Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: TinselKoala on July 29, 2013, 09:48:24 AM
-
Rosemary Ainslie has announced Yet Another Demonstration of her circuit and her claims, since the previous one didn't exactly turn out as they had planned or hoped. The main claim tested in that demonstration, the veracity of the Figure 3 scopeshot, was shown to be utterly false, and several other very revealing details were uncovered as well, not the least being their disorganized manner and incompetence with their instrumentation and apparatus, as well as their utter contempt and disrespect for their audience.
This time, however, she has been in discussion with two professionals who know their stuff and who are able to communicate, after a fashion, with Rosemary Ainslie. She has agreed in writing what some issues are, and she indicates a willingness to resolve them in the manner suggested by these pros, poynt99 and SWeir. SWeir in particular will be assisting in keeping the upcoming demonstration on track.
Hopefully they will find a better camera than a cellphone, and will have someone operate it who understands what needs to be shown and how to show it.
Here are the items that she has agreed to, copy-pasted from her web forum:
Summary, Skype Conference Call 27.07.2013:
Present: Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Steve Weir
Purpose: Discuss test methodology issues, establish agreed test methods for 04.08.2013 demonstration.
Conference minutes:
Discussion of objection by RA to measurements based on average current measurements.
Discussion of the origin of the pegboard test apparatus.
Discussion of poynt measurement recommendations.
Discussion of measurement issues in “demo_issues_01.pdf”
General discussion of measurement accuracy versus precision. Expected surplus output energy is multiple times ≈ 10 times the input energy.
Discussion of what AC battery current means and the relation to net energy flow. Discussion of issues raised beginning page 4 in “demo_issues_01.pdf”
Discussion of the effects of parasitic inductance in measurements.
Discussion of current phase shift lag and impedance magnitude increase at frequencies where the inductive impedance: jwL is close to or larger than R.
Discussion of poynt proposal to put a current sense resistor right at the battery negative terminal.
Discussion of available current sense resistors suitable for location at the battery negative terminal.
Discussion of prior test using low-resistance value wirewound (inductive) resistor. Discussion of configuration of new current sense resistor at battery negative terminal and oscilloscope common at the body of the current sense resistor on the BAT- node. Discussion of minimizing battery stack wiring inductance.
Agreements: additional current resistor at the battery stack BAT- terminal, establishment of sense connections directly across the current sense resistor, establishment of oscilloscope ground clip common directly at the body of the current sense resistor on the BAT-, battery located battery current and voltage will be comparative to battery current and voltage measurements on the pegboard apparatus. Discussion of floating the FG green wire safety earth wire.
Agreement to float the FG green safety wire with a ground-lift adapter. Discussion of battery wiring.
Agreement: Minimize wiring length between the batteries,
Discussion of comparison of scope voltage across one battery versus all batteries. Discussion of Figure 5 measurements, avoiding undersampling for simplicity. Discussion of resistor element thermal calibration.
Discussion of alternate methods of determining power into the heater element or thermal power out of the heater element.
Discussion of potential for RFI fouling of thermocouple readings. Discussion of using mechanical thermometer in addition to thermocouples.
Agreement: Use additional mechanical thermometer. Interrupt apparatus power to read temperature to avoid RFI issues. Perform ice-point zero calibration for each thermometer.
Discussion of the operational pegboard schematic.
Discussion of updating the schematic to show four 1 Ohm current sense resistors. Discussion of consequences of agreement or disagreement between current sense measurements across existing peg board sense resistor bank and new current sense resistor at battery negative terminal.
Discussion of using Fluke 190 scope as sanity check to read voltage across one or more batteries during the oscillation period.
Discussion of methods to measure for function generator current.
Agreement: to use 1 Ohm resistor in series with function generator to measure for current through the function generator as voltage across the current sense resistor.
Discussion of implications of possible observation results.
Discussion of energy balance measurements and complication performing battery run- down tests.
Reiteration that expected surplus energy is an order of magnitude greater than energy supplied by the battery.
Demonstration details:
Saturday 03.08.2013 dry-run 15:00 SAST, 13:00 GMT Sunday 04.08.2013 live-run 17:00 SAST, 15:00 GMT Sunday demo to be one hour maximum
Discussion to compose and distribute call summary Call end
Parts for battery side current sense resistor:
1. 0.25 Ohm 1% 30W non-inductive (10nH) resistor: Digikey P/N: MP930-0.25F- ND, Caddock: MP930-0.25-1% $5.23
2. Heat sink for MP930-0.25-1%: Digikey P/N: RA-T2X-64E-ND, Ohmite: RA-T2X- 64E $2.97
3. Thermal grease for MP930 / heatsink: Digikey P/N: 345-1006-ND Wakefield 120-SA $3.62
Parts for function generator current sense:
1. 1 Ohm 1% 5W non-inductive (1nH) resistor: Digikey P/N: WNE1R0FETCT-ND, Ohmite: WNE1R0FET $0.79
2. Alligatorleads22AWG(5):DigikeyP/N314-1133-ND,MuellerElectricBU-00286 $4.23
Parts for oscillation suppressor:
1. 10nF500VX7RcapacitorDigikeyP/N399-3504-ND,KemetC320C103MCR5TA $0.93
2. 49.9Ohm1⁄2WaxialresistorDigikeyP/NPPC49.9XCT-ND,Vishay SFR16S0004999FR500 $0.29
Misc. 18AWG solid hook-up wire, solder, wire and clips as necessary for battery stack. Ground lift adapter.
Remember to recharge batteries fully before tests. Skype call recording is available, but large: 116Mb.
She has agreed to perform specific tests and the inclusion of the specific parts list would imply that she is actually ordering the parts and will be having Donovan Martin install them and perform the necessary testing. Time is tight though. It usually takes three days for a DigiKey internet order to reach me, but I have no idea how long it might take to reach CapeTown.
The Skype call recording is "available" according to Ainslie. Where is the link?
-
Hi TK
I thought I could here the Yippee and Yeha
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/29/self-looped-generator-rosemary-ainslie-updates/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/29/self-looped-generator-rosemary-ainslie-updates/)
-
lol.this is beginning to look like world war 1 trench warfare styles.
-
There is NO WAY that our temperature measurements are accurate. But nor need they be.
That pretty much says it all, when it comes to the experimental competence and honesty of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin.
They admit that their measurements are not accurate... NOR DO THEY NEED TO BE ACCURATE, according to Ainslie.
-
Guys - here's another little token of my love - for our dear little gherkin who's hiding under that rock and who is MOST anxious to claim that he's NOT Bryan Little.
Hello my little pickle,
DELIGHTED to be able to show you our apparatus that you claim has a FIXED 90% ON duty cycle. Keep your eyes peeled on that demo. Because I plan to REVEAL ALL. I KNOW how pleased you'll be as it'll FINALLY silence all those rather neurotic assertions of a 90% ON duty cycle that you voiced - rather repetitiously - through thousands of posts.
LIAR. I have never once said that you or anyone else has a " FIXED 90% ON duty cycle." Once again, the lying mendacious troll is making things up for which she cannot provide A SINGLE REFERENCE or any other support. And then she rants and insults based on that lie. She says THOUSANDS OF POSTS... and I have NEVER ONCE referred to a fixed 90 percent duty cycle. Of course we have seen how much she respects ACCURACY... it isn't needed, according to Ainslie.
NOW. I think we're nearing the end of our little romance - my sweet. I've been able to access Professor Jandrell - who acknowledges that he insisted on 'taking out' that rather significant data related to battery draw down tests. I'm yet to be given an explanation for this. And you variously denied that he did remove it - or insisted that it was required - depending on your mood at the moment. I've now got significant validation that our apparatus was demonstrated at MTN Sciencenter during that conference that was held for international scientists - ALL OF WHOM were invited, indeed 'URGED' to witness our demonstration of over unity. And none of them bothered. I've got open acknowledgement of Professor Gaunt's REFUSAL to witness a SINGLE demonstration - notwithstanding our hard work at performing ALL THE TESTS THAT HE REQUIRED to validate our proof of over unity. And I can still direct anyone who is interested to those personalities that were associated with the list of accreditors - in our FIRST paper published in Quantum.
You have never provided a single shred of evidence for any of this... and YOU CANNOT. Don't forget, Ainslie... that I DO have the contact information for many of these people whom you have actually named... and NONE of them confirm your statements. NOT A ONE.
SO. My dear little thing - WHAT will you now use to accuse me of MENDACITY? That's a VERY big word - but I suggest that you're using it against the wrong person. And you use it to excess. I'm rather of the opinion that it's actually your OWN remarkable genius that DEPENDS on this talent. And that you've been 'projecting'? Is that possible?
In any event - I realise I must make allowances. You're weighed down by the force of a GRE count that beggars belief - and that this weighs on your shoulders like the world weighs on Atlas. It's indeed a burden. And we know how determined you are to deny that over unity can and has been breached because you are also MOST anxious to keep such good news away from your mindless followers.
As ever,
Rosie Pose
Your mendacity is easy to see, with every post you make. You could not even comply with what you AGREED TO IN WRITING, instead opting to buy different components that are unknown, unobtainable on time and expensive, and it is very clear WHY you do these things: to delay, to obfuscate, and to lie. Had you ordered the correct items from DigiKey FROM STOCK they likely would be in your hands tomorrow or Thursday.
You insult and complain, cover up and lie... but you CANNOT REFUTE ME with facts, checkable references or demonstrations of your own.
Your utter failure to perform last month will only be repeated by another failure to perform, because as is increasingly clear, you and your boy Donovan Martin are incompetent blowhards who cannot even follow the simplest directions.... and who DO NOT CARE about accuracy, honesty or anything else but your own fantasies.
Don't worry... It is all going into your Public Record, Ainslie, and it will follow you around for ever. Every insult, every distortion and lie, every "Nor is accuracy needed" that you emit, Ainslie, will be there for anyone to see, for ever, and every time you choose to add to it with another "love letter" full of insults and lies... that will be included, and it will be made available to any "academic" who expresses the least interest in your program of lies.
-
Ainslie now claims to have found her "original apparatus" that was used in the Quantum report. The apparatus that she and Donovan Martin have both been saying FOR YEARS that was lost, sent off somewhere and never returned. She used this "never returned" bit in her complaints and accusations of suppression, remember. But now it appears that those statements too were lies.... she has had the apparatus the entire time.
So now she is in a position to demonstrate one of only two possibilities:
Either
1. She DID IN FACT use the exact circuit PUBLISHED AND CLAIMED in the Quantum article, which undeniably produces an inverted duty cycle from what is claimed.
... OR....
2. She used A DIFFERENT CIRCUIT from what she published.
What she cannot demonstrate is that the circuit AS PUBLISHED does what she claims it does -- because it clearly does not. Just as was the case for this last demo with regards to the Figure 3 scopeshot. Recall that for YEARS she claimed that shot was legitimate.... until they actually tried to do it with people watching on June 29, where it was proven beyond doubt that it was bogus. The key feature of that demo, of course, is that people were watching... so that she and Donovan Martin could not cheat and produce a bogus screenshot like Figure 3 under the claimed conditions.
Of course she or her lying Donovan Martin team member can always alter the circuit they claim to have found in the shed to make it do whatever they like. What they CANNOT alter, though, is the circuit that they actually published and claimed to have used... and anyone who has built or simulated that circuit knows the truth.
-
Is "MENDACITY" too big a word for you then, Ainslie? How about this then: YOU LIE, BALDLY AND OPENLY AND PROVABLY, with nearly every post you make.
Every post where you DO NOT post the screenshots from June 29, you lie. Every post where you refer to Bryan Little.... you lie. Every post where you refer to these alphabet companies confirming your claims ... now you've got a new one!... you lie. This most recent nonsense about me and a fixed 90 percent duty cycle.... is more lying from you.
YOU CANNOT, nor have you ever been able to, PRESENT ANY SUPPORT OR EVIDENCE FOR YOUR LIES.
Meanwhile, everything that I have said is checkable and testable, the evidence is there for all to see. The Quantum magazine circuit does what I say it does, this has been confirmed by many builders. If Ainslie's newly found circuit does something different.... it is still more evidence of her mendacity... oh, sorry, big word,... OF HER LIES, because the published, claimed circuit makes a long ON duty cycle not a short one.
-
By the way, Ainslie, in addition to the scopeshots and corrected schematic that you promised, on June 29, to post but still have not.... you also say that your recent conversation with Steve Weir is "available, but large". Where is this recorded conversation "available"?
There are people who would like to hear it. Will you post a link to it? Or are you waiting for someone else to post the link? Bryan Little, maybe?
-
Hah! Ainslie accuses me of "SLANDER" when it's clear that she doesn't even know what the word means. Nor can she point to a single instance where I have said anything untrue about her or her project.
I, on the other hand, can point to, and PROVE, instance after instance of Ainslie's documented lies, beginning with the Quantum circuit, the claims to have a patent, and continuing on to the Figure 3 scopeshot and the rest of the claims in the bogus papers, the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" lie, the lies about the schematic, the batteries, and the simulations contained in the March 2011 demo, and the present lies about me, the 555 circuit and the plans for the upcoming demonstration. All documented and provable lies emitted by Rosemary Ainslie and her partner Donovan Martin.
Remember the freakout when I published the actual contact information for some of the people she always claimed were "contactable"? It is to laugh. The possibility that some of those people might actually be contacted frightened her utterly. Of course many of the names she mentions are uncontactable and no links to them can be found... because they simply do not exist.
And Professor Kahn, who provided the lab space -- or rather utility closet space -- for her to perform the experiments detailed in the papers.... completely disavows her, as I have shown several times before.
Dr. Hal Puthoff, with whom she had a fairly extensive correspondence, tossed it all into the recycle bin as a bunch of nonsense a couple of years ago.
Professor Gaunt put her project up as an optional Free Energy DEBUNKING project for his EE students in 2000. Ask yourselves if HER OWN REPORT comes up to the requirements that Gaunt listed for the project.
I have documented all of this and more. She, on the other hand, has STILL FAILED to produce any statement by anyone other than the co-author Donovan Martin, in support of her claims. Not an email, not a photostat, not an actual contact link OF HER OWN to someone who will take her side in the matter. Not even Donovan Martin will engage in a real dialog about the real issues in the claims and papers. None of the alphabet agencies she mentions seem to have ever heard of her.
Remember this post:
Hey, Ainslie.... do any of these names mean anything to you?
Dr Garrett
J. Marriott
Eddie Tarnow
Viv Crone
John Wilson
Colin Bower
Eddie Petrie
John Tarnowski
A somebody named Tarnow at CSIR in South Africa .... and another named Tarnowski at ABB in South Carolina.... what are the chances of that? Small world, I guess.
And of course Dr. Garrett....
--- Quote ---who headed up the CSIR wrote me a patronising letter and explained that I was unschooled and naive which is why I persisted with these fantasies. He considered the matter "closed". He then went to Australia to head up their CSIR there. Good riddance - but his attitude was quintessentially what I usually got.
--- End quote ---
So it appears that all this prior "endorsement" and "vetting" of your box.... is also not quite as you have reported it lately.
This really cracks me up:
--- Quote ---After testing, they shipped the "box" to someone in America - on my application - but, for the life of me - I cannot remember to who (sic) - or where.
--- End quote ---
But now it turns out that the "box" has been in her shed the whole time.
"...many hundreds of engineers, have witnessed a demonstration and accredited these results from the get-go"..... yet not a single one of them cares enough to make a statement supporting or confirming Ainslie's claims about them.
-
I am glad to see that the thermal profiling is apparently a go. Rosie's two-year-old data is not reliable, it's just too unsettling to be relying on that information. If the heating element looks like I remember from last year, I think the temperature will stabilize in about five minutes, that should be quite safe. In other words the time constant for the heater is probably less than 40 seconds. Hey, if you have a thermocouple attached to the heating element, all that you have to do is stare at the LCD display.
I suppose that both sides are making bold predictions! lol All that I can say is that nobody is paying me. My computer is totally green too. I run a pimped-out Timex Sinclair ZX81 powered by a special green battery of my design that eats aluminum pop cans.
I want to license the Zipon-based battery extender technology and incorporate it into my green aluminum pop can eating battery technology.
-
I thought I was done in June, However I will save my comments to after the event.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/01/rosemary-ainslie-test-objectives-and-open-letter/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/01/rosemary-ainslie-test-objectives-and-open-letter/)
I see Milehigh and you TK get honorable mentions
Kind Regards
-
Mark, if you look at the first post in this thread you will see a quote of the document
"Summary, Skype Conference Call 27.07.2013"
where you will see what Ainslie and Donovan _actually_ agreed to test and demonstrate and the parts they agreed to use. Now, of course, they have unilaterally decided to do something other than what was agreed upon, with different parts.
Further, the "papers" have been shown to be completely flawed. NONE of the data in the papers is reliable in the least, as was amply demonstrated already in June. The papers describe a particular set of experiments.... and now Ainslie has announced her intention to simply replace the questionable scopeshots and other data with new screenshots. This of course is unacceptable and dishonest, but that is par for the course from Ainslie. Her papers must be withdrawn, simply BASED ON THE JUNE DEMO, which showed that ALL of the data is bogus. If she can generate new experiments that can support her work, fine, then she must do completely new writeups OF THOSE NEW EXPERIMENTS. Sorry to shout, but the person who needs to heed this is blind and deaf apparently.
You can't just change the data in a writeup of a two or three year old bad experiment and think that fixes it! Even to suggest such a thing shows how mendacious she is.
You also say in your article "There was no conclusive evidence of overunity." (emphasis yours).But actually there was NO evidence of overunity AT ALL, conclusive or otherwise, and in fact there was STRONG EVIDENCE that Ainslie and her team falsified data that appears in the first paper. That is right.... data that appears in the first paper was not collected under the conditions claimed. It is false, made of lies, pure and simple, and Ainslie and Martin know this.
Yet they have done nothing to correct the false data that appears in their papers. The schematic and claims of the Quantum COP>17 article are false. The schematic published in the papers, in three different versions, is false. The schematic given in the video of the March 2011 demo is false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE)
The Figure 3 scopeshot is false. The claims made concerning ALL of the data from the current monitoring resistors in the papers... are false. The June 29 demonstration proved that ALL of the measurements in the papers are either outright lies, or unreliable due to bad measurement techniques. All of this is thoroughly documented, it is in the recording of the demonstration. For you to say "there was no conclusive evidence of overunity".... greatly understates what was in fact demonstrated: Ainslie's entire data set is bogus, contains deliberate misrepresentations, and cannot be repaired by "do-overs".
If you are going to give Ainslie a platform by publishing her "letters", you really should also provide facts that represent the actual situation, not her distorted view only. As always, I encourage you to copy or refer to my comments here, so that the record will remain straight on Ainslie, her claims, and the real situation. You should also INSIST that Ainslie provide the six scopeshots that S. Weir guided the team to make at the end of the last demonstration. You can hear her and Martin agree to publish a corrected schematic and these shots at the end of the recording. Where are they? Ainslie will not publish them because they demonstrate unequivocally that the paper's Figure 3 is a lie. Not a simple honest ignorant mistake, but rather a deliberate misrepresentation. The Figure 3 scopeshot is deliberately "cooked" data, and without the pressure from .99, picowatt, milehigh, and me.... it would still be out there, unchallenged and uncorrected.
-
It seems rather that they’re intended to discourage the claims and the claimants both with such energy – such persistence – such dedication – that one is inclined to see an agenda behind these attacks from a well paid group of players who work under a mandate. And, since the ONLY beneficiaries of these attacks are our energy suppliers – then the question is this. Are they secretly and silently funding that protest? It certainly seems so. Because how else would someone like Tinsel Koala (Mr Little), for example, be able to spend day after day, month after month, year after year, doing NOTHING but shout down our own work in this regard?
What an amazing lot of paranoid ranting!
Who is this Mr Little that Ainslie keeps talking about? She thinks, in her mendacious paranoid deluded haze that passes for consciousness, that I am someone called Bryan Little, that I am well paid by "our energy suppliers" to do nothing but shout down her "work". But she can provide NO EVIDENCE OR SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for any of these ridiculous assertions of hers. She has persisted in this absurd fantasy for years, and every time she mentions Bryan Little she makes an ever larger fool of herself. Where is DONOVAN MARTIN and why does he not care about her false claims and paranoid rants? Ainslie badly needs a keeper; she is becoming dangerous to herself.
-
Quote from RA
"NOW. I think we're nearing the end of our little romance - my sweet. I've been able to access Professor Jandrell - who acknowledges that he insisted on 'taking out' that rather significant data related to battery draw down tests. I'm yet to be given an explanation for this."
Rosie, Rosie,
The world is a small place. These little pork pies come back to haunt one. Professor Jandrell is a friend of mine. He says that he has not spoken to you for years.
By the way Professor Jandrell is one of the academics that you are trying to attract to your project. He is well respected in both the academic and engineering worlds. At the time of the Quantum publication he was head of the electrical department at Wits University. You are unlikely to get the right sort of attention by attacking such people.
-
I removed conclusive.
I have exercised what I call professional tolerance up to date hoping I was providing an exit strategy for everyone.
However as I said I will be fair, and wait till the tests are completed. I do believe given the failure of the last tests from a equipment and technical point of view, Rosemary (on advice from Mr Weir) be given another opportunity so technical, measurement failures can not be used as an excuse..
Stay Tuned, I did not earn the name Darth Dansie for no reason.
Mark
-
Quote from RA
"NOW. I think we're nearing the end of our little romance - my sweet. I've been able to access Professor Jandrell - who acknowledges that he insisted on 'taking out' that rather significant data related to battery draw down tests. I'm yet to be given an explanation for this."
Rosie, Rosie,
The world is a small place. These little pork pies come back to haunt one. Professor Jandrell is a friend of mine. He says that he has not spoken to you for years.
By the way Professor Jandrell is one of the academics that you are trying to attract to your project. He is well respected in both the academic and engineering worlds. At the time of the Quantum publication he was head of the electrical department at Wits University. You are unlikely to get the right sort of attention by attacking such people.
Thank you for that bit of information. I wonder what Jandrell thinks of her using his name in this manner.
But with regard to the Quantum article and the claims made in that paper: The published schematic does not do what she claims it does. Therefore that paper too is a complete lie. The published schematic makes a LONG ON TIME duty cycle and CANNOT BE ADJUSTED to make a duty cycle under 50 percent, much less the 3.6 percent ON range that Ainslie claims.
Either the published schematic is WRONG in that it does not portray what she actually used... OR the schematic DOES portray what she actually used. If it is WRONG.... that is, if she used some other circuit.... then don't you think the correct circuit should have been published by now, and the article corrected? If the schematic is RIGHT (that is, if it is the one she actually used), then she used its inverted duty cycle and ALL the data in the article is bogus, as usual.
Ainslie has allowed this Quantum article to remain, without correction, and as you can see she still refers to it with her false claims.
The published schematic in the Quantum article DOES NOT make the duty cycle that Ainslie claims. Yet the paper has not been corrected or withdrawn and she still refers to it. This is COMPLETELY DISHONEST on the part of Ainslie and Donvan Martin.
Once again, I invite any and everyone to construct the timer portion of the Quantum circuit to see for themselves just what it does and does not do. It contains perhaps five dollars worth of parts and can be constructed in thirty minutes and tested in five. I've posted both Ainslie's original schematic, and my re-drawing of the circuit up above. My re-draw follows standard circuit layout and is the exact same circuit, but might be easier to follow than her tangled mess that doesn't even have the 555 pin numbers on it.
Tseak, what does Jandrell think of Ainslie's publication of his name, in association with this Quantum article which contains Ainslie's false claims about that circuit?
-
TK:
Will this demonstration be "simulcast" (Or whatever) in real time whereas Darren (.99) can do like he tried to do last time? In my opinion, he make great attempts to keep the demonstration focused on the crucial tests that needed to be seen. It would be great if you too had the chance to do so as well, although I doubt that will happen.
I was also thinking that maybe someone could ship them a tripod for the camera but then, I remember that you pointed one out in one of the shots you posted...of course it was not being used. Possibly, someone could convince them to use it at least most of the time?
Maybe this will finally put an end to all of this...of course, didn't some of us say the same thing last time?
Any bets on if the tests will be put off from the Aug. 4th date? I give it 77.25% chance that it will be rescheduled.
Bill
-
Hi Bill
As I understand it, it will be handled like the previous one, streamed to public view but open by invitation only to participate in the discussion.
I believe Steve Weir will be the "moderator". Their previous discussion and agreement they reached is at the top of this thread, and that summary was written by Weir, and posted by Ainslie. I don't know if she actually read it though since she already seems to be changing, unilaterally, the plan.
Obviously they had the tripod; the story the last time is that "they couldn't get the video camera to work" so they had to use the cellphone, and of course there's no easy way to put a cellphone on a tripod. Hey, maybe there's a market for cellphone tripod adapters! In any case they say that they will use a better camera and point it at interesting stuff this time.
Will they make the Aug 4 date? Well, they are supposed to have a rehearsal/conference call with S.Weir on Saturday. That is the show I'd like to see, myself. They may find, after that, that there is nothing to demonstrate except more failures like the Figure 3 attempts, and not have any demo on Sunday at all. Or they may claim that even their null results support her "thesis", just like she has been doing wrt the June 29 demo. A distant possibility would be a public retraction and apology, the "eating of the hat" ceremony. That is what should take place on Sunday!
No, whatever happens this weekend you can bet on one thing: Ainslie will not stop her nonsense. But maybe she will at least pause for a while.
Cheers--
--TK
-
Well well well.
The Donovan Martin - Rosemary Ainslie team seems to be succeeding in their delay tactic. Instead of placing a DigiKey order on DigiKey's South African website for the specific parts they agreed to, and specifying FedEx second-day-air shipping, they chose to order some other parts from some other company with some unspecified inductance value and unknown delivery date. These parts have not as yet arrived..... and so the chances of a rehearsal tomorrow and a demonstration on Sunday are now greatly reduced.
