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: 83907
  • *Latest: Vi

  • *Total Posts: 524043
  • *Total Topics: 15602
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 275493 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #630 on: March 03, 2014, 05:00:41 AM »
WARNING: Rosemary Ainslie is once again LYING about my data and my demonstrations in an attempt to bolster her ridiculous claims. I say again, what she says in this post about my work is a LIE.

I did indeed "replicate" the test and the scopetraces and I showed what I showed, which is that we cannot trust her report that the shot was obtained with a period of 20 milliseconds, because at that slow period the entire screen would only contain a tiny portion of the entire period and a large Q1 ON time would not even show up on the scope at all, being set to 500 microseconds per horizontal division.

I have already explained the very same thing that .99 has said and that she is arguing against. The high heat and char marks on the PHENOLIC, not ceramic, tube that my nichrome heating element wire, matched for resistance and inductance to her _claimed_ values, were caused by an extended period of Q1 ON time. The Q2 oscillations produce very little heat in the element, and the battery MOST CERTAINLY DOES discharge normally during both phases of the circuit's operation.
Like I said, she is very detached from reality.

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 #631 on: March 03, 2014, 09:59:35 AM »
For your amusement, here is the Massive Oscillation screenshot from the video where Ainslie accuses me of fakery.

Please note, O Great Troll Scientist, that I am NOT claiming that these high amplitude voltage readings, translated into currents using the indicated values and Ohm's law, are real currents flowing through anything. The actual currents in the system are far lower.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #632 on: March 03, 2014, 10:26:28 AM »
For your amusement, here is the Massive Oscillation screenshot from the video where Ainslie accuses me of fakery.

Please note, O Great Troll Scientist, that I am NOT claiming that these high amplitude voltage readings, translated into currents using the indicated values and Ohm's law, are real currents flowing through anything. The actual currents in the system are far lower.
During the June 29, 2013 demonstration Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators demonstrated that the voltage registered across their current sense resistor was not:  V=I*0.25.  Donovan Martin showed that the current sense voltage during the oscillation intervals was essentially the same whether or not the oscilloscope probe was connected to the Q1 source side of the current sense resistors or the circuit common side.  This irrefutable evidence that the vast majority of the signal amplitude was independent of the current sense resistors and therefore a property of wiring goes right over Ms. Ainslie's head.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #632 on: March 03, 2014, 10:26:28 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #633 on: March 04, 2014, 01:17:07 AM »
Hey, Poynt99!

How does it feel to be trying to reason with, and explain things to, someone who lies about what her own data shows?

Test 3 shows, of course, the famous Figs 6 and 7, which have been proven to be fabrications, with plenty of Gate drive voltage shown but no Q1 current. There is no "poynt" in discussing these fabrications further, the data is fake, garbage, BS.

Test 4, according to the text, was taken with a 20 millisecond period, but the scope horizontal timebase is set to 500 microseconds per division, so IF the 20 millisecond period is TRUE, then the whole screen only shows a tiny portion of one cycle, and there could be Q1 ON times for as much as 15 milliseconds... since what is shown only covers 5 milliseconds of the 20 millisecond period.
OR.... if Ainslie "meant" to say that the period was 20 microseconds, then each horizontal division of 500 microseconds contains 25 full periods of the waveform and it is impossible to determine the Q1 ON interval.
However I can count only 14 peaks per horizontal division, all the way across the screen.

Furthermore, we know that the data in the daft manuscripts, ALL OF IT, is invalid because of the _actual_ location of the FG's Black output lead, which was NOT located where the schematics say it was, but rather where they always located it in every test they ever did, until August 10-11, 2013. They had NO GROUND LIFT ADAPTER and didn't understand the groundloop issue so they could not have used the location in the schematics in the manuscripts, and EVERY photograph and video of their apparatus shown since 2009 shows the Black FG lead in the common circuit negative rail. The schematics in the manuscripts are lies, deliberate lies, and all the data, which was NOT taken with that schematic, is invalid for that reason alone, although we also know other reasons that invalidate _all_ data in the two daft manuscripts.

You are arguing with someone who will lie about what the data from others shows, and she clearly is happy to lie about what her own "data" shows.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #634 on: March 04, 2014, 07:38:43 AM »
Is that some Polly Parrot squawking I hear?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjBCjfB3Hq8

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #634 on: March 04, 2014, 07:38:43 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #635 on: March 04, 2014, 10:48:09 AM »
She is still pretending that her claims have not all been completely demolished.  All she is managing to do is dig a deeper hole.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #636 on: March 04, 2014, 06:15:20 PM »
That's right.

