Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83843
  • *Latest: costin

  • *Total Posts: 521648
  • *Total Topics: 15548
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 271240 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #30 on: August 28, 2013, 06:23:06 AM »
So. Apparently Ainslie is now saying something like this:

It doesn't matter what circuit you use as long as it has a mosfet with a body diode in it and shows some "BEMF" or inductive spike kickback. It doesn't matter what you drive it with, either, or what frequency or duty cycle because the osciilations override that anyway. And it especially doesn't matter that the schematic published in Quantum isn't the one used, or that the FTC Test #13 isn't made with the published schematic, or that the published schematic can't do what is claimed for it. It just doesn't matter! Build anything, and just tune it. You will eventually find the "flop mode" which gives you overunity. And if you don't, after years of trying... .that's not Ainslie's fault, you are just too stupid for pickles.

At the same time it appears that the FTC Test #13 is endorsed by Ainslie as giving the proper waveforms at the proper frequency and duty cycle settings. I say it appears, because it is next to impossible to pin Ainslie down, even after all these years. 
And I am now clear that the scopeshots .99 posted above are from Glen's Test # 13.

So... where are the "oscillations"? There aren't any "oscillations" evident in those shots. And as I showed in my own replication of them using a FG, "careful" tuning is indeed required to get the Drain signal to be a single, tall spike, rather than a bit of an ordinary ringdown. It takes about 30 seconds to "tune" for this. And as I have also shown, the apparatus at that frequency does keep the mosfet ON much longer than the duty cycle setting of the driving system will indicate. In fact with a duty cycle _setting_ of 50 percent, the mosfet is actually ON for something like 80 percent of the cycle or even more. Hence the heating of the load observed.

The mosfet is ON when the Drain voltage is LOW. I have indicated the battery voltage on Glen's screen below. The mosfet is ON as long as the trace is below the red 24volt level of the battery voltage.

I've also reposted my reproduction of the shot, showing Drain and Gate traces, since I only have a 2ch DSO.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2013, 12:37:01 AM »
Ainslie continues to slide down the hill of decompensation. Soon we'll see the fullblown psychosis again, complete denial of reality. If it weren't so funny it would be sad.

Quote
No Poynty.  I am NOT asking you to agree to what duty cycle we used.  I'm DEMANDING that you agree that we COULD generate that 3% duty cycle with the use of our equipment.  This possibility was ROUNDLY DISMISSED.   REMEMBER?  By EVERYONE - INCLUDING MARK EUTHANASIUS AND YOURSELF and our Little TK.  Then hot on the heels of THAT fact - is this point.  IF we claim to have applied a 3% ON duty cycle - then that claim is FEASIBLE - given that we COULD. 
No, AINSLIE. What everyone has been telling you is that the circuit YOU PUBLISHED cannot do WHAT YOU CLAIMED. And that is definitely true. Nobody knows, even today, what circuit you ACTUALLY USED. Even the circuit that Steve Weir drew out for you is only what is in the box NOW, and it clearly has been altered since the Quantum article. 
The 555 timer in the circuit that Weir posted can make the short ON duty cycle but it CANNOT make the 2.4 kHz frequency you claimed to use, for one thing.
So you are still in very hot water: the present schematic ALSO cannot make the dutycycle/frequency combo that you claimed in the article. It uses a different mosfet than you claimed in the article. In spite of the similar part number, the IRFPG50 and the IRFP450 are entirely different performers.

NOBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS, at this point, STILL, what was used in the Quantum article. It is obvious that the apparatus has been modified since the picture on the front page of the Quantum article was taken and it is obvious that the schematic now given uses a different mosfet than what the article claims. And it can't make a 2.4 kHz frequency like the article claims.

The photo on the front page of the Quantum article shows two analog meters in the front panel of the device. There are no meters shown on Steve Weir's schematic. The Quantum article and schematic claim that the frequency and duty cycle are independently adjustable.... but the SWeir schematic cannot do independent adjustment, the "on" time is nearly constant throughout the frequency range and so the duty cycle varies along with the frequency, not independently. One potentiometer instead of two. But on the front page of the Quantum article we can make out... barely.... as many as FOUR potentiometers.