On a different, but related issue:
Note some interesting things. She has listed the name "Tarnow" as someone who she claims was associated with testing her device in South Africa... and another person named "Tarnowski" tested it in South Carolina. Or was it the other way around? Most interesting.
And also.... she has named at least a dozen persons and a handful of companies and agencies. Perhaps fifteen names and alphabet agencies, or more. She has listed them and so have I.
But what is remarkable is that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE NAMES AND AGENCIES that she mentions has ever provided her with anything in writing. Not a report, not an endorsement, not a mention in a company newsletter, NOT EVEN AN EMAIL that supports her claims of testing or vetting or getting fired.... nothing. Not a single jot or tittle of evidence has EVER BEEN PRODUCED by Ainslie that any of this actually happened. Even the story about sending off the original device turned out to be a ten-year-long lie: the apparatus has been in her shed the whole time.
Now, Ainslie is a person who cannot even describe accurately the events of last month or last week, when a recording exists.... and she expects us to believe all these claims, without a shred of corroborating evidence that any of it actually took place as she claims. Meanwhile, people who HAVE been contacted, like Professors Kahn and Jandrell, Dr. Puthoff and others, tell a very different story than Ainslie. Kahn barred her from his lab space, and even the Tektronix scope that she had borrowed from Tek was pulled because of her misrepresentation of Tektronix's involvement. Other people on her list either don't exist at all or are unfindable or unresponsive. What is certain is that SHE has never been able to produce any evidence at all. Surely an "offer of a bursary award which was declined" would leave some kind of record or paper trail.... but nope, no evidence has ever been presented by Ainslie or Martin as to the reality of these claims, which have been repeated verbatim by Donovan Martin as well as by Ainslie herself.
Ten years ago, I caught a leprechaun. I showed this critter to UTI, UL, GRE and Bryan Little's grandmother, and was even offered a bursary award if I would exhibit it at a circus... which was declined. This leprechaun was witnessed by Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Nader and Benito Cortez, who was fired two weeks after seeing my leprechaun. The leprechaun was sent off to the University of Northern Michigan for testing and has disappeared now. Go ahead, PROVE ME WRONG.
This is essentially the structure of Ainslie's argument. Just as you can't be expected to believe my incredible claims about showing a leprechaun to Thomas Jefferson without some kind of corroboration.... you cannot believe ANYTHING Ainslie says -- AT ALL -- without evidence, checkable references or documentation. Recall all the provable and documented occasions in which she has been caught lying.
-
Bill,
I made a formal request a few days ago to Rose to be included in the dry run on Saturday, but she has turned me down, citing "discomfort" in having me around should the results obtained on Saturday turn out to be unfavorable for her.
So I am in the same boat as everyone else, and we must rely on S.Wier to ensure the setup and testing go as "planned".
I had requested that a test plan be written up and distributed (which would delineate which tests are being performed and include pass/fail criteria for each), but I'm not certain that is going to be forthcoming either. I do know that Steve is writing up a "test script" which will be used throughout the testing however. I would also like it formally known that Rose has flatly declined to perform a Pbat "sanity check" using either the scope-measured MEAN Vbat and Vcsr voltages, or DMM measurements of the same. And this despite strong advisement from both Steve and myself.
I'll post here any updates I may receive on Saturday.
-
I would also like it formally known that Rose has flatly declined to perform a Pbat "sanity check" using either the scope-measured MEAN Vbat and Vcsr voltages, or DMM measurements of the same. And this despite strong advisement from both Steve and myself.
Amazing. Utterly amazing.
A week ago she agrees to specific tests to be done in specific ways... and then, literally on the eve of the rehearsal... she unilaterally changes everything, from the components specified, to the tests to be performed, even the nature of the claims made.
And she freezes out poynt99, who has been so patient with her and has devoted so much time and careful effort to her case.
Astounding. But.... not at all unexpected. Will we see anything Sunday? Who cares. It is the SATURDAY rehearsal that will be most revealing. I certainly hope that it will be recorded, both video and audio.
-
TK and .99 and gang:
Demo delayed and waiting for parts. And some "People in Conflict" drama like usual.
Let me comment on the sanity check with the hope that an alternative explanation sinks in: With the correct setup, the battery voltage "oscillations" will be reduced to a kind of smallish peach fuzz superimposed on the battery voltage. The "peach fuzz" will primarily be due to the inherent inductance of the batteries in series interacting with the switching. For example, when the MOSFET switch switches off, a tiny tiny positive peach fuzz spike will be seen on the battery voltage. When the MOSFET switch switches on, a tiny tiny negative peach fuzz spike will be seen on the battery voltage.
Any dual-slope integration digital multimeter will easily average this peach fuzz out and give a very accurate average voltage measurement. The "secret" is that the averaging is being done by a capacitor performing integration with "infinite" (very very high bandwidth) resolution.
I fear when Rosemary uses the term "battery voltage oscillations" that she believes that seeing any kind of battery voltage oscillation means that there is a recharging cycle going on. That is of course not the case, the only way to conclude the battery is recharging is to look at what's going on with the current sense resistor.
The same dual-slope integration will be done on the current sense resistor and hence you will get a very accurate measurement of the average battery current. Here is where Rosie is going to be startled, because any negative voltage on the current sensing resistor indicating recharging is going to be mighty mighty tiny. It's going to look like peach fuzz on top of peach fuzz, or peach fuzz-squared.
The bottom line is that the the multimeter is able to give you a very accurate average battery voltage measurement. The voltage is always positive, even if you see an oscillation superimposed on it. The multimeter is able to give you a very accurate average current measurement. Multiply the two together to get your average battery output power.
There may be some apparent recharging going on, but it will minuscule and there is a good chance that what appears to be recharging will mostly be due to wire inductance effects. (i.e.; a fake-out, there isn't actual recharging when you are seeing wire inductance effects)
It's reasonable to view batteries as sluggish. It's hard to say how much the battery voltage will drop in reality when the MOSFET switches on when the oscillations are happening. There may be a kind of "battery pseudo capacitive effect" and the switching cycle is already over before the sluggish battery's output impedance kicks in and the voltage actually does drop. It's very possible that if you could remove all of the inductive effects that the battery voltage would do a small droop and be near-DC while the MOSFET is in the oscillation phase. Another way to say it is that my gut feel is telling me there is a kind of low-pass filter associated with the battery output voltage.
So if you make the thought experiment of stripping the circuit down to it's bare essentials, this is what you have during the infamous oscillation phase: The battery voltage has a slight droop but is still otherwise near-DC. The current is just unidirectional pulses. Any returning "recharge" pulses are peach fuzz-squared, they are the tiniest wisps of current, something that would only impress a 10 picofarad capacitor. Also, because of the battery's sluggishness, it doesn't even "see" these minuscule recharge pulses as actually recharging the battery. They are so narrow and contain so little energy that they just dump their energy into the battery resistively. So the harsh truth is that the battery doesn't recharge at all. Even if it could recharge, the return power into the battery is so tiny that it would take five years worth of continuous peach fuzz-squared pulsing to recharge it.
And that's the way it is! lol
Did you know that you can make money at home working on your computer? Philip Hardcastle has a job offer for Rosemary! lol Who needs the NSA? 8)
-
In Ainslie's most recent "open letter" that Mark Dansie has posted on his website, she emits this curious statement:
In effect – it would need the most naive of players to EVER assume that these same forums are intended to prove anything at all. It seems rather that they’re intended to discourage the claims and the claimants both with such energy – such persistence – such dedication – that one is inclined to see an agenda behind these attacks from a well paid group of players who work under a mandate. And, since the ONLY beneficiaries of these attacks are our energy suppliers – then the question is this. Are they secretly and silently funding that protest? It certainly seems so. Because how else would someone like Tinsel Koala (Mr Little), for example, be able to spend day after day, month after month, year after year, doing NOTHING but shout down our own work in this regard?
And this really makes me laugh. Ainslie is so arrogant and self-important that she imagines that her fantasy world is my only occupation... day after day, month after month, year after year, doing NOTHING else.....
What delusions! What fantasies! Ainslie can't even watch my video notebooks on YT to inform herself of her massive multiple errors, to see the real, significant things that I have been working on for years like dozens of different Arduino projects, stroboscopic photography of spark discharge effects, spark-gap and solid-state Tesla coils, ultraviolet lasers, inductive and capacitative power transfer systems, mechanical systems like MrWayne's hydraulic fantasy and Laithwaite gyro precession systems, instructional efforts wrt Joule Thief and Bedini SGM, and many more.... yet she in her arrogant fantasy world thinks that I am only concerned with her "little" delusions! What a conceited oaf she is. Ne Kulturny, as well.
"Mr Little" !! The arrogant fool still persists in this insane fantasy that I am someone called "Bryan Little". She can produce absolutely no evidence in support of that insane contention, and every time she makes it, she adds another proof to the gigantic pile of proofs of her delusional fantasy system.
-
I realize this is not likely to do any good at all, since LMM has no math past simple arithmetic... but here goes, anyhow.
A short video:
http://www.brightstorm.com/math/calculus/the-definite-integral/average-value-of-a-function/ (http://www.brightstorm.com/math/calculus/the-definite-integral/average-value-of-a-function/)
And below is a diagram and explanation from a calculus textbook on Safari:
-
To put it plainly: Ainslie frequently parrots "vi dt" or as she has it lately, "vi/dt" and "integrated analysis" as the proper way to compute "power". And so it is. But she has no clue what she's talking about, she is just parroting words, as her present disagreement about "average" or "mean" values indicates.
She is talking about using the INTEGRAL of the instantaneous power curve, the Energy in Joules, which is found by "the integral from time t=0 to time t=T of ( v x i) dt" . In other words, you take the voltage and current values at each instant, multiply them together to get an instantaneous power value, then multiply that by the duration of a sample interval -- the "dt" or differential slice of time -- to arrive at an ENERGY value in Joules during that tiny time interval. Then you add those little energy values all together. Then you divide that by the number of time slices to get the AVERAGE or MEAN of the POWER during that time. Simples.
And of course... this is the same thing as taking the Mean aka Average value of the instantaneous power curve during that same time interval.
-
TK,
Rose is arguing the validity of using AVG(Vcsr) x AVG(Vbat) to sanity-check the AVG(v*i d/dt) measurement from the scope.
I've proven it is valid, and Steve has said that it is valid. Rose however refuses to listen (as usual) and is stuck on her belief that making this simple calculation somehow causes the "benefits" to be lost.
She has no proof, only a belief that her assertion is true. But everyone is entitled to their beliefs I suppose.
I have again challenged her to prove her belief in exchange for the OUR Award prize.
-
Rosemary has indicated this is her last test etc. I am personally disappointing she is not listening to good advice, but lets hope that Mr Weir can get us through a reasonable test and demo. I might add I have been rather diplomatic to date, but that condition is only temporary. Rather than look at what the data is telling her she is seeking to be a martyr now on some energy conspiracy.
I provided a platform for to exit gracefully accepting that measurement techniques and assumptions were wrong. That opportunity is still there but it depends on her actions and how she acts (hopefully in a professional way)
Rosemary mentioned moving into magnetic monopoles. She will be up with some of the leading and awarded scientists in the world. It will be interesting how she copes with true scientific methodology well explained in the following video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgios9zEuJ4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgios9zEuJ4)
Kind Regards
Mark
-
Just for fun some show and tell. In the attached graphic you can clearly see that during the oscillations the battery discharging current spikes form a bright solid band and the battery charging current spikes form a dimmer solid band.
I ask the question, "How wispy is this peach fuzz?"
The reason I ask the question is because the real question is, "Can I use the relative brightness of the two bands on the DSO display to make an estimate about the relative average current in each direction?"
The answer is no because you are looking at processed data, data that has been washed through a display algorithm to try to make it "make sense" on the display. The display resolution is much lower than the equivalent sampling rate resolution so a software algorithm has to deal with this issue. There is a very good chance that the wispy peach fuzz is in fact much fainter than it appears to be, indicating much less recharging is going on. There still might be some wire inductance effects at play also, and we know they can appear to indicate battery recharging when it's not actually taking place.
No matter how you look at it, including from the attached DSO capture, the net battery current is showing very clearly that the batteries are discharging. And the battery voltage is near constant DC. The measurements, if properly done by Donny and Rosie, will also show this. Both the DSO based measurements and the multimeter-based measurements will show this. And we are expecting that Donny and Rosemary will do proper thermal profiling of the load resistor. The battery output power measured with both methods and the load power measured with the thermal profiling will all be approximately the same
-
Just a little addendum:
I am going to assume that the sampling rate by the DSO is fast enough to resolve the individual spikes in the oscillation. So that means you can export the data and then analyze it with a spreadsheet. This of course eliminates the sub-sampling and software algorithm issues related to massaging the data for the display. With the exported data you work with the pure full-resolution of the DSO capture.
All that you have to do is cut out a time slice that corresponds to the pure oscillation phase. Calculate the area above zero and calculate the area below zero to compare your discharging to the charging. To do this, all that you have to do is sort your column of current sampling data points by value. Split the data into above zero and below zero by inserting a blank row. Then add up the positive values and add up the negative values and compare with the column summation function, the "sigma." Then just compare the two values to see the average discharging current relative to the average charging current.
Once you figure out the start and end times for your time slice corresponding to the pure oscillation phase, you could do the calculation in less than five minutes.
-
The more I look at those upper and lower peach fuzz bands, the less comfortable I get that they are telling the true story.
The waveform is too symmetrical about the ground. If you assume that the MOSFET switch on and switch off times are about the same, then the inductive effects would superimpose a symmetrical peach fuzz waveform above and below the ground just like we see in the scope trace. What I don't know is if this makes sense considering that Poynt has his scope leads clipped as close as possible to the current sensing resistor. However, the excitation voltage is much higher then one normally works with and that might explain it.
So it looks like the oscillation is composed of two components: 1) the symmetrical bidirectional wispy waveform from the wire inductive effects, and 2) a train of unidirectional current pulses corresponding to the battery discharging. (Note the distinctive extra bright solid band in the battery discharging half of the waveform.)
A laying on of wet fingers on the current sensing resistor might show that. (Yuck!) Alternatively, a very very tiny capacitor soldered across the CSR might do the trick. It has to be a "Goldilocks" capacitor that is large enough to soak up the wispy-ness waveform, yet small enough to not affect the train of current pulses corresponding to the battery discharging. If the wispy pulses are truly tiny relative to the discharging current pulses that may be possible.
You can imagine when you put something like a 10 pF capacitor across the CSR, that the wispy positive and negative pulses nearly disappear and all you see is the train of regular current pulses corresponding to the battery discharging when the MOSFET switches on.
-
Just a little addendum:
I am going to assume that the sampling rate by the DSO is fast enough to resolve the individual spikes in the oscillation. So that means you can export the data and then analyze it with a spreadsheet. This of course eliminates the sub-sampling and software algorithm issues related to massaging the data for the display. With the exported data you work with the pure full-resolution of the DSO capture.
All that you have to do is cut out a time slice that corresponds to the pure oscillation phase. Calculate the area above zero and calculate the area below zero to compare your discharging to the charging. To do this, all that you have to do is sort your column of current sampling data points by value. Split the data into above zero and below zero by inserting a blank row. Then add up the positive values and add up the negative values and compare with the column summation function, the "sigma." Then just compare the two values to see the average discharging current relative to the average charging current.
Once you figure out the start and end times for your time slice corresponding to the pure oscillation phase, you could do the calculation in less than five minutes.
You got it ;)
-
@MH: The scopes that .99 and the Ainslie team are using can sample fast enough to perform accurate math on the measurements of this circuit. The screens do compromise, but the scope's internal memory buffer holds every sample and the math is done on the buffer data, not the screen display.
The integrations and area measurements that you describe can be much more easily and reliably performed by the scopes themselves. I think their scopes can compute areas bounded by traces and selected by cursors, and this math is done on the memory samples, not the screen display.
So to compute the areas above and below the zero current reference one would simply position the horizontal and vertical cursors appropriately (one on the zero ref, and the other first above, then below, the positive and negative peaks of the waveform). Then when the areas are computed the values may be compared directly, using just a scratchpad. No fancy, errorprone spreadsheet manipulation need be performed.
Here is another test circuit that I would like to "run up the flagpole". What effect on the oscillations, and hence the battery recharge claim, would the insertion of a fast diode have? Consider if you will the following schematic. Will the MUR1560 ultrafast rectifier (600 V, 15 A, 60 ns recovery = about 17 MHz) block the oscillations? Will it affect the power seen at the load, or the battery recharging?
-
TK,
I drew this up some time ago. You may want to try it as a variation on your theme. By all means replace the 1N4007 with whatever you wish.
I have not yet tried this.
.99
-
So, has this "test" been delayed as I predicted? Or, is it just taking place and none of us will be allowed to watch it live or see the videos later?
I see nothing on Youtube as of yet.
Bill
-
Guys,
You see, Rose's contention is that the battery voltage actually varies in accordance with the oscillating voltage seen across the current viewing resistor. When in fact the true battery voltage does not vary one iota. If and when we see a varying voltage across the battery terminals, it is strictly because there is a parasitic inductance in series with the battery cells and between the measurement points.
She has always measured the battery voltage on the peg board where there is copious parasitic inductance in series with the batteries and in between the measurement points. I have shown, both via simulation, and empirically on the bench with her circuit, that this AC variance as seen across the batteries is not "real". In my video #8 the AC superimposed on the true battery voltage was almost completely eliminated simply by placing the Vbat probe directly across the batteries and by minimizing the inter-battery parasitic inductance through the use of short jumpers. If one had a single 36V or 72V battery, there would be even less AC component seen across the battery terminals. There will always be some observed residual AC component when measuring Vbat however, because internally every battery will exhibit some parasitic series inductance. Check the electrical "model" of a SLAB.
But again, regardless of this residual AC component as seen across the battery terminals, the actual battery voltage, from a chemically-generated emf point of view, does not change. It is a fixed DC value that does not change, except for a gradual increase or decrease when charging or discharging respectively.
So it is not only fair game to average the battery voltage when making battery power measurements, it is good practice. This goes for both instantaneous and average Pbat measurements. Remember, the true VOLTAGE wave form of a DC battery is a flat line.
Now, some may think that when using the following method: AVG(vcsr) * AVG(Vbat) to calculate Pbat, Vbat must be measured directly across the battery terminals, but this is in fact not the case. Vbat can be measured at the peg board where Rose and her team have always measured it, and the resulting value will be the same as if it was measured right across the battery terminals. And this regardless of how much AC component there is seen at the measurement point.
The battery current on the other hand is a very different matter; it MUST be measured with a low inductance CSR right at the resistor body, regardless if you are using scope probes or DMM probes. The reason? The battery current DOES vary, i.e. it has a varying vector, and any parasitic inductance in series with the CSR and in between the measurement points will skew the measured average value.
Once we have a reliable Vcsr measurement, we can either average it and multiply it by the average battery voltage, or we can use the instantaneous samples and multiply them by the instantaneous Vbat samples, which later will be averaged by the scope to produce an average Pbat value. Both methods will produce exactly the same results if executed correctly.
Since we know the battery voltage is truly a flat line measurement, any notion of multiplying an erroneously-obtained Vbat measurement exhibiting wild oscillations, by an equally erroneously-obtained Vcsr measurement from a CSR array fraught with disaster, is a pipe dream. Any "anti-phase" relationship observed between the AC portions of these two traces is a fantasy. The battery voltage is truly NOT doing what is being measured at that test point. Therefore any Pbat value obtained from this flawed measurement configuration is doomed to be erroneous at best. There is no half-witted academic anywhere that would buy that measurement, and thankfully to date we've seen that they haven't.
Now, how does one go about appeasing Rose's misplaced distrust of using AVG(Vcsr) to calculate Pbat? There is probably no avenue available that will lead to success in that venture, but we can try to illustrate the contention by graphical means to a level even a grade 3 student would likely understand. Let's give it a go.
Below you see a scope shot of the oscillation phase as generated in my simulation of her circuit. It's a very nice sine wave, mostly symmetrical in its own right (slightly compressed positive excursion), but there is something noteworthy about it...do you see it? It seems to be offset somewhat from the zero reference line. And indeed it is. I have drawn in the zero reference line for your....reference. It would seem that the wave form is shifted upwards in the positive direction, wrt to the zero reference line.
Now, when using the AVG[p(t)] method to obtain the average Pbat value for the circuit, the Vcsr samples are multiplied by the Vbat samples, then averaged. Since we know Vbat is a flat line trace, we replace that with a constant K. So in effect, we are left with the CSR trace to determine p(t). In other words, every single sample in the Vcsr trace is simply multiplied by K. As such, for purposes of illustration, we can leave K out of the "equation". So now, the Vcsr trace is a direct reflection of the battery power Pbat.
What is the average value of a pure sine wave with no offset? Well, it is zero of course. What would be the result if our Vcsr wave form was in fact symmetrical about the zero reference line and we multiplied all it's samples by K? Is 0 * K still not 0W for Pbat? Now, what if we shift our Vcsr sine wave upwards as is shown in the scope shot? Do we now not have a simple situation of a constant (the offset) times another constant K? indeed we do.
We can also see graphically, that there is a larger area within the sine wave curve in the positive portion of the sine wave, vs. the negative portion. This too tells us that the "average" of that trace is going to be a net positive value. The sine wave has not been evenly-sliced (horizontally) by the zero reference line, and that tells us that there is a net value associated with its existence, as opposed to an evenly-sliced sine wave that has no net average value at all.
So the point being, even if using the AVG[p(t)] method to obtain Pbat, it really comes down to averaging of the Vcsr trace; either there is a net current flowing in to the battery, or out of it. And this holds regardless if we are measuring the Q1 ON time, or the Q2 OFF time, or both phases of the cycle.
I have included a scope shot indicating the scope-computed average of that oscillation trace, and it results in 206.6mA. If one were to obtain the areas of the positive and negative portions of the sine wave shown in the previous scope shot, their difference would equal this 206.6mA.
.99
-
So, has this "test" been delayed as I predicted? Or, is it just taking place and none of us will be allowed to watch it live or see the videos later?
I see nothing on Youtube as of yet.
Bill
Bill,
The test has been delayed to next weekend (call it tentative) due to problems obtaining the required added CSR resistor.
-
Thanks Darren. I must have missed that info on here.
Bill
-
Poynt:
That was a great straightforward technical summation. It's rare that the time base is really stretched out on the DSO shots so I wasn't sure what the oscillation looked like. I was thinking that the gate signal was still doing on-off switching and it resembled a pulse waveform with bandwidth issues. I forgot that it's more of an LC oscillator that's running.
Alas, the voltage is still pushing that current through that long dark tunnel. It's a moving experience.
MileHigh
-
Thanks MH.
Let's hope that some don't get too picky and point out that battery voltages are never 100% solid when under load or charge. Of course due to the battery's internal resistance, there will always be a slight variance in the battery terminal voltage when current is flowing in to or out of it, but this voltage variance is miniscule in comparison to the voltage swings we see at the peg board "Vbat" test point. For all intents and purposes, a battery that is in decent condition and at a high SOC will exhibit very little variance (+/- 1V max.) in its measured terminal voltage.
.99
-
A reminder from Rose:
IF we can measure more energy dissipated at the resistor element - than is measured to have been delivered by the battery supply source - then we NEED TO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS AN ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT HEAT. It's that simple.
Explanation:
When they are 'out of balance' they are HOT and BIG and MEASURABLE. When they reorganise into balanced structures such as a magnetic field expressed through Faraday's Lines of Force - then they become COLD AND SMALL AND IMMEASURABLE. What we exploit as heat is their condition OUT OF BALANCE which is measurable as a voltage imbalance.
So it's a case of Imbalanced Zipon Distress Syndrome. Anybody know the Zanti Misfits? Stressed Zipons are whipping up a hornet's nest around the inductive resistor. They are sustaining the oscillation and the battery is mostly a source of EMF to keep the state of imbalance highly excited. It's right out of The Outer Limits. You put on special goggles and you can see an eerie pulsating glow around all of the coils on your bench. It's the new Orgone.
How do we escape? Escape! Escape!
Let's get this party started and let's measure!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtAsaDKB0eY
;D
MileHigh
-
There is always a positive side to these sagas. Even if the test/demo doesn't happen, The explanations, rants and self contradictions constitute conclusive proof that cloud cuckoo land exists. I wonder how long until Mr. Wier is going to get the RA abuse? Nobody could be more patient than .99 has been yet she is so rude to him.
-
Another point...
IF there is any supplied voltage that is ABLE to vary the battery voltage - IF there is something that can impose a value on the battery - THEN - self-evidently - it cannot be from the battery itself. The battery has a FIXED amount of energy. It cannot CREATE more energy from NOTHING. It cannot simply record a greater voltage than is available from that supply. Unless the very foundation of standard assumption is ENTIRELY wrong. BUT the question remains. WHERE did that energy come from?
I suppose that you could look at it like this: It's just the "energy echo" that's "imposing a (voltage) value on the battery." During the oscillation phase the circuit looks like and acts like a reactive load to the battery. Energy is pumped out of the battery on one cycle and some of that original energy gets "reflected" back on the return cycle. It's a standard property of electric circuits. The key thing is that the return energy is less than the broadcast energy. The energy that doesn't come back gets burned up elsewhere in a resistance. So it would be more correct to say that the circuit is acting like a reactive + resistive load.
So this mystery of "WHERE did that energy come from?" has a trivial answer, the energy came from the battery itself, in the form of a reflection. The circuit is acting like a reactive + resistive load. This is standard theory.