She does not even know that there is a difference between "ms" and "us" when used as abbreviations for time intervals. Three orders of magnitude, who cares, they are small, take two.

The interpretation of the Figure 8 shot in "test 4" is dependent upon the timebase and the actual period of the signal sent from the FG. We know for sure the scope's timebase setting because it is displayed without Ainslie's intervention or filtering.

But if Ainslie's claim that the period is in fact 20 ms is true, then the scopeshot ONCE AGAIN constitutes a deliberate fabrication or obfuscation of data because the entire screen only holds one-quarter of a full period, only 5 ms of the entire 20 ms period. The Q1 could be fully ON that entire time (duty cycle 75 percent HI) and the screen is simply not covering that part of the period.

On the other hand, if Ainslie really "meant" to say that the period was 20 us, then each horizontal division of 500 us on the screen holds 25 full periods and there is not sufficient resolution in the display to be able to see what the Q1 ON times or dutycycles might be. But how many peaks does one _actually count_ per horizontal division? I get 14, in every division where it is possible to see the peaks. Not 25.

It is a real sin for someone to have such a nice toy Etch-a-Sketch and then use its capabilities to display garbage and meaningless numbers in boxes like that Figure 8 scopeshot.

But of course this is not the first such sin Ainslie has perpetrated on her readers and analysts. What is the actual period of the FG's setting for the Figure 8 shot? Nobody knows. What was the actual percentage of Q1 ON time? Nobody knows. Yet this is presented as data in support of her claims of no battery discharge and high load heat. What a load of garbage.

The Test 3 part is even more hilarious where it talks about "bringing water to boil" since she did no such thing. We have her apparatus photos which show the thermocouple mounted directly to the element resistor metal housing. We have her claim to have reached 104 C in Cape Town South Africa with water that "wasn't actually boiling, there were small bubbles" and we have her absurd statement that steam was evident whenever the thing indicated over 64 degrees C..... and then we have her statement made very clearly in these threads that they NEVER MEASURED THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER, emphasis hers, and that is the truth. (I'm surprised her keyboard didn't catch fire, from her emission of a True Statement.) Yet the text of the "paper" refers to the "water temperature" and "the temperature of the water" very plainly. Again, false representations of the actual experimental data, which did NOT measure the water temperature and did NOT produce a pot of boiling water as she would like you to imagine from the description in the daft manuscript. And this is taken directly from the current "edit" on her forum, not even the very different "official publication" on Rossi's vanity JNP.

I see that Ainslie is using either another new account, or someone else's account, to view my videos. The ones she has seen, she leaves a drive-by thumbs down vote against... the only one or two that they get, usually. She knows better than to try to comment, as I will block her new account instantly. She can lie all she likes on her forum, but she will not be permitted to lie and insult on my YT channel.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #636 on: March 04, 2014, 06:15:20 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #637 on: March 04, 2014, 06:19:04 PM »
That's right.

She does not even know that there is a difference between "ms" and "us" when used as abbreviations for time intervals. Three orders of magnitude, who cares, they are small, take two.

The interpretation of the Figure 8 shot in "test 4" is dependent upon the timebase and the actual period of the signal sent from the FG. We know for sure the scope's timebase setting because it is displayed without Ainslie's intervention or filtering.

But if Ainslie's claim that the period is in fact 20 ms is true, then the scopeshot ONCE AGAIN constitutes a deliberate fabrication or obfuscation of data because the entire screen only holds one-quarter of a full period, only 5 ms of the entire 20 ms period. The Q1 could be fully ON that entire time (duty cycle 75 percent HI) and the screen is simply not covering that part of the period.

On the other hand, if Ainslie really "meant" to say that the period was 20 us, then each horizontal division of 500 us on the screen holds 25 full periods and there is not sufficient resolution in the display to be able to see what the Q1 ON times or dutycycles might be. But how many peaks does one _actually count_ per horizontal division? I get 14, in every division where it is possible to see the peaks. Not 25.

It is a real sin for someone to have such a nice toy Etch-a-Sketch and then use its capabilities to display garbage and meaningless numbers in boxes like that Figure 8 scopeshot.

