever short) ON duty cycle.

So once again we are in the SAME SITUATION as the "figure 3". The published circuit CANNOT produce the claimed performance, so either her thermal data is made with a different circuit than what is claimed, or it IS made with the published circuit. Either way, the paper is another compendium of lies and errors.

This fact has been known DEFINITELY since at least 2009. Yet Ainslie has never withdrawn or posted any corrections to this "paper". The argument over the 555 timer circuit in this "paper" is where I came into this story.... when I built the circuit and found, JUST AS GMEAST DID RECENTLY, that it "did not work" or rather worked very differently than claimed. (At that time she was still claiming she "had a patent", when really it was just a lapsed WIPO application, something that anyone can "have" and which is meaningless.) Again... this is NOT A SIMPLE ERROR. The timer circuit is specifically designed to make the duty cycle it makes, and no transposition of parts or miswiring can produce the _exact inverse_ of the desired cycle.

Ainslie's confusion comes from the fact that she did not, and perhaps still does not, understand that the voltage at the DRAIN of her mosfet will be HIGH when the power to the load is OFF (mosfet off). So she sees a 4 percent HI signal at the mosfet Drain and thinks that means she has a 4 percent ON duty cycle at the load.

Her 2009-2010 "replicators" Aaron and Ashtweth at Energetic Forum made the same conceptual mistake, and so I had to make a few very elementary videos illustrating their error.

This argument went on far longer than it might have with _cooperative claimants_ and even resulted in Aaron suggesting I try a specific circuit .... but of course he had not tried it himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
I was banned from EF shortly after that, for my insistence on FACT and TRUTH. It wasn't too much later that Aaron and Ashtweth found out that I was actually right all along, and they wound up turning against Ainslie too and banning HER !!

So, just as I predicted: It is not over. Ainslie persists in her madness, her distortions, and her lies. The Quantum Magazine article is a lie! Anyone who builds the published circuit can see this for themselves.

And if she eliminates the 555, uses a FG or a negative bias supply..... then she simply has the same circuit as the NERD 5-mosfet circuit but without the magic "Q-array" !! Just a "q1". It is to laugh. Will Donovan Martin again allow his name to be used? Her former Quantum Magazine co-author BC Buckley is unavailable-- let Ainslie tell us why.

(Don't forget, Ainslie.... there is a fourth "paper" that you must also withdraw, IF YOU ARE HONORABLE..... the "EIT" paper.)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #152 on:** August 13, 2013, 12:14:55 PM »

Ainslie and Martin both claimed, several times, that the original apparatus used in the Quantum magazine report was "sent off" and was never returned, it was lost. But now, just a few days ago, she announced that she still has the apparatus after all, and has had it all this time.

How convenient! When it was important to see and test this apparatus, back in 2009, it was "lost" according to Ainslie and Martin. But now it's found! Amazing Grace!

Great ! Then she will have no problem at all illustrating that the 555 Timer circuit she used is _different_ from that published, and that the circuit she DID use does make the duty cycle she claimed to use.

You know I -- OR ANYONE COMPETENT -- could, AND WOULD, immediately demonstrate this in a five minute video. But then, I'm not making OU claims.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #153 on:** August 13, 2013, 01:14:54 PM »

So just where is the magic going to come from in Ainslie's planned return to the Quantum magazine circuit? The 555 timer?

I submit two schematics below. Compare, contrast, discuss.

poynt99 · « **Reply #154 on:** August 13, 2013, 03:21:28 PM »

Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 13, 2013, 07:18:36 AM

On the basis of empirically acquired understanding.

It is essential that the inductance be as near perfect
as is practicable and that the switching mechanism
to steer flyback pulses to the heating element be as
near lossless as is possible. The switching controllers
used in state of the art switching supplies will simplify
the process. Some have external inputs to vary
frequency, pulse width and dead time.

Why not show us your empirical results?

TinselKoala · « **Reply #155 on:** August 13, 2013, 06:48:33 PM »

It is now Tuesday evening, suppertime, about, on the 13th of August, in Cape Town.

