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 Posts: 892945
  • *Total Topics: 15675
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 284444 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #750 on: March 14, 2014, 07:36:22 PM »
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.

Really... I CARE. Ainslie has presented these daft manuscripts as "scientific reports of an experiment". They do not rise to the standard of anecdote, even, since they contain so many misrepresentations, inconsistencies, fabricated or covered up data, and outright lies. In addition she has carried on a campaign of relentless insult and disrespect for me and for all of her critics. I will not rest until every bogus point in Ainslie's entire opus is revealed, explained and if necessary refuted. She's a liar, a troll, a fool, and an idiot, and I am not just repeating the experiment to higher standards, I am exposing Ainslie and Martin for what they are.

Furthermore, since she so vehemently denies the validity of what I am doing, I am actually _pre-empting_ her by removing the valid methodologies from her armamentarium. She won't use the methods I am using... she can't, she dare not, without revealing her ignorance and hypocrisy yet again. This gives me the lulz to the max.
 ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #751 on: March 14, 2014, 09:33:37 PM »
Really... I CARE. Ainslie has presented these daft manuscripts as "scientific reports of an experiment". They do not rise to the standard of anecdote, even, since they contain so many misrepresentations, inconsistencies, fabricated or covered up data, and outright lies. In addition she has carried on a campaign of relentless insult and disrespect for me and for all of her critics. I will not rest until every bogus point in Ainslie's entire opus is revealed, explained and if necessary refuted. She's a liar, a troll, a fool, and an idiot, and I am not just repeating the experiment to higher standards, I am exposing Ainslie and Martin for what they are.

Furthermore, since she so vehemently denies the validity of what I am doing, I am actually _pre-empting_ her by removing the valid methodologies from her armamentarium. She won't use the methods I am using... she can't, she dare not, without revealing her ignorance and hypocrisy yet again. This gives me the lulz to the max.
 ;)
What I see that is valuable is the record you are publishing of how to perform good experiments with various types of apparatus, and how to find and cope with real limitations, including a budget.  I don't personally see value in tying any of that good work to the irrational rants of someone whom very few take seriously at all.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #752 on: March 15, 2014, 01:12:27 AM »
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


 
Yes, but what did Richard Feynman ever do except massively refine our understanding of quantum mechanics by inventing and developing the field of Quantum Electro-Dynamics, serve as an impeccable teacher to thousands, author definitive lectures on physics, and stand up against a nattering incompetent bureaucracy at NASA following the Challenger disaster?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #752 on: March 15, 2014, 01:12:27 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #753 on: March 16, 2014, 01:37:33 AM »
I think I'll commence experimental runs with the Quantum Box circuit that Ainslie shows in the photographs and which Steve Weir has decoded and schematized.

I have the thing built up already, the exact circuit Steve drew up, with the same NE555N (although mine is Philips not STMicro brand), the same Spectrol Model 534 ten-turn 50 k wirewound pot and the same IRFP450 (not PG50) mosfet that is shown in Ainslie's photographs of the "lost" box that was "not actually" ever lost at all.

The circuit of course produces nothing like what the original Quantum publication schematic does. This circuit makes short, highfrequency ON duty cycles, no oscillations, but some ringing when the Gate series resistance potentiometer is very low.  The frequency range is about 20 kHz - 185 kHz -- far faster than the original claimed circuit -- and the duty cycle is not adjustable, so the "freq" control is really the "off" time control and the "on" time is fixed by the RC programming components of the 555 circuit. In constrast to the claimed Quantum magazine circuit there is only the one adjustable pot, not two. I've left in the series Gate resistance control present in the original Quantum schematic because it does have some effect on the circuit's performance.

This is the circuit that was installed in the Lost Grey RatsNest Box sometime after 2007, so that the Ainslie mob could reproduce Glen's (FuzzyTomCat's) work in preparation for the submissions, rejected of course, to the IEEE journals.  At the time, Ainslie was ecstatic and endorsed the waveforms that Glen produced as "authentic" and proper for the performance of the experiment to show excess energy production from this circuit.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #754 on: March 16, 2014, 02:25:56 AM »
A blast from the past:


(By the way... if any of the screen images of Ainslie's posts don't bear the date, because they may have been captured the same day as they were made.... just look at the date of creation of the image file.)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #754 on: March 16, 2014, 02:25:56 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #755 on: March 16, 2014, 03:02:52 AM »
A blast from the past:


(By the way... if any of the screen images of Ainslie's posts don't bear the date, because they may have been captured the same day as they were made.... just look at the date of creation of the image file.)
Is that oscilloscope that was out for repair the one that she didn't damage?