The article STILL LIES, even more now that we know that the circuit you give now is even further away from what the Quantum article claims.

Quote
Mark Euthanasius has stated - VERY PUBLICLY - that BECAUSE we could not have applied a 3% duty cycle - then EVERYONE needs MUST reject the ENTIRE CLAIM related to our Quantum paper.  And you stood behind him.  It's now been shown that we COULD apply that duty cycle.


No, AINSLIE, what we have stated VERY PUBLICLY is that the PUBLISHED SCHEMATIC IN THE QUANTUM ARTICLE cannot do what you claimed it did, and that is STILL TRUE and it is also true that the "new" schematic can't either: it operates at too high a frequency range. And all that has been shown is that NOW the apparatus MIGHT have been able to apply a short ON duty cycle at a much higher frequency than you claimed, IF it was actually what you used THEN.

Quote
THEREFORE do Mark Euthanasius and TK and you need to publicly admit that the BASIS OF YOUR COMPLAINT HAS NOW BEEN VOIDED. 

WRONG AGAIN. Far from being "voided" the basis of the complaint is reinforced. The present schematic doesn't even use the same transistor that you claimed to use and it can't make the low frequency! The timer doesn't have a separate power supply! There is only one potentiometer hooked up!!

THEREFORE do YOU, Rosemary Ainslie, need to admit publicly that YOU STILL HAVE FALSE CLAIMS AND DATA APPEARING UNDER YOUR NAME in publications that you will not correct or remove.

Quote
Unless, of course, you all see that there is NO requirement on the part of you all - who have been FRUSTRATING investigations into over unity claims - over MANY MANY YEARS - to EVER make any admissions at all.  You simply reserve the right to discredit the good work that HAS been advanced - and the good name of researchers who are advancing this work - in your anxiety to PREVENT research into over unity claims.  And you will all of you VERY PUBLICLY - show the UTMOST disrespect to any such claimant - REGARDLESS.  There is NO greater discourtesy that has happened on these forums against my good name, my work, my age, my talents - than this REFUSAL.  If I felt that I'd been gang raped by all you internet thugs - RIGHT NOW I feel DOUBLY OUTRAGED.

Kindest regards
Rosie

Believe me, Ainslie drama queen.... had you been gang raped in your South Africa gated compound, you would know the difference between defending a thesis and defending your life against a gang of black thugs who want to humiliate you physically. People have been gang-raped in South Africa, you  know.... lots and lots of them, it is the  Capitol of the World, apparently, and your self-serving statement shows a disgusting lack of empathy or respect for those women victims of your countrymen. There is an outrage happening all right, and you are the perpetrator, not the victim.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2013, 12:42:44 AM »
And as usual, Ainslie wants other people to do her work for her.

She wants someone to show her what SHE HERSELF HAS NEVER SHOWN, and what doesn't exist in the FTC Test 13 scopeshots!!

I'm not saying it is impossible to get a mosfet to oscillate in the absence of a supplied Gate HI signal from the experimenter's FG or other clocking device .... of course it is possible, and the bigger the rat's nest of wiring the easier that is. I am saying that Ainslie doesn't understand what she is talking about and cannot demonstrate it for herself.

But of course she will distort and alter what I say into something that she can then attack. Watch!

(Note the statement in the Quantum article: "There is a variety of settings that can be applied to the duty cycle (note variable resistors) that results in "overunity coefficients". But the repeatability of such results depends on the precise components used in that circuit." One would think then that the difference between the IRFP450 in the present schematic and the IRFPG50 that the article claims was used... might affect the "repeatability". I'll bet that a lot of Ainslie's early "replicators" are wailing and gnashing their teeth right about now.)

« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 03:44:33 AM by TinselKoala »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2013, 12:42:44 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2013, 03:43:26 AM »
Quoting from the first page of the Quantum article:

Quote
Circuit Diagram: This article describes the precise circuit, as depicted in Figure 1, that is used to expose this benefit in transient energy. This is to enable and urge others to duplicate the experiment and determine the measurements independently.
(emphasis mine.)