Yet the links to the two false and mendacious Rosemary Ainslie - Donovan Martin "papers" are still up, still active on Ainslie's blog.

Both papers, with their schematics that conflict with each other, as well as with the Truth, are also still up, still posted on Rossi's JNP blog.

No statements of retraction or error accompany these false and mendacious papers bearing the names of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin.

Furthermore, the "EIT" paper is still available on ScribD, and the Quantum article is also still up. Every one of these documents contains the same faulty data, the same bad measurements and the same false claims. In addition the Quantum article contains yet another false schematic, or a false representation of the duty cycle they used, and this has been known since 2009 at least.

When will these false and mendacious documents and claims be retracted? Every day... nay, every _minute_ that they remain up is a separate outrage, because the authors KNOW that the papers and the claims they contain are WRONG.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #156 on:** August 13, 2013, 06:55:17 PM »

This is an excerpt from the "open letter" to "Academics" that Ainslie had Mark Dansie post on his website.

Quote

A small team of us, here in South Africa, have attempted to alert you to the experimental evidence that contradicts this creed, this belief, that is loosely based on QED which, itself is only a partial theory. These efforts have spanned a dozen years and have been systematically resisted. Your own representatives, Professor Gaunt (UCT) and Deon Kallis (CPUT) have allowed a peripheral engagement and both established certain target results which, having been reached, they both claimed would represent ‘conclusive’ proof. We have reached and indeed, exceeded those targets. Therefore is the proof incontrovertible, based as it is on experimental evidence and carefully measured results. It has been widely replicated on open source. And it is certainly repeatable and demonstrably so. Therefore, also, does it fall within the required parameters of ‘science’. The results raise profound questions related to the material structure of current flow – which is widely, but erroneously, assumed to be the flow of electrons. And it points to the promise of an energy supply source that, potentially, could rid us all of our grid dependencies.

Since she now knows and acknowledges that all of this is wrong, false, error ... then she will OF COURSE be writing a corresponding Open Letter of Retraction to these same "academics" that she has sought to mislead, to be posted on Mark's blog.

Won't she?

Would that not be the HONORABLE thing to do? What would YOU do, Sea Monkey?

TinselKoala · « **Reply #157 on:** August 13, 2013, 07:07:11 PM »

And OF COURSE, since she is "Honorable", she will be writing a letter to Sterling at PESN, apologizing for and correcting the false claims made in the letter she wrote to HIM, posted on PESN and copied here in part:

Quote

Dear Sterling,

Thank you for your contribution to our cause in publishing our demonstration for academic experts, intended for today, being June 1. Sadly our learned and revered have expressed no interest in attending it. However, as the 'mountain won't go to Mahomet' we've proposed that 'Mahomet go to the mountain'. To this end I made a proposal - yet to be agreed to - that we take our experimental apparatus to campus. I've also been explicit in that proposal that we do not require the attendance of all, or indeed of any of those staff members - in the science faculties. While attendance would be preferred, it is enough that we do that demonstration at the appropriate address to show the following anomalies.

1 - We have incontrovertible measured proof that there is more energy being returned to a battery supply source than was first delivered.

2 - We generate an alternating current over a circuit during a switching period when the battery is disconnected.

3 - We generate anomalous heat signatures over a resistor element

4 - We propose that we are exposing a hitherto overlooked benefit in counter electromotive force where one half of each cycle is generated from the circuit material itself. This conforms to Einstein's mass/energy equivalence.

5 - We further propose that we are exposing the locality of the Higgs Boson being in a magnetic field - that we further propose comprises this material structure.

6 - Our model predicted the exposure of these measurement anomalies and our experimental apparatus was designed to prove this material structure to both a magnetic field and electric current.

Our quest to bring this to the attention of academics is required, because the burden of proof on all exotic claims has been placed on open source to promote this evidence. And Open Source is grossly infected with with a rash of disclaimants who are not personally accountable for their comments nor for the scientific merit of their proposed arguments against the evidence. This has resulted in noise that has dogged the heels of all such claims and has greatly contributed to the general impression that over unity research is related to 'pathological science'. Over unity research cannot ever be managed while all claims are accompanied by freely expressed denials that have little if any scientific merit.

