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: 83995
  • *Latest: pelzer06

  • *Total Posts: 892916
  • *Total Topics: 15675
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 25
  • *Total: 31

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 284413 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #735 on: March 14, 2014, 06:11:27 AM »
I don't think much went on after the recording ended on August 11.  I can ask Steve.

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 #736 on: March 14, 2014, 06:19:00 AM »
I don't think much went on after the recording ended on August 11.  I can ask Steve.

"How Ever.... Donny help me on this, tell Steve what we saw..."
9:15 on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #737 on: March 14, 2014, 06:29:24 AM »
Meanwhile, strange things happen in the laboratory late at night when nobody is around.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #737 on: March 14, 2014, 06:29:24 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #738 on: March 14, 2014, 06:56:29 AM »
"How Ever.... Donny help me on this, tell Steve what we saw..."
9:15 on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w
What I remember Steve telling me about that was that they did not reproduce those different results for him.  I can ask him again.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #739 on: March 14, 2014, 06:57:12 AM »
Meanwhile, strange things happen in the laboratory late at night when nobody is around.
Oooh neon effects.  Or is it free energy?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #739 on: March 14, 2014, 06:57:12 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tseak

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #740 on: March 14, 2014, 07:38:09 AM »
TK,  now you've let the secret out. You're not really interested in OU or Ms Ainslie, quantum etc. You're quietly building arcade games.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #741 on: March 14, 2014, 09:57:22 AM »
What I remember Steve telling me about that was that they did not reproduce those different results for him.  I can ask him again.
I have no doubt that they did not reproduce those different results! He was watching them! Ainslie's remarkable results happen only when no one is watching, except her and her mob.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #741 on: March 14, 2014, 09:57:22 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #742 on: March 14, 2014, 10:36:07 AM »
I have no doubt that they did not reproduce those different results! He was watching them! Ainslie's remarkable results happen only when no one is watching, except her and her mob.
I think that has a lot more to do with their competence than any effort at fakery.  Had they fiddled with the function generator offset knob, for example by pushing it in then Q1 would have been on during the high portion of the waveform and they would get lots of heat out and draw lots of power from the battery. 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #743 on: March 14, 2014, 04:40:58 PM »
Well.... it appears that it is impossible to underestimate the Learning and Erudition of the Great Scientist. Witness the latest emission of stupidity and illogic from the Queen of Trolls... and then tell me where and when the Queen of Trolls ever refers to the RATE of temperature change in any of the daft manuscripts.

From the first daft manuscript:

Quote
A. Measurement of Wattage Dissipated
Measurement of the energy dissipated at the resistor element (RL1) was determined by comparison
with results from a control to establish empirical measurements while avoiding the complexity of
factoring in power factor corrections. A constant voltage was applied from a DC power supply source
in series with RL1. The voltage was then steadily increased in increments of 1 volt each from 1 volt
through to 22 volts. The wattage was then determined as the squared product of the voltage over the
resistance of RL1, or P=V2 / RL1.
The temperature of the resistor was then recorded against the applied wattage and the temperature
difference above ambient determined the level of wattage as represented in Fig. 2 and Table II.

In the first place we see again the continuing inability of Ainslie to discriminate between a RATE (power, in Watts = Joules PER second) and a QUANTITY (energy, in Joules). No measurement of "the energy dissipated at the resistor element" was in fact performed by Ainslie, since she does not know and cannot know the thermal leak rate of the apparatus. The most she can determine is the power dissipation, but even that is improperly done, since it must be determined at a _stable_ temperature and a _constant_ DC power setting.

But do we see anything there about the RATE of temperature rise? No, we do not. We only see samples taken and power levels BEING CHANGED at varying seemingly arbitrary intervals. We cannot derive valid RATE data from her information at all, because her calibrations are improperly performed and improperly displayed. It is impossible to point to a power level and say "at this power level the temperature rises at x degrees per minute" nor the other way around. It is clear that the temperature rises in the table build upon each previous rise, rather than being determined from the ambient temperature baseline.

It took them, according to their chart, a few minutes over three hours to obtain all their temperature/power data, for 22 separate data points of temperature measurements covering the _entire_ power range they tested.  And in the accompanying table and plot in the daft manuscript we see very clearly that the temperatures she cites are _not_ stable temperatures at all (else the resulting Fig. 2 plot would be linear.) There are only 22 samples covering the entire power and temperature range they examined, over a three hour period.

Unfortunately for her.... my data contains both RATE and absolute magnitude information, and it's properly displayed, but more importantly, I CAN PROVE I DID THE EXPERIMENT AND THAT THE DATA IS AS I STATE.... something that Ainslie cannot do at all.

I performed  _TEN_ complete one-hour runs, ten different power levels, each one starting from ambient temperature, and I took 60 evenly-spaced one minute data points for EACH run. Six hundred data points, all valid, all traceable back to the raw data, all preserved photographically and in video. Anyone who can read a graph can see both the RATE of temperature change and the magnitude of the final stable temperatures in my calibration for EACH power level. Stable, in my data, means changing at a rate less than 0.05 degree (half a tenth of a degree C) per minute. IOW, two or three consecutive minute samples at the same temperature measured to the tenth of a degree indicate "stable enough" to be called the endpoint temperature. My data is repeatable by anyone, my procedures and materials fully documented and my raw data is preserved and can be seen on request, for example here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sp2l41x-8k

(The time-lapse display of all 60 datapoints in the one-hour run, played back at one point per second.)

