I think so too. All the raw data is preserved in the still images and the short videos I make from them, and the calibrations are justifiable and repeatable. I've even done ice-and-boiling point calibrations of the several thermometers I use. Frequencies and duty cycle numbers come from the Philips counter and the Link DSO.


Now here's an issue I'd like to kick over a bit. Please let me know what your thoughts are.

When the 5-mosfet circuit is in "Q2 oscillation mode", that is, with a suitable _negative voltage_ and current supplied to the Source pin of the Q2 mosfet and the rest of the circuit essentially inactive.... where is the appropriate place to take the input voltage reading? Both the main battery and the bias source contribute power to the load in this case, and the main supply and bias supply are in series. So I am thinking that the correct place to measure the input voltage will be between the battery positive and the Q2 mosfet's Source pin.... but the circuit winds up having the Current Sense Resistor connected from the Main battery negative to the mosfet Gate. This means the CSR isn't measuring the true load current, and the ordinary way of measuring voltage across the main battery only, isn't measuring the true input voltage.

Right? See the stripped-down diagram below.

The "normal" arrangement of measurements is to measure the input Voltage from TP A to "NERD Reference", and the Current as the Vdrop from Tp B to "Nerd Reference". But as we know this does not capture the full power in the circuit while Q2 is oscillating. The true supply voltage, it should be clear now, is actually the series voltage of the Main Battery + the Bias source voltage, and so should be measured from TP A to TP C at the mosfet source pin. The Existing CVR, which shows the big oscillations in current, isn't even involved in the main power loop during Q2 oscillations. The only single place to measure the true load current, which is the total supplied by the main and bias sources, would appear to be where I have placed the DMM A in the diagram.

So, this is how I intend to measure the input power when testing the Common Gate Oscillator portion of the circuit separately, using continuous Q2 oscillations. VSupply will be from TP A to TP C, and Current will be from the DMM A or an isolated non-inductive CVR in that location. I'll also compare readings from this DMM with similar readings taken between TP C and the negative terminal of the bias source.

(The circuit shown in the diagram is what happens during the Q2 oscillation parts of the cycle. The Q1 can be removed from the circuit entirely without affecting the Q2 oscillation portion of the cycle at all, as I've shown in several video demonstrations, and this results in the circuit in the present diagram.)

The problem with obtaining the total voltage across the circuit is that the actual voltage of the bias source is not accessible.  Whatever the internal impedance of the device acting as a voltage source, be it a battery or function generator or something else, the Q2 transconductance multiplied by that internal impedance develops a voltage drop that works to drive the difference between the voltage source value and the gate voltage to the gate threshold value. 

That's right, and that's why the observed Gate drive voltage always bottoms out at around  - 4.2 V, with fuzz, no matter the negative offset or p-p voltage setting of the FG or other bias source. I'll have to do some measurements to see if that is actually a problem as far as the overall power measurement goes, though. Since the current in the system will increase as the applied, or opencircuit, bias voltage increases, the instantaneous current monitor reading x the inst. total series voltage should still give the correct power, I think, maybe.

I would use an external 50 Ohm resistor as the source degeneration resistor for Q2.  Then if you have a Vbias source that is half an ohm or less up to ~10MHz then 99% or more of the voltage drop caused by the Q2 gain will appear across the resistor, allowing you to accurately measure the Vbias contribution.  If you want to turn the oscillations on and off you can use the function generator with an additional N channel MOSFET as shown in this drawing.  If you just want to let the oscillations run, then you can replace the additional MOSFET with a short, or use the MOSFET and connect its gate to the Q1 Source node.

To get less than 0.5 Ohm to 10MHz you need to keep the decoupling capacitor network inductance below 8nH.  You will want to parallel with a capacitor big enough to handle the 150kHz pulses you are using.  If you have more than one of those boards Steve designed you can use the capacitor network on that second board.

All good advice of course, but I don't want to stray too far from the original circuit. Let me do some test comparisons between the "standard" method that has been used by the Ainslie gang and the various suggested methods. I don't have another S board, but it can easily incorporate a Q2 arrangement and then be driven in continuous oscillation mode by either an external power supply proper, or battery, or the FG set to DC output (I don't think Ainslie's FG has a DC output setting) of the proper polarity.

Well, it appears that the Great Scientist is losing sleep over this. Funny, isn't it? She continues with her misrepresentations and outright lies concerning my work, and ignores Poynt99's and even her advisor Steve Weir's statements that the DMM can be accurate to over 100 MHz when used as I am doing. Meanwhile she thinks that by waving her hands about and shouting, she can eliminate the EVIDENCE that I have presented and continue to present. The spectacle is truly laughable.

Especially laughable is her continued claim that I'm using some different circuit. The Grey Box circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that appears in the photographs that she submitted to Steve Weir for decoding. The Quantum-17 circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that she published in the Quantum magazine article. The circuit that I demonstrated here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4

is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that Ainslie has published herself and used in the three demonstrations.... the ONLY demonstrations.... she has ever produced, with the only exception that I used a single Q2 instead of 4 in parallel.

The Tar Baby circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT, including all 5 mosfets, 4 Q2s in parallel, that Ainslie has CLAIMED to have used in the demonstrations.