Ainslie, you have done more to contribute to the "general impression that over unity research is related to 'pathological science' " than any other individual I can think of, with the possible exception of Joe Newman.

"...the scientific merit of their proposed arguments against the evidence...."

Well, we now know where the scientific merit lies, and it certainly isn't with you, Ainslie, or your foil Donovan Martin. All your critics have been right all along, and it is because they know and understand just what "scientific merit" consists of: Well formed falsifiable hypotheses, tested by solid experimental procedures, measured and analyzed properly and interpreted in the light of all available information, reported factually and honestly for review by knowledgeable others. None of which were engaged in by the team of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #158 on:** August 13, 2013, 08:00:43 PM »

Honorable?

Posting yesterday, posting today, in various threads, even threads whose very titles are insulting....

But no postings for well over a year in the "Corrections" thread.

And of course, the links to the bogus and false "papers" are still up.

SeaMonkey · « **Reply #159 on:** August 14, 2013, 02:30:58 AM »

Rosemary will probably not deconstruct error
in the manner or on the timetable which certain
male belligerents would demand, but I have faith
and confidence that in due time it will be done.

After all, even in the esteemed worlds of Academia
and Scientific Research, retraction of error generally
does not occur immediately, if ever. Patience Boys,
remember you're dealing with a Woman!

Most Women respond very favorably to kindness.

Quote from: 0.99

Why not show us your empirical results?

In essence, I already have. In fact, I've provided more
than I typically received during my Advanced Training
in Problem Solving where we were expected to digest
minimal specifications; then proceed to innovate, improvise,
research, evaluate and experiment until we produced the
desired effects or results. Sometimes spectacularly.

Exact Replication of any project has its pitfalls. When
our imaginations are challenged we often surprise
ourselves.

poynt99 · « **Reply #160 on:** August 14, 2013, 03:56:23 AM »

Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 14, 2013, 02:30:58 AM

In essence, I already have.

Could you repost that or post a ink to it please?

SeaMonkey · « **Reply #161 on:** August 14, 2013, 06:46:53 AM »

Quote from: 0.99

Could you repost that or post a ink to it please?

Perhaps you'd tell me what it is precisely that
you are seeking?

gyulasun · « **Reply #162 on:** August 14, 2013, 12:53:20 PM »

Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 13, 2013, 03:18:18 AM

...
Someone, in due time, will discover the optimum ratio of External Inductance to Heater Resistance and with an efficient switching scheme make the concept work. GMEast continues work on his adaptation and may make the necessary adjustments.

The intrinsic inductance of the heater coil is insufficient.

Quote from: SeaMonkey on August 13, 2013, 07:18:36 AM

On the basis of empirically acquired understanding.

It is essential that the inductance be as near perfect as is practicable and that the switching mechanism to steer flyback pulses to the heating element be as near lossless as is possible. The switching controllers used in state of the art switching supplies will simplify the process. Some have external inputs to vary frequency, pulse width and dead time.

Hi SeaMonkey,

Reading your posts above, I assume you would use a much higher value inductance in series with the heating element than the heating element itself has (which was about 8-10 uH in RA's setup if I recall it correctly). If this is what you meant, then using a higher value inductance you have to consider the increased impedance this series R-L combination involves, because using the same pulse frequency for the heating element first without a higher value series inductance in the same setup and then with it, it must be obvious that the current via the heating element can only be less when the higher value inductance is in series with it just because the increased impedance cannot let the same current flow via the heating element than in the no inductance case.
AND the moment you steer the energy stored in the inductance back to the heating element, you simply supply back part of the input energy which did not get to the heating element due to the inductance in series with it (an R-L voltage divider from the supply voltage point of view).