What is the Great Scientist's definition of "stable temperature" and how do we know it was attained in her calibrations? She never defined it, and we DON'T know. Where is the Great Scientist's raw data that proves she performed the calibration and shows it was properly done? Where is the necessary information so that someone else could reproduce her calibration data on their own? Nowhere, that is where.

 Of course, we also already know that Ainslie belongs to that unfortunate portion of the population that cannot interpret graphically displayed information. And we know that when she is threatened by the Truth, she degenerates even further into absurd flailings and even more ridiculous insults and lies. Witness:

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #743 on: March 14, 2014, 04:40:58 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #744 on: March 14, 2014, 04:50:39 PM »
I think that has a lot more to do with their competence than any effort at fakery.  Had they fiddled with the function generator offset knob, for example by pushing it in then Q1 would have been on during the high portion of the waveform and they would get lots of heat out and draw lots of power from the battery.

There are many kinds of fakery, some more egregious than others. The fakery that consists of ignoring contrary data, doing only demonstrations that "prove" the thesis, and misrepresenting the work of others as well as one's own work, could be semi-unconscious. It happens all the time and is called "confirmation bias". It is no less of a sin for all of that.



The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. -- Richard Feynman

The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. -- Richard Feynman

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman


 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #745 on: March 14, 2014, 05:31:02 PM »
While examining the Daft Manuscripts once again, I must point out another Wild Ainslie Discrepancy concerning the Figure 3 shot. We already know that this shot is fabricated, the current data being obtained from a falsely positioned current probe, and yet it is included in the manuscript and endorsed by the authors Ainslie and Donovan Martin in spite of that.

But there is another smoking gun associated with that figure. Note that the blue trace, the Gate signal coming from the FG, attains a regular POSITIVE voltage level of 10-12 volts. Yet look at the description of the test given in the text of the daft manuscript:

Quote
A. Test 1 Setup
The schematic in Fig. 1 refers with the following settings: 6 batteries x 12 volts each were applied in
series. The offset of the function generator is set to its extreme negative limit resulting in an entire
restriction of current flow during the ON phase of the duty cycle. The duty cycle is also set to the limit
of the function generators shortest ON time within each switching period of 2.7 minutes. The
waveforms produced by this setting are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
(emphasis mine)

Once again, Ainslie lies boldly and outrageously when describing the conditions under which the data was allegedly taken. When the offset of the FG that Ainslie used is set to its "extreme negative limit", I do not believe it will put out a positive pulse level of 12 volts. The Instek GFG8216 fg has a maximum output level, according to the manual, of 10 v p-p and a maximum DC offset of +/- 5 volts into a 50 ohm load. At the extreme negative limit of the offset and the full amplitude output, Ainslie's FG will produce an output waveform that goes from -10V to 0V.  Even if the "10v p-p" is a typo which should read 20v p-p, the FG is still incapable of making a +12 volt output when it is set to the extreme negative offset level. Since the impedance of Ainslie's oscillator is higher than 50 ohms when Q1 is ON, or supposed to be ON, the positive voltage may be a bit higher than 0V, and in the Q2 phase the indicated negative voltage will always average to about -4 V due to the action of the transistors. What will NOT happen is for the output to reach +12 V as is shown in the Figure 3 scopeshot, with the Offset set all the way negative as she claims it was.

Among all the failings and mendacities of the Ainslie daft manuscripts, one of the most egregious is the failure to include a BASIC AND NECESSARY set of measurements: the FG opencircuit voltage output settings for each experimental trial reported. How is one expected to reproduce the experiment if one has no clues about the settings of a primary instrument used to produce the original data?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 07:38:30 PM by TinselKoala »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #745 on: March 14, 2014, 05:31:02 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #746 on: March 14, 2014, 05:44:42 PM »
All RF systems 1 meter of the ground or less will attract ground radiation ! Also its a reactive circuit so forget meter readings
forget ohms law and why dont you do what they wont tel you add a negative charge to the battery ! HAHAHA ! DIM BATS !

NANOBOT

Once again I ask you to tell me the DC reactance of the circuit I am using.

You are betraying, once again, the fact that you have not done your homework before coming to the discussion, since you evidently have missed the FACT that you have not seen me use anything but STRAIGHT AND CONSTANT DC POWER from a regulated power supply since you showed up.