The "Figure 1" of course is the circuit with the 555 timer that cannot produce the duty cycle and frequency combination claimed. The PRECISE circuit.

Here is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines "precise":
 
Quote
Precise:adjective marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail:precise directions I want as precise a time of death as I can get
(of a person) exact, accurate, and careful about details:the director was precise with his camera positions
 [attributive] used to emphasize that one is referring to an exact and particular thing:at that precise moment the car stopped

Exact, accurate, careful about details.....  Yet now she wants to claim a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CIRCUIT was used, not even the same mosfet or number of controls or separate power supply. PRECISE !!!!

And she says she will NEVER withdraw the Quantum article. She doesn't care at all that her lies and misrepresentations and urgings to replicate a FALSE CIRCUIT CLAIM are still "out there" bearing her name !

And she urges replicators to use the WRONG SCHEMATIC, once again. Only instead of only a month, this time it has been nearly ELEVEN YEARS that she has perpetrated the deception wrt the schematic used.


The Quantum article Figure 1, followed by the schematic that SWeir drew out and that she posted in her "trolling" forum thread are attached below.

Note that this is NOT the PRECISE schematic that accompanied the Quantum article as Figure 1.  In fact it is VERY DIFFERENT and doesn't even use the same mosfet. Neither does it correspond to the photograph on the front page of the article: there are no analog meters in the new schematic, and there are at least four adjustable potentiometers on the box in the photograph in the Quantum article.

(Coils? P-fet? Not shown? )

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2013, 04:04:03 AM »
Is the present circuit supposed to use the same battery supply for the mosfet and the 555? Why is this part of the schematic not shown? Where is the battery for the power section and how is it hooked up?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2013, 04:04:03 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2013, 11:30:05 AM »
So.

Recall that with the "NERD" or 5-mosfet circuit, we had FIVE different schematics presented as what was used in the experiment reported in the papers.

1. The single mosfet, FG with no black lead, six battery circuit that Martin said "this represents what you have before you here"
2. The claim that all five mosfets were in parallel
3. The actual circuit of the demo board as traced out by Poynt99, revealing the miswired 4 mosfets and the Black FG lead at the common battery negative.
4. The circuit given in the official publication Paper 1 at Rossi's JNP showing the Black FG lead at the transistor side of the shunt.
5. The circuit given in the official publication Paper 2 at Rossi's JNP showing the Black FG lead at the transistor side of the shunt, and the Q1-Q2 positions reversed.

The only photographic evidence that exists shows that Schematic Number 3 was actually used, not the schematics given in any papers or shown by Martin or Ainslie.

And now we have a similar situation developing. We have _at least_ four different schematics presented as having been used in the Quantum article.

1. The "official" and "precise" schematic given as Figure 1 in the Quantum article, which specifies a 555 timer circuit that _cannot_ produce the dutycycle and frequency claimed, uses a separate 12 volt supply for the timer, and specifies IRFPG50 as the mosfet and shows NO recirculation diode.
2. The schematic presented in the "EIT Paper" submission, which shows a FG symbol for the timer, but specifies a 555 in the text without providing its circuitry... and DOES show a recirculation diode and a gate control potentiometer, and DOES indicate that the frequency and dutycycle are independently variable in the accompanying text. The mosfet itself is not specified in the schematic.
3. The SWeir schematic of the "found", formerly "lost" apparatus, which shows the IRFP450 mosfet, a very different beast than the PG50, no gate control pot on the N-channel mosfet (What is on the P channel mosfet that he mentions but does not show, I wonder. Is there perhaps a tiny blue trimpot soldered to its gate pin?) and a _different_ 555 timer circuit than the "precise circuit" given as Figure 1 in the Quantum article. A diode is included in SWeir's schematic but its type and connections are not shown and not known. The duty cycle and frequency of the SWeir 555 circuit are not independently variable and there is only one potentiometer connected to the circuit and the circuit cannot make a 2.4 kHz output signal, but works at much higher frequency range, and certainly cannot make the claimed 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz.
4. The schematic from the IEEE submission, which is similar to the original Quantum schematic, with many component value changes, and bears the notation "revised 11-26-2009". The IRFPG50 mosfet is specified in the schematic.