One more notice: the energy stored in an inductance is E=(L*I²)/2 and let's take a heating element with 10 uH self inductance and 1 Amper current flowing in it. The stored energy would be 0.000005 Joule, this is what you could steer back to the heating element in an ideal case. I know you noticed that the intrinsic inductance of the heater element is unsufficient, I just wished to emphasize how small energy can be recovered from heating elements.
Of course, using higher inductance value coils with very low loss factors and with sophisticated switching you can approach the ideal case (COP=1) and there maybe a really optimum ratio of external inductance to heater element resistance: remember however that the input supply voltage is divided between the heater element and the external inductance, hence the full input power cannot reach directly the heater element and when you utilize the collapsed field energy from the inductance you simply supply back the input energy that did / could not reach the heating element first hand. I would appreciate your comments of course.

Greetings,
Gyula

TinselKoala · « **Reply #163 on:** August 14, 2013, 02:32:36 PM »

Don't forget losses in the switching element itself!

The particular mosfet that Ainslie used (and will presumably be using again when she reveals the "lost" Quantum apparatus) has a minimum Rdss of 2.0 Ohms when it is cold. It turns out that in the typical Ainslie oscillation mode, the oscillating mosfets are actually dissipating (wasting) more power than her load resistor is, because they are not fully turning on.

Unfortunately the recent demonstration/replication/test did not account for _all_ the power dissipation in the circuit, only that which appeared at the load. Someone who was interested in disputing the "debunk" might suggest that the mosfets themselves are dissipating significant heat and it is in the _total_ power dissipation of the circuit where any "benefit" could arise.

Yes, the demo/debunk tested a particular claim and found the claim to be false, and by extension all the incorrect data and claims based on them in the papers are also false. But for a committed claimant, though, the single data point tested is just a pothole in a wide road, easy to drive around. Those mosfets can get very hot!

And we have the rather strange "admission" from SWeir, in a comment on my YT channel, from data unfortunately gathered in secret:

Quote

When the battery wiring was reconfigured back to high inductance the heater temperature rose. There is no surprise there, the parameters of the tank circuit changed. However, the battery input power under the new configuration was not checked. So, the increased heat is anecdotal.

(emphasis mine)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #164 on:** August 14, 2013, 04:38:32 PM »

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4864/

Ainslie has posted her agreed-upon statement of retraction... which she apparently intends to attach as a preface to the Papers, instead of taking them down!!

Quote

Guys - this is the text that will preface our papers 1 & 2.

In June and August 2013 demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this paper. The 2013 experiments were conducted under more stringent protocols than the originals. The experiments conducted: June 29, August 10, and August 11 failed to reproduce the results reported here.

The June 29 experiments were unable to bias Q1 as in Figure 3 without current flow also indicated in Figure 3.

The privately conducted August 10, and publicly conducted August 11 experiments were unable to corroborate net zero or negative battery draw during periods of Q2 oscillation. Reference measurements taken at new sense points directly at the battery bank indicated average net positive battery drain of 14W to 15W. Maximum heater temperature rise during these experiments was 21C. From our electrical DC power to temperature rise tests conducted in 2011 and appear as Table II in this paper, a 21C heater temperature rise corresponds to an equivalent power of between 2.4W and 3.4W. We therefore obtained heat output that was only a fraction of the input power.

As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts.

Details of the test protocols are available as August 11 Demonstration Outline_draft_05.pdf. Test Phases 1 - 3 were conducted during the live demonstration. We ended the demonstration after Test Phase 3 when it became clear that the net battery power drain was far in excess of the possible heater output power.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

(emphasis mine)

Of course "prefacing" a paper that is full of error and mendacity is far different from a retraction. The papers must come down completely, as there is absolutely nothing defensible in them and the statements and claims they make are flat-out wrong.

I hope she's "honorable" enough to send Stefan Hartmann, our good host, a letter of apology for all the vile things she said about him and all the harassment and aggravation she has caused by her blind attempts to defend an indefensible position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s9z620SFbA

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013 (Read 100872 times)

powercat

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

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

TinselKoala

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

SeaMonkey

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

poynt99

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

SeaMonkey

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

gyulasun

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