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #756 on: March 16, 2014, 08:22:43 AM »
Actually in July of 2009, it could be that she is referring to one of the Fluke scopemeters she claimed to have used, 123 or 199.
I'm not sure exactly when she borrowed the Coast-to-Coast's LeCroy which she later had to buy, but I'll find out.

In late January 2010, Glen (FuzzyTomCat) representing the "team" at that time borrowed a Tek DPO3054 from Tektronix, for a planned 30 day set of experimental trials. But just a few days later the Tek rep contacted Glen and recalled the scope, and it was returned on Feb 4 or 5, IIRC. I don't think Ainslie herself ever used that scope. I don't know the history of the Tek scope that appears in the March 2011 video.

In the Jan-Feb 2010 incident, Ainslie made a few misrepresentations in her blog postings re Tek's role and purpose loaning the scope. 
Ainslie said,

Quote
And that thesis was explicitly referenced in the early chapters of my association with Tektronix.
That was the basis of our use of the equipment. Always a specific condition of use. Never a loan. In
fact we were early advised never to use the term. it did not sit well with Tektronix. This condition
was my assurance to them that all the information would be collated and be made available to the
public to use in any way they chose - strictly in line with good open source tradition. That is also not
open to dispute.
May I ask you therefore, Glen, if there is any variation to this agreement that you have negotiated
with Tektronix? I am satisfied that it was Aaron's understanding that nothing was to be withheld from
the public. And I am certain that he would not do so. Are you, on the contrary, withholding access to
your data? Are you now uncovering information that you are withholding not only from the public but
from the authors in this collaboration? And do you consider that this is your right to do so? It hardly
seems to be in support of Open Source interests nor in the spirit in which you accessed that
equipment through Tektronix's good offices, in the first instance. And is Harvey and Ashtweth aware
of this? And both on record to secure open source interests?
.....................

I suggest, with the utmost respect, that you are somehow negotiating an ownership and a sole right
to this experiment to the entire advantage of yourself and, possibly Harvey and Ashtweth. Again. I
would be glad to hear that this is entirely wrong. If I do not hear from you I will ask Tektronix to
clarify this.

This outrageous misrepresentation caused the Tek representative to contact Ainslie and request that she remove those passages from the blog.


But here are a couple more interesting posts.

-more on the admission of the cover-up and lies about the actual 5-mosfet circuit
-more on the function generator failure
-blatant contradicting herself about who was and was not at the March 2011 demo


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #756 on: March 16, 2014, 08:22:43 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #757 on: March 16, 2014, 08:32:03 AM »
Ah yes, the LeCroy makes its first appearance that I can find on November 19, 2010. So it is not the one she is talking about in July 2009.
This was during a time when I really wasn't paying much attention to the Ainslie affair, as I had already debunked the Q17 circuit sufficiently already and was quite bored with Ainslie's posturings and insults.



Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #758 on: March 16, 2014, 10:37:25 AM »
While I was not around for the 2011 video, it is a giant screw-up.  The circuit that they showed only bares a small resemblance to what one can determine was on the board from screen captures of the top and bottom shown during the video.  That whole bit about wanting to attract academics and but saying that they knew they were misrepresenting the circuitry is just beyond the pale.  You cover the schematic issue well in your "Donny Blooper Reel".  The schematic, marked up for what it is worth:

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #758 on: March 16, 2014, 10:37:25 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #759 on: March 17, 2014, 02:35:38 AM »
Here's the first rough "shakedown run" of the Thermal Efficiency testing of the Quantum -17 Grey Box circuit at around 17 Watts DC input power. I haven't plotted the data yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0QeZf5Q6hY

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #760 on: March 17, 2014, 03:12:45 AM »
I disagree with calling the drain voltage high interval 30%.  It looks like about 70% high / 30% low.  I recommend explaining why the gate high interval of ~15% is shorter than the MOSFET low period of ~30%.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #760 on: March 17, 2014, 03:12:45 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #761 on: March 17, 2014, 04:01:32 AM »
I disagree with calling the drain voltage high interval 30%.  It looks like about 70% high / 30% low.  I recommend explaining why the gate high interval of ~15% is shorter than the MOSFET low period of ~30%.
Sorry, my fault in not being clear on the terminology. The mosfet  Drain signal is HI, at battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF, nonconducting. I should have said that the mosfet is ON, or something like that, 30 percent of the time, supplying power to the load.