And I will wager, although I have no proof at the moment, that the ACTUAL circuit used to produce the data in the Quantum article was likely different still! What are these "coils" that SWeir mentions? How many different ways can that circuit be altered by patch cords?

It is very clever of Free Energy claimants not to specify exact operating conditions or circuitry. It is, in fact, a tradition that pervades the field. Anyone who tries to "replicate" one of Ainslie's circuits finds out that not only does it not do what she claimed it does, but that it isn't even the circuit that she is "currently" claiming she used !!

The original Quantum schematic and the SWeir schematic are posted above. I'll repost the EIT paper schematic and the IEEE schematic below. Compare, contrast, discuss.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2013, 12:07:36 PM »
Curious, isn't it, that all the schematics where Ainslie actually specifies the mosfet, it is the IRFPG50, but in Steve's sketch it is the IRFP450? Could Steve have made an error? After all, the parts look identical except for the number, and it is easy to mistake a "G" for a "4" in that tiny font they use on the mosfet.

Is the difference even important? Maybe checking the data sheets might reveal that they are equivalent and can be substituted with impunity.

Hmmm.... let's check.

Did Steve make an error? Nope.
I can confirm that the schematic he drew shows the IRFP450 mosfet that is in fact shown in the photos of the box Ainslie "found" a few days ago. Was it the one used for the experiments twelve or fourteen years ago? Who knows. One thing is certain: the apparatus has definitely been modified since the photo accompanying the Quantum article was taken.

Are the mosfets significantly different? Yep.
The P450 is significantly faster, has less than 1/4 the ON-state resistance and requires less charge to turn on. It can handle more current but is only rated for 500 volts as compared to the PG50's 1000 volt rating. I can and do use a single IRFP450 in my SassyClassE SSTC. A PG50 will not even begin to work in that circuit.
The IRFPG50 is also significantly more expensive than the P450, at least at my sources.

ETA: It would appear now that both the "official submissions" of papers to actual respected refereed journals, the "EIT" submission and the IEEE submission, both contain Fabricated Data! Data that was not gathered under the conditions specified (circuit schematic and operating parameters) is FABRICATED. It appears that Ainslie has not only carried out her campaign of deception and misinformation here in these forum pages, but also by trying to get her nonsense published in real, respected journals with professional readerships and some cachet in the scientific world. But the submissions contain manifestly false statements. Either that.... or the "box" that Steve Weir so carefully analyzed (once again doing Ainslie's homework for her) was not in fact the apparatus used, because it corresponds to neither of the schematics given in those submissions. Not even close.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2013, 12:07:36 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2013, 12:41:44 AM »
Here is a simulation I did of the simple 1-MOSFET circuit driven by a FG. I used roughly the same frequency and duty cycle Glen used in his Test #13.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2013, 03:11:11 AM »
Remarkable, isn't it? 

Except in my actual build you can see some _real_ oscillations on the top of the Gate signal, that actually does show up during the mosfet On time, but at low amplitude.
There is nothing particularly significant about this noise in my apparatus. With proper layout it will go away and my traces will be nearly as clean as your sim's.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2013, 03:11:11 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2013, 03:27:43 AM »
Regarding the Test Apparatus:   (Ainslie posting as "witsend" in the Energetic Forum thread as she was falling out with Glen and Harvey and the rest)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-2.html#post83902
Quote
I have never been called on to produce the circuit apparatus until members of this forum required it.  It would have helped them no doubt. But I dismantled my apparatus when I sent the fluke, the multimeter and the digitial display devices to Aaron.  I said then that I would not again be doing any further experiments.  It had dominated many years of life.  My eyesight was deteriorating.  And I had lost all appetite for this, having done it so extensively for so many years preceding.  Also I no longer had the optimised resistor as one of our team had taken this for independant testing.  I do not, however, have to apologise for this. It is just a matter of fact.  I believe that the other circuit component parts are readily available.  And there is nothing to prevent a replication.  What is required is a patience in searching for the optimised settings on any particular resistor.  I found very few that did not exceed COP>2.  Nor did I take photographs because it did not occur to me that this would be required.  There is a second 'box' or apparatus set up that was sent to ABB Research.  I also don't know what has happened to that apparatus. Glen and Harvey are aware of this.  They know the circumstances intimately.  This argument is being used to discredit the claim.  The truth is I have never undertaken to produce any circuitry.  And I no longer had the apparatus nor the tools to measure.  this put paid to any further attempts at replication.  And frankly, I was rather anxious that a wide variety of resistors would be used and tested.  That's the only way the more precise inductance values will ever be established. 
 