MileHigh
-
@MH: Here's Ainslie's SCRN0166, which is a zoom of the oscillations on the battery trace and the CVR trace. There was a nominal 48 volt Vbatt in use, 4 batteries in series. You can see that the Vbatt trace varies from near zero volts all the way to near 150 volts. Ainslie believes that the battery voltage is actually undergoing these fluctuations during the oscillations. The LeCroy cannot lie, it is a zut instrument, fully calibrated blah blah blah.
Of course a battery can undergo small voltage fluctuations when presented with an oscillating load at very low frequencies. But never of the magnitude or frequency that Ainslie imagines.
Weird, isn't it? She depends on something that _capacitors_ can do just fine but batteries cannot.... yet she constantly claims that capacitors don't have some special power that batteries do have, that makes batteries "work" and caps "don't work" in her circuit. Yet... as anyone with the wit can demonstrate.... capacitors and batteries produce the same waveforms and the same heat in the load, for as long as the caps have sufficient voltage remaining to run the circuit. A capacitor has no problem at all swinging its real charged voltage through hundreds or even thousands of volts, at high frequencies. A Battery cannot do this at all.
There is a further complication. Ainslie's scope, no matter how fast it samples, samples _consecutively_ not concurrently or simultaneously. It samples one channel, then the next, then the next, then the next, then it performs a math operation, then it samples the first channel again, etc etc.
This means that temporal "skew" exists between the channels, which shows up as a slight phase shift in the signals. The scope can measure and compensate for the skew that is happening in any given measurement situation... in fact on some of Ainslie's scopescreens you can see the skew compensation menu coming up... but of course they have never applied this subtle correction to their results. Uncorrected probe skew was how Steorn managed their "overunity" measurements with their 35,000 dollar oscilloscopes.
But as .99 has poynted out.... Ainslie's battery voltage is really quite nearly constant, a flat line. So channel skew issues should not matter... if only the measurements were correctly made in the first place.
-
Another point...
I suppose that you could look at it like this: It's just the "energy echo" that's "imposing a (voltage) value on the battery." During the oscillation phase the circuit looks like and acts like a reactive load to the battery. Energy is pumped out of the battery on one cycle and some of that original energy gets "reflected" back on the return cycle. It's a standard property of electric circuits. The key thing is that the return energy is less than the broadcast energy. The energy that doesn't come back gets burned up elsewhere in a resistance. So it would be more correct to say that the circuit is acting like a reactive + resistive load.
So this mystery of "WHERE did that energy come from?" has a trivial answer, the energy came from the battery itself, in the form of a reflection. The circuit is acting like a reactive + resistive load. This is standard theory.
MileHigh
What seems to have been swept under the rug lately is the fact that the oscillations cannot occur or persist without a power supply, and in the circuit that Ainslie and .99 and I (mostly) have been using, the Function Generator is the power supply. Or rather, the FG in series with the main battery is the power supply for the oscillations. The FG's role can be replaced with a constant, fully filtered DC supply... and then the oscillations will go on forever, no need to chop them with Q1 ON intervals at all.
And of course the power supplied by the FG is dissipated in the circuit elements just like the power from the battery. So OF COURSE, during the oscillations, there will be more power dissipated in the circuit elements than supplied by the MAIN BATTERY... because it is not the only power supply to the circuit!!!! Please, let us not forget this, and don't let Ainslie forget it either.
This fact of course makes Ainslie's whole section of the Paper 1, Test 1: To Determine the Potential Duration of the Oscillations..... just silly. They still think the oscillations have something to do with function generator settings. ANY DC power supply capable of making -4 volts wrt the circuit negative rail will cause the oscillations to persist for as long as that power is supplied, and the more current supplied the greater the magnitude of the oscillations, AND the more power from the DC source will be dissipated in the load and other circuit elements.
-
I see that Ainslie is once again referring to the bogus Figure 3 scopeshot and the claims made around it.
She has apparently forgotten all about the June 29 demonstration which PROVED BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT that the Figure 3 shot, in the Paper 1 that bears Rosemary Ainslie's and Donovan Martin's names... is FRAUDULENT.
What we measure in those scope shots is a battery voltage which, IF TRUE, would indicate that - at the peak of those oscillations - the battery is charging and discharging energies at a level that BEGGARS belief - and that is NOWHERE evident from the energy dissipated over those circuit components. THEN. Look again at our claim related to Fig 3 Paper 1. Here we get ABSOLUTELY NO CURRENT DISCHARGE during the on period of that duty cycle. YET? We have evidence of some significant heat - upwards of 7 watts - dissipated at the resistor.
What we have evidence of, on the contrary, is the incompetence and now deliberate mendacity and "cooked" data of the Donovan Martin - Rosemary Ainslie team.
-
And just to put another point on it: it is EASY to assure that you have "no discharge from the battery during Q1 ON times"... simply have no Q1 ON times, by using a DC bias source or a FG that can produce a DC output level.
But if you supply a +4 volt Gate signal, you WILL have significant Q1 current, and if you supply +12 volts as the Figure 3 shows you will have fully turned on the Q1.
Are you paying attention, Ainslie? Donny? Whenever you refer to Figure 3 and attempt to use it to support ANY claims.... I will remind you of the June 29 demonstration which showed that you absolutely cannot make Figure 3 honestly, with people watching you.
-
Remember THIS, Ainslie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bxAobjN98 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bxAobjN98)
This is the video segment, made before S.Weir joined the conversation, when you can be heard speculating that S.Weir is TK, trying to sabotage your demonstration. (4:30 on) Unfortunately for you, Ainslie and Martin.... you showed yourselves perfectly capable of sabotaging your demonstration all on your own. I don't need to sabotage anything.... YOU simply need to show the truth. And you did: your Figure 3 scopeshot is FRAUDULENT, manufactured data, and you cannot reproduce it honestly when people are watching you.
-
Well... I must say that I am very impressed. If Ainslie actually understands what she wrote, and isn't merely parroting something Donny or Steve told her... then she ALMOST gets it with this latest post. ALMOST.
Now if she would only watch and understand the Negative Bias videos that I have posted, with their schematics, she might be able to understand the situation properly.
The battery is never "disconnected" ! It is acting in series with the FG during the negative portion of the FG's output which is producing the Q2 oscillations! And the current through the FG is generally in the range of 100 to 200 mA, and is varied by the negative setting of the FG's offset control. This means that the internal impedance of the FG must dissipate 2 Watts at most. This is not a problem. The problem is in Ainslie's claim that there is 7 Watts of power in the oscillations. There is not; if her load resistor is dissipating 7 watts then some of that is coming from Q1 partially conducting, which it DOES INDEED do at a Vgs of +4, and even a bit under. Q1 current does not pass through the FG's internal impedance.
Just get a nine-volt battery and a potentiometer and hook them up as shown below, and you will be able to have CONSTANT Q2 oscillations for as long as you like, with no FG at all, and they will be the identical oscillations you get with your FG's negative offset setting. You don't need to turn Q1 on at all.
I DARE YOU TO TRY THIS, Ainslie, and explain what it means. Or get Donny or Steve to tell you what it means. Why do you need a Function Generator AT ALL ? The Q1's role is completely normal and ordinary, isn't it? No magic there, the oscillations are what matter. RIGHT ? ?
Just be sure to use a 2-Watt potentiometer, like a "type J". Steve will know what that is, even if Donny doesn't.
-
At what Gate voltage (denoted by VGS) does an IRFPG50 begin to conduct?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pnnNR85XcQ
-
Let's put our collective mental energy together to get the current viewing resistors to Rosie on time. My compliments, that MOSFET gate voltage demo board was very Frankenstein laboratory like. It would make a good "rack" for torturing little innocent DC motors.
I was thinking of little one-inch-sized motors, something safe. But look what the Engine yielded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSOpl4gG95w
-
I'm somewhat disappointed that it appears they will be going with a 1 Ohm 5W rather than the "standard" 0.25 Ohm for the new CSR off the battery. This is insane, as my analysis indicates that with a 72V supply, 20% duty cycle, and full +/- gate drive, that 1 Ohm CSR is going to be dissipating an average of about 20W! Hope they've got a fire extinguisher on hand. LOL.
Also not good practice, is they will be shorting this new CSR when testing with the horrid original CSR array, but leaving it 'in_tact' for the remaining tests.
-
Poynt:
Those ceramic resistors get a nice internal red glow if I recall. Like a hot coal, something that could burn a hole in your carpet and cause paper to ignite. Meanwhile I think I read that Rosie wants to measure the resistance of the function generator by putting her probes across the FG leads, presumably when it's on? That makes the multimeter very unhappy.
Also, these guys are nicely nuts!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Photonvids/videos
-
Yes, those guys are nuts.
Imagine their 1 Ohm 5W CSR as this neon tester:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGXQNLq19FQ
-
And btw,
If they had chosen instead to use the value I recommended, i.e. the 0.25 Ohm, it would only dissipate about 5W for the same settings. ::)
-
I don't understand all this kerfluffle over the silly csrs. She has four perfectly usable non-inductive resistors that she can use. They are rated 1 ohm 25 Watt and are designed to be heatsink mounted easily. Two in parallel at the Batt neg post with a nice copper strap connecting them, and two in parallel at the present position on the board mounted as they are now, would make me perfectly happy. Nothing needed to be bought except for some copper strip or braid.
The "negative power product" will still be there as before, Poynt99's tests will still work as before, everything will be fine.
Here's another little puzzler for you all to consider.
Using the schematic below, the standard one but with the insertion of DC milliammeters as shown. Set the FG for DC output at whatever negative voltage that will give oscillations in Q2 and an indication of 120 mA on the meter mA1. (Or if you can't set DC output, set a short Q1 ON duty cycle and a gate drive of 0 V positive to keep Q1 off, and set whatever negative offset is necessary to make the oscillations and give the 120 mA1 reading.) For me with Little Bryan (one Q2) this is about -8.3 volts DC unloaded, of course clipped to about -4 volts when hooked to the circuit.
Now... What does mA2 read?
Next.... without changing anything on the FG... open the Switch. What do the ammeters mA1 and mA2 read?
Next.... without changing anything, disconnect only the Drain of Q1. What do the ammeters read?
Compare, contrast, discuss.
-
They don't want to disturb the build of the apparatus, that's why they are ordering extra CSRs rather than robbing from the array. I am OK with that.
Last thing we want is to have Rose crying that we made her butcher her precious apparatus and now the mojo is gone.
Regarding your quiz, perhaps you picked that idea up from my video #11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1ytR1uu8TM)? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1ytR1uu8TM)?) Anyway, the M2 meter should read very much the same regardless if the SW is open or closed. And M2 should read about 1/2 when you disconnect the Q1-D (and SW is open).
Did I win something?
-
I know, I know, I don't want them to disturb their apparatus needlessly either. It's just too bad they can't seem to follow directions or understand simple explanations. Or Ohm's Law, apparently.
-
Have we gotten a clear statement of Ainslie's claims, what she -- or rather Donovan Martin -- will be demonstrating, and what data from the demonstration will either support or fail to support her claims? Should we not have such a document, before the demonstration proceeds?
I remember a few days ago she was claiming that the power dissipated at the load will be at least an order of magnitude greater than the total power delivered by the battery and Function Generator.
In her recent posts she seems to be backing down from this position. Did someone finally explain to her what "an order of magnitude" really means?
I really want to see her dissipate 7 watts at the load while only drawing 250 mA from the power supplies.
(7 Watts == I2R, so solving for I, we have I = sqrt(7/R) = sqrt(0.63) == 0.79 A required by "conventional" electronics, so an order of magnitude less from the power source would be 0.7 Watts == I2R, so I = sqrt(0.7/11.11) = sqrt(0.063) == about 250 mA.
(But what is the actual impedance of the Ainslie load at the oscillation frequency of 1.5-2 MHz?)
And where are the scopeshots that SWeir had them make at the previous demonstration? Are these considered irrelevant now that Ainslie has publicly admitted that she was utterly and completely WRONG about her claims referring to that Figure 3 scopeshot? They are not irrelevant to me: the very fact that she has withheld them, instead of publishing them immediately, indicates her further mendacity. We can't discuss data that the claimant refuses to publish! But at least we can see that her former excuse about not wanting to bother Donny... is bogus, since they have been in constant and repeated communication for the past two weeks.
-
I am ROLLING on the floor laughing. Ainslie is now claiming even more strongly that the battery is completely disconnected during the Q2 oscillations.
Effectively the circuit exploits that voltage imbalance albeit that it does not NEED the current discharge from that battery supply source. INDEED. We argue that it cannot discharge current. IT'S DISCONNECTED.
This is so easy to disprove it is laughable. Simply establish a 100 percent Q2 oscillation with no Q1 on time at all, or use Ainslie's "Figure 3" fantasy but assure that there is in fact NO current showing on the scope during Q1 Gate HI times by using less than 3.6 volts (4 volts is too much, it does turn on Q1 partially). Then stand back and let the device run.
DO THE BATTERIES RUN DOWN? Of course they do. But according to Ainslie, they are DISCONNECTED. So how can they possibly run down?
In fact it is not only completely deluded of her to make this claim, it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading her nonsense. If the battery is completely disconnected as she pretends.... then why does the behaviour of the circuit change when you unhook the cable to the Positive battery terminal? It's already DISCONNECTED according to Ainslie, so how can disconnecting it again, or more, possibly have any effect on anything?
On anything except her silly "thesis" and claims, of course.
-
It will all be resolved this weekend (hopefully), assuming the testing actually goes ahead, and it doesn't get botched in any way.
-
For certain restricted values of "resolved", no doubt.
I mean, for many of us the matter of Paper 1, Figure 3 was entirely "resolved" when Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin proved that they could not reproduce their own claimed data when they were being watched so they could not cheat. Since June 29, 2013, it has been obvious and definite that the data contained in the Ainslie-Martin papers is FALSE, FABRICATED, and WRONG.... yet no retraction, no correction, not even a statement of error has been issued by Rosemary Ainslie or Donovan Martin. The "official publications" of these bogus manuscripts, on Rossi's vanity JNP blog, even contain two different, both wrong, schematics of the same experiment !
Ainslie has shown, over and over again, just as in the examples above.... that she has no regard for the truth, no concern about accuracy and no qualms about taking down the reputation of others (Martin) along with hers by making her ignorant and false claims. So why should we expect anything to be "resolved" in her mind? Just as she continues to make claims about Figure 3 in spite of it being shown to be deliberately fraudulent, she will not accept any results that do not conform to her delusions, and she will even take completely contradictory results and pretend they don't matter, just as she has done with the results of June 29 concerning Figure 3.
-
We will be vindicated this weekend (or whenever Steve gets them to go through the test procedure), there is no doubt about that, providing the testing goes as planned and it is not botched by any means. But I am certain Steve will not let that happen, as in a way his professional reputation is riding on it.
Rose will never concede defeat however; that is pretty much a given. But this demo and the results from its outcome are, in my opinion, not so much to prove to Rose that she is and always has been wrong in her assertions and claims, but to clearly demonstrate this fact to the unsuspecting public.
The nonsense has to end, and without a captive audience, hopefully it will after this weekend.
-
How do we watch this? Is it by invitation again or alternatively where does one find it?
-
Who knows?
You might remember the last one: She announced a date, then postponed it. Then she announced a weblink to her invitees, that was wrong. If you somehow managed to find the actual weblink to the "hangout" they were using , it didn't work so well and you had to watch the live YT feed. Which was dead air for about 20 or 30 percent of the time and was stupid for the rest of the time.
And of course the only solid product of that demonstration, the five or six scopeshots that SWeir guided them to capture, finally... are not available and will not be made available. Why? Is it because they are solid evidence of the fraudulent data that Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin have tried to publish in their bogus manuscripts? Or is it because they simply couldn't manage actually to get the shots saved to the USB stick at all and are now afraid to admit this further evidence of their incompetence?
Either way, not releasing those scopeshots is another damning bit of evidence of the Ainslie-Martin team's duplicity and incompetence. But the _data_ from those shots is preserved anyway, if in somewhat lower resolution, because I went through the demo video and made screen captures of the scope at the moments of the scopeshots that Weir tried to get them to save. There is ample evidence of their fraud in the video and these captures I made.
Rest assured, as soon as I have any information about any new demonstration I will post it here. And should the demonstration NOT take place on Sunday as promised... I have a lot of material from the last demo and the days since then that I will be posting anyway.
The segment of the June 29 demo that contains the SWeir scopeshots (toward the end):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY)
This is just as they streamed it; I have made no edits other than clipping this bit out of the longer full length recording. The audio is really bad, because at some points whoever is holding the cellphone is actually blocking the microphone with his thumb or something!
-
Possibly Rose should get together with the guy who has the self-looped generator...his demo was cancelled last night but maybe Rose's circuit is just what he needs to get it all working again?
Now THAT would be a demo worth watching. (Of course, it would be cancelled)
Bill
-
The demo for Sunday may indeed be canceled, don't be surprised if it is. But if it is it won't be because they are not ready; it will be because the results of the tests on Saturday (the dry run) will be so very devastating to their claims.
-
You will recall that we claim the battery is disconnected during the 'off' time of the duty cycle. That's the period when the signal at the Gate of Q1 goes negative and then the oscillation is evident across the Rshunt. I'll download a schematic hereunder. Now. That argument is germane - because IF the battery IS in fact connected - then we need to establish the path for it to flow through that Q2 transistor.
(blah blah blah)
Therefore would our claim hold that the battery is open circuited and is NOT able to discharge its energy during that period of the duty cycle when the applied signal at the GATE of Q1 is NEGATIVE. Alternatively - we would claim that the amount of energy measured to be dissipated is anomalous as it does NOT conform to the amount of current required to enable that level of dissipation.
Effectively the circuit exploits that voltage imbalance albeit that it does not NEED the current discharge from that battery supply source. INDEED. We argue that it cannot discharge current. IT'S DISCONNECTED.
Indeed.
I do NOT CARE A TUPPENNY DAMN whether the oscillation is, as you claim and optionally - from parasitic inductance - from the wires and sundry circuit components - from anywhere at all. IT IS IRRELEVANT. The fact is that there IS a current that flows in two opposing directions through each oscillation. And that measured oscillation - that measured current flow - is MOST CERTAINLY flowing through that battery stack - first in one direction and then in the other. If, on the other hand - we simply DISCOUNT the evidence - then there is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in doing a demonstration. We can continue to SPECULATE that there is ACTUALLY and ONLY a direct current discharge. And then you will have proved your point.
No, Ainslie. You have proved MY point: that you do not have a clue, from one moment to the next, about what you are trying to discuss.
You claim that the battery is DISCONNECTED.... then you say that a measured current flow is MOST CERTAINLY flowing through that battery stack.
Of course we know that words mean whatever Ainslie says they mean. "DISCONNECTED" means something else in her South African world than it does in mine, because in Texas, things that are DISCONNECTED don't have current flowing through them, in either direction, and things that are DISCONNECTED don't change the circuit's behaviour when the wires are actually unplugged.
-
I have NEVER claimed that the battery is 'experiencing' that alternating current. I've only stated that convention requires that an alternating current would first represent a discharge and then a recharge. What goes on in the battery itself is yet to be determined. And that will require that comparative battery draw down test. Which we are NOT going to do at our demonstration. When I say the battery is 'disconnected' I am stating that the battery is UNABLE to discharge it's energy through that period of the duty cycle when we generate the oscillation. IF it was discharging it would need to show not less than 0.8 amps deduced from the voltage across the shunt that we're going to put in series with the BLACK lead of the function generator. And NOR are we discharging energy during the 'ON' phase of the duty cycle - when there's a positive signal applied to the Gate of Q1. Therefore effectively in Fig 3 paper 1 the battery is effectively DISCONNECTED.
Hah hah. Again with the FIGURE 3 Paper 1 FRAUDULENT SCOPESHOT.
The Figure 3 scopeshot CANNOT BE MADE HONESTLY when you are being watched so you cannot cheat, and this was proven beyond a shadow of doubt on June 29.
Further it is EASY to prove that Q1 does turn on and does pass significant current even at a Vgs of +4 volts, much less the +12 volts that YOU CLAIMED IN THE FRADULENT FIGURE 3.
The battery is definitely connected in your Figure 3... but some other things are not! It is falsified out of whole cloth, a complete lie, and every time you refer to it I will remind you that YOU CANNOT REPRODUCE YOUR OWN CLAIMED DATA when you are being watched so you cannot cheat.
And further still....
The fact is that there IS a current that flows in two opposing directions through each oscillation. And that measured oscillation - that measured current flow - is MOST CERTAINLY flowing through that battery stack - first in one direction and then in the other.
Can't seem to get your story straight, can you, Ainslie?
-
The demo for Sunday may indeed be canceled, don't be surprised if it is. But if it is it won't be because they are not ready; it will be because the results of the tests on Saturday (the dry run) will be so very devastating to their claims.
Ah, the dreaded dry run again. I think it was TK who first said, and I agree, that the dry run is THE demo that folks really need to see.
Bill
-
Hi Bill.
Not even I will be allowed to be present for the dry run. Which is too bad, because there might not be the Sunday demo once reality sets in on Saturday. In fact I believe the chances of a Sunday demo are fairly slim.
In the end does it matter? The outcome is going to be fairly clear; either Rose has been correct all along and all of us who have been trying to educate her for 6 years are clueless about electronics, or Rose has been refusing to see and accept the presented facts and conventional science prevails. In any case, it's sure to be the end of an era.
It should take but 2 or 3 straight forward measurements. And it's but a matter of time.
-
Have just spoken to Rose, and she is tentatively going to allow my participation in the dry run Saturday. Rose may be sending me the Demonstration Outline document (or link) which I will of course post here in the morning.
Out of a certain degree of frustration, I have been somewhat glib and jesting over and above nominal levels lately. I apologize to those I may have offended, in particular Rose.
May the day be all about smooth, successful, clear and revealing measurements that all are agreeable to and all fully support.
Cheers,
.99
-
I don't think the outcome of the demo will change anything significant. Ainslie will realize that Mr. Weir belongs to team troll and will continue to do that Ainslie number. And - NOTA BENE - continue the search for academics who would give her thesis a fair hearing.
-
Have just spoken to Rose, and she is tentatively going to allow my participation in the dry run Saturday. Rose may be sending me the Demonstration Outline document (or link) which I will of course post here in the morning.
Out of a certain degree of frustration, I have been somewhat glib and jesting over and above nominal levels lately. I apologize to those I may have offended, in particular Rose.
May the day be all about smooth, successful, clear and revealing measurements that all are agreeable to and all fully support.
Cheers,
.99
Darren:
Good for you. That is potentially good news. As I have posted before, I admire your patience and the respect you have shown while dealing with these issues. It appears that you just want to get to the truth of the matter...which is what everyone should want, including Rose, et al.
That is a plus for Rose that she will allow you (hopefully) to be involved in the dry run. I guess TK being involved is out of the question, ha ha. I know he will be watching closely.
Best of luck with this.
Bill
-
Yes, I'll be watching all right -- if anything actually takes place, which I doubt. She's competing with another scheduled and postponed demonstration now, you know, Chuck Pierce's Cleveland Mo-Gen that makes 17 kW for free, that he's been trying to get running since Thursday night.
My involvement has already been extensive and comprehensive. The many videos I've made over the past two years illustrating and explaining features of her device will be fun to review and compare to what they will present, and have presented. They will of course avoid dealing with any of the Real issues involved, like the fabrication of fraudulent data in their "papers", that was demonstrated on June 29th.
I've illustrated several things over the duration:
1. A Vgs of +4 volts is enough to turn on Q1 substantially, but not completely.
2. The Function Generator DOES act as a power supply in series with the main battery during the Q2 oscillations.
3. The oscillations can be made continuously, with no Function Generator necessary at all.
4. The oscillations do result in a small current drain from the battery and some small load heating.
5. The Paper 1 Figure 3 scopeshot is a fabrication, a lie, it cannot be made under the claimed conditions in the paper. This is a definite and provable example of deliberate fraud on the part of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin: cooking data so that it appears to support the claims in the papers. The Figure 3 scopeshot has been challenged ever since it was published in March of 2011, and since June 29, 2013 it has been known, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that Ainslie and Martin cannot produce this dataset under the claimed conditions, when they are being watched so that they cannot cheat. The presence of the Figure 3 scopeshot is clear proof of fraud, not error--- since the problems were pointed out over two years ago, yet Ainslie even today still refers to the figure in an attempt to support her mendacious claims. Calling the Figure 3 shot "scientific misconduct" of the worst kind -- falsifying data -- is too good for Ainslie, since there is no science involved in her playtime amusements.... but the fact remains: the Figure 3 scopeshot is a fabrication -- as are the schematics posted in the papers. The Ainslie-Martin team actually used a different schematic than any they have ever published! This fact, too, was clearly proven during the June 29 demonstration.
6. The oscillations actually dissipate more power in the transistors than in the load.
7. Batteries used to run the Ainslie circuit DO discharge and will run down faster in a Dim Bulb test than batteries that have not been used to run the circuit.
8. There is no "benefit" of Ainslie's circuit as a heater, over straight DC supplied to the load.
9. Tar Baby is an exact functional replication of Ainslie's device.
10. Digital oscilloscopes, like ALL test instruments, have artifacts and measurement pitfalls that must be taken into account by the user.
11. The battery is connected at all times during the operation of the device, it is never DISCONNECTED as Ainslie shouts with her false claims.
12. The claimed COP>17 device, and the present claimed COP INFINITY device, both have incorrect or impossible schematics published along with their claims.
13. The claimed COP>17 device in particular cannot operate as claimed using the published 555 timer schematic, which produces the exact inverse of the claimed duty cycle.
14. There is no documentation supporting Ainslie's claims of independent testing and supervision by "BP" or any other alphabet agency or company.