Looking at the way the drain trace develops, due to the slow response of the mosfet at 164kHz, and factoring in the ringing, leads to the estimated 30 percent ON time corresponding to the shorter Gate HI pulse of around 15 percent. The mosfet's gate capacitance takes time to fill and discharge and this means high peak gate drive currents and fast gate signal risetimes are needed at these fast frequencies, and the 555 timer clock just can't source or sink the fast risetime high current pulse needed for good clean switching of the IRFP450 mosfet.

These are just eyeball duty cycle estimates. I suppose I should break out the Link DSO to get real numbers on these.

Some versions of Ainslie's claimed schematics include a diode across the load; this will probably have a big effect on that ringing.

ETA: I haven't graphed the data but the one-hour stable temperature rise was 27.4 degrees C over ambient, and this corresponds to a power dissipation at the load of just a hair over 13 Watts. The DC input power was 16.9 Watts, and this gives an efficiency of about 77 percent, far higher than I expected. The mosfet on its heatsink was warm to the touch but not "hot". I'm sorry I didn't measure this temperature.

ETA2: This slowness of the mosfet also accounts for the seemingly anomalously high power throughput at the frequencies Glen used, around 300-500 kHz. A 20 percent duty cycle gate pulse results in the mosfet staying fully or partially ON for nearly the entire period, and I've noted this before when discussing Glen's work.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #762 on: March 17, 2014, 04:24:40 AM »
I've put the following Note in the Description to the video:

Quote
NOTE: In the first slide I call the mosfet duty cycle "30 percent HI" at the Drain. I should have said "30 percent ON", since the Drain is of course LOW when the mosfet is ON. Sorry about the confusion, and thanks MarkE for pointing this out.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #763 on: March 17, 2014, 06:38:28 AM »
Sorry, my fault in not being clear on the terminology. The mosfet  Drain signal is HI, at battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF, nonconducting. I should have said that the mosfet is ON, or something like that, 30 percent of the time, supplying power to the load.

Looking at the way the drain trace develops, due to the slow response of the mosfet at 164kHz, and factoring in the ringing, leads to the estimated 30 percent ON time corresponding to the shorter Gate HI pulse of around 15 percent. The mosfet's gate capacitance takes time to fill and discharge and this means high peak gate drive currents and fast gate signal risetimes are needed at these fast frequencies, and the 555 timer clock just can't source or sink the fast risetime high current pulse needed for good clean switching of the IRFP450 mosfet.

These are just eyeball duty cycle estimates. I suppose I should break out the Link DSO to get real numbers on these.

Some versions of Ainslie's claimed schematics include a diode across the load; this will probably have a big effect on that ringing.

ETA: I haven't graphed the data but the one-hour stable temperature rise was 27.4 degrees C over ambient, and this corresponds to a power dissipation at the load of just a hair over 13 Watts. The DC input power was 16.9 Watts, and this gives an efficiency of about 77 percent, far higher than I expected. The mosfet on its heatsink was warm to the touch but not "hot". I'm sorry I didn't measure this temperature.

ETA2: This slowness of the mosfet also accounts for the seemingly anomalously high power throughput at the frequencies Glen used, around 300-500 kHz. A 20 percent duty cycle gate pulse results in the mosfet staying fully or partially ON for nearly the entire period, and I've noted this before when discussing Glen's work.
On the 30% versus 15% I know that you know why it occurs.  I just think that you want to explain that in video.  A 555 is not a high current gate driver.  The efficiency is relatively good because the rise and fall times are relatively good.  The rest is just the ON resistance of the MOSFET.  When you switch over to measuring Q2 oscillations, the efficiency will plummet.  A fast catch diode like a Schottky will do a lot to suppress the rising edge drain ringing.  A slow diode such as they had won't help so much.

The other thing that will be very difficult to reproduce, because there are no good measurements of it, is the extent of disruption of the 555 caused by noise in that rat's nest of a test box they built.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #764 on: March 17, 2014, 11:27:14 AM »
As far as I can tell there are _no_ data from the Grey Box available at all.

Remember how Ainslie always says that there was no measurable discharge of the batteries in the Quantum experiment? Well, it turns out that that all depends on which version of the documentation you consult. In an early report of that experiment Ainslie published this table:

 

OneLink