 Between the actual Quantum publication and the new paper prepared for the IET was a total of 7 years.  It was a miracle that the apparatus survived the 3 changes of address that I had.  It was substantially degraded and there was evident rust on the switch. The switch - in any event - had to be rebuilt and at the end of Donovan's final replication done for the IET paper - I effectively gave the resistor and some inductors to a friend - involved in those same tests under Donny's supervision.  The box was banged up and he wanted to 'start again'. Thereafter I willingly dismantled for Aaron.  That's the history of the apparatus.  Frankly I was glad to see the last of it.  Do testing yourselves, obsessively for years on end and see if you would not share that sentiment.  And I am not an experimenter.  My interests are in the theory.

How many different stories are there? As many as she has aliases, apparently. So she did have the apparatus, it wasn't lost at all, it was even repaired and rebuilt so that Martin could "replicate" for the "IET" paper submission, and then it was "dismantled" and parts were sent to Aaron in 2009.

Compare that story she tells above,  to the story of the suddenly "found" apparatus that we have been told recently.

The 555 circuit that SWeir found in the box is not the same circuit that was in the box for the Quantum article. The circuit in the box that we see now was designed and built to correspond to GLEN LETTERMEIER's operating parameters.... not the other way around.

This is proven by the history of the "EIT" or "TIE" or "IET" submission (at various times she has called it all of those). Ainslie was continuing to claim the original specs of 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz. The published circuit was found by all who tried it to be incapable of producing that specified setting. People like Glen came on and started doing Ainslie's homework for her. Then he hit upon the 555 timer mod that would produce the results like those in Test 13 and .99's sim and my hardware above. THEN and only then did Ainslie and Martin or someone rebuild the Quantum box to contain the present 555 circuit, in order to try to match Glen's results for the "EIT" or TIE or IET paper submission.

As you read those threads on EF and Panacea U,  don't forget that many "skeptical" or contrary posts have been deleted, censored, edited away by Ashtweth and Aaron.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2013, 04:28:50 AM »
As I predicted, Ainslie will not be pinned down as to the correct waveform to be used.

Any waveform that does not produce overunity is NOT the right waveform! So it's up to you to find it, silly, not for her to tell you about it. Just build something and tune it, take your pick of at least nine different circuits, and when you get overunity, THOSE are the right waveforms!

Don't try to make Glen's waveforms! They are something different, since he no longer agrees with Ainslie.

But at one time, she was very excited about Glen's waveforms, especially Test 3 and Test 13.

The first image is from today's posts. The second image is from Energetic Forum, October 6, 2009 -- before the falling out and the closing of that thread -- and refers to Glen's Test 3.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html

And a few posts further on, after a lot of backslapping all around, and dissing the skeptics who have been censored away:
It cannot be said often enough.  You are truly amazing. Historically your efforts here must always be a primary reference.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2013, 04:28:50 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2013, 04:47:00 AM »
The Great Turkey Shoot   :-*

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3585
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2013, 07:05:28 PM »
Once again,

Here is the circuit I simulated. The position of the shunt resistor is located in series with the Source, but that is the only real difference, and was done as such because all Rose's and Glen's circuits are this way.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #43 on: August 30, 2013, 08:26:38 PM »
I've seen that circuit before!  With the exception you note:

It is the power section of the Ainslie Quantum-17 article, of the "EIT" submission, of the IEEE submission and it is the Q1 portion of the 5-transistor NERD circuit. It is the power section of the circuit Ainslie tried to patent.