15. Documentation DOES exist from people who have worked "with" Ainslie or allowed her to use equipment and space, all of it uniformly negative.
16. The "negative power product" that is Ainslie's only remaining data that could support her claims... is an easily produced artifact of her naive measurements and lack of math ability. It can be made on demand by devices that are manifestly NOT overunity, and hence it is not support for her main claims at all.
17. She still believes I am someone called Bryan Little ! With absolutely no evidence or support! I am rolling on the floor laughing!
18. And of course there are the many proven lies she has emitted, like "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO"...... referring to the video of the demonstration of March 2011, which she posted herself to one of her four YT accounts immediately, proudly announced in her blog and this forum... and then later proceeded to disavow when it became clear what lies it contained. She then tried to cover up the lies by removing that video completely... but the internet never forgets.
And I've refuted many of Ainslie's lesser ancillary claims and stupid statements as well. The Saturday "dry run" and any Sunday demonstration that may happen will not be able to contradict any of these items that I have illustrated in my videos over the past years. Willfully ignorant, Ainslie stumbles on, still claiming many things that I and others have soundly disproven many times long ago, still making a laughingstock of herself with every mendacious and ignorant post she makes.
-
How can you lose, with the Ainslie team on your side? Not only do they not know how to read an oscilloscope, they apparently don't know how to read a CALENDAR either!!
Here's what you see when you go to their video link that Ainslie posted this morning:
-
Here is the link to the Demonstration Outline.
http://wikisend.com/download/576390/August
-
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.
-
TK,
The FG earth will be removed. I think Steve forgot to mention that. Perhaps he will update and post new link.
I guess a few more concessions were made during negotiations as to the claims and pass/fail criteria. I think they are still well within levels adequate to discern the outcome one way or the other.
I agree with your points, and will try to make sure the testing is performed in a fair manner.
Yeah, it would have been nice to see a few more claims being tested, but at the end of the day, the main one here will cover many or all, for all intents and purposes I think.
-
I think this is the link
(Google not youtube)
https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/e16faa026ec218fc5658b1e6909b700137672b1d (https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/e16faa026ec218fc5658b1e6909b700137672b1d)
I received a message to pass it on
I hope that is ok
Kind reagrds
-
Today s dry run is not going you tube, will find out if tomorrows is
Mark
-
I think this is the link
(Google not youtube)
https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/e16faa026ec218fc5658b1e6909b700137672b1d (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
-
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
Nothing fishy about that link for me. I clicked on it, and "joined" the hangout with no problem, it even retrieved one of my icon images, the one I use on YouTube. I saw a blurry shot of a blank oscilloscope.... for about ten seconds, then I was "blocked" by Ainslie. LOL.
She is right on top of things.... but surely she knows that I will see the recording, as soon as the farce is over with.
(Firefox 20.0, Linux Ubuntu 11.10)
-
all is well for tomorrows public demonstration
I will post the youtube link when I have it
Many Thanks
Mark
-
Just starting Phase 1 now.
Results:
RL Temp = 42.3ºC (~22ºC rise)
+Vp = 3 to 4V
Pbat = -25W (-100W)
MEAN(VCSR) = -20.2mV
MEAN (Vbat) = 74V
Using AVG Pbat is +5.9W
-
We need a new category: Top Secret Open Source.
-
Phase 2 (FG Power) indicated about 0.4W.
Phase 3 (Pbat taken at battery, 1 battery)
12.5V
Vcsr: 83mV (1 Ohm)
Pbat (scope) = 0.77W (x 6 equals about 4.6W)
Pbat using MEAN values ~ 6W
-
Summary:
Phase 1 Pbat = -112W
Phase 3 Pbat = +4.6W
As a result Rose has conceded she has been wrong all along.
-
Summary:
Phase 1 Pbat = -112W
Phase 2 Pbat = +4.6W
As a result Rose has conceded she has been wrong all along.
Just like that, eh? So no demo tomorrow, I take it. And so she will be issuing a public retraction on YouTube, right? Retracting the bogus papers, admitting to cooking the data (not the water), apologizing to all those people she slighted, insulted and disrespected who started out only trying to help her, but were turned into mortal enemies by her attitude and disrespect.... all of that? Just like that?
Riiiight. I'll believe that when I see it happening. I think it's more likely that she will wind up flailing about and denying the results somehow, since they were obviously influenced by the evil TinselKoala (Bryan Little) during his login attempt.
-
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...
-
The departing thought was that the demo tomorrow would go ahead as planned, even though the results were not in Rose's favor. If I understood correctly, she felt this would be in the best interest of those who may end up wasting time on the circuit.
So, tune in tomorrow morning. I can't guarantee it will actually go ahead, but that is the plan anyway.
-
Darren:
Good for you. That is potentially good news. As I have posted before, I admire your patience and the respect you have shown while dealing with these issues. It appears that you just want to get to the truth of the matter...which is what everyone should want, including Rose, et al.
That is a plus for Rose that she will allow you (hopefully) to be involved in the dry run. I guess TK being involved is out of the question, ha ha. I know he will be watching closely.
Best of luck with this.
Bill
Thanks Bill.
Yes, I'm always most interested in the truth and often that involves good measurement practices.
I think we've all learned a great deal about electrical power measurements over the last few years, and if it wasn't for the Rosemary Ainslie's of the world, perhaps we would not be looking so deeply into what on the surface appear to be "trivial" measurements.
Rose has finally conceded that her measurements and her conclusions from the measurements were incorrect. I think she has also learned that the scope simply measures what you place between its probes, and that the measurement won't necessarily be the same when comparing a high frequency measurement at one location vs. another.
Hats off to Steve Weir, for his patience and his big effort in bringing this saga to a close. His approach to the situation allowed him to get further with Rose than any one of us have been able to, even though we have been presenting the exact same facts for over two years.
I have mixed emotions about the outcome; on one hand we finally have resolve to the debate and that makes me happy and relieved, but on the other hand I have a feeling that all the work, time and effort I put in towards this end will never be appreciated, in particular by Rose. It is frustrating knowing that this could have been resolved two years ago shortly after I discovered the actual circuit connections, the oscillation mechanism, the reason for the negative MEAN power computations, and finally how to obtain the correct Pbat power measurement.
And of course there are the TK's, MileHigh's, Picowatt's, Humbugger's et al who have also put in a great deal of time and effort, particularly TK. They too deserve credit for all their work and input.
Hopefully tomorrow will go ahead as planned (a little smoother perhaps), and all can bear witness to the "truth" regarding Rosemary's oscillator circuit and the controversy surrounding it.
Cheers,
.99
-
Guys
We have just completed a 'dry run' required by Steve Weir in advance of the demo for tomorrow. We followed stringent protocols that are outlined in a file that has now, apparently, been put on the internet. If not I'll see what I can do to get the file link posted here.
The claim was made by Poynty that inductance on the battery was skewing our results and I refuted this. SADLY he is RIGHT. Far from being able to generate the required measurements - the advantage ENTIRELY falls away. I am satisfied with the logic that Steve proposed for this proof. And with the protocols required to prove this. And again - WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS - NOTWITHSTANDING our earlier measurements. This saddens me - on one level - the more so as I now feel that I must start this quest from scratch. But on another level I'm strangely relieved. It's complex. And over time I may be able to understand it better - myself. One liberating aspect is that I will not need to devote any time trying to persuade our academics to take this research on board. Which I anticipated would take up way more time than I'd be willing to forfeit. And which I felt was an obligation on my part - as I was somehow compelled to protect the evidence against the onslaught to which it was subjected. I can now, perhaps - proceed with ONLY those tests that really do interest me.
I have never made this fact public - but I am blind as a bat - and TERRIFIED of all things electrical. I am simply NOT equipped to be an experimentalist. And my devotion to this over the years has been out of a somewhat tortured sense of obligation to protect - what appeared to me to be a truth. Whether or not the thesis is correct is irrelevant. The fact is that this test most certainly DOES NOT PROVE IT. And it is courtesy the input of our Poynty Point that I was obliged to bring the evidence to close scrutiny.
To cut a long story short - here's the thing. We'll be doing the demonstration tomorrow - simply to put it on record that there is NO aspect of that oscillation that ACTUALLY delivers a gain. This to prevent ANYONE wasting their time in trying to find it here. It is ENTIRELY due to the inductance on the circuit that this is measured. There is some evidence that inductance ADDS to the heat measured over the resistor element - which is possibly counter intuitive. But the amount added - certainly on our circuit - is NOT significant. We MAY - in due course - run the battery drawn down tests to evaluate various benefits in a switching circuit. But we will NOT be boring you all with updates - basically because I do NOT think that open source is the way to go. Unless, of course, we can first prove those values with the same standard of stringent testing protocols that Steve Weir imposed.
So guys - sadly - this is INDEED my swansong - as it relates to this circuit. We will now have to retract our claims and our papers - and admit that there are errors in measurement that have accounted for that apparent gain. I admit defeat. Notwithstanding which, I'm rather proud of the fight that I managed in the face of my many detractors. While it's kept me from gainful employment it has compensated by offering an intense level of intellectual engagement which I relish. And it's all added to my love of science which I regret that I discovered rather late in life.
Thank you to all my supporters - and, in a rather circuitous way - to my detractors. I will be continuing my work on this blog. But as it will be confined mostly to the thesis - and to work to prove that thesis - it is unlikely that I'll be engaging as many of you as before. For those who want to watch it - the demo will be aired tomorrow. But it is only going to prove what I've written here. Not good news. But very relevant. And most importantly - that those who read here - don't waste their time on this circuit. Sadly.
Kindest regards
Rosie
This is of course copied from Rose's forum 2013-08-10.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4846.html#msg4846
-
And what about Donovan Martin, the Electrical Engineer of the bunch? What had he to say about all of this, his name on her papers, the bogus data and conclusions published under his name?
There is some evidence that inductance ADDS to the heat measured over the resistor element - which is possibly counter intuitive.
Claims without evidence, already. She cannot make a single entirely honest post, not even her "swansong".
Notwithstanding which, I'm rather proud of the fight that I managed in the face of my many detractors.
She is actually PROUD of the fact that she "managed" to insult and disparage and lie about and ignore the solid factual information that her "detractors" have been telling her for, what, thirteen years now? She is PROUD of this arrogant and willfully ignorant approach of hers, this utter beggaring of the Scientific Method, this amazing illustration of psychopathology on her part, she is rather PROUD of all this? The mind boggles.
-
[size=78%]She is actually PROUD of the fact that she "managed" to insult and disparage and lie about and ignore the solid factual information that her "detractors" have been telling her for, what, thirteen years now? She is PROUD of this arrogant and willfully ignorant approach of hers, this utter beggaring of the Scientific Method, this amazing illustration of psychopathology on her part, she is rather PROUD of all this? The mind boggles.[/size]
The mind should not boggle:
The book on Ainslie, crying for attention anywhere that she could find it, was always about nothing more than a sick, diseased, clinically insane, pathologically deluded woman, with an infested mind totally out of touch with reality ..and everyone knew it. That will continue to be the case, and will never change without professional help.
Along with her inexcusably deceitful, vicious, hateful personality,
may this piece of shit continue to rot in her own hell.
-
I will dedicate this quote to TinselKoala and PicoWatt in consideration of all of the vicious and ugly abuse that they took from Rosemary:
<<<
As we also believe that those assumptions are now DISPROVED - NULL AND VOID - of NO FORCE AND EFFECT. Correctly they will be moved into our archives and their only relevance will be as a blip in the progress of our understanding - and that they can now gather dust and be largely IGNORED.
>>>
That's Rosemary speaking and it ended up that she was speaking about her own proposition.
When you try to discuss rational science and evaluate things on their face value using common sense and knowledge you can get mercilessly bashed and humiliated by people with less knowledge and less experience and many nonsensical voodoo preconceptions about electronics and energy and related matters.
I myself and many others including Poynt took a lot of flack from Rosemary. I have been subject to vicious attacks on this very forum for expressing my opinion and trying to share some knowledge and do what I believe is good.
Will this "cycle of idiocy" ever stop? I don't know the answer to that. All that I can say is you should stand up for what you believe is right to prevent the collective dumbing-down of society and you should do it without maliciously attacking your fellow man.
Look at the case of Chuck Pierce on PESN and his idiotic motor-generator-connected-to-the-motor. It another example of stupidity trying to take root and steal money from ignorant and gullible people. Very few people are willing to look at the situation and state their opinions. You would be horrified if you found out that the "doctor" that you were sending your children to had a fake PhD. But then a Joe Blow like Chuck Pierce comes along and claims that he has a PhD in "Thermonuclear Reactors" (sic) from a now-defunct university that didn't even have any science programs and almost nobody says anything.
The message is two-fold: Wake up and try to learn about the subject matter that you are interested in. Don't viciously and maliciously attack people with more knowledge and experience than yourself. Instead, respect them for the hard work they did going to school and/or by educating themselves and try to learn something from them.
MileHigh
-
On a positive note I would like to thank Poynt, TK, PicoWatt, the "new guy" Steve Weir, and I am sure there are many others unnamed, for the considerable efforts that they put into analyzing the various switching circuits put forth by Rosemary. I learned a lot in the process and I respect their dedication in following up on this all the way to it's proper and truthful conclusion. We are literally talking about years of work adding up to thousands and thousands of hours. The mind boggles if you were to calculate the equivalent dollar sum in consulting fees.
It was all done for free by good people that have altruistic motivations and they are to be congratulated.
MileHigh
-
It was all done for free by good people that have altruistic motivations and they are to be congratulated.
MileHigh
Here Here! I agree 100%. Nice job fellows.
I can't wait to see what cool devices TK now comes up with since he no longer has to waste his time on this bogus "science".
Bill
-
I would like to reflect MH and Bills thank you to everyone. My intention has always been in everyone's best interest to bring this to some sort of conclusion in some rational way. Hopefully we can at least bring it to some sort of conclusion.
Kind Regards
Mark
-
...to bring this to some sort of conclusion in some rational way. Hopefully we can at least bring it to some sort of conclusion.
From where I sit it is evident that the
conclusion (scientifically) was long ago
accomplished. ???
Unfortunately, a battle of wills has
developed which set for itself a very
unscientific goal. Where is someone
like Spock when he is needed? 8)
The real problem with "science" is that
it is done by stubborn people. ;) It has
too often become a game of psycho-
analysis. :D Getting a woman to change
her mind is damn near impossible under
even the best of circumstances. ;D
Aye, Spock would separate the science
from the noise in a microsecond or less... ::)
-
Here Here! I agree 100%. Nice job fellows.
I can't wait to see what cool devices TK now comes up with since he no longer has to waste his time on this bogus "science".
Bill
Yes congratulations to all, what a long road it's been, but finally the truth has got through :)
-
Link: to Demo: [/font][/size]http://www.youtube.com/embed/PY3mHLJ2DzU (http://www.youtube.com/embed/PY3mHLJ2DzU)
-
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.)
-
"Do people know that the demo is proceeding RIGHT NOW, not at the time previously announced?"
Mark is in charge of that..... Making the announcement ELEVEN MINUTES before it starts...... yep, TOP SECRET OPEN SOURCE appears to have a leak, I was able to get there in time!
LOL......
-
I announced it on my site yesterday and the link as soon as I got it. I did not realize I was the announcer
mark
-
Oh...I just LOVE to see people putting stuff down on top of big unfused battery stacks ! Set that scopemeter down on those terminals, go ahead.
Maybe they will get careless and short a terminal with a wedding ring, or drop a test lead across them. That would be worth watching!
-
I announced it on my site yesterday and the link as soon as I got it. I did not realize I was the announcer
mark
I see the comment, but I don't see an announcement of the time. Should not Ainslie have announced the demo link and TIME here and in her forum, perhaps? That is, if she really wanted people to watch?
You aren't the announcer, you are just providing your name for her to use. "Mark Dansie saw the presentation" etc.
-
Almost 25 minutes doing what they should have done before starting, simply setting up, so far..... and more demonstrations of incompetence on the oscilloscope.
The schematic in Paper 1 WAS NEVER USED as claimed in the papers. The Black FG lead was NEVER located in any of Ainslie's tests in the location given in the schematic, it was ALWAYS at the common circuit ground.
Ainslie has forgotten to bring the list of saved scope setups.
The camera work is as incompetent as ever and Donovan Martin mumbles and does not speak clearly.
-
I will reiterate here:
The most important things for independent researchers to know is THE OPEN CIRCUIT FG SETTINGS, the positive and negative voltages, the frequency and duty cycle.
This is listed in the protocol as the very last thing, item 5... and apparently this was not done yesterday at all.
IT MUST BE DONE AND REPORTED and it should be determined as soon as the claimants decide they have the settings they want to use. PLEASE !!
-
So more minutes of no action looking at meaningless scope display, while they fumble about and can't figure out how to set up for a simple measurement.
-
THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO ASSURE THE FG SETTINGS AND THAT IS TO MEASURE THEM !!!!!!!
-
WILL YOU PLEASE PERFORM THE OPEN CIRCUIT FG MEASUREMENT, and then LEAVE THE SETTINGS ALONE !!!!
-
This is insane. You do not know the FG settings, you do NOT know the contribution of the FG since the settings have been changed to some unknown value!
You need to do what is listed in the Protocol document, with the exception that the FG open circuit settings must be measured at the beginning, recorded and reported, and then locked down!!! This is BASIC experimental technique!
Without knowing the precise FG settings and the power contribution, the rest of the "demonstration" is essentially useless. Especially if you call the thing off and don't even wind up making the open-circuit measurement, as you apparently did yesterday.
-
"I can see the meter, don't move the camera away.. WHY Are you moving the camera away?...."
Because they are incompetent and can't even follow directions as well as an eighth-grader might.
-
DO NOT FORGET PHASE 5. If you go through all this and fail to make the opencircuit FG measurement.... then all of this is USELESS.
-
The readings you get are strongly dependent on the FG OFFSET and THIS MUST BE KNOWN from an open circuit measurement!!!!!!!
It takes two minutes!
NOOOOOOOOOOO.........
You've cut off the demo without the MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF DATA !!!!!!!!!
I am astounded. You lot should be ashamed. YOU DID NOT FOLLOW YOUR OWN PUBLISHED PROTOCOLS IN EITHER YESTERDAY OR TODAY.
WE STILL DO NOT KNOW THE FG OPEN CIRCUIT SETTINGS OR THE POWER CONTRIBUTION OF THE FG.
-
TK,
After the demo went offline, I had them do an OC FG measurement with the scope:
The FG was set to -15V and +3V, with a 20% duty cycle. Frequency was 1kHz.
-
A brief summary of the final demo today:
Phase 1 Pbat (at board) = -114.8W
Phase 2 (FG) power ~ 0.3W
Phase 3 Pbat (at batteries) ~ +15W
Power dissipated at RL ( ~20ºC rise from old data) ~ 2.5W
-
TK,
After the demo went offline, I had them do an OC FG measurement with the scope:
The FG was set to -15V and +3V, with a 20% duty cycle. Frequency was 1kHz.
Thank you. You will note that this is the very first time, in all the years, that Ainslie's precise FG opencircuit output voltages have been posted.
Even if they are only precise to the volt. Personally I might have measured them to milliVolt precision and stated them at the beginning ... but then I'm not making OU claims.
Are these the precise values used for the power determinations? What about that last scope shot visible in the Live Demo just before Ainslie pulled the plug.... have you ever seen anything like that in a correctly wired circuit?
Is this supposed to represent the current in the FG's cvr?
-
Disregard that last scope shot; After the demo was declared officially over, Donovan was moving scope probes around in some unknown fashion, as they were trying to recreate a condition they had observed prior to the start of the demo.
-
Disregard that last scope shot; After the demo was declared officially over, Donovan was moving scope probes around in some unknown fashion, as they were trying to recreate a condition they had observed prior to the start of the demo.
OK, fine.
Is it really necessary for me to "poynt" out that, had they actually measured the open circuit FG settings instead of marking them on a bit of tape, they might have had more success in repeating their earlier "measurements"?
Now I've got SWeir's friend Joshs on my case because he thinks I'm not sufficiently grateful, I guess. But if "debunks" have as many holes in them as the "bunk" does in the first place, what good are they?
The protocols were discussed and agreed upon. You got attempted feedback from me, or should have, that the Phase 5 FG settings should have been done asap. Yet the public demo was stopped and cut off before the agreed upon protocol was completed, the FG settings were changed and there is no clear idea of just what the FG settings were that produced the "fail" power measurements.
This may be "sufficient" to show Ainslie wrong, the exact FG settings may be a trivial detail, but to omit them is _not scientific_ or good practice.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPFoL2V5GkE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPFoL2V5GkE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tReHHljgdjQ
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
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.)
-
Steve Weir's updated version of the Demonstration Outline.
-
TK,
You need to calm down.
8)
-
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.
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?
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!
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Very, very sensible suggestion MileHigh. 8)
TK, your tantrum is most unbecoming. :o
Where's the Love? ::)
-
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
..
-
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:
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:
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE)
-
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
Yes! Please bring it on MileHigh. You, TK & markdansie would make ideal contributors. Documentary titled - Free Energy Inventions Exposed! I would think that most of the major TV channels would jump at the opportunity to make and screen this. There could also be some financial sponsorship available from the oil companies!
-
@ Hoppy
what role would you have for Sterling?
-
@ Hoppy
what role would you have for Sterling?
Teaboy :)
-
It is now Monday Evening in South Africa, about dinnertime, August 12, 2013.
The false and mendacious papers are STILL UP on Ainslie's blog, still containing the Figure 3 scopeshot fabrication, which has been known and admitted to be wrong by Ainslie since June 29. The papers still contain the schematic that shows a location for the Black FG lead that Ainslie never in fact used before Saturday August 10, 2013.
Other versions of the false and mendacious papers are STILL UP on Rossi's JNP blog, still containing two differing schematics, neither of which was actually used during the reported experimental trials.
-
There are only three plausible inadvertent "errors" that could have produced the Figure 3 Paper 1 scopeshot: A blown (open circuit) mosfet damaged by overheating, a disconnected cliplead to the Q1 transistor at the studs where all are connected, or the same wire(s) coming loose from its lap-soldered join to the transistor's lead itself.
As I have shown, the IRFPG50 mosfet can remain operational to over 220 degrees C. But electronic solder melts at around 180-190 C depending on the composition. My unit uses socketed transistors so they do not become disconnected until the socket actually melts, but Ainslie's poorly mounted transistors could easily reach lead temperatures that would melt the lap-joint solder connections and cause disconnection before actual failure of the transistor, which would allow a trace like Figure 3 to appear.
The problem with calling these scenarios "error" is that they would have to be noticed and repaired before further use of the apparatus, which would call into question results obtained before the apparatus fault was noticed and repaired. (Such faults are noted by Ainslie around the time of the actual data collection, in her blog and forum posts.) But the shot _strongly supported_ Ainslie's main claim! It was just too good to discard, and of course it could not be repeated honestly with a functioning apparatus properly wired. So it was included in the papers as a MAIN ITEM OF EVIDENCE for her main claim, even though they, or she, had to know it could not be repeated and was the result of some failure mode -- the apparatus could not spontaneously heal itself!
In short.... it is a real stretch to call the data itself an "error".... but to have it included as evidence or support for her thesis claims in the paper is definitely FABRICATION of data, of the most egregious kind. And this discrepancy was pointed out to her as soon as that shot was first posted, in her blog in 2011, yet it remains in her various papers even today.
Further fabrications include the schematics published in the papers: the two schematics in the papers on Rossi's blog don't even agree with each other, and in all versions the Black or minus FG lead is shown in a position that Ainslie never actually used before 10 August 2013. None of the schematics show four "shunt" resistors. These omissions and misrepresentations are NOT ERRORS, especially the false location of the Black FG lead. They are fabrications, claims that data was collected under certain conditions, when in fact, conditions were vastly different from what was stated. The location of the Black FG lead shown in the schematics only appeared after it was pointed out to her that the location she actually used to collect the data in the papers allowed significant current to bypass the current measuring resistor and thus was making all of her data erroneous. How did she fix this? She, or her team, simply re-drew the schematic to show the "proper" location of the Black lead... even though this location was never used before this past Saturday. The solid evidence for this bit of fabrication is in the March 2011 demonstration video, where the team demonstrates the circuit as it was actually used. The Black FG lead can be clearly and plainly seen to be connected at the common circuit ground. Ainslie has attempted to repudiate this video that she posted, claiming several times that "she did not post that video" when of course she did, and finally removing it from her YT account (one of four different YT accounts she has.) But of course the video still exists and is viewable and the proofs of her fabrications are easy to see in that video. All other photographs of Ainslie's apparatus, even those of the single mosfet version in use before 2011, show the Black FG lead at the common circuit ground, NOT the position shown in the posted schematics in the papers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPb-3av12AI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPb-3av12AI)
Since that statement was made, she actually went back to claiming that she could make the Figure 3 scopeshot, first with 8 volts, then with 4 volts on the gate. But as the demonstration this past Saturday showed to her, she needs under 3 volts on the gate to prevent Q1 from turning on partially, just as we have been telling her all along. And Donovan Martin is fully aware of this property of mosfets .... yet he has allowed his name to remain on the papers claiming the original Figure 3 is legitimate. This is NOT ERROR !
(Anyone who believes Ainslie is "blind as a bat" clearly hasn't viewed her cartoon caricature videos on her YT channel. She is a visual artist working in gouache or watercolors, pencil, pen-and-ink. A blind artist! Right. That's a miracle in itself.)
Once again we are back to the point of the lying troll queen insulting me and disparaging my work, without offering any proof or refutation of my work, just insults and name calling .... so I will continue to point out, with solid evidence, her mendacity and fabrications. Does she want me to stop? Then she must fulfil her obligations.