If you want to parade your nonsense that doesn't even have anything to do with my work here, I tell you YET AGAIN to do it on Ainslie's forum, where you will likely get a much better -- or at least different -- reception than you are getting here. But of course you will wilt under the Ainslie onslaught, and you know it, so you avoid joining her forum so as not to embarrass yourself further still.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #747 on: March 14, 2014, 07:09:45 PM »
If one has determined or reasonably estimated the thermal time constant of a primarily single order system, then one can pretty readily perform step-wise calibrations and still get good data.  If we took your set-up that exhibits an ~10 minute time constant, and wanted to be accurate to 1C we could pick power steps that would have less than 1C estimated residual change after some time period.  We see less than 4C/W slope.  If we want to use 5W power steps, we want less than:  1Cresidiual / 4C/W*5W = < 0.05 residual error.  We can get there in three time constants.  So, perform a first soak of 6TCs and then run each successive step for 3TCs would generate plots very close to what you have in about half the time.  With a little math you can accurately extrapolate out most of the remaining, and very small error. 

Of course they did not do such a thing.  However, they were measuring the heating element directly, so their thermal time constant was probably no more than 30s.  So while they did not record even a fraction of the data that a good experimentalist would, their temperature calibration data is probably not as bad as it might seem.  I think the big problem is the direct connection of the TC to the heater.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #748 on: March 14, 2014, 07:13:33 PM »
While examining the Daft Manuscripts once again, I must point out another Wild Ainslie Discrepancy concerning the Figure 3 shot. We already know that this shot is fabricated, the current data being obtained from a falsely positioned current probe, and yet it is included in the manuscript and endorsed by the authors Ainslie and Donovan Martin in spite of that.

But there is another smoking gun associated with that figure. Note that the blue trace, the Gate signal coming from the FG, attains a regular POSITIVE voltage level of 10-12 volts. Yet look at the description of the test given in the text of the daft manuscript:
 (emphasis mine)

Once again, Ainslie lies boldly and outrageously when describing the conditions under which the data was allegedly taken. When the offset of the FG that Ainslie used is set to its "extreme negative limit", I do not believe it will not put out a positive pulse level of 12 volts. The Instek GFG8216 fg has a maximum output level, according to the manual, of 10 v p-p and a maximum DC offset of +/- 5 volts into a 50 ohm load. At the extreme negative limit of the offset and the full amplitude output, Ainslie's FG will produce an output waveform that goes from -10V to 0V.  Even if the "10v p-p" is a typo which should read 20v p-p, the FG is still incapable of making a +12 volt output when it is set to the extreme negative offset level. Since the impedance of Ainslie's oscillator is higher than 50 ohms when Q1 is ON, or supposed to be ON, the positive voltage may be a bit higher than 0V, and in the Q2 phase the indicated negative voltage will always average to about -4 V due to the action of the transistors. What will NOT happen is for the output to reach +12 V as is shown in the Figure 3 scopeshot, with the Offset set all the way negative as she claims it was.

Among all the failings and mendacities of the Ainslie daft manuscripts, one of the most egregious is the failure to include a BASIC AND NECESSARY set of measurements: the FG opencircuit voltage output settings for each experimental trial reported. How is one expected to reproduce the experiment if one has no clues about the settings of a primary instrument used to produce the original data?
In the procedure write up for the August 11, 2013 demonstration I think they were supposed to show the function generator open circuit voltage, but never did.   Typically a function generator that is offset to one extreme or the other is restricted to either positive only or negative only values.  So, the waveform shown is unlikely to be the result of the controls set as they described.  Really, who cares?  We know that whatever they did for their papers it was essentially useless.  They proved that with their demonstrations.  I would just get on with your valid experiments.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #749 on: March 14, 2014, 07:29:15 PM »
If one has determined or reasonably estimated the thermal time constant of a primarily single order system, then one can pretty readily perform step-wise calibrations and still get good data.  If we took your set-up that exhibits an ~10 minute time constant, and wanted to be accurate to 1C we could pick power steps that would have less than 1C estimated residual change after some time period.  We see less than 4C/W slope.  If we want to use 5W power steps, we want less than:  1Cresidiual / 4C/W*5W = < 0.05 residual error.  We can get there in three time constants.  So, perform a first soak of 6TCs and then run each successive step for 3TCs would generate plots very close to what you have in about half the time.  With a little math you can accurately extrapolate out most of the remaining, and very small error. 

Of course they did not do such a thing.  However, they were measuring the heating element directly, so their thermal time constant was probably no more than 30s.  So while they did not record even a fraction of the data that a good experimentalist would, their temperature calibration data is probably not as bad as it might seem.  I think the big problem is the direct connection of the TC to the heater.

No argument from me as to these points, mostly.

My intention is to be able to compare, directly, the time course of the test article's temperature rise with the calibration data. With the individual runs as opposed to the stepwise method, I will be able to do this very easily, since I have the Rate information that the stepwise method neglects to record.... in direct contradiction to the Great Scientist's most recent squawkings. Plotting the actual time course of the temperature rise, from the ambient baseline, of the test article at whatever stimulation level, will instantly provide a measure of the equivalent DC power dissipation level _at all times_ during the experimental run.  I will be able to detect changes in the physical setup (changing time constant) as well as being able to see the actual power dissipation _and total energy dissipation_ during actual experimental runs. Ainslie's methodology does not permit this kind of discrimination. True, the nearly linear Figure 2 plot that Ainslie presents is relatively valid....IF she is able to reproduce the exact physical setup and time constant again. What are the probabilities of that happening?



 

OneLink