But of course this is not the first such sin Ainslie has perpetrated on her readers and analysts. What is the actual period of the FG's setting for the Figure 8 shot? Nobody knows. What was the actual percentage of Q1 ON time? Nobody knows. Yet this is presented as data in support of her claims of no battery discharge and high load heat. What a load of garbage.
I do not see any exit from the hole she has dug, and insists upon digging further.  Maybe she is going to do new demonstrations and maybe she won't.  If she does, she is unlikely to have even the slightest clue as to what is going on.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #638 on: March 04, 2014, 07:52:28 PM »
Well that much is clear. Even what _she_ has claimed to need has already been given to her by me and you and the other people who build and sim and analyze and explain.

The heavy heatsinks are on the wrong transistors. The circuit should be configured with 4 Q1s and one Q2 as the schematic in the second manuscript at Rossi's site has it. No heavy heatsinks or multiple parallel transistors are needed for the Q2 oscillations, the mosfet is not stressed by this and only heats up moderately due to the increased power dissipation forced upon it by the oscillations thru the linear conductance region of the mosfet, instead of turning it fully ON. A modest heatsink will do fine on the single Q2. The big heatsinks and parallel configuration should be for the Q1s which are turned fully ON, in order to pass the most current from the battery to the load in an efficient manner. Still, a straight wire connection, interrupted by an electromagnetic relay for "pulsing" and with no oscillatory phase at all, would be the very best way to pulse-discharge a battery through a heater coil load.

The IRFPG50 mosfet is not the ideal mosfet to use in a FE device because of its high power dissipation. Its minimum Rdss at Vgs=12 volts is 2.0 ohms and in the linear region it is even worse. The extremely high voltages are illusions, the circuit works fine with much cheaper mosfets like the IRF830. If voltages can be kept even lower by proper circuit design, modern mosfets like the IRF3205 could be used, with truly minuscule power dissipation by the transistors themselves.

If continuous Q2 oscillations are what is desired, as Ainslie professed to believe at one time, this is easily attained without even the need for an expensive and apparently difficult to use FG. Many people told her how to do this, I and others showed her many times, but she herself has never actually implemented any of the suggestions or even tried them for herself. Why? Because it would have required her to admit that the FG is a bias current/voltage source, that the other continuous methods do the same, and that this is in direct conflict with both her "thesis" and with her (non) understanding of the circuit's operation.

If the bias source ( the "timer" Ainslie sometimes calls it) needs to be operated from the main battery itself, I have told how to accomplish this by the use of a charge pump inverter powered from the lowest of the main batteries. Ainslie has claimed many times that they do not need any other power input than from the main batteries but she has never demonstrated this, nor does she understand why it cannot be done as easily as she seems to think, without using, as I have shown, a separate more negative bias battery or other power source like the FG connected to its own power supply.

If big tall HV spikes are what is needed, we have shown her how properly to produce those. If rapid transitions between oscillation phases and DC phases are needed.... ditto, the information has come from the _real_ workers on this problem, not from the lazy and incompetent Ainslie mob.

If proper experimental design happens and proper metrology is to be performed, where did they get the information and models for that behaviour? Guess where. If proper analysis and presentation of data are to be performed, ditto. Once again, Ainslie and her posse have actually produced nothing of value _even with respect to their own experimentation_ unless it is to provide a list, and examples, of what to avoid and how not to do Science.

If proper post-hoc analysis and discussion is to be carried out, then once again the Ainslie crew has shown that they have no clue as to how it is done. If papers are to be submitted for consideration in a peer-reviewed technical or scientific journal.... the people who have apparently NEVER READ such papers should read the editorial guidelines at least, consult a style manual, do a literature search, etc. etc.-- all things that have been shown to her and her ilk by "outsiders", by her critics.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #638 on: March 04, 2014, 07:52:28 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #639 on: March 05, 2014, 01:26:11 AM »
Well that much is clear. Even what _she_ has claimed to need has already been given to her by me and you and the other people who build and sim and analyze and explain.

The heavy heatsinks are on the wrong transistors. The circuit should be configured with 4 Q1s and one Q2 as the schematic in the second manuscript at Rossi's site has it. No heavy heatsinks or multiple parallel transistors are needed for the Q2 oscillations, the mosfet is not stressed by this and only heats up moderately due to the increased power dissipation forced upon it by the oscillations thru the linear conductance region of the mosfet, instead of turning it fully ON. A modest heatsink will do fine on the single Q2. The big heatsinks and parallel configuration should be for the Q1s which are turned fully ON, in order to pass the most current from the battery to the load in an efficient manner. Still, a straight wire connection, interrupted by an electromagnetic relay for "pulsing" and with no oscillatory phase at all, would be the very best way to pulse-discharge a battery through a heater coil load.