-
Hey TK I don't want to distract but I can't resist reposting the summary posted by Poynt:
<<<
A brief summary of the final demo today:
Phase 1 Pbat (at board) = -114.8W
Phase 2 (FG) power ~ 0.3W
Phase 3 Pbat (at batteries) ~ +15W
Power dissipated at RL ( ~20ºC rise from old data) ~ 2.5W
>>>
It's perhaps the final touch of high comedic flair from this whole escapade!
Rosie's circuit ends up being about 17% efficient in getting battery power to the "payLOAD" inductive resistor. She must have posted about a thousand times about "seeing the efficiency and advantages associated with switching circuits." It's like a great old black and white Peter Seller's comedy where the comedy is implicit and situational. There is a "screaming with laughter" undertone to the whole storyline that's always in the background.
Many of us can laugh harshly amongst ourselves considering all of the effort and time that was put into this thing and enjoy some mayhem. ;D
Two words: La Tomatina! La Tomatina! La Tomatina!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fMrVYqcrvs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fMrVYqcrvs)
-
TK:
Here is a suggestion, do with it what you will. If you are waiting for Rose, et al to retract anything, I am afraid that is not going to happen. So, an alternative might be to provide to whomever published her paper in the first place, all of the evidence of the errors including Rose's admission that it does not work. Your documentation on this is impeccable. I would think that they would have no choice but to retract her paper as published, if they valued their credibility at all.
As I said, just a thought.
Bill
-
She [Rosie] must have posted about a thousand times about "seeing the efficiency and advantages associated with switching circuits."
Rosemary was not able to realize those benefits,
unfortunately, because of flaws in her circuits.
If she continues with her studies and research
she may yet make the needed improvements.
Rosemary is an honorable woman and will no
doubt reconcile with those whom she deems
worthy in the future.
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.
-
Rosemary was not able to realize those benefits,
unfortunately, because of flaws in her circuits.
If she continues with her studies and research
she may yet make the needed improvements.
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.
On what basis do you make these assertions?
-
Rosemary is an honorable woman
What planet do you live on?
Have you missed the documentation of the lies she has told and never corrected? The shouted "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO"? The arrogant insults to people who have just been telling her all this time that she is putting her foot in her mouth with her silly claims? Have you somehow missed the undeniable FACT that she falsified the schematics? She lied blatantly about the circuit in use from the date of the March 2011 demonstration until about April 19th, when .99 poynted out the deception and she had to admit to it. She also has had ample opportunity to retract and correct the Quantum magazine article, which even caused your hero GMeast to exclaim "The timer doesn't work! Has anyone built this?!" when he tried to reproduce her claims-- yet she has never done so.
Do you consider calling me "subhuman" in her latest post an honorable thing to do?
You are a joke.
-
What planet do you live on?
I didn't plan on revealing that, but since
you've brought it up;
Presently I am an inhabitant of this planet.
It is much different than my own planet which
I miss very much. I believe I knew you there
too. Don't you wish we were back home?
Do you consider calling me "subhuman" in her latest post an honorable thing to do?
Rosemary may have had her reasons for jokingly
referring to you as a "subhuman." Perhaps it is
because of your "brute force" technique?
Obviously it is a term of endearment, although
it is puzzling why Rosemary should think so highly
of you. I suppose I should be jealous that Rosemary
has never given me the same treatment.
You really are a brute and that does turn some
women on! Somehow, she has really managed to
"Light Your Fire!"
You are a joke.
Thank you, I think. Frankly, I've been called many
things by friends and adversaries alike. I do not
mind. As you may recall, we have similar customs
on our own planet. Although I must admit, most
earthling women are somewhat more attractive,
both physically and intellectually, than our opposites
on our home planet. In a fiery sort of way. I am sure
that you know what I mean...
-
@Hoppy and MileHigh
I just finished editing my new book ."Practical examples and applications of free energy devices".
I will get Sterling to promote it for 10%
Its has 320 pages
They are all blank.
I am just turning it into an ebook
Kind Regards
Mark
-
@Hoppy and MileHigh
I just finished editing my new book ."Practical examples and applications of free energy devices".
I will get Sterling to promote it for 10%
Its has 320 pages
They are all blank.
I am just turning it into an ebook
Kind Regards
Mark
Will there be an audio book version? I listen to a lot of those. Can I buy that on Amazon or will you just mail me a blank CD?
Editing that must have been a real bitch.
Bill
-
On what basis do you make these assertions?
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.
-
@Bill
yes to all teh above. I was inspired by another book with a similar amount of content call "What men know about women"
-
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.
-
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 (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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
This is an excerpt from the "open letter" to "Academics" that Ainslie had Mark Dansie post on his website.
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?
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
In essence, I already have.
Could you repost that or post a ink to it please?
-
Could you repost that or post a ink to it please?
Perhaps you'd tell me what it is precisely that
you are seeking?
-
...
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.
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
-
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:
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)
-
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!!
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
-
@sea monkey,,i agree with you that the ainslie episodes are a learning curve,that we can proceed from this point forward with greater clarity regarding improved tapping of collapsing magnetic fields energy.these episodes show us the absolute importance of knowing what you are looking for before you look for it.ainslie,s zeropoint theories,while not necessarily erronius,were too vague to nail down to deadly certainty.when we want deadly certaintly we want to go direct to the crux of the matter at hand and that matter can only be the thermodynamics of collapsing magnetic fields in inductance circuits.what we want to do and accomplish is none other than create an sinkhole for ambient heat in any circuitry purporting to deliver an overunity.we must force ourselves to take it from that angle in order to chop losses out the equasion.if we ignore or are unaware of this fundamental we are unlikely to progress.
-
TK,
You're incorrigible. ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s9z620SFbA
-
Yes, deeply and permanently so.
My mother loved me, though.
At least I'm pretty sure she did.
:P
-
Gyulasun,
Your analysis provided here (http://www.overunity.com/13682/new-rosemary-ainslie-demonstration-scheduled-for-sunday-4-august-2013/msg367727/#msg367727) is comprehensive
and good.
The final paragraph addresses a potential
problem with the concept. Can you come
up with a solution to overcome this problem?
TK's commentary here (http://www.overunity.com/13682/new-rosemary-ainslie-demonstration-scheduled-for-sunday-4-august-2013/msg367733/#msg367733) raises good points too.
The total power dissipation should include
the entire circuit. With good switching techniques
we are able to apply nearly all of the input to
the load, but some heat will be dissipated in
the active devices and possibly other components.
-
Profitis,
You raise some very interesting
possibilities.
(http://www.overunity.com/13682/new-rosemary-ainslie-demonstration-scheduled-for-sunday-4-august-2013/msg367746/#msg367746)
-
TK,
You're incorrigible. ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s9z620SFbA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s9z620SFbA)
And, it must necessarily be added,
The King of Hyperbole!
That is a dominant characteristic of
those who come from Our Home Planet.
(The video was good!)
-
I can hardly believe it, Ainslie admitted an error?
The many tests, contraptions and measurements (scope shots) done by TinselKoala finally helped to find the truth behind these wild claims.
The truth was know almost from the beginning, but only TinselKoala had the will and determination to educate enough people to stop a deluded person from proliferating this nonsense.
But now, no more time wasted on Ainslie!
I think that TinselKoala has the knowledge (because he built spectacular Tesla coils) to deflate Ernst, the self proclaimed Wardencliff resurrector and Tesla theory preacher.
Look how Ernst wallows in his self injected fame, without giving any proof, just by waffling and alleging:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11952-wardenclyffe-teslas-true-intention-19.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11952-wardenclyffe-teslas-true-intention-19.html)
Greetings, Conrad
-
Let Ernst play, he's another UFOPolitics, thrives on his following and his drama. He can parrot big words and calculations all he likes, but he apparently still can't show a real measurement or a coil that outperforms any of mine. Wake me up when he shows some significant power transfer, without making every metal bit in his environment spray corona.
And really, I can't seem to claim much credit for Ainslie's rather insincere capitulation. I don't think she has actually watched any of my videos! Not since years ago. I did, indirectly, start the chain of events that brought Steve Weir to the scene, and it is poynt99 and Steve Weir who really deserve the credit for bringing Ainslie to this point. Perhaps my continual harping on the Figure 3 shot brought her around to the decision to have a public demo, in an arrogant effort to put me down.... but like all megalomaniacs she could not even conceive that she could have been wrong, so for more than TWO YEARS she never bothered to check or ask someone she trusted, she just insulted and claimed and insulted and threatened, until finally her ego couldn't take it any more and she had to try to put me down publicly, without even checking to see if she could do it, first.
Anyhow, Steve Weir deserves major credit even though he is a total newcomer and isn't fully aware of Ainslie's depths of duplicity, along with Poynt99 who also has a special relationship with Ainslie, so that she at least tries to understand his explanations. I just rattle cages, at this point.
-
...
The final paragraph addresses a potential
problem with the concept. Can you come
up with a solution to overcome this problem?
...
Hi SeaMonkey,
Well, if you mean the divison of the supply voltage between the heating element and the series inductance as a potential problem with the concept, then I do not think it could be solved. If you meant something else as a concept problem, please tell.
It is obvious that the total power dissipation should include the entire circuit. The selection of the MOSFET type (with the 2 Ohm ON resistance) by the RA team back then did confine efficiency for the lower ranges, well below 80% (if the heating element had a 10 Ohm resistance).
Here is a device from Linear Tech which has 98% efficiency (i.e. COP=0.98) at certain output power levels and uses sophisticated switching and circuit technique: http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/datasheet/3780ff.pdf (http://cds.linear.com/docs/en/datasheet/3780ff.pdf) (I have no any connections with Linear Technology.) Here is another device of 98% efficiency, using syncronous rectification: http://www.linear.com/product/LT8705 (http://www.linear.com/product/LT8705)
rgds, Gyula
-
@sea monkey..aye, tis the crux of the matter sir,the inductor itself.i propose radical new efficient methods for testing of inductors,inductors alone with their kickbacks.it will cut out the necessity to build an entire circuit,only to find out that theres losses later.some sort of meter with variable oscillance,variable diodance,plotting power out/kickback in,all-in-one.in other words all you will need to attatch to the machine is your inductor..something along these lines.. standardization of some parameters instead of chaos of all parameters
-
Gyulasun,
Yes, excellent! Your links are most informative
and do discuss the techniques of "continuous"
and "discontinuous" pulsing.
Synchronous Buck Converters have become
very, very efficient at what they do.
(DC transformers)
Profitis,
I agree, inductors (like the lead-acid battery)
are not yet fully understood within the realm
of "coil bangers."
-
Perhaps you'd tell me what it is precisely that
you are seeking?
It's quite simple really; you made a claim (yeah you did), so I am asking you to show proof.
Talk is cheap my friend, and I think I speak for many when I say that I am tired of folks that drop useless hints posing as though they know something others don't, rather than just coming right and out and posting something with some real content.
So again I ask, what do you base your assertions on? Show us some test results or anything that proves your assertions. Where is your working Ainslie device? What have you measured? Show us your schematic?
-
I agree, inductors (like the lead-acid battery)
are not yet fully understood within the realm
of "coil bangers."
Your opinion is noted.
Now, how about showing us some test results of your "coil banging", and describe what you believe you've discovered?
-
I just want to jump in here and make a note: It is now early Thursday morning in Cape Town, 15 August 2013.
Although Ainslie has posted her statement, in the thread titled "Debunking Troll "Spin" as it Applies to Science".... the papers are still up, the statement cannot be found "prefacing" anything. The only place I see it is under her rock, in that thread, and of course in my quoting of it here and in my video announcement.
Anyone who finds a link to her papers and clicks on it is STILL NOT GOING TO SEE anything from Ainslie at all, indicating that the papers are completely bogus fabrications.
OK, carry on. I too am interested in seeing if Brine Shrimp can come up with anything interesting of his own. Or her own, as the case may be.
-
Talk is cheap my friend, and I think I speak for many when I say that I am tired of folks that drop useless hints posing as though they know something others don't, rather than just coming right and out and posting something with some real content.
Poynt, I'm rather disappointed in this response
because it sounds like you're actually requesting
to be "spoon fed!" What I'm suggesting, in
conjunction with the competent inquiries of Gyulasun
and the technical literature that he has so kindly provided
links to, is that the techniques of Synchronous Buck
Conversion offer many clues to solving the puzzle at
hand.
The circuits and their variations are now well established
so that all that is needed is a little creative "tinkering" to
get things optimized. That is the essence of what I've
done, albeit without the convenience of the modern
controller chips which make things so much easier.
Certainly, I could provide the details and data of my
own research but where would be the fun in that?
I've never been an advocate of Exact Replication.
I would much rather strive to stimulate creative
thought and innovation. This to you may seem
like a "cop out" but it is the way that I was trained.
Swim or sink. The guys with the poles are standing
by alongside the pool to assist the sinkers.
-
Seamonkey:
"Sounds like a copout"....no, it sounds like total B.S. to me...with all due respect of course. Either someone knows something...or they don't. Not wanting to "spoonfeed" to me is just like saying..."I really have no idea at all."
This is an OPEN SOURCE forum so IF you actually know something and do not want to "spoonfeed"...(ie share) then why are you here? My personal tendency is to think that you really have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry, but that is the way you come across.
I have learned a lot from many of the folks on this forum over the years and not one of them would claim that they "spoonfed" me.
Bill
-
Well you tried Bill, but no dice. Why would I
deprive you of the opportunity to seek and
discover by means of your own initiative?
It is not complicated and all of the essentials
are already on the table. All that remains is
the "creative tinkering" to optimize/enhance
the transfer function. :o
And no, it is not the "Ainslie Circuit" as Poynt
suggested. Off the shelf heating elements made
for use in hot water heaters are less than desirable.
Think, innovate, be creative! ::) Or not. >:(
Show us your mettle. ;)
I know it's tough in this era of instant gratification
when thinking one's way through challenging problems
is uncool or boring. :D Or takes too much time... :(
I suspect Gyulasun will be the one to show all that
it is really just a piece of cake! 8)
Is Carbon still used for anything?
P.S. Learning from others can become an enervating
crutch which stymies self development. Dare to
stand on your own latent abilities. ;)
-
...
I suspect Gyulasun will be the one to show all that it is really just a piece of cake!
...
Hi SeaMonkey,
Because you seem to misunderstand my posts: the reason I showed you those Linear Tech devices is to make you realize that 98% efficiency is the maximum which modern devices are able to achieve and the lack of this 2% is very, very far away from the 100% level, not to mention COP > 1 performance. So if you happen to have further innovative and creative ideas to defeat even the missing 2% then please go ahead and show them. Talk is simple. Afterall, as you wrote:
It is not complicated and all of the essentials are already on the table. All that remains is the "creative tinkering" to optimize/enhance the transfer function.
You surely sound like the champion of words and I give you first place in that...
...
Is Carbon still used for anything?
....
Well, your question makes me wonder, to say the least. Just google for instance nano carbon, to touch the tip of a huge iceberg and there are many such carbon "icebergs" i.e. application areas.
Gyula
-
Not even a whole week has passed since Ainslie fell flat on her face in public.... and she is BAAAACK, nearly in full form already.
The PROVEN AND ADMITTED FACT that she FALSIFIED DATA in her daft manuscripts, and has been lying about it for over two years, is apparently lost on this Queen of Trolls. She still has the temerity to make her false claims and her amazing insults.
I WARN YOU ONCE AGAIN, AINSLIE TROLL: EVERY ONE OF THESE INSULTS YOU SLING IS GOING INTO MY DATABASE, and will wind up being seen by anyone you try to foist your bogus lying claims onto. I promise you that! So keep it up, it is very amusing to see you reveal your true "character" as a vile, demented troll.
Also, I will be filing a complaint with the Engineering Council of South Africa
http://www.ecsa.co.za/ (http://www.ecsa.co.za/)
and the IEEE subbranch
http://www.ieee.org.za/ (http://www.ieee.org.za/)
and
http://www.saiee.org.za/ (http://www.saiee.org.za/)
concerning the participation of Donovan Martin in the postings of fraudulent data that appears under his name. I will be including in my complaint the "Donny Blooper Reel", the full March 2011 demonstration video, and other data that proves Donovan Martin has his name on false papers, and has engaged in fraudulent demonstrations of the device. It was a mistake, AINSLIE, for you to have Donny lie for you in the March 2011 video.
http://www.ecsa.co.za/documents/150410_Complainant_Affidavit.doc (http://www.ecsa.co.za/documents/150410_Complainant_Affidavit.doc)
Why am I doing this, instead of just letting it ride? Ask ROSEMARY AINSLIE.
"This retraction relates to the this circuit variant and does NOT represent a retraction of the claims in the Quantum paper published in 2002 a copy of which can be found at this link..."
But that paper used the SAME BOGUS MEASUREMENTS, and it is DEFINITELY PROVEN that the schematic in the paper CANNOT PRODUCE THE DUTY CYCLE CLAIMED BY AINSLIE. And the circuit is just the present circuit, but without the magic Q2s! So OK, Ainslie, if you want to embarrass yourself in public YET AGAIN.... go for it, I am ready! It's easy to prove that the schematic does not produce the duty cycle you claim, it's easy to show that you have known this since 2009 and never corrected it, and that makes your EVERY REFERENCE to that article... another AINS-LIE.
Insult me all you like, in fact the more the merrier, it all goes into your Permanent Record and will still be on the internet long after you are gone. But you cannot refute me, never have, and as anyone can see for themselves, you have been utterly and stupidly and arrogantly WRONG for all these years, all these forum posts, and your arrogant uncooperative and insulting attitude is bringing Donovan Martin down with you.
And note this fact well: the NERD claimed circuit below, which appears in the RETRACTED PAPERS, was never actually used by Ainslie and her "nerds" before the August 10, 2013 demo rehearsal. Never! The inclusion of this schematic in the retracted papers is yet another Ains-lie, known for years and never corrected, since the actual schematic they used bypasses the CVR with a current path not accounted for, just as does the Quantum circuit !
-
Oh... did these videos get buried? Sorry.... here they are again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPb-3av12AI
And of course if you click on any link, anywhere, to the Rosemary Ainslie - Donovan Martin "papers" what do you see? Is the statement of retraction prominently posted? Is it posted _anywhere_ by Ainslie or Martin, except in her insulting "troll" threads? Of course it isn't.
No... you see the unaltered and uncorrected papers, containing the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot, the lying schematic diagrams that were not used in the experiments described, the claims that are known to be false ... and they both still have Donovan Martin's name on them.
-
Gyulasun,
The modern switching supplies have incredible
efficiency in spite of the high frequencies of
operation. The higher frequencies are used
nowadays in order to make the circuitry very
compact yet still able to deliver high current
levels to the loads.
MOSFETs, the preferred switching devices, require
significantly more drive power at the higher
frequencies than at low frequencies.
Find the optimum low frequency with the best
ratio of inductance to load resistance.
Certain carbon heating elements have unique
properties.
Application Notes are an excellent source of
technical information which will not be found
anywhere else. Read them carefully looking for
the gems of knowledge.
-
Ainslie's intention to return to the Quantum magazine's claimed COP>17 circuit is welcomed by me. The first thing we can determine, once and for all, is the issue of the timer duty cycle. Or rather we WOULD be able to determine this if Ainslie wasn't such an uncooperative and mendacious person.
It is incontrovertible that the published schematic cannot produce the duty cycle that is claimed in the article. This FACT has been confirmed over and over, even by her former collaborators like Aaron and Ashtweth, FuzzyTomCat, and others. The only question remains: did the apparatus itself conform to the published schematic? Either it DID.... in which case all the data in the article is, as usual, bogus and the article and the claims it makes are lies.... or it DID NOT, in which case.... all the data was produced with some other circuit than claimed, at who knows what duty cycle and other parameters.... making the article bogus, and the claims it makes are lies.
As I have shown above, Ainslie has acknowledged that the schematic is erroneous in 2009 ... but she has never posted a correction, she never mentions the "error" when she refers to the article (as GMEAST found out! I really LOLed over that one!) and therefore, her references to the uncorrected Quantum article are, once again, blatant and easily-provable Ains-lies.
There are many person-years of work in various archives concerning the Quantum magazine article and its claims. The Energetic Forum has been exploring this circuit more or less continuously since 2009, even after falling out with Ainslie and banning her. FuzzyTomCat has done mountains of work on this circuit and she has attacked him most viciously.... and he has made his archive public.
It is also important to remember that for YEARS, Ainslie and Martin have claimed that this original apparatus was "sent off" somewhere for testing and never made it back home. Martin can be heard to claim this himself in the recent recordings. Yet... miracle of miracles.... just as the NERD apparatus reveals its flaws publicly.... Ainslie reports that the Quantum device has been in her possession all along. It isn't lost after all, it either wasn't sent off as they claimed or it made it home without problems.
You would think, wouldn't you, that the inventors might keep better track of a device that made seventeen times more energy than you put into it. Wouldn't you?
So BRING IT ON, Ainslie. Your Quantum article is even less defensible than your bogus "Q-array" daft manuscripts, and there has already been done a veritable MOUNTAIN of work proving you wrong, and not a single report supporting your claims with properly performed measurements.
-
TK,
One must wonder whether Rosemary set out
on a campaign to deceive by intentionally
creating erroneous data; or did she simply
mis-interpret what she found due to lack of
technical training and experience?
Many researchers in various fields of science
have, feeling pressure to make a name for
themselves or to deliver a product, grossly
falsified data relating to studies and trials.
We are constantly being lied to by representatives
of the pharmaceutical industry and the agricultural
industry.
The lies which emanate from governments are
staggering and they, unfortunately for us, are
intended to deceive and are intentional.
We are awash in a sea of lies from virtually every
front; it has become the new American Way of Life!
There are liars and there are damn liars.
Rosemary is presently feeling the pain of being
wrong and may be quite bewildered. In time
she will no doubt find it in her heart to make
things right. In the interim defensive measures
kick in which are hormonally driven. Remember
how hormones make women crazy during pregnancy?
I do believe that this story will have an honorable
conclusion. But, don't hold your breath; it may
take a while to get there...
-
TK,
One must wonder whether Rosemary set out
on a campaign to deceive by intentionally
creating erroneous data; or did she simply
mis-interpret what she found due to lack of
technical training and experience?
I have documented too many "errors" of this kind for it to be anything other than intentional. You can see for yourself in the "Donny Blooper Reel" that an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER is gesturing to a simple, open, circuit that he has been operating for some time, and that he totally misrepresents the true nature of the circuit. You can also see for yourself, in the old thread discussing the demo, that she ADMITS to this deception and wishes that Poynt99 hadn't revealed it. This is NOT an error!
Further, the Figure 3 scopeshot cannot be made by any simple error, and it is impossible under the conditions claimed, and anyone familiar with mosfets, like YOU, maybe, can tell that this is true. It is a deliberate fabrication. No, I am not saying they cleverly and sinisterly set the apparatus to make that data deliberately although this is certainly possible. I am saying that the garbage shot, made with something wrong, so definitely appeared to support her claims that she and Martin put it in the paper _even though_ they, or at least Martin, had to know it was bogus. No simple "misplaced probes" can result in those scope traces. If it was made by an error in wiring or a melted-off soldered wire or a blown mosfet, any of these mistakes would have had to be repaired for the apparatus to work again -- making the data collected before the repair immediately suspect. Yet in all these years they never even once, before June 29 2013, even tried to repeat that shot. Why? I know why: because they could not do it, and even the attempt to do so would surely reveal their ruse.
So why did Ainslie agree to do it this time? Simply because she finally ran out of any plausible excuse not to do it, and she could no longer fight off the criticisms, and ... yes.... her psychopathology prevents her from believing she could be wrong, so she even has come to believe her own lies. So she believed that she would be putting me, picowatt, .99 and others "in our places" by reproducing her fantasy scopeshot, but of course she could not.
An early posting of the "papers" actually contained a scopeshot where the Zero baseline markers for the critical Math and Gate channels had been deliberately edited out of the image!
The situation is the same with the Quantum 555-clocked circuit. Her arrogance prevents her from acknowledging fully and honestly the error in the schematic, and her mendacity has prevented her from showing the original apparatus, and her sheer trollness makes her start insulting people about it, yet again.
-
Gyulasun, The modern switching supplies have incredible efficiency in spite of the high frequencies of operation. The higher frequencies are used nowadays in order to make the circuitry very compact yet still able to deliver high current levels to the loads.
MOSFETs, the preferred switching devices, require significantly more drive power at the higher frequencies than at low frequencies. Find the optimum low frequency with the best ratio of inductance to load resistance. Certain carbon heating elements have unique properties. Application Notes are an excellent source of technical information which will not be found anywhere else. Read them carefully looking for the gems of knowledge.
SeaMonkey:
You answered 'oranges' again when the topic is still 'apples' so thanks for completely ignoring the real meaning of my last answer to you.
Just keep it up, bravo!
-
You answered 'oranges' again when the topic is still 'apples' so thanks for completely ignoring the real meaning of my last answer to you.
Just keep it up, bravo!
The question was answered indirectly. Whether or
not the maximum attainable efficiency with present
Buck Converters hits the wall at 98% is debatable.
The efficiency can be improved somewhat by resorting
to a lower optimized frequency of switching and where
advantageous using discontinuous pulsing.
There are trade-offs of course but for driving a heating
element the normal level of regulation is not needed.
You've shown the ability in past discussions to think
through obvious clues but, somehow, you seem baffled
in this particular conversation.
There are no easy answers; even if I provided every little
detail about what I've done it would still require on your
part creative tinkering to see the optimum result. If you're
seriously so inclined to pursue such that is. I'd rather you
didn't get stuck in the rut of exact replication. Let your
imagination be your guide with full freedom to innovate
and substitute.
If you're looking for massive quantities of "free energy"
you'll not find it with these kinds of circuits and devices.