The SWeir board circuit is different from Ainslie's circuits only in that it includes proper filtering, a much better noninductive CVR and properly laid out low-inductance current pathways. In other words it is a PROFESSIONALLY LAID OUT AND MANUFACTURED version of what she should have done in the first place, which does not suffer from the large errors that are produced by her stupidly laid out and naively measured kludge. You recall... the one she lied about, over and over, as to the correct schematic.  The additional snubber components on the SWeir board have not yet been used by me.

Ainslie has lied deliberately and continues to do so, with every post she makes, and the evidence is plain for every one to see. And she continues to make her absurdly false claims without any support at all. Ainslie can provide NO data, no references, no demonstrations, and nobody comes and says she's right about anything... because clearly she is not.

Well, it appears that the Great Scientist is losing sleep over this. Funny, isn't it? She continues with her misrepresentations and outright lies concerning my work, and ignores Poynt99's and even her advisor Steve Weir's statements that the DMM can be accurate to over 100 MHz when used as I am doing. Meanwhile she thinks that by waving her hands about and shouting, she can eliminate the EVIDENCE that I have presented and continue to present. The spectacle is truly laughable.

Especially laughable is her continued claim that I'm using some different circuit. The Grey Box circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that appears in the photographs that she submitted to Steve Weir for decoding. The Quantum-17 circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that she published in the Quantum magazine article. The circuit that I demonstrated here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4

is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that Ainslie has published herself and used in the three demonstrations.... the ONLY demonstrations.... she has ever produced, with the only exception that I used a single Q2 instead of 4 in parallel.

The Tar Baby circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT, including all 5 mosfets, 4 Q2s in parallel, that Ainslie has CLAIMED to have used in the demonstrations.

The SWeir board circuit is different from Ainslie's circuits only in that it includes proper filtering, a much better noninductive CVR and properly laid out low-inductance current pathways. In other words it is a PROFESSIONALLY LAID OUT AND MANUFACTURED version of what she should have done in the first place, which does not suffer from the large errors that are produced by her stupidly laid out and naively measured kludge. You recall... the one she lied about, over and over, as to the correct schematic.  The additional snubber components on the SWeir board have not yet been used by me.

Ainslie has lied deliberately and continues to do so, with every post she makes, and the evidence is plain for every one to see. And she continues to make her absurdly false claims without any support at all. Ainslie can provide NO data, no references, no demonstrations, and nobody comes and says she's right about anything... because clearly she is not.

Here is a graphic that overlays the circuitry on Ms. Ainslie's breadboard circuit as demonstrated August 11, 2013, on top of the schematic I just proposed for measuring the true input voltage.  If anyone didn't catch it when it was diagrammed and explained many times before:  During Q2 conduction, IE the so-called "Q1 Off" times, loop current flows through the Q2 source leg through the function generator red lead and back out the function generator black lead.  Q2 conduction only occurs when the sum of the waveform amplitude and the offset are sufficiently negative to bring the internal function generator voltage below the Q2 gate potential by at least Q2's V_THS value.  This fact has been expertly demonstrated in several of your videos.

Interesting, isn't it?

The Great Scientist has put us on notice (sic) that she intends to challenge Stefan H. and Poynt99 for their Overunity Prizes, monetary awards offered for an overunity/free energy device.

These _open source_ websites are offering monetary prizes for an _open source_ overunity project that actually performs as claimed.

I wonder what part of "open source" the Great Scientist fails to understand. Does "Open Source" include lying about the actual schematic used.... _TO THIS DAY_ .... ?  Does it include failing to provide credible or even respectable demonstrations of the claims? Does it include failure to acknowledge one's own only credible data which is contrary to the claims?  Insults to the hosts who are offering the awards? Apparently so, all of this and more. But what it actually doesn't include, apparently, is any actual true detail or credible data of the actual "work".

Meanwhile... I'm totally "open sourcing" my work. I even upload the _raw data_ for inspection. I don't even have to interpret the data: I just present it as it occurs, and in the words of Gary Hendershot.... you can make up your own damn minds. Meanwhile, as I've tried to show all along, one does not need fancy digital equipment to do this kind of work (although it's nice to have a crosscheck and easy numerical measurements.) All of my work is reported in full detail and can be reproduced for very little cost by anyone who is interested and has the few hundred dollars worth of equipment, obtainable at any garage sale. Right.

If one knows _how to use_ the equipment one has on hand, much valuable work can be done with inexpensive surplus analog equipment. On the other hand, as we see from the Ainslie mob in all three of their laughable "demonstrations", when one is naive and innocent as a babe when confronted with all those knobs and buttons, it is charming certainly to watch the flailings and gropings, but only shows the truth of the adage: Garbage in, Garbage out.

And then when the output garbage is fed into the shredder of Ainslie's fractured "math".... where units don't matter, Joules are Watts, and the technique is to multiply every number in sight by every other one... well, one gets what one deserves, in the end, that's certain.

Ms. Ainslie has not produced any data since she refuted her own claims with her June 29, 2013 and August 11, 2013 demonstrations.  She admitted the fact that the demonstrations tore the representations of her Paper 1 and Paper 2 to shreds, so much so that she withdrew them in whole.    No evidence has materialized that can rehabilitate those papers.

I suggest simply continuing with the great work that you are doing.  It's instructional and entertaining.

In the latest video there is a minor mistake in one of the comments.  The positive gate drive to Q1 is three divisions above the baseline: 6V.

Oh, I guess I forgot to put a link to the most recent video here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XaTjnZVqto