Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims (Read 382663 times)

MarkE · « **Reply #810 on:** March 22, 2014, 10:50:42 PM »

Ms. Ainslie chooses to trust whatever combination of things seem to comport with her "thesis". If the measured power at a power source comes out the 15W and the measured power at the load comes out at 3W she chooses to simply disregard one or both measurements as invalid. It does not seem to be important to her to find a root cause for the supposedly errant measurement, nor to produce a measurement that both corresponds to her ideas and can be shown is valid.

I think that there is a certain amount of pedagogical value to identifying this sort of behavior. I have seen some cases where learned people have done the same sort of thing: If the data doesn't fit, chuck the data without figuring out what is really right and what is really wrong. It is in this context that I really appreciate the transparency of your experiments. If something seems amiss then anyone can see and comment on it. You chase seeming anomalies down until you establish a full account. It is the right way to perform experimental science.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #811 on:** March 23, 2014, 03:40:21 AM »

Thank you for that vote of confidence.

Ainslie has, after all, no real idea of what the Scientific Method is, nor how it is carried out by the performance of True Experiments. Her naive mentions of "standard measurement protocols" and the "Standard Model" and the rest of the big words she parrots are just further examples of the depths of her willfull ignorance. Even though people have told her that her methodology is flawed and is far from applying real standards of measurement and instrument usage... even though she clearly doesn't know what the Standard Model or Quantum Electrodynamics really consist of, she prattles on about how her "experiments" and her "thesis" are somehow connected to any kind of Science or coherent method at all.

There are several basic research methodologies in the Scientific Method, one of them being the True Experiment. Of all the different basic methodologies only the True Experiment can establish _causal_ relationships, cause-and-effect, between the variables in the system under test. Other methods yield correlations or case-study observations of single cases and cause-effect can not be determined from these.

Ainslie's "demonstrations" only superficially resemble anything that a scientist might call a True Experiment. In an experiment, a scientist has an hypothesis, well formed and operationalized, concerning the relationship between several variables and/or constants in the system under test.

Typically, this hypothesis can be stated in words as an "if-then" statement, and "operationalizing constructs" means that the terms and variables in the "if-then" statement of the hypothesis can be put into numerical, or at least quantifiable, and measurable terms. It is decided beforehand what kind of data would support, and what kind would fail to support, the hypothesis being examined in the True Experiment.

The experiment itself proceeds by varying the value or level of one or more "Independent Variables" and observing the effect of this variation on one or more "Dependent Variables", holding all possible other influences either constant, or fully accounting for their effects, or randomizing conditions such that variations in these stray "third variables" are scattered across the data and generally cancel out. Sometimes this process requires a great many trials under identical conditions in order to get consistent and interpretable data.

Once data is gathered and collated -- without selection as to "how good it looks"! -- then it is examined by various statistical tests-- perhaps as simple as comparing counts or averages -- to see if it supports or fails to support the hypothesis according to the previously defined criteria. Truly "bad" data, that is, unreliable data where something went wrong with the apparatus, say, will be identified at this statistical analysis stage and can be dealt with appropriately once it is flagged. It is completely wrong and unethical to regard data as "bad" simply because it does not fit your "Thesis" predictions.

Now here's the catch.... the real process is "inverted" in that the working hypothesis is turned around into a "null" hypothesis: IF I do A, I will observe B becomes "If I do A, I will _not_ observe B". And then the experiment is designed and performed in an attempt to _disprove_ the null hypothesis. For, contrary to the rantings of the Great Scientist, it is indeed possible to disprove something by experiment, and a carefully constructed null hypothesis, when _DISPROVED_ by the experiment.... provides very strong support indeed for the original, right-way-round working hypothesis.

To make all of this a bit more real, we can map it to the Ainslie affair. Ainslie has an overarching "thesis" which she claims makes certain "requirements", what perhaps a real scientist might call "predictions of the theory". Out of this thesis, one can generate many specific working hypotheses of the "if-then" format.

"If I set up a circuit thus and so, oscillating at F and at D duty cycle, with positive spikes at voltage V and measured input power W, then I will see a temperature rise in the load that is greater than can be accounted for by the electrical input power to the circuit."

So the constructs may be operationalized: the circuit is specified exactly, the frequency and duty cycle are defined, the term "spike" is defined quantitatively, the temperature measurement methodology is worked out and specified, the power measurements, the term "input", all of that is part of operationalizing the constructs in the experiment.