What Dr. Stiffler is researching is far more interesting.
-
SeaMonkey,
Well, I am not baffled but disappointed because you still continue to talk the talk, instead of showing facts. Reading this from you:
"...even if I provided every little detail about what I've done it would still require on your part creative tinkering to see the optimum result"
is strange, why do you belittle members here? Just show your optimum results, there are several competent members here to judge it.
Now you sound withdrawing from this heating element circuit:
"If you're looking for massive quantities of "free energy" you'll not find it with these kinds of circuits and devices."
This is interesting because so far in your recent posts you did talk about 'optimum ratio of external inductance to heater resistance', about using 'near perfect coil', about 'efficient switching scheme' etc IMPLYING as if these technics 'make the concept work'.
Remember, the concept had been on a COP > 1 performance claim with this circuit but correct measurements have ended in a COP < 1 result so you may as well demonstrate what improvements your suggestions did bring to the circuit as per your findings/talks. Or it is easier to withdraw from this circuit, right?
-
Hi,
gyulasun, you'll get no where with this monkey. If you want an intelligent exchange
with a monkey, try the zoo!
John
-
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
Oops. Not quite :P
In her latest post Rose is back in the saddle. Being completely humiliated twice is apparently not enough. There is no shame in trying and being proven wrong but the vitriol and the untruths that accompanied this saga are self demeaning. The latest post is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.
Lets look at it.
Their requirement included the need to run the battery against a control test - simultaneously - in order to evaluate efficiencies. Effectively we ran two resistors at the same level of heat and compared how the batteries performed on a standard series setting against that on the switched circuit.
Why was this detail previously omitted? Perhaps because it didn't happen. The logic of the test is seriously flawed. If both resistors were run at the same level of heat then there had to be a current/power controller implemented in the second circuit. As has just been discussed in this thread, this will not be 100% efficient, hence another cause of energy loss - bang goes the validity of the experimental control. If there is no form of current control then the resistor would be connected directly to the battery and the experimental circuit would have to be set up to match. I don't think so. If this did happen where are the measured results. Next, why the requirement to charge all the batteries is series. All that will happen is that the batteries that were at a higher charge level will start gassing and dissipate energy whilst the remaining cells fully charge. It seems rather pointless.
Secondly we have the claim that Ian Jandrell insisted that the control data be removed before publishing and that Rose had recently confirmed this with him. I do not know whether he cut out data ( but I can find out) but he remembered Rose. He also says that he has not spoken with her for some years.
Thirdly
The fact that there may or may not be a mix up in the design of the 555 switching circuit is IMMATERIAL. I have questioned our academics on this
Do you mean the academics whose interest you cannot attract?
Fourth
The circuit was accredited - under operating conditions, by SASOL South Africa - BP South Africa - ABB Research in North Carolina - SPESCOM - ALSTOM and MANY other smaller and unlisted companies. They all have their own engineering experts. And ALL of them confirmed these results. AND they then went further by actually accrediting those results.
What is meant by "accredited - under working conditions"? What are "working conditions"? This is an experimental circuit - there are no working conditions. With the exception of Spescom none of these companies may legally accredit anything for other than for their own use. Methinks that the term as used here is BS
Rose, please prove me wrong and produce the letters of accreditation or if your have used the word in error then any letter of approval.
However, having spent close to 30 years in Engineering development and R&D in South Africa I am aquainted with a large number of the people involved in this environment. In this instance I know Satchwell (The Alstom company involved) very well. They manufacture electric elements and controllers. They do not undertake any basic R&D. Theirs is limited to product enhancement. When they need other development it is outsourced. In this case they provided Rose with facilities to work at their Paarl branch. Eventually she was asked to leave for lack of results. The equipment that they purchased for her is still gathering dust in the store in Paarl. That is hardly an endorsement.
Spescom is listed on the original paper as having attended as supplier of the Fluke equipment. This rings true and is also not an endorsement. Spescom's development department is separate from its commercial department. The development was at that time focused on military work and was based in Midrand some 1400 kilometers from Capetown. I worked with these gentlemen. The development has been scaled down dramatically and the personnel have moved on but I am still in contact with a number of them. Rose, who from Spescom endorsed this circuit? I can get this person(s) to confirm it for you - or may that be a problem?
For those that are not familiar with Sasol it is a massive petrochemical company that pioneered oil from coal. They sponsor much R&D over a wide range of technology in South Africa but are only directly involved in the petrochemical arena. If they had done tests on this equipment it would have been at one of the universities or at Sasolburg (a two hour flight then a two hour drive from Cape town) My my Rose, you must have travelled a lot! Once again I am familiar with many people at Sasol. If you let me know who you dealt with then I can confirm your claims. I do believe that Sasol offered to set up a bursary. That has the ring of truth but nothing has come of it - why?
And finally to explain the reappearance of our test apparatus. I lost my original test apparatus. But we had a duplicate made for ABB research so that they could experiment on this in their own time. We never recovered that and I assumed that I'd now lost all reference. Which is why I was relieved to find the very first test apparatus in my son's shed.
The original apparatus which has been the source of so much attention for the last 12 or 13 years was inadvertently placed in a storage shed and immediately forgotten only to surface now. Pull the other leg please!
Finally
He is DEMANDING that we retract the claims in that Quantum Paper. That is NOT going to happen. Indeed, lest the public be left with the general impression that there's NO benefit to these circuits
Sadly. There is no benefit that has been demonstrated. If it exists it is well hidden.
I really don't mind these circuits being in the public domain. However, the arrogance, rudeness and falsifications that have accompanied this saga are offensive.
PS
Milehigh,
Sit back and enjoy the soap opera. It's going to be here for a while.
-
@Tseak:
Thank you for chiming in. It is indeed difficult to check these stories from my seat here in San Antonio, Texas. Having some real information from "ground level" as it were is greatly appreciated.
The alphabet agencies are always mentioned by Ainslie and Martin as some kind of vetting or endorsement that they have received in the past. But they have never offered a single bit of evidence for these claims.
Starting with the "bursary": Professor Gaunt at UCT (sorry, I had CPUT here at first) conducted an Electrical Engineering class back in 2000 during which he offered several term projects to his students. One of them was to investigate the claims of Ainslie, and he listed specific requirements for the project These requirements can be seen in the image below.
(Ask yourself.... has even the team of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin actually fulfilled the simple requirements listed by Gaunt for his student project? Of course they have not. They are as children, playing with toys they don't understand, and when confronted with the requirements of a real university-level research project they fail miserably... but with lots of big words.)
Is this the reason for the "bursary" that Ainslie and Martin keep mentioning? "Interest was lost" as Martin famously says.... interest was lost in a device that allegedly makes 17 times more energy than it was provided with in the first place. Yes... interest was lost.
None of the students took the bait, evidently, even though a BURSARY was offered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bursary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bursary)
There are two types of bursary awarded by institutions (such as universities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University)). The first is a means-tested bursary which is available for all students whose parents earn under a threshold value per annum. It is often given out using a sliding scale, with people at the lowest end of the scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_scale) receiving a full bursary and the monetary award decreasing in value with proportion to the parental earnings.
The second type of bursary, also known as a "scholarship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarship)" or "prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize)", is one based on performance. These awards are generally given for good performance in the exams preceding university or college entrance in which the student achieves grades above the standard entry. These can be awarded by the university or, sometimes, by companies.
Next... the contact individuals at the various companies she mentions. Some time ago, in one of the locked Ainslie threads here (there are several) I posted names and publicly available phone numbers for some of the names she has dropped over the years, immediately after she said they were "contactable". Well, when I published the contact information that I could find and that she had herself posted, she utterly freaked out, accused me of hacking into her computers (she has made this accusation several times , and of course she has no support or evidence for her libellous accusations) and threatened me with her imaginary lawyers. Nobody has successfully gotten any information about Ainslie from any of these people.
Here's one such post I made back then:
All what contactable numbers, all what referenced names? As far as I am aware, you have NEVER, but the one single time, given any contactable numbers or referenced names. If you have, and I missed it, please post a link, because the people below... either apparently don't exist or claim never to have heard of you.
Colin Bower 919 856 2416
John Tarnowski (remember that name) 919 856 2467
Eddie Petrie 919 859 2434
Viv Crone (ha!) SPESCOM 011 266 1711, cell 083 625 3988
J Wilson (John, I believe) SPESCOM 083 652 0770
J Marriot, formerly of SASOL
Eddie Tarnow... . (tarnow, tarnowski...hmm, just a coincidence, surely.) 012 841 3138
Dr Garrett, formerly of CSIR and now heading their lab in Australia
John Greene at BP 021 408 2058
All of these names and numbers have been given out by Ainslie at one time or another, claiming that they can be contacted and that they will verify the claims of Ainslie re the testing they supposedly performed.
I think it is extremely interesting, Ainslie, that you claim a contact in North Carolina, named John Tarnowski... and another contact in South Africa at CSIR named Eddie Tarnow.
It's a small world.. but not that small.
So, are any of those names familiar to you?
(Tarnow at CSIR, Tarnowski in North Carolina...... that really makes me laugh.)
Thanks for your comments, Tseak.... any more "LITTLE" bits of further information you can provide will be greatly appreciated.
--TK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPOap8nwQ2A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPOap8nwQ2A)
(ETA: Re the "circuits" in the public domain.... in fact, if you look at the complete data sheet of just about any power mosfet, you will find the _identical circuit_ shown as the "unclamped inductive test" circuit. This is the same circuit used in her single-mosfet Quantum magazine article, except that she used the 555 timer instead of a FG. So please someone tell me this: Just WTF was she supposed to be "patenting" when she filed the application and then started claiming she had a patent on the circuit? See the image below, from the IRFPG50 data sheet, which I have also appended.)
-
Waaait a minute.... The Quantum schematic was actually VERY DIFFERENT from the one she posted above and that I copied over to here. The Quantum schematic did not include the Diode across the load, and the Quantum schematic used the problematic 555 timer circuit, not the FG.
Below I attach the actual schematic published in the Quantum article, and my "re-draw" of it, clarifying the relationship to the discredited 5-mosfet circuit and the Unclamped Inductive Test circuit in the back of every power mosfet data sheet.
-
So .... we are now in the position of waiting for Ainslie to show how the basic Inductive Clamp Test circuit, which she tried to patent with a 555 timer, is going to produce overunity performance that somehow has not been noticed by power supply designers and high-end audio amplifier designers.....
They are as children, playing with toys they do not understand, and who are either unwilling or simply incapable of doing the necessary homework in order to avoid making the silly errors they keep committing. And Ainslie is so arrogant that, instead of being ashamed of herself for attempting to patent a simple circuit from the Public Domain, in use for decades before she ever heard of MOSFETs..... she is bragging about it and believes she can demonstrate some "benefit" from the circuit.
Well, bring it on, Ainslie. Let's see your RAW DATA. We already know that some, if not all, of your Raw Data is fabricated, not collected under the stated conditions as you claim. Clearly your interpretations and crunched data cannot be trusted at all.
-
Its a small world!
Viv Cronje is lecturing at Wits university. John Wilson was MD of Spescom Measuregraph, the instrumentation division. I'm not sure where he is now, probably in the same place. I don't know the others.
-
The fact that there may or may not be a mix up in the design of the 555 switching circuit is IMMATERIAL. I have questioned our academics on this...
Have you heard anything more absurd than this statement of Ainslie's?
A magazine article was actually Published -- her only real publication concerning these circuits -- and it contained claims about duty cycles used.
BUT--- the schematic diagram provided in the article and represented as the circuit tested CANNOT POSSIBLY PRODUCE the duty cycle claimed.
So one or both of two conditions exist: either the experiment was performed USING A DIFFERENT CIRCUIT than that which was presented..
And/Or the claims wrt the duty cycle used and performance of the apparatus are FALSE.
This is "immaterial"? A publication bearing the names of Rosemary Ainslie and BC Buckley... a real publication , not some posting on a vanity blog ... contains false information presented as factual. IT IS A LIE. That's not "immaterial" !! I'd love to see a statement from some "academics" that would say that including false information in a publication is "immaterial".
No matter how you slice it. If the experiment was performed using the duty cycle claimed, it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE with the schematic posted. If the schematic posted was used, THE EXPERIMENT COULD NOT HAVE USED the duty cycle claimed.
The "error" in the 555 timer duty cycle as published has been confirmed over and over by Ainslie's cooperators and her detractors... she waffles back and forth about apologizing... but she has NEVER corrected the schematic nor posted any proof that a correct timer duty cycle was in fact used.
THE QUANTUM PAPER IS BOGUS for this reason alone and must be retracted !!! The paper is wrong! This has already been proven, by every one from Gmeast back to .... guess who in 2009.
-
Its a small world!
Viv Cronje is lecturing at Wits university. John Wilson was MD of Spescom Measuregraph, the instrumentation division. I'm not sure where he is now, probably in the same place. I don't know the others.
Hah.
Now.... watch Ainslie begin to freak out.
:o
I realize "John" is, or used to be, a pretty common given name.... but out of eight males Ainslie names, three of them are named "John". I don't know whether this is more, or less, improbable than the "Tarnow" and the "Tarnowski" , an entire world apart ... but there it is.
-
As if my own video proofs aren't enough...
Our friend Mark Euthanasius has supplied us with a comprehensive exploration of the 555 timer circuit published by Ainslie and Buckley in the Quantum article. In addition he has examined circuit variants including those tested by the Energetic Forum members when Ainslie was promoting her nonsense there... before she got banned.
I apologize for attaching such a large file. There is a lot of information on this page though, and I wasn't able to chop it up or shrink it any more without loss of resolution, and I can't upload the original because it is too large in pixel dimensions. If anyone wants to see the original, which is 7000 pixels wide at 288 pixels per inch resolution.... let me know and I'll send it to you.
The full range of duty cycle and frequency adjustments were determined for the circuit claimed by Ainslie in the Quantum article, and several possible "errors" were examined for their effects.
-
Gyulasun,
Ample clues have been provided which will enable
the sufficiently curious and capable experimenter
to discover how to make the concept work.
Well almost. Is inductor saturation desirable for
some length of time?
As the old saw goes: You can lead a horse to water
but you can't make it drink.
No more whining!
-
Ample clues have been provided which will enable
the sufficiently curious and capable experimenter
to discover how to make the concept work.
Kindly define "work".
-
@ SeaMonkey
your great with global statements that have little substance.
Please define work?
Mark
-
Here is a fun one for Rosemary. I love this guy's clips.
Towards the end of this clip he explains the Hall effect. The analysis proves that current is the flow of electrons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfqRv7dau2A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfqRv7dau2A)
Atoms consist of little microscopic rocks of positively charged mass surrounded by a humongous fluffy shimmering cloud of electrons. The "inside" of any material is mostly empty space. Some electrons can escape the fluffy cloud like leaves being blown off of trees on a windy fall day. The electric field is like the wind pushing the electrons along on their journey. The electric field snakes its way through a conductor and sets up a "wind tunnel" to push electrons though the conductor. Inside doped semiconductors electrons jump around in the electric field wind and can even be made to emulate "positive electrons" that move in the opposite direction to the wind. It's all so profound!
-
Work? In this case that may be a little hard
to nail down.
The degree to which the circuitry can be made
to accomplish what the experimenter hopes to
make manifest is directly proportional to the
abilities of the experimenter.
Most noobies would have difficulty getting it to
work. ???
Those who have some experience with switching
supplies and MOSFET drivers will have a much
better chance of seeing it work. ;)
And those who have the knowledge/experience
level of gents such as MileHigh, TK or 0.99 should
have little difficulty figuring out what to look for
and how to make the work happen. :o
Work = Hot Stuff! 8)
-
If I may surmise gent's and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a small misunderstanding may be occurring.
I don't think SeaMonkey has stated he thinks Rosemary has shown Over Unity. Rather I think SeaMonkey
has eluded to the possibility of approaching 100% efficiency and 'possibly' a small amount more from energy release
or integration if such a "principal" is applied at it's best efficiency and with careful thought given to where
any extra energy may come from in such an "inductive heater arrangement". I know I have but I am not in
a position as yet to even begin an attempt.
But if I do try I will reveal my results to all, but as ambiguous results at best, unless I see a significant enough
amount of energy to be able to convince myself it's worth the effort. I won't make any over 100% in - out claims either.
And without that claim there is nothing much to argue about.
I'm not after a watt or two I want lots for cheap. I can light leds as much as I like already, What I can't do is run the house
without the grid input when there is no sun. Lighting a light bulb or two for free with even 50 Watts is a bit less than I would be
considering much use anyway. Though every bit would help, our time experimenting is valuable.
Cheers
Edited to add 'possibly' to first paragraph. I can't speak for him, I can only give my opinion.
..
-
I have a question I would very much appreciate a frank and honest answer to.
What would you guys actually do if by some freak of nature a person was to present a demonstration
and give full access to you guys to evaluate, while his own EE checked your work and you guys seen over 100% efficiency ?
Remember a Qualified EE is watching you watching the experimenter so no one hides anything which I'm sure is the intention
you guys had anyway i just mentioned it so no one new could bring up checking the checkers at a later date. It's already considered
that way. ;)
Remember I respect you trained folks a great deal. And hope to do some formal training myself if I can manage it. I'm all for it.
It's just a curiosity question.
Cheers.
P.S. SeaMonkey, I have a bucket full of carbon rods some bars, copper coated but it peels off. ;) They were free too.
.....
-
Farmhand,
This is essentially the concept of peer review. Generally it is not as simple and in practice goes through a number of iterations.
What would you guys actually do if by some freak of nature a person was to present a demonstration
and give full access to you guys to evaluate, while his own EE checked your work and you guys seen over 100% efficiency ?
I am sure that I would initially be very skeptical. If it proved to be true it would be exciting. This would require very detailed checking. Even with the best of intentions errors can make it through a number of review processes. In this particular instance I would be doubly skeptical because every man and his dog and his dog's cat has claimed overunity due to the flyback spike. This process is well understood and leaves no room for the additional energy. Having said that, one must always keep an open mind to the possibility that our theory is not complete. A breakthrough such as you describe would be revolutionary.
-
What would you guys actually do if by some freak of nature a person was to present a demonstration
and give full access to you guys to evaluate, while his own EE checked your work and you guys seen over 100% efficiency ?
Remember I respect you trained folks a great deal. And hope to do some formal training myself if I can manage it. I'm all for it.
Cheers.
For me it is evident that science (or in a broader view, humankind) does not know everything. But one has to study and research a lot and has to go out far along known paths to go beyond present day knowledge. It needs a lot more than some experiments at home to see and test the limits of todays technology. People claiming OU very obviously lack the most basic science knowledge.
Where are the limits of todays knowledge:
- May be there is a third atomic reaction besides fission and fusion, the famous "cold fusion" or "LENR". Unfortunately this area of research is infested by strange people, which give it a bad reputation. Research at home is probably not possible because one needs expensive tools (measuring heat output is tricky and chemical reactions can be dangerous if not done properly).
- May be there are longitudinal waves in electro-magnetism. This could open the way to a more efficient energy transmission between a radio transmitter and receiver. Nowadays induction charging has an efficiency of about 70%, this could be made better. This could be a field for home experimenters. One looks for a "Tesla miracle" but finds a very good antenna and antenna circuit.
- Electric motors and generators could be brought closer to an efficiency of 100%. This might be a field for home experimenters. One might search for OU and finds a more efficient motor or generator (Lenz-effect).
- Generating hydrogen from water or air could be made more efficient or practical. Home experiments could be dangerous and measurements are difficult, therefore better suited for a good research lab.
- Wind and water turbines (wheels, propellers) could be made more efficient. Could be possible at home. Measuring efficiency can be tricky.
- My favorites are neutrinos (exotic particles flying around in space at high speeds), dark matter (may be also exotic particles) and dark energy. May be one can convert this energies into useful energy like heat, mechanical energy (like a sail) or electricity. Probably not possible at home because it could need a very big machine. In general this is the search for a yet unknown natural energy source.
- My second favorite are solar energy, wind energy and heat from the core of the earth. Many inventions are necessary to make the exploitation of these energies more practical. Try to come up with a good way to make a roof out of solar panels. Nowadays one has to build a conventional roof and then one puts the solar panels on top. This is like partially destroying the roof because many bolts have to go through the roof to fix the solar panels, opening leaks. How could one integrate wind turbines and buildings? How to get the heat out of the earth? Lots of room for home experimenters.
My opinion about OU: the only OU mechanisms detected are super novae, black holes and possibly the big bang. You would not want that in the hands of anybody.
Greetings, Conrad
-
If I may surmise gent's and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a small misunderstanding may be occurring.
I don't think SeaMonkey has stated he thinks Rosemary has shown Over Unity. Rather I think SeaMonkey
has eluded to the possibility of approaching 100% efficiency and 'possibly' a small amount more from energy release
or integration if such a "principal" is applied at it's best efficiency and with careful thought given to where
any extra energy may come from in such an "inductive heater arrangement".
..
Hi Farmhand,
I do not think there is even a small misunderstanding here, SeaMonkey just tries to play monkey with members here. Just follow his posts, his latest buzz suggestion is a question: "Is inductor saturation desirable for some length of time?" and he had these buzz generalities earlier like 'optimum ratio of external inductance to heater resistance', or using 'near perfect coil' or 'efficient switching scheme' etc IMPLYING as if these technics 'make the concept work'. And see Reply #205 what he answered when asked to define 'work': Hot Stuff.
I have shown links to devices used in switch mode power supplies (DC-DC converters) that can have 98% efficiency (COP=0.98), using state of art switching technics etc, it is explained in the devices data sheets and application notes how the 98% is achieveable.
I am not saying at all that it is impossible to go beyond the COP=1 case, however I do not tease members here by saying generalities and buzzwords on this subject. Talk is easy. I agree with what member tinman wrote to another member: http://www.overunity.com/13700/another-self-looped-generator-claim/msg367976/#msg367976
rgds, Gyula
-
Hi Farmhand,
I do not think there is even a small misunderstanding here, SeaMonkey just tries to play monkey with members here. Just follow his posts, his latest buzz suggestion is a question: "Is inductor saturation desirable for some length of time?" and he had these buzz generalities earlier like 'optimum ratio of external inductance to heater resistance', or using 'near perfect coil' or 'efficient switching scheme' etc IMPLYING as if these technics 'make the concept work'. And see Reply #205 what he answered when asked to define 'work': Hot Stuff.
rgds, Gyula
I imagine that he gets issued with too many tots of rum! ;D
-
Work? In this case that may be a little hard
to nail down.
The degree to which the circuitry can be made
to accomplish what the experimenter hopes to
make manifest is directly proportional to the
abilities of the experimenter.
That's the kind of non-answer I've come to expect from you.
The bottom line is this; I'm not really interested in your hollow hints, crumbs of wisdom, opinions, speculations or philosophies. What interests me is seeing a setup and the measurements thereof, that you believe achieves something out of the ordinary or beyond what conventional science predicts.
Can you do that?
-
Well maybe I won't bother sharing unless I get what I see as useful unconventional Over Unity then,
would be far too much trouble to worry posting about anything less than C.O.P. = 2.0 with 100 Watts output or more.
It would be a waste of my time even if it was real. I won't ever have anything I "need" to prove to anyone
unless I'm being held by the Cops on a bum rap, but I could have stuff to share.
Maybe I'm wrong about SeaMonkey's comments. I do know one thing though and that is.
There will always be false claimants of OU so debunkers are necessary, I've put paid to quite a few myself
as has SeaMonkey.
I've never taken much notice of Rosemary's claims because there is not enough power to be interesting.
I don't think there are any clear sides to these sagas. Many different points of view though.
The way I see it without retro proving every single thing we say, when we post we just give "opinions".
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. My opinions get taken the wrong way quite often,
it's a good way to annoy people into not sharing.
It is good to see frank discussion on the false claimants. For certain.
For instance no one needed a degree to see through UFOPolitics or Thane Heins' claims,
I picked them from the first video of theirs I watched.
Now if we want people in general to become more discerning about false OU claims then what we
want is for them to educate themselves in a positive way not be told by us what is real and what is not
and expect them to learn that way.
Truth is a lot of people don't want to learn they just want to be the one to stumble on something they can call OU.
While those people exist there will be a place for the likes of UFO, Thane and Rosemary to ply their claims.
Cheers
P.S. Just my opinion but I think it's better to take the hype out of OU by showing logically than any OU can only ever be
the collection or release of energy. No thing can ever make an output of work without at least the equivalent input from somewhere.
There is no Over Unity. There is only C.O.P. over 1.0. or the harnessing of energy that we need not pay for,
the devices to utilize the energy may have a monetary cost or not.
Why can we not hammer that point home day and night until it sinks in ?
..
-
Sea Monkeys, aka Brine Shrimp, are not what they claim to be in the adverts in the back of pulp magazines, so don't expect to see what was promised, when you finally get what you asked for.
Meanwhile... here it is, Saturday the 17th of August 2013.
And every link that Ainslie has ever posted to her papers is still active and does NOT lead to any kind of "preface" or display of her "withdrawal" statement. The papers have in NO SENSE been retracted, the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot is still there in all its infamous glory, and Donovan Martin still has his name listed as co-author of the PROVEN FALSE manuscripts. The only way to find her statement is to delve into her honeypot forum looking for it... or to refer to my "little" posts on the matter.
No letters of retraction or apology have been sent (or at least not posted publicly if they have been sent) to Mark Dansie, or Sterling Allen. Both of their websites contain long letters full of claims by Ainslie that have been devastated by her own public demonstrations, both of them have been personally savaged by Ainslie in her comments.... yet the links to her papers are still there and no retraction statement is evident.
So... I am willing to hear further arguments as to the "honor" of the two principal authors of those papers..... but as long as the deceptions and insults continue to exist, it will be pretty hard to convince me that they are acting honorably and in good faith.
