I'm not shooting the messenger, I am just interested in accurate reporting.

She sneaks in a link to her Quantum magazine article, without mentioning the FACT that the article is incontrovertibly WRONG, so she is again making false claims from the outset.

The schematic included with that article cannot possibly make the duty cycle she claims to have used. This has been confirmed over and over again, most recently and definitively by Mark Euthanasius, as shown in the image of the scopeshots above.

So either one of two situations exist: Ainslie used the schematic in the article, which means the "ON" duty cycle she reported is FALSE and the claims made are WRONG.... or the circuit was operated with some other schematic! Or both!  Which makes the entire Quantum magazine article FALSE, another lie.
Further, Ainslie has known about this discrepancy since 2009, when I FIRST DISCOVERED AND POSTED ABOUT IT, (.99 also noted this discrepancy back then)  yet she has made no corrections, no retractions of the article and in fact has even allowed her friends, like GMEAST, to build the device without even informing him of any problems. His famous posting of his discovery is appended below.

I say again: either the schematic in the article WAS used, in which case the duty cycle reported and the data gathered are BOGUS, or the schematic in the article WAS NOT used, in which case the entire experimental situation, including the data collected, is false, bogus, another compendium of lies and false claims. There are no other alternatives!

Further, and even more hilarious, is the FACT that the Quantum circuit is just the unclamped inductive test circuit from the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet, with the substitution of the 555 timer instead of the FG the data sheet specifies. Even further.... the circuit is the same as the presently discredited 5-mosfet circuit, just without the "Q-array" of the four backwards-wired mosfets.

Are these undeniable and incontrovertible facts made clear in the article about Ainslie? Or is she to be allowed to continue to use your webpage as a forum to push her false claims, like the link to the Quantum magazine article which DEFINITELY contains false statements and claims?

I am amazed at the "defense" of the Quantum article that appears. It seems that the issue of publishing a FALSE SCHEMATIC is again considered unimportant, and I am utterly amazed by this.

Mark E's analysis is commendable. He came into this story rather late in its development but he has come "up to speed" rapidly, due to his knowledge and experience. Is it too technical for your wide audience, though? Suffice it to say that  the article as published by Ainslie is simply bogus and should not be referred to or linked to without a clear statement of this FACT.

....Rosemary Ainslie did NOT perpetrate and was NOT part of any intentional deception ... that's my belief.
Regards,
GME

@Gmeast:
Are you saying that you used the same component values and the same schematic that Ainslie published, and you were able to make it make a short ON duty cycle, at 2.4 kHz as she claimed?

If so, I would really like to see some scopeshots. Because your claim is at variance with _every body else_ who has ever built and tested that circuit, in hardware or in simulation. Perhaps you have erred; I can't believe that all those people including .99, SWeir, MarkE, the folks at Energetic Forum, and many others have erred and you are right.

Now, when you DID start out to build her circuit, the very first thing you noticed was that the 555 timer "didn't work", and you asked if anyone else had actually built the circuit. Remember that? I do.

The paper makes the claim that the published 555 timer circuit was used. If this is not the case, then the paper is wrong, it is making a false claim and her plea for replications is... disingenuous to say the least. If the 555 timer circuit WAS used, then the duty cycle claimed in the article is impossible. If some other duty cycle was used... then the paper is wrong and her plea for replications is.... well you know.

What are the other alternatives? Please explain.

The duty cycle issue was brought up, hashed over and, I thought, settled in 2009. That is, dear GMeast, Ainslie has known since 2009 that the circuit published would not make the duty cycle claimed. Yet... she let you proceed without even warning you. I think this is dishonest, you may not. What do you call it?

(By the way.... she has always insisted that the 555 circuit WAS USED, until just the past couple of weeks. If she had in fact used a FG instead... .why in the world did she NEVER MENTION it back in 2009 when everybody and his brother were "replicating" this circuit? I know why, and in your heart I think you probably do too.)

Thank you for your honest answer.
So, you did NOT use the same component values, you also installed a third variable resistor. You do realize, I hope, that that makes it a _different circuit_ than what Ainslie claimed. So of course I don't need to see a scopeshot: you aren't claiming to have used her circuit to make a short ON duty cycle at all, so I have no argument with you on that issue.

Now, think about this: The circuit in the schematic she posted produces the frequency she claimed to use very easily, and it produces the _exact_ inverse duty cycle range. Can you come up with a scenario that would cause that to happen by accident?  I mean say someone  intended to make a 4 percent ON duty cycle, and made a mistake in drawing the schematic or selecting components, so that actually the exact inverse resulted?

Here's what I believe, and why. I think that Ainslie and her team did not grasp, at the time, that in her circuit the voltage measured at the Drain will be HIGH, at battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF, and the drain voltage drops to near the zero voltage level when the mosfet is ON. I think she expected that ON means HIGH and OFF means LOW measured at the drain. The reason I think this is because it was very clear, in 2009 when the issue was being discussed on Energetic Forum, that people like Aaron and Ashtweth also thought this way, along with Ainslie herself. It got to the point where Aaron suggested a simple circuit to test the facts, so I made a video for him showing the fact with a simple switch and a mosfet and a voltmeter.
So, the 555 timer in the magazine makes a perfect 3.7 or 4 percent HI drain voltage in her circuit, with no problem at all. The problem is that this results in a duty cycle at the LOAD of 96 percent ON.

Why don't you ask her what the Drain voltage is when the mosfet is ON and when it is OFF, and see what kind of answer you get.

So let me summarize then, before you head off, so you can correct any misinterpretations.

Really, your circuit is nothing like "hers", the unclamped inductive test circuit in the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet, is it. No driver chip in that circuit or in anything Ainslie has ever presented!

Your comments then do not really apply to either the 5-mosfet circuit or the Quantum single-mosfet circuit, then, do they?

You used different components in your 555 timer, you don't use the timer at all now, your operating parameters (500kHz @ 24% ON) are nothing like what Ainslie claimed (2.4 kHz @ 3.6 or 4 percent ON) and you state that Ainslie only shared a little information with you before she "stabbed you in the back".

And you still maintain that Ainslie does not engage in deception, only error.


Is that a fair statement of what you've said here in the past few posts? I don't want to misrepresent your position, Gmeast. If you don't care, one wonders why you bothered to post in this thread at all. If it's in response to me mentioning you a bit above ..... let me remind you that YOU mentioned ME first.