Now you form the null hypothesis: If I do all of that, I will _NOT_ see any extra anomalous temperature rise.

Now you design the experiment in an attempt to disprove, or more technically to falsify, that null hypothesis. When you _fail_ in your attempts to falsify the null, no matter how hard you try..... then you are SUCCESSFUL in providing support for the original working hypothesis, which then _may_ be considered some kind of support for the original overarching thesis.

Ainslie, however, proceeds exactly backwards. She knows the "thesis" is true because it has the nature of Divine Revelation, having come to her in a series of dreams. Therefore there is no need to go through all that trouble that I outlined in very simplified form above. One only need demonstrate some phenomena that look like, for example, excess power dissipation in a load. See, there it is, you can duplicate these measurements (most of them) yourself, QED the "thesis" is proven to be true. No effort is made to _disprove_ the validity of the measurements.... after all, a five thousand dollar digital oscilloscope cannot be wrong, can it? And Standard Measurement Protocols like VI/dt (sic) are being used, right? What Ainslie is doing is the very definitive example of Pseudoscience.... and to top it all off, she still has to resort to conscious lying and fabricating data! In other words, Ainslie is engaging in _pseudoscientific misconduct_ and the whole thing cracks me up. Yes, great pedagogical value indeed, but let's don't forget the lulz!

TinselKoala · « **Reply #812 on:** March 23, 2014, 06:32:28 AM »

The Shifting Pair of Dimes board with 4Q2s and the Real Figure 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAPvZrcG5bI

And here's a demonstration of how I get the data into my computer using some simple Linux programs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFryh0EAm1g

TinselKoala · « **Reply #813 on:** March 24, 2014, 05:08:49 AM »

And now... just as I predicted .... the Great Scientist begins to turn against Steve Weir.

In addition to misrepresenting and lying about my work, she also now proceeds to lie about what is clearly on the record: her own measurements and her acknowledgement of them.

What she _actually said_ :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w

And now it seems that she is admitting that her thermal power measurements, all of them, are so inaccurate as to be unusable.

YOUR "PAPERS" ARE GARBAGE, AINSLIE, AND THE MORE YOU SQUAWK AND SQUEAL THE MORE OBVIOUS IT IS.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #814 on:** March 24, 2014, 05:34:38 AM »

This "VI/dt" thing that Polly Parrot has been squawking lately really cracks me up.

Go ahead, Ainslie.... work a problem, do a calculation, showing just how "VI/dt" is part of any kind of power or energy analysis. Explain what happens when you multiply V times I and then divide that by the differential time slice dt.

Here's how the REAL standard measurement protocol calculates average power. Where is the "VI/dt" ? Where is even "P/dt"? Nowhere except in Ainslie's mathematically ignorant imagination, that's where. She does not even have the wit or courtesy to study her own chosen field.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #815 on:** March 24, 2014, 06:50:49 AM »

The reason-challenged Great Scientist is squawking again, like the plucked chicken she so resembles.

Quote

Because according to what is measured from that negative wattage is unequivocal PROOF of an INFINITE supply of energy. OR standard protocols applied to the measure of energy are WRONG.

OR....OR YOU ARE NOT DOING IT RIGHT BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT "STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS" ACTUALLY ARE.

You are omitting the FACT, once again, troll queen Ainslie, that you have NEVER APPLIED ACTUAL STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS to your circuit! You are measuring artifacts because you have no real idea of what real "standard measurement protocols" actually are.... even though you have been provided with reference after reference concerning those standards. You are applying your own naive measurements, taking them at face value without the least understanding of circuit theory, instrument operation or interpretation of results. Standard measurement protocols include things like decoupling, proper filtering, and proper application of instruments and the proper interpretation of their results. NONE OF WHICH YOU HAVE EVER ACCOMPLISHED.... until, that is, Steve Weir took you by the hand and actually had you do some proper measurements on August 10 and 11, 2013.... which you now reject, in your continuing arrogant ignorance and mendacity.

Real, actual Standard Measurement Protocols, when they are actually applied to your kludge, AS I HAVE BEEN DOING, show the Truth: there is nothing but STANDARD LOSSES and you yourself are simply deluded, and in your arrogant ignorance of the actual facts of the Standard Measurement Protocols you squawk about, you continue to stuff your feet deeper and deeper down your own mendacious throat. Keep it up..... O Great Scientist who can't even figure out what "VI/dt" might mean.