-
I will be following up tK regards these matters tomorrow
Mark
-
According to the letter she sent Sterling Allan, Rosemary Ainslie retracts nothing aside from 'this particular variant' of her circuit.
In other words, she came up with a thesis which she will never retract despite no evidence of it's validity.
She has that right though, and it would probably be a good idea to let her have her theories, not ask her for any apologies or proof, and let it go.
-
She's welcome to her "theories" which, by the way do not rise to that level at all. Neither is her word salad a "thesis" in the proper sense of the term. It is a handwaving bunch of delusional conjectures which not only do not describe any new features of the world, they do not even describe accurately the features we _do_ know about. She pretends her "thesis" is something on the order of Quantum Electrodynamics and in fact pretends that her "thesis" should supplant that "incomplete and inaccurate theory". She believes that reading popular science books by Gell-Mann and Gary Zukov constitutes a physics education. She is truly unqualified to have an opinion in these matters, much less to posit some kind of superior "theory"! Have you actually _read_ the papers? Did you notice that her cartoon Figure 9 _doesn't even correspond to any circuitry she used_ yet purports to explain the operation of the circuit in terms of her "theory"? It is absurd.
But sure, she's welcome to her "theories". But if she claims experimental results.... and pretends to be scientific about it... that is where I draw the line.
She has demonstrated amply that she lies, cheats, alters data, gets others to lie for her, misrepresents data and experimental conditions, engages in data selection, refuses to correct obvious errors, fails to understand and follow simple directions, does not understand her own chosen topic, misrepresents the words of others, and pesters people to no end. Not to mention the insults she slings when someone disagrees with her. So when she takes her bogus "experiments" public and tries to claim things that are not supported by _real data_ I'll be right there, doing what I do.
-
TK, the Ainslie thing has produced a reference for proper circuit testing techniques, and you and others have the errors well documented for anyone to see.
She clearly doesn't want to give up hope, to the point that she'll leave up faulty meaningless 'proof' forever, and will insult and/or slander anyone who gets in her way.
It's not your problem, it's hers.
-
Like it has already been stated on record, Rose has made this public statement : "In June and August 2013, demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this paper. As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts."
She is big enough to admit she was wrong in the above public statement at pesn.com. I must commend her for her actions in accordance. Let it go PEOPLE!
She has made a mistake. We have all made mistakes. Let he who is without a single error in life cast the first capacitor!
OM
-
Oh come on. She didn't "make a mistake", she carried on a multi-year campaign of deliberate deception and insult. Disinformation of the grandest order. And she will be continuing.
She misrepresented the schematic, she lied about the conditions under which the data was collected. She asked people to replicate her results but she lied about the schematic! This is documented and admitted by her, see the images above. Not a "mistake" ! Further, when plausible "mistakes" have been pointed out to her in the past she simply ignores the issues or denies they exist.
And you can click on any link to her papers anywhere, and what do you find? The unaltered papers, with no "preface" statement, with the Figure 3 scopeshot still there.... there is no prominent posting of this on her forum, it's buried in a "troll" thread, and you don't even see this "withdrawal statement" on the main Ainslie pages of PESN, it is only, apparently, buried there in the blog.
-
TK, the Ainslie thing has produced a reference for proper circuit testing techniques, and you and others have the errors well documented for anyone to see.
She clearly doesn't want to give up hope, to the point that she'll leave up faulty meaningless 'proof' forever, and will insult and/or slander anyone who gets in her way.
It's not your problem, it's hers.
It's her problem and it's Donovan Martin's problem too, since he really should know better than to have his name on a paper that contains the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot and the claims made about it.
-
Like it has already been stated on record, Rose has made this public statement : "In June and August 2013, demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this paper. As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts."
She is big enough to admit she was wrong in the above public statement at pesn.com. I must commend her for her actions in accordance. Let it go PEOPLE!
She has made a mistake. We have all made mistakes. Let he who is without a single error in life cast the first capacitor!
OM
They weren't mistakes. They were years long refusals to use proper testing procedures. She's only withdrawn the paper on the grounds that it doesn't support the 'variation' of the circuit she used to test her thesis. It's a preposterous statement, since there are no known 'variations' of any circuit which support her claims. If you read the pesn email, you'll note her refusal to withdraw her thesis. It is over, but not for Rosemary.
-
It's her problem and it's Donovan Martin's problem too, since he really should know better than to have his name on a paper that contains the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot and the claims made about it.
I'm guessing he knows better now.
-
...and you don't even see this "withdrawal statement" on the main Ainslie pages of PESN, it is only, apparently, buried there in the blog.
I'm sorry but it is right on the main PESN.COM page:
Ainslie's Recent Test Does Not Confirm 2002 Thesis (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/08/17/1678/8502367_ainslies-recent-test-does-not-confirm-2002-thesis/) - "In June and August 2013, demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this paper. As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts."
LINK: pesn.com
-
hi this is my final article
many thanks to Mark E
I did not involve any commentators form here, I just wanted to give Rosemary a chance to express her side and for an strong argument why her claims from 2002 were in question.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/18/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/18/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/)
Please do not shoot the messenger. We have a wider audience that does not understand the technical issues.
-
I'm sorry but it is right on the main PESN.COM page:
Ainslie's Recent Test Does Not Confirm 2002 Thesis (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/08/17/1678/8502367_ainslies-recent-test-does-not-confirm-2002-thesis/) - "In June and August 2013, demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this paper. As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts."
LINK: pesn.com
Yep, you are sorry all right, because you apparently can't tell the difference between
http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/08/17/1678/8502367_ainslies-recent-test-does-not-confirm-2002-thesis/ (http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/08/17/1678/8502367_ainslies-recent-test-does-not-confirm-2002-thesis/)
which is a BLOG, pureenergyblog.com NOT THE PESN MAIN PAGE as you mistakenly claim,
and
PESN.com, Pure Energy Systems News
http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/ (http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/)
which is where Ainslie makes her various claims, lays down her insults and disrespect, has links to her "papers" and DOES NOT have a prominent posting of her "withdrawal".
Go ahead, show me a single case where you click on a link to any of Ainslie's papers and you find the retraction statement. Show me a version of the papers that does NOT contain the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot. You cannot. Ainslie's "withdrawal" is another of her Rosie Poses, not sincere, complete, honest or true.
She can issue STATEMENTS of retraction out the wazoo.... but if she doesn't actually retract the papers, what good are the statements? They are just as false as the Not-Really-Retracted papers!
-
I'm guessing he knows better now.
Then why does his name still appear on the papers? Does he still endorse the bogus data, the false claims?
Why, for that matter, do the papers themselves still appear?
I'm guessing that Ainslie is lying to him, too. Remember how obviously unprepared and apparently surprised he was at the June 29 demo? He wasn't even aware of the issues around Figure 3, apparently.
-
hi this is my final article
many thanks to Mark E
I did not involve any commentators form here, I just wanted to give Rosemary a chance to express her side and for an strong argument why her claims from 2002 were in question.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/18/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/18/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/)
Please do not shoot the messenger. We have a wider audience that does not understand the technical issues.
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.
-
Simple mistakes such as component value transcription or transposition of components cannot account for such extensive circuit modifications. This author concludes that the authors either did not use a circuit resembling what they published, or that they did not obtain the operating frequency and duty cycle that they reported.....
..... Therefore, barring further corroborating evidence, the findings and conclusions offered by the authors Ainslie and Buckley in the subject paper are shown to be based on serious errors and must be rejected. The authors are encouraged to either produce corroborating evidence and make appropriate corrections to their paper or they should retract their claims.
From the Report by Mark Euthanasius.
I will go further and state, most emphatically, that the article should and must be retracted NOW, since it is manifestly and incontrovertibly false as it stands. If they want to correct and re-do the experiment and THEN post another paper, that is their prerogative. However it is undeniable that the present Quantum magazine article is wrong.
I would also like to emphasize that the "long and protracted debates" mentioned are the fault of Ainslie and her alone. She resisted actual tests of what her replicators were telling her and simply resorted to ad-hominem abuse of such magnitude that many of her former co-workers simply washed their hands in disgust, until they were replaced by new fodder for Ainslie's delusions. Had Ainslie simply cooperated, as she finally did this past month, there would have been no need at all for any of the long and protracted debates, or even this present "debate". The issues have been resolved, long ago, for everyone except Ainslie herself, and the new, uninformed victims that happen to click on one of her links to her bogus claims.
-
Hi TK
you do not retract articles, you have them peer reviewed. It has been reviewed and found wanting. I think Mark did a great job stating the case that can only draw one conclusion. You do not have to ram everything down peoples throat.
It is also important to give people an exit, if you do not then you never have an end to hostilities.
After all these years it must be difficult for anyone to realize they were wrong.
When academic journals are published or papers are presented at conferences, they are on the basis of "this is what we thought and saw"
More often than not they are wrong for a number of reasons, and when it finally accepted people move on.
If everyone is made to feel bad about supporting their belief with passion, then we should all pack up and go home.
Was her behavior to be commended during the last few years. Probably not. Was she right, no. Do you deserve and apology. probably, will you get one? No.
I think it a matter of moving on, this show is over. Being pedantic and seeking recriminations serves no purpose. People will form their own opinions about the personalities involved.
Kind Regards
Mark
-
Hi TK
you do not retract articles, you have them peer reviewed. It has been reviewed and found wanting. I think Mark did a great job stating the case that can only draw one conclusion. You do not have to ram everything down peoples throat.
On the contrary, articles are retracted quite frequently when they are found to be wrong or fraudulent.
A retraction is a public statement made about an earlier statement that withdraws, cancels, refutes, diametrically reverses the original statement or ceases and desists from publishing the original statement. The retraction may be initiated by the editors of a journal, or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution). Retractions may or may not be accompanied by the author's further explanation as to how the original statement came to be made and/or what subsequent events, discoveries, or experiences led to the subsequent retraction. They are also in some cases accompanied by apologies for previous error and/or expressions of gratitude to persons who disclosed the error to the author.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction)
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/why-has-the-number-of-scientific-retractions-increased-new-study-tries-to-answer/ (http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/why-has-the-number-of-scientific-retractions-increased-new-study-tries-to-answer/)
It is also important to give people an exit, if you do not then you never have an end to hostilities.
Ainslie has had the opportunity to "exit" for many years. This information about her bogus data and mendacity is not new!
After all these years it must be difficult for anyone to realize they were wrong.
Maybe so but that doesn't change the fact that they _are_ wrong. Don't forget... I too have put in "all these years", since 2009, and I think my work Proving Ainslie Wrong, and the factual information that I have brought to the discussion, is valuable ... and if it were NOT for me and my constant insistence that she prove her claims..... you and the rest of the world might still think she was correct or proper in her claims.
When academic journals are published or papers are presented at conferences, they are on the basis of "this is what we thought and saw"
Nope, that's simply not true. "This is what we thought and saw, and we took all possible precautions to make sure our data was correct and reproducible before we started making claims." I have gone through the process of actually having real scientific papers reporting real experiments getting published in major scientific journals. I will thus have to trust my own experiences in the matter.
More often than not they are wrong for a number of reasons, and when it finally accepted people move on.
More often than not? I don't think so, not in the journals and conference proceedings I am reading.
If everyone is made to feel bad about supporting their belief with passion, then we should all pack up and go home.
Supporting untenable positions not with facts but rather with unsupported claims and more ad-hominem insults than a second-grade class of unruly children can manage.... yes, people should indeed feel badly about stuff like that, since it is false and it wastes the time of others who might be looking on-- or trying to replicate a circuit that is a lie!
The Quantum circuit is wrong, does not jive with what she claims in the paper, and several people wasted their time trying to replicate her results... using the WRONG schematic she posted. The present schematic, the 5 transistor one, has also been shown to be false. The versions in the papers WERE NEVER ACTUALLY USED by Ainslie at all, and the version that she did use, bypasses the current sense resistor with a major current path and does not account for the full current flow in the circuit, no matter how "correctly" these values are measured. How is it possible to justify in any way a person asking for replications, and then lying about the circuit used? And doing this _knowingly_ as she has admitted wrt the 5-transistor circuit. Yes, if you _accept_ that kind of behaviour and seek to justify or excuse it... then we should indeed all go home.
Was her behavior to be commended during the last few years. Probably not. Was she right, no. Do you deserve and apology. probably, will you get one? No.
I think it a matter of moving on, this show is over. Being pedantic and seeking recriminations serves no purpose. People will form their own opinions about the personalities involved.
Kind Regards
Mark
The show isn't over though, as your article, citing Ainslie's letter and her link to the discredited Quantum magazine article shows.
As I have said before several times: Ainslie can stop lying and pushing her false claims at any time. She should have done so years ago, when the problems were pointed out by many different people and she could not refute them. Until she does.... "it" is not over and my role in it is not going to change.
I and others are being "pedantic" as you call it in an attempt to _teach those who need to know_ the realities of the circuit and the measurement techniques and the depths to which Ainslie can sink in her self-serving attempts to save her face.
I am not "seeking recriminations"... I just want people to tell the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You don't get that from Ainslie or Martin, as I have shown with their own words. You do get it from me. If that's not important to you or to the community of researchers that we both belong to and represent.... I think that's very sad indeed.
Yes, it would be nice to get an apology, but trolls never apologize, and Ainslie is the Troll Queen. So I do the next best thing: when she insults and makes false claims I record it, preserve it, and will display it whenever she drags out her false claims again.
"Kind regards"...... from you I accept this closing. From Ainslie it is just another illustration of her amazing hypocrisy and overweeing arrogance.
--TK
-
Like it has already been stated on record, Rose has made this public statement : "In June and August 2013, demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this paper. As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts."
She is big enough to admit she was wrong in the above public statement at pesn.com. I must commend her for her actions in accordance. Let it go PEOPLE!
She has made a mistake. We have all made mistakes. Let he who is without a single error in life cast the first capacitor!
OM
I agree with your post entirely, except for replacing the word "commend" with "acknowledge".
Ainslie was caught in a trap for 13 years with no way out. The minute that she admitted "I was wrong" it was over.
She had a huge opportunity to move to high ground, show her real self, and rehabilitate her reputation ..so did others.
All that remains here is ego and vendetta ..boring stuff indeed.
-
Thanks TK
we might agree to disagree on a few points, but I always have the upmost respect for you, your opinions and abilities.
i was always looking to bring this to some sort of conclusion, and I believe i have done so, maybe not to the extent everyone would like.
Kind Regards
Mark
-
@Mark: Is it concluded? We shall see.
@The Boss: Some how I might have expected a little more support for _my position_ from you. But my expectations have changed, with every new input of data. Are you endorsing the statement that Ainslie's problems are "mistakes"? I can make, and have made, a strong case that they are not simple mistakes, but are rather deliberate deceptions.
Have you watched the "Donny Blooper Reel" where Donovan Martin lies several times in the first minute of the video? Those are not mistakes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE
-
If I stand in front of a red car, and I show you a picture of a ski boat and tell you that the picture "represents what is before you here", and then gesture towards the red car and tell you that "what we have here is a green motorcycle".... is that a mistake? Because that is essentially what Donovan Martin is doing in that video. He shows you a schematic that is NOT even similar to what is "before you", then he tells you that there are five mosfets in parallel... and the apparatus not only does NOT have five mosfets in parallel but it doesn't even correspond to the schematics that are in the papers, even after that "error" is corrected, because of the location of the Black FG lead!
"Please don't shoot the messenger". Indeed. Who is it that has brought you the real message about Ainslie and Martin? Who is getting "shot at" for it?
-
You just have to learn when to duck sometimes TK.
-
You just have to learn when to duck sometimes TK.
Maybe I just need a new dictionary, that defines words like "retraction", "error", "mistake", "overunity", "COP INFINITY", "incontrovertible evidence" and so on in the way that they seem to be used here on this forum.
-
Hi TK
I remember the Meatloaf song. with the Lyric "2 out of 3 ain't bad.
i also watched a film recently called Emperor. Did the Emperor of Japan help instigate world war 2? We do not know. Did he help end it? Yes.
So the USA had two choices. Hang him, or enlist his services to try and rebuild Japan. It a process of moving on.
I also accept you can not be half pregnant.
Kind Regards
Mark
-
Snooze alarm:
That's the kind of non-answer I've come to expect from you.
The bottom line is this; I'm not really interested in your hollow hints, crumbs of wisdom, opinions, speculations or philosophies. What interests me is seeing a setup and the measurements thereof, that you believe achieves something out of the ordinary or beyond what conventional science predicts.
Can you do that?
I hear a very gentle sound...
With your ear down to the ground...
We want the world and we want it now!
-
Snooze alarm:
I hear a very gentle sound...
With your ear down to the ground...
We want the world and we want it now!
When the musics over,
Turn out the light.
-
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.
The fact that the 555 PWM circuit did not work as illustrated really didn't bother me much because I simply switched to using a single channel from the 3-Phase digital PWM I designed and had been using in my exploration of Bob Boyce's toroidal transformer self-charging battery circuit technology that used his Hex controller. That technology drew great interest after Johann from S. Africa posted his 4 (famous) videos showing the Hex controller self-charging a battery. Nothing came of it though. The Inductive Resistor research I've conducted and continue to do so does NOT / did NOT mirror Ainslie's work. I never built and tested that complete array as pictured and argued in these forums. My variant is quite different (simpler) and the protocols are altogether different. I'm still adamant that there is something to the Inductive Resistor Heater based on what I've been able to show ... disclosed and undisclosed.
I hope this clarifies that I was NOT misled in any way by Rosemary Ainslie. I subsequently made the 555 PWM circuit perform in the frequency and duty cycle range referred to in the articles/papers. But now my variant is self-oscillating and based on simple 'blocking oscillator' principles.
I know that an FG was the only input signal device ever used, and that (her advisors/reviewers) were the ones insisting on including the 555 PWM circuit in all publications/disclosures ... that's what I was told anyway. 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.)
-
....Rosemary Ainslie did NOT perpetrate and was NOT part of any intentional deception ... that's my belief.
Regards,
GME
Does your belief in her honesty extend to the 5-mosfet circuit and claims? Because she most certainly DID perform an intentional deception back in 2011.
The Demo video was released in mid-March with the claim that all five mosfets were in parallel, and it was not until April 19, about, that .99 finally showed the correct schematic, after he looked very carefully at the circuit because he was _unable to reproduce_ the Ainslie scopetraces precisely. No wonder, because he was using the CLAIMED schematic which was an intentional deception, as Ainslie herself was then forced to admit. Over four hundred forum posts, discussing her CLAIMED but not used schematic, occurred in the interval, and .99 was not the only person wasting his time on a false schematic. To top it off, Ainslie said that she wished that he had NOT revealed the truth, she actually wanted the deception to continue!
Note her statement: "We showed it in the video. We just didn't draw anyone's attention to that positioning".
Now go and watch the "Donny Blooper Reel" and tell me again that Ainslie wasn't engaging in intentional deception.
-
I just want to point out something here.
There are several people making claims of various sorts in this thread. Yet.... the only ones who appear to be providing _evidence_ in the form of checkable outside references, demonstrations, and so on.... are ...Poynt99 and Little old me. (Reference: Check the posts above. If I've made a claim for which I hace not provided some necessary support, please let me know and I'll remedy the situation asap.)
Others are of course welcome and strongly encouraged to provide the same kinds of evidence, for THEIR claims. Or any evidence at all for that matter.
-
(dup post)
-
As anyone can see from looking at the schematics I attached above, the Quantum magazine circuit _without_ the 555 timer is just exactly the circuit given in the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet as the "Unclamped inductive test" circuit. With the exception of the place where the "Black" FG lead will wind up when it is subbed in. The inductive test circuit has the FG Black output on the correct side of the current sense resistor and the Quantum circuit has it at the common circuit ground, the main battery negative terminal. We know that the latter arrangement creates a current path that bypasses the current sense resistor, so the current values gained with this arrangement will not indicate the total current.
So are we to believe that the plain old unclamped inductive test circuit in the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet -- and in the data sheets of many other mosfets as well -- is Over Unity and nobody noticed before Ainslie did? Or is it the 555 timer that makes it OU, makes it special?
-
@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.)
The component values were NOT the same. The component relationships were, however. To give me more flexibility, I replaced one of the fixed resistors with a potentiometer (as a variable resistor). I never took a scope shot, nor will I now because that stuff was torn down long ago, besides I had my digi-PWM which is far superior in its utility to the 555 but not as energy thrifty as the 555.
I never really set out to build HER circuit since I had messed around with the Inductive Resistor Heater concept in the distant past ... long before ever hearing of the Quantum article or Rosemary Ainslie. I simply resurrected an old project and posted where it seemed appropriate ... big mistake!
I don't have anything more to add than that.
Regards,
GME
-
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.
-
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.
The success of my circuit is at an operational duty cycle of around 24% and nearly 500,000 Hz. I won't ask her anything, because I don't care. You now know what little information she shared with me before she stabbed me in the back with all of that poynty-head crap. So please don't ask me anything else ... I don't know anything more.
Regards
-
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.
-
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.
blah, blah, blah TK. I think others reading my recent posts here can decide on their own what my motive(s) are in these last posts ... that it was only honesty and clarification. They can also see you are always looking for a fight. Let it rest. Go seek help for your aggression ... find a good shrink.
-
See, it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you at all. You cannot simply stick to the points under discussion and you respond to reasonable statements and questions with insults and ad-hominem attacks.
But since you don't object to anything in my summary of your points, I take it that you don't object to anything in my summary.
1. You did not replicate the claimed 3 or 4 percent HI duty cycle using the same components and circuit that Ainslie claimed.
2. Your apparatus operates at vastly different frequency and duty cycle than either of Ainslie's apparatuses.
3. You stated that Ainslie stabbed you in the back after not giving you very much information.
4. I provided you with proof, in her own words, of a deliberate and serious deception that Ainslie and Martin perpetrated in March of 2011, and I asked you if you still believed in your statement that she is not deliberately deceptive. You declined to answer and instead insulted me.
I ask you once again: is this a fair summary of the past few posts from you? If it isn't, please correct me WITHOUT INSULTING ME, you bloviating troll.
And while you are at it, give me an example of what you call my "aggression" and show how it is more aggressive than your comments imaged below.
-
wow.its refreshing to have a different point of view frm gmeast.it seems not everybody is on the attak-and-destroy-at-all-costs mission here..
-
Snooze alarm:
That's the kind of non-answer I've come to expect from you.
The bottom line is this; I'm not really interested in your hollow hints, crumbs of wisdom, opinions, speculations or philosophies. What interests me is seeing a setup and the measurements thereof, that you believe achieves something out of the ordinary or beyond what conventional science predicts.
Can you do that?
I hear a very gentle sound...
With your ear down to the ground...
We want the world and we want it now!
MH,
Aye, those who want the world are very close
to realizing their dream AGENDA. The manipulated
turmoil in Egypt and soon to inflame all of the Middle
East does not bode well for the inhabitants of planet
Earth.
0.99,
Aye, you've restated the obvious. The ratio seems to
be about 10:1 in that for every 10 "not interested"
there will be one "thank you, I know what to do with
that."
What has been proposed in the way of creative
innovation (tricks of the trade) to enhance performance
is well established "conventional science" in the field. To
re-emphasize a pointer; the electronics manufacturer's
Application Notes are perhaps the best sources of little
known esoteric knowledge which will surely nurture
profound insights into electronic circuit operations.
There are indeed technologies which are able to achieve
something out of the ordinary or beyond what conventional
science predicts, but I choose not to go there. Those tech-
nologies are very destructive and they originate from places
which are not good.
Speaking of science; this video is quite interesting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPccMlgug8A&feature=player_embedded).
-
Once again, the Brine Shrimp insists on straying off topic and posting irrelevancies that try to bury the real issues that this thread is concerned with. There is enough noise already, and SEA MONKEY IS PERFECTLY FREE to start his...or her.... own thread where the noise can be listened to by whomever.
This thread is about Rosemary Ainslie and the issues around her various demonstrations, "papers" and claims.
Now.... please take a look at the most recent set of posts. Rosemary Ainslie is seriously deluded. She claims that Mark E and the rest of us
Dear Mark,
You most certainly HAVE been advised by public companies that they are aware of the results referenced in the paper and that they stand by the claim of measured anomalies.
If you feel that this level of accreditation does not satisfy you - then perhaps you could take the trouble to advise them. Meanwhile I note that your opinion on this matter is at variance with my own.
Regards
Rosemary Ainslie
[/color]
Here she insists that HER OWN statements, lists of alphabet agencies and HER OWN claims about what they did, ten or twelve years ago... without any documentation at all, not even an email.... means that THE PUBLIC COMPANIES HAVE ADVISED us of their results and endorsement. Then she challenges Mark to talk to the companies!
Of course she knows that none of the referenced companies have ever heard of her nonsense. SHE CANNOT PRODUCE A SINGLE BIT OF DOCUMENTATION of her silly claims and this latter set of delusional rants from her are just further evidence of that.
How can anyone possibly have such muddled thinking? Nobody has been "advised" BY THE PUBLIC COMPANIES of anything at all concerning Ainslie! Nobody from ANY COMPANY has ever "advised" anyone concerning Ainslie!
I can show where Professor Kahn banned her from his laboratory, in Kahn's own words .... and I can show where Tektronix pulled their loaner scope because she misrepresented their involvement, in Tektronix official emails ..... But she can't show a single jot or tittle of evidence for her claims concerning ABB, BP, SASOL, or the other strings of random letters she emits. Yet she claims THE COMPANIES THEMSELVES "advised"
[/color]I know you have not been contacted. Nor was direct contact necessary. We have an unusual claim. To support the evidence we sought and obtained validation of our results from experts within many different companies. Those companies that are listed in the paper have not only accredited these results but have have also permitted their names to be published in that same paper. Precisely to obviate the inevitable objections that we anticipated from those such as you and your colleague Tinsel Koala. That referenced accreditation is the vehicle of information to which I refer. Therefore, indeed, you have been notified by them of their accreditation. If you have a quarrel with what they've approved - then take the complaint up with them.