It is also the Unclamped Inductive Test circuit in the back of almost every N-ch power mosfet's data sheet, most especially that of the IRFPG50.... and it can also be found in the back pages of the IRFP450 mosfet as well.
As you know.

Interestingly, the data sheets also include the expected waveform at the DRAIN (Vds) and at the CURRENT MONITORING (Ias) point, when stimulated at the GATE by a rectangular pulse of duration Tp. And we find the notation to vary the pulse width in order to attain the required Source Current, ie Power in the Load. Sound familiar to anyone?

That is right. In addition to all of her other faults, it appears that Rosemary Ainslie is a plagiarist, even seeking to PATENT a circuit that has long been in the public domain.
 

Quote
The position of the shunt resistor is located in series with the Source, but that is the only real difference, and was done as such because all Rose's and Glen's circuits are this way.

That's right... but the circuits given in the 5-mosfet PAPERS show the same location as the diagrams in the data sheets exactly. IOW.... the diagrams in the PAPERS are false, because they didn't use the location they claim. Further, the diagram in the Quantum article is FALSE, the diagram in the IEEE submission is FALSE and the diagram in the "EIT" submission is FALSE: none of them correspond to the schematic that Steve Weir drew out from the photographs that Ainslie posted of her box.

But she has "sort of" withdrawn the NERD papers, even though anyone can still see them, without any statement of retraction (except StellaNokia's comments) ,  at Rossi's JNP, their "official publication".

She has yet to do anything about the Quantum paper lies, which have existed since 2002 and have been known by her and the public in general since 2009.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2013, 08:58:50 PM »
Now.... view once again the depths of deception and prevarication that Ainslie will sink to.

A person working with a mosfet circuit who DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY "DRAIN VOLTAGE" ..... but who has repeatedly shown DRAIN VOLTAGE SIGNALS from her various apparatuses..... is both willfully ignorant, and mendacious beyond belief.

Also stupid, if she thinks that anyone will buy her non-cooperative flailing about as anything other than delusional madness.

Quote
I absolutely can't say WHAT it represents.  What is that drain voltage?  I don't even understand the term.  And what circuit have you got there?  And on and on Poynty.  And WHY are you plugging this as Glen's circuit when the ONLY waveform shown is your own.  Frankly I'm done here.  If you want to talk turkey then rename this thread and IF and WHEN you show anything - EXPLAIN it better.  I absolutely WON'T engage unless I have some idea as to what you're saying. 

UNLESS, again, you have an outright admission that Glen's work was a valid replication.  In which case I most certainly WILL continue this discussion.

Rosie

HOWEVER... she has no problem at all discussing the DRAIN VOLTAGE as if she understands perfectly well what it means WHEN IT SUITS HER PURPOSES, and she has shown many diagrams and scopeshots showing a scope probe monitoring the DRAIN VOLTAGE.

Quote
However, there was still no clear evidence of what exactly was going on.  Also apparent was that while the technology was scalable - at approximately a 20 degree rise for every battery added - there was an upper limit determined by the amperage that the zener could manage.  So.  The next test was to up the ante by putting those MOSFETs in parallel.  I went for the full monty - at about 30 amps - thinking that this would still keep the battery voltage in line with the DSO's voltage tolerances.  That was when I recorded our 'first surprise' in my blog.  What was immediately apparent was there was an antiphase relationship of voltage on the source and ground rail - that spoke volumes.  When the drain voltage peaked - the source voltage was at it's lowest.  And when the drain voltage 'troughed' the source voltage was at its highest.  In effect, the returning energy trumped the output - every time - and all the way through each cycle.  Also.  The resonance - that was always restricted to a long spike and some ringing - now 'flattened out' and for a brief period gave a resonating waveform where there was clear early indications of absolute re-inforcement at each phase and stage.  But also apparent was that this resonance actually only occured when the signal at the gate defaulted to negative.  In effect - it was a negative triggering - and that's where the benefit had been hiding. 

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/49/

(Note that this post reveals once again the fact that she thinks that the drain voltage should be high when the current is flowing, but since it is not, she considers that a "surprise".)

 

OneLink