The IRFPG50 mosfet is not the ideal mosfet to use in a FE device because of its high power dissipation. Its minimum Rdss at Vgs=12 volts is 2.0 ohms and in the linear region it is even worse. The extremely high voltages are illusions, the circuit works fine with much cheaper mosfets like the IRF830. If voltages can be kept even lower by proper circuit design, modern mosfets like the IRF3205 could be used, with truly minuscule power dissipation by the transistors themselves.

If continuous Q2 oscillations are what is desired, as Ainslie professed to believe at one time, this is easily attained without even the need for an expensive and apparently difficult to use FG. Many people told her how to do this, I and others showed her many times, but she herself has never actually implemented any of the suggestions or even tried them for herself. Why? Because it would have required her to admit that the FG is a bias current/voltage source, that the other continuous methods do the same, and that this is in direct conflict with both her "thesis" and with her (non) understanding of the circuit's operation.

If the bias source ( the "timer" Ainslie sometimes calls it) needs to be operated from the main battery itself, I have told how to accomplish this by the use of a charge pump inverter powered from the lowest of the main batteries. Ainslie has claimed many times that they do not need any other power input than from the main batteries but she has never demonstrated this, nor does she understand why it cannot be done as easily as she seems to think, without using, as I have shown, a separate more negative bias battery or other power source like the FG connected to its own power supply.

If big tall HV spikes are what is needed, we have shown her how properly to produce those. If rapid transitions between oscillation phases and DC phases are needed.... ditto, the information has come from the _real_ workers on this problem, not from the lazy and incompetent Ainslie mob.

If proper experimental design happens and proper metrology is to be performed, where did they get the information and models for that behaviour? Guess where. If proper analysis and presentation of data are to be performed, ditto. Once again, Ainslie and her posse have actually produced nothing of value _even with respect to their own experimentation_ unless it is to provide a list, and examples, of what to avoid and how not to do Science.

If proper post-hoc analysis and discussion is to be carried out, then once again the Ainslie crew has shown that they have no clue as to how it is done. If papers are to be submitted for consideration in a peer-reviewed technical or scientific journal.... the people who have apparently NEVER READ such papers should read the editorial guidelines at least, consult a style manual, do a literature search, etc. etc.-- all things that have been shown to her and her ilk by "outsiders", by her critics.
What the Ainslie team needs is a real research vehicle.  And now the folks at FunCo have the answer.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #640 on: March 05, 2014, 03:11:24 AM »
I think this is going to be the only research vehicle that Ainslie is likely to understand.

After all, the chances of them making an error in wiring goes as the square, or some higher exponent, of the number of circuit nodes.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #640 on: March 05, 2014, 03:11:24 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #641 on: March 05, 2014, 04:39:19 AM »


We have her claim to have reached 104 C in Cape Town South Africa with water that "wasn't actually boiling, there were small bubbles" and we have her absurd statement that steam was evident whenever the thing indicated over 64 degrees C.....


Does Rose not realize that steam is invisible?  I learned this when I was 10 watching a Mr. Science show out of NY.  (I was living in NJ at the time and all TV came out of NY.) He boiled water in a tea pot and showed us the water vapor coming out of the spout.  He said, this was not steam as we can't see steam.  He then took a propane torch and heated the outpouring water vapor hot enough to make steam, and... we could no longer see anything coming out of the spout.

Bill

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #642 on: March 05, 2014, 04:44:22 AM »
Does Rose not realize that steam is invisible?  I learned this when I was 10 watching a Mr. Science show out of NY.  (I was living in NJ at the time and all TV came out of NY.) He boiled water in a tea pot and showed us the water vapor coming out of the spout.  He said, this was not steam as we can't see steam.  He then took a propane torch and heated the outpouring water vapor hot enough to make steam, and... we could no longer see anything coming out of the spout.

Bill
And from that dry, capable of starting fires steam came Steorn's inspiration for their 900C water heater.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #643 on: March 05, 2014, 06:53:08 AM »
In South Africa, where the Summer Equinox comes on January 21, anything is possible.


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #644 on: March 05, 2014, 07:31:15 AM »
In South Africa, where the Summer Equinox comes on January 21, anything is possible.
Is that like the vernal and autumnal solstices? They must feel cheated on their rather short summer days.

 

OneLink