[/color]
I am astounded once again. Just when I think that the Ainslie delusions have taken a break, she proceeds to emit even more utter and incredible bullcrap. She makes a claim about a company "accrediting" her garbage, gives no evidence at all, then turns around and tells you that the COMPANIES THEMSELVES HAVE NOTIFIED YOU of their accreditation.
But they haven't! Is there anyone, anywhere, who would take Ainslie's undocumented statements as a "notification" from the companies themselves?
Is Ainslie being honest here, or honorable? I submit to you readers, that a claim from Ainslie is not the same as a notification from a company, and it is dishonest to claim it is, and it is dishonorable to continue to pretend that her Quantum magazine article does not specify exactly the dutycycle and frequency she claims were used to make the data in the paper......because it does so specify, as Mark E. has quoted several times. I also submit to you that it is dishonorable in the extreme for her to attempt to blame someone other than herself and her co-author BC Buckley for the TOTAL CONTENTS of the article that bears their names.
-
This thread is about Rosemary Ainslie and the issues around her various demonstrations, "papers" and claims.
As you wish. This Dead Horse has been beaten
with such vigor that it is a disjointed pile of bones.
Who knows, you may bring it back to life.
Carry on, keep on beatin'.
-
<<< Once you've got it pegged on what seems like a reasonable COP which WILL be greater than 1 >>>
Deja Vu! Some people deserve prizes.
Well, when you are trained in the science of electronics and energy, you can just look at a schematic and pass judgement on it. The Quantum circuit is obviously under unity just like the insane miss-wired MOSFET circuit was under unity.
Some people get upset when a "laying on of eyes" passes judgement on a circuit but it's not rocket science people. A switching MOSFET is a variable resistor and will burn off more and more energy the faster it switches. You can literally just look at a schematic and and make a rough estimate on where the supplied battery power is going to get burned off.
All of Sea Monkey's allusions to "secret sauce - ha ha seek and ye shall find" are just delusions and hope. Or they could be connected to the Grand Conspiracy. Same thing for Rosemary saying to find the "right" oscillation.
The Cracker Jack box is empty. Doooooooooooooooooooommmmm!!!!!
-
And this is the kind of thing that drives me nuts and that's why I stay away from this sheit:
<<< here's my take. In all the time that I tried to progress our Q-array - I NEVER got a single expert to comment on those results. >>>
You biatch, how dare you say that at this point in this game. Poynt99, PicoWatt, myself, TK, Steve Weir, Mark E, and I am probably missing others, ARE EXPERTS you dumb insulting ass! Some are EXTREME experts.
She can't be that dense, she knows she is lying but that knowledge is wrapped in a psychological "shell." This has been going on for years. It's like the response to the lying about the schematic for the Q-array circuit. This is just a "construct" in her mind that she states in order to "maintain her equilibrium." At various stages in her narrative, there are these Big Brother "War is Peace" short-circuits in the logic of her whole proposition/world view so she can keep herself afloat.
This "EXPERTS" construct is just a psychological "Get out of Jail free" game/dissonance contra-contradiction mechanism her psyche needs to stay sane and keep the story going.
Not for me.
-
_yOu guy|s should try harder if you really want to squeeze the maximum performance out of this circuit* _gMeast is on the right track/ but still needs some more work to make it waterproof* _tHere are certain rare materials which can be used in a advantageous way if applied correctly*
_bUt of course you wouldn|t find it the way you look at this problem*
-
Oh come on MH..... when did you ever see a more profound textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome?
The electrical and thermal power issues have been settled long ago. The Quantum-17 circuit was replicated according to Ainslie's instructions, with and without the 555 timer, with and without the inverted duty cycle, with FGs and no FGs, by literally dozens of people, including such greats as Aaron Murakami and Dr Stiffler. And FuzzyTomCat, Harvey, and of course Little Old Me. Many of us did really good calorimetry. Nobody confirmed Ainslie's wild claims.
So the real matter of interest now, and for some time since, is the psychological one. Ainslie has apparently got her own little cult going! Not even Donovan Martin can break free of her clutches and talk, independently and rationally, about the history and the present situation. We see Ainslie, the cult leader, descending further and further into decompensation after her recent public humiliation and the forced withdrawal of her two daft manuscripts. She magically conjures "accreditations" from people and agencies who apparently never heard of her, and then claims that her statements constitute actual notifications from those agencies and persons themselves! This is deeper than a delusion, it's very nearly an hallucination.
So MH you've got to put on another hat! The EE and physics issues are moot, they just provide a backdrop and props for the real drama, which is psychological. Look at it like a Tennessee Williams play or something, or a bad opera, with a scrawny wench parrot squawking instead of a fat mezzo-soprano singing. And she hasn't squawked her last, yet.
"Stella! Oh STELLA!"
--TK
@Brine Shrimp: Koalas are not bears, and we are not cuddly at all, so don't try to pet one of us, you might draw back a bloody shredded stump.
;)
-
@Brine Shrimp: Koalas are not bears, and we are not cuddly at all, so don't try to pet one of us, you might draw back a bloody shredded stump.
I rest my case! :o
Surely it must have been a typo, 8)
Happy Hyperbole! ;)
-
Yes at times one can be brazen and state the facts. There is a limit to one's restraint. In order to make a point when dealing with crazy situations like this one, and considering all that has transpired over the course of several years, being brazen makes sense. We all know who the 'bad guy' is pertaining to the fundamental issue of respect for the qualifications of the people that you are dealing with. It was a cheap shot and you have been making it for years, you bitch. Plus, with the Dollard affair, some schmuck posted Aaron's address, email address, and phone number. So you can kiss my ass Rosie Posie, I am not going to reveal my identity and risk getting attacked on the street by a mentally imbalanced person. I would never dare dream to ask anyone online to do that. This is a covenant that we all share online and it goes back to the BBS days, you fool.
Many of us know that the 2002 circuit is meaningless and worth no more than a 10 minute discussion in an Electronics 101 class. The real discussion would be about the MOSFET itself.
The opportunity cost associated with this affair is astronomical at this point in time.
-
Hopefully my final comment about this and then I will just observe.
<<< Sadly there was a brutal consequence to their involvement. ALL three of the players at ABB Research - were retrenched, put on early retirement and sacked - respectively - within 3 months of that publication. I then learned better than to reference any of the names in those reports that come out in support of over unity evidence. Which is why I will NEVER make any of their reports public. >>>
Self-contradictory statements about revealing people's identities, how about that?
But my real comment is about the Dick Tracy MIB fantasies and the alleged negative consequences for being associated with a measly 555 timer circuit firing a MOSFET, presented by a woman that knows almost nothing about electronics.
No negative consequences ever fell on people that witnessed, or were involved with, the 2002 circuit. I state this by analyzing the situation rationally. If anything, Rosemary's stories if true are purely coincidental.
-
I have a question I would very much appreciate a frank and honest answer to.
What would you guys actually do if by some freak of nature a person was to present a demonstration
and give full access to you guys to evaluate, while his own EE checked your work and you guys seen over 100% efficiency ?
Remember a Qualified EE is watching you watching the experimenter so no one hides anything which I'm sure is the intention
you guys had anyway i just mentioned it so no one new could bring up checking the checkers at a later date. It's already considered
that way. ;)
Remember I respect you trained folks a great deal. And hope to do some formal training myself if I can manage it. I'm all for it.
It's just a curiosity question.
Cheers.
None of the main debunkers have replied to this. Am I to assume none have an opinion or plan for this unlikely event ?
Seems like if youse ever expected to see it you would have thought about what you would do.
I certainly don't think anyone is claiming a closed system. So even if an arrangement went over 100% there is still no OU is there ?
Cheers
-
it doesnt have to be a closed system @farmhand.if we go over 100% its a nail in the coffin for the thermo laws.just gota prove it.
-
Ainslie has now announced that within 48 hours she will be posting images of her not-lost-after-all apparatus that she claims was used for the trials described in the Quantum magazine article of 2002. I will refer to this circuit and its variants as the Quantum-17 circuit, since she claimed COP>17 for that apparatus.
Since several people have once again begun some work on the _published_ circuit that bears Ainslie's name, we are looking forward to photos and demonstrations that are clear enough to actually convey some information, that can't be distorted or altered or covered up by Ainslie as she has done so many times in the past.
The title of this thread being now obsolete (for more than one reason!) I'll be starting a new thread to discuss her photographs and further claims regarding the Quantum-17 circuit and claims. If she manages to post anything to discuss, that is.
And we will not be forgetting, of course, the many person-years of prior work that have already occurred concerning that circuit and her outlandish claims.
-
Well well well. The mendacious troll Ainslie has once again plastered a bunch of misrepresentations and outrageous claims on her honeypot forum.
As is typical she accuses me of saying that which I DID NOT SAY and proceeds to attack her own deluded ideas, while at the same time betraying her utter lack of understanding.
I have pointed out MANY TIMES that the PUBLISHED CIRCUIT CANNOT MAKE THE DUTY CYCLE AINSLIE CLAIMS.
NEVER ONCE have I said that the published circuit only makes 90 percent duty cycle, nor have I EVER SAID that it is not adjustable in duty cycle or frequency. Of course it is! I've demonstrated this in MANY VIDEOS THAT AINSLIE REFUSES TO WATCH IN HER ARROGANT DELIBERATE IGNORANCE.
What I have said, still say, and what is backed up by the work of Mark E and anyone else who cares to build the circuit, is that THE SCHEMATIC AINSLIE PUBLISHED UNDER HER NAME CANNOT MAKE THE DUTY CYCLE SHE HAS CLAIMED or any short ON time duty cycles.
I have no idea what her actual apparatus might have used... we know she LIES and even gets other people to LIE FOR HER about the actual schematics she uses. She either did not use the circuit claimed, or she did not use the duty cycle she claimed.... it's up to her to clear this discrepancy up. What is perfectly clear is that she DID NOT USE THE CLAIMED CIRCUIT to make the DUTY CYCLE SHE CLAIMED TO USE.
What I do know is that the schematic she published under her name cannot do what she claims it does. And it's clear from Ainslie's present posts that she is still perfectly willing to lie about me, about what other say, and about her own claims.
Note that she accuses ME of lying! But every thing I have said is not only TRUE, but I have demonstrated its truth with checkable references, demonstrations and Ainslie's own mendacious posts.
NOTE WELL: She accuses me of saying what I never said.... and she cannot provide any references for what she accuses me of... because her accusations are total lies!
-
I have been emailed by her again, I must admit you were right I thought she would go away gracefully
Time to dust of the gloves
Mark
-
@ TK
You're on a hiding to nothing mate! :(
-
@ TK
You're on a hiding to nothing mate! :(
Sorry, I don't understand this post.
Mate. >:(
-
I have been emailed by her again, I must admit you were right I thought she would go away gracefully
Time to dust of the gloves
Mark
I've posted her "open letter" to you in the new Quantum-17 thread. As anyone can clearly see for themselves, the Quantum article and the claims made around it are just as bogus as the two "withdrawn" papers (which can still be seen, including the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot, at every link they have ever used, even if they do now contain the "preface" withdrawing them.)
She has claimed and published 3 different schematics for this same set of experiments, and neither of the claimed circuits that show the 555 timer can produce the duty cycle/frequency combination claimed in the original Quantum article.
As I told you before, Mark, the woman is a menace; she cannot even keep her own story straight and she engages in the vilest campaign of insults and outright lies that can be imagined. The "revised" schematic in the papers poynt99 posted appeared AFTER I and others at EF had pointed out the problem with the original circuit that she published. It is a fabrication, NEVER USED TO MAKE THE CLAIMED DATA, just like the schematics that appeared (again after analysis of the original showed its bogosity) in the two withdrawn papers.
-
Sorry, I don't understand this post.
Mate. >:(
Meaning: To be faced with a situation which is pointless, as a successful outcome is impossible.
-
Meaning: To be faced with a situation which is pointless, as a successful outcome is impossible.
It would rather depend on your definition of "success", wouldn't it?
We have already achieved a major successful outcome: Ainslie has posted a statement of retraction, even though she does it insincerely and still believes in her bogus "thesis". And we have made enough lasting "noise" about it that she will never again be able to foist off those bogus claims and fake experiments onto legitimate researchers and journal reviewers again.
I consider every small refutation of her smallest claim, every proof that I offer you of Ainslie's lies and insults, to be a success. Every prediction that I make that comes true is a success. Every mention of "Ickle Pickle" or Bryan Little, by Rosemary Ainslie, is another success for me, because it is another illustration, from the horse's mouth, of her trollness, her mendacity and her utter disregard for the truth.
Now... since she brought it up herself... she will have to face up to the glaring discrepancies around the Quantum 17 circuit, whichever one of the three claimed ones she might have actually used. She may also even realize once again why they decided to modify THAT CIRCUIT (whatever it really was) into the 5-mosfet design in the first place!
Simply getting her to admit that the original apparatus wasn't lost after all is a big success. Getting her to show the circuit she ACTUALLY USED, or that is on the board when she now, finally photographs it... will also be a big success. Successes for her critics, of course. Will what they show be big FAILS for Ainslie? Stay tuned.
-
I can see that the struggle is fully on:
<<< What's important is this. WHATEVER the cause it serves its purpose to PROVE that the UNITY BARRIERS ARE MEASURED TO HAVE BEEN BREACHED. And further tests - required by BP - PROVE that those measurements are CORRECT. That REALLY matters. >>>
So here we are again, possibly at the beginning of another year long drama where the end result will be Rosemary apologizing and stating that she was wrong again.
Nothing has been breached, it's all complete and utter nonsense.
Now to move onto the real reason that I am posting.
Rosemary has challenged many people to reveal their identities. Yet she made a point about not revealing the identities of the people that looked at her 2002 circuit. Yet we have an implicit and mutually agreed on covenant that says that we respect other people's right to protect their identities and its their choice if they want to reveal them or not. This is a covenant that has existed throughout the history of the Internet, and goes back further than that to the BBS days, and it goes back even further than that to the CB radio days.
We all know that Aaron Murakami has been embroiled in a controversy for several weeks now. I am no fan of Aaron at all but that's it, it doesn't go any further than that. Aaron often refers to "disinformation agents," implying that there is active interference in free energy research by the feds, the dreaded "Men in Black." Aaron wants to say this nonsense because it creates buzz and it's good for business. He is lying just like any sleazy peddler of magic elixirs will tell you that his $75 bottle of sugar water with food colouring will cure all of your ailments and boost your s** life. Many people literally believe him and some of them could be mentally imbalanced.
If you have read the free energy forums long enough, you will have seen posts by people that seem to indicate that they are mentally imbalanced. I have read several postings by people that in all seriousness claim that they will barricade themselves in their house and fight it out to the death with federal agents if they were going to do a raid to confiscate their spinny pulse motor. For all we know based on news stories, some of these people could have dozens or hundreds of guns and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition.
So going back to the Aaron controversy, here is a noteworthy link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_638781379&feature=iv&src_vid=UL7yMKVtNE4&v=ly21X6JQTkk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_638781379&feature=iv&src_vid=UL7yMKVtNE4&v=ly21X6JQTkk)
Here is the text copy and paste and I am attaching a screen capture also.
john lala 1 week ago
Any trained snipers want to take Aaron out?? would love to see his head explode
The person "John Lala" should be tracked down from his IP address with a court order and he should be charged with uttering death threats and prosecuted by his local District Attorney (if in the USA). Six months in jail sounds about right to me.
Is your brain able to process this Rosemary?
MileHigh
-
That is outrageous all right. I too have my own disagreements with Aaron, but I hope he pursues this through legal channels and sees that the person making the threat is brought to justice. The fear that a threat like that engenders makes it a serious matter, even if the poster wasn't entirely "fuck them all dead" serious.
On the Ainslie matter: we of course recall that she made the same claims of "benefit" and vetting by BP for the experiment described in the retracted manuscripts. The Heat power dissipation at the Load Element Resistor was far less than the wattage supplied by the battery, when the Vbatt was measured correctly. Ainslie, Martin, and everybody else agrees with that. Right?
So how can the earlier, single mosfet circuit possibly make _more_ heat than supplied by the battery? Removing the "Q-array", miswired or not, turns the NERD circuit into the Quantum-17 circuit! If the FG is used for the input, that is. The Vbatt and Vcsr measurements were in error, severely so, for the NERD experiment. How does simply removing the "Q-array" suddenly remove these errors, since they are measured in the same manner in both experiments? Of course it cannot. The heat power vs. battery power results claimed by Ainslie _have already been shown_ to be wrong, and removing 4 miswired transistors isn't going to change that! She thought that the device with the 5 transistors, miswired, was _better_ than the Quantum-17 circuit!
Think about what this means, already. Disproving the claims of the NERD circuit, which was supposed to perform _better_ than the Quantum-17 circuit, has also already disproven the battery power vs. thermal power claims made for the Quantum-17 circuit. Just as in that circuit, most of the mosfet heating was coming from the Q1 turning on when the Vgs went over +4 volts, the same thing is happening here, just without the complications of the Q2 oscillations.
The "oscillations" that are shown in the present set of scopeshots from FTC, in the other thread.... aren't the same kind of oscillations as the Q2 oscillations at all, and they produce a mosfet ON time that is much longer than the actual ON signal from the FG or 555 timer source, because of the high frequency of the signal! The IRFPG50 is an outrageously SLOW mosfet and requires a large gate charge to operate! Check the data sheet!
-
it doesnt have to be a closed system @farmhand.if we go over 100% its a nail in the coffin for the thermo laws.just gota prove it.
No it won't, an open system that is gaining energy from the environment and producing more output than "we input" breaks no laws
and is common.
Any system that radiates heat, sound or vibration ect. out of the system is not a closed system.
A closed system such as the Universe itself does tend towards equilibrium. Most of the time !!!!!
However that is not always the case or the Universe would not exist as it does today.
Things get relative to the point of view but the only way to see it is on a Universal level/scale, the " Universe" meaning everything that exists, period.
None of us will ever hope to understand the true workings of the Universe as a whole, period.
The 2nd L.of.T. simply exlains what people have observed in certain "pseudo" closed systems.
The only real closed system is the Universe itself, nothing is ever added and nothing is ever taken away, period.
The fact that energy is conserved is a good thing and works for us in many ways, learn to use it and get over the Laws thing.
Forget the laws, then use logic and common sense and you will see the same "laws" are evident.
The wording is convoluted and is not meant for the average person.
The universe is a constant in the fact that nothing is ever added, because there is nowhere for things to be added from,
and nothing is ever taken away, because there is nowhere to take anything to.
Nothing does not exist. By definition Nothing means No thing and something that is "No thing" is non existent. [ oxymoron ]
If anybody can show me a truly closed system (other than the Universe), I would be surprised to say the least.
So come on, no fancy play on words.
Can anyone show a truly closed system "on the bench" ? Or not ?
And I mean an "actual" closed system not an "effectively" closed system, or to put it another way a "true fully closed system".
Cheers
P.S. If Rosemary or anybody else for that matter showed a setup that output more energy than was dissipated as input to it by it's operator,
Or a system showed more out than we put in then the "extra" energy can only be coming from outside the system or from the "materials" the
device is made from, which is fuel. Therefore no Laws would be broken or could be broken, Some thing cannot "come from" no thing. That is impossible.
The term "Coefficient of Performance" allows greater work output than work input by "us" the "operator" in some systems like refrigeration, no laws are broken.
There is No "O.U." or Over Unity, that involves something from nothing, there is only the utilization of energy more efficiently, over 100% efficiency is possible
and already happens commonly.
It's time these things were accepted and understood, I think.
..
Even if rosemary did show over 100% efficiency she would still not be showing anything that would break any laws,
that is because any extra energy would have to come from the break down of the device itself via (transmutation or molecular dissociation)
or from the environment or surroundings. So no Over Unity that breaks any laws.
...
-
"Even if rosemary did show over 100% efficiency she would still not be showing anything that would break any laws,
that is because any extra energy would have to come from the break down of the device itself via (transmutation or molecular dissociation)
or from the environment or surroundings. So no Over Unity that breaks any laws."
Actually, if you read her retracted manuscripts and can suspend disbelief long enough to swim through her ridiculous jargon and false data, you can find her statement of just this same idea. She claimed, without the slightest shred of evidence, that mass in the circuit elements was being converted to energy, and she even mentioned Einstein. Of course her entire data set was bogus, error and mendacity, and she would have no clue whatsoever as to how to go about actually testing her absurd proposal of mass-to-energy conversion. Actually.
But we are so far beyond that pile of garbage now... we have an _entirely different_ pile of garbage -- quite literally -- to deal with now!! Stay tuned.... or rather, tune over to the new Quantum-17 thread, for the next thrilling chapter. The Adventures of Little Miss Mosfet, Episode Zero.
-
"Adventures of Little Miss Mosfet" (Or mosfet, depending on Rose's spelling)
That is a very good one TK. Thanks to you, I now have to clean some spilled beer from my keyboard but, it was worth it. I needed the laugh, thanks.
Bill
-
"Adventures of Little Miss Mosfet" (Or mosfet, depending on Rose's spelling)
That is a very good one TK. Thanks to you, I now have to clean some spilled beer from my keyboard but, it was worth it. I needed the laugh, thanks.
Bill
Heh... save some laughter for later, you will be needing it, I guarantee it.
;D
-
Okay, I had to take a crack at this.....
Little Miss MOSFET
She is a boss yet
Heating resistors like toast.
Along came a zipon
Who said she's a boson
And yet she continues to post.
-
@farmhand,where did you learn such crap ey? Sure a perfectly closed system is impossible but what if i got 6joules out when my open system only did 3joules in?exactly,it sucks it in from the environment,uphill against a temperature gradient and against the 2lot.
-
@tk,yes but rosemary is making progress.she is now aware of the importance of a backspike.look how poynt is telling her otherwise(i dont know why).its the only mechanism that has a chance of a 2lot breach in her circuit.
-
@tk,yes but rosemary is making progress.she is now aware of the importance of a backspike.look how poynt is telling her otherwise(i dont know why).its the only mechanism that has a chance of a 2lot breach in her circuit.
You are so silly. Ainslie is _regressing_, not making progress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDcC7bCI8EM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDcC7bCI8EM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TCOS7VYlw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TCOS7VYlw)
-
truly a hit and miss enterprise @tk,the horror of such circuits is that not only must the circuit synchronize with the core,s thermodynamic window but the core,s window must synchronize with the circuit too.
-
@rosemary..sorry hun im quite new to this website scene but glad you are indeed fully aware and ontop of it.im on my own buzz here totaly impartial to tk,s buzz or others so im cool yes, got my centre of gravity firm on one spot and creating some of my own spin lol!(one for the 2lot busters)
-
truly a hit and miss enterprise @tk,the horror of such circuits is that not only must the circuit synchronize with the core,s thermodynamic window but the core,s window must synchronize with the circuit too.
You really are hilarious, you know!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi_FJwpPrQk
-
@rosemary..sorry hun im quite new to this website scene but glad you are indeed fully aware and ontop of it.im on my own buzz here totaly impartial to tk,s buzz or others so im cool yes, got my centre of gravity firm on one spot and creating some of my own spin lol!(one for the 2lot busters)
If you think Ainslie is "fully aware" of anything, you are badly mistaken. By her own admission, she is "blind as a bat", not an experimentalist, not an electronics technician (duh), not a circuit analyst, not an electrical engineer ... she is only a "Physicist". And she has impeccable credentials in that area: her textbook was Gary Zukov's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" and she once opened a book written by Murray Gell-Mann. She has also heard of Richard Feynman! So that makes her qualified to argue circuit theory and explain electronic phenomena using her "zipon thesis". Right? Wrong. It is absurd for you to assert that Ainslie is fully aware of anything, especially inductive ringdown phenomena. She is not even "aware" that her vaunted circuit is the same circuit that is given in the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet as the unclamped inductive test circuit. She is not aware of what the term "Drain Voltage" could possibly mean, in the context of a mosfet low-side switching circuit, nor how it is expected to behave. She never even charged a capacitor with "her" circuit's spikes, as I showed you how to do in the video. She is not even "aware" of the terms integration and differentiation, and when I first told her in 2009 that her spreadsheet process was essentially a manual integration, she thought I was talking about ending apartheid or something. She still doesn't even get that, having had no calculus, and so now she parrots the term without understanding it and refers to "integrated analysis" instead of integrating an instantaneous power curve (which by the way can be done LIVE on her oscilloscope, but she doesn't have a clue as to how to do it.)
Fully Aware!
Are you fully aware, profitis, that you are free to start your own thread discussing whatever topic you wish?
-
the awareness of the possibility of an favorable thermo is enough @tk.the rest is hit and miss as i said.no i am not aware that im free to start my own thread and posts but thanx anyways.
-
the awareness of the possibility of an favorable thermo is enough @tk.the rest is hit and miss as i said.no i am not aware that im free to start my own thread and posts but thanx anyways.
Sure. Click on the "Community" button below the big "Overunity" banner at the top of any page. Then find the general category heading for your topic, and click on that. Then you will see a list of threads in that category, and you will also see the button that allows you to start a new thread on the topic of your choosing.
You can also just surf on over to Rosie Poser's own honeypot forum and join up, and you will then have more access than I do (I am not supposed to be able to see images or attached files over there, since I am not a member.) But be warned: she harvests IP addresses and has her crew try to idenitify the physical locations.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php
-
thanx @tk.there is a chance that i may be aware now yes..mwamwa xx