You cannot refute my work at all, so you squawk like a chicken being plucked, being unable even to PARROT correctly any more. You cannot even provide anyone who will join you in your idiotic and unfounded criticism of my work. You are hopeless, and abjectly deluded, and you really should seek competent help for your problems -- both in the field of electronics, and for the sake of your own precarious mental health.

MarkE · « **Reply #816 on:** March 24, 2014, 08:22:02 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 24, 2014, 05:08:49 AM

And now... just as I predicted .... the Great Scientist begins to turn against Steve Weir.

In addition to misrepresenting and lying about my work, she also now proceeds to lie about what is clearly on the record: her own measurements and her acknowledgement of them.

What she _actually said_ :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w

And now it seems that she is admitting that her thermal power measurements, all of them, are so inaccurate as to be unusable.

YOUR "PAPERS" ARE GARBAGE, AINSLIE, AND THE MORE YOU SQUAWK AND SQUEAL THE MORE OBVIOUS IT IS.

Wow! She really wrote that and put it on her web site. If Steve sees it he will not be happy.

Tseak · « **Reply #817 on:** March 24, 2014, 08:40:11 AM »

It seems that the goal posts in this issue are becoming remarkably agile. The solution is actually simple.

Rosemary,
You have claimed that you can show a COP of greater than 10. At this level of power gain the finer semantics of measurement become largely irrelevant. There is a HUGE margin of error within which you can still show overunity. Why don't you simply do the draw-down tests that you have been promising since last year. In this instance I think most people would accept the nominal energy rating of the battery as the source available. For example if you were to use a 7 AHr battery and a circuit with a COP of 10 or greater then it would be irrelevant whether the battery actually delivered 5Ahrs or 9AHrs. - you would still show overunity (which is what I understand to be the objective) by recording the stable temperature of the resistor and making the assumption that the average power dissipation is constant through the test. This way any dispute regarding voltages, currents, frequencies is sidelined. The one item which is critical is the charactarisation of the resistor/inductor. If you don't feel like doing this then perhaps you could borrow TK's if you ask nicely

.
So instead of many words of speculation, why don't you just do the test. It would only take a day or two to set up and you can silence your detractors permanently.

As an aside you seem very put out by MarkE's use of the term "stiff supply". I would have thought the meaning is obvious. It simply says that the supply is adequate for the job. More precisely, assuming a voltage source power supply, it means that the output impedance is low enough to ensure that there is insignificant voltage variation over the range of current used in the circuit that it is feeding.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #818 on:** March 24, 2014, 09:47:55 AM »

What would be the use of that? We already know that we cannot trust Ainslie's experimentation, her performance or her reporting, and we know that she will happily fabricate data to support her ridiculous contentions. The only time she produces believable data is when someone like Steve Weir is guiding and watching and there is a video record made. You can even hear her trying to lie about data in the clip above: "Before you got here we had COMPLETELY different results using the EXACT SAME settings".... a total lie.

We are clearly in the Ainslie-zone now, where any measurements that do not support Ainslie's contention are by definition wrong EVEN WHEN HER OWN PUPPET MAKES THEM. Only those measurements that show the various impossiblitities, like huge amplitudes that would fry any FG (even though they don't), batteries that don't discharge (even though they do) and high heat produced by oscillations (even though they don't)... only those measurements which "prove" Ainslie's claims are right. Why, she can even show you, in writing, just what the Standard Measurement Protocols are, for measuring power in oscillating systems, and of course that's just how she is doing her measurements. And of course she can demonstrate how exactly I am wrong in what I'm doing. Right?

ROFL all over the place!

Oh.... wait a minute.... Ainslie cannot even operate the instrumentation at all. We have NEVER, in any demonstration of hers, seen her operate anything more complex than a cellphone. All her actual experimental manipulations have been performed by Donovan Martin, who also evidently constructed the apparatus. The blind puppetteer Ainslie can't do any of it herself. She claims to have written the daft manuscripts but obviously has never comprehended the mathematics involved and even now gets it backwards.... but it is stated properly in the manuscripts in various places. So it's clear that she never wrote those passages herself.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #819 on:** March 24, 2014, 05:42:41 PM »

I have data from three very important trial runs.

These runs were designed to compare the performance of the system with 1) the full waveform showing Q1 fully on and full amplitude Q2 oscillations during their respective period portions; 2) the exact same settings on everything except with the Snubber installed to eliminate the Q2 oscillations without affecting either the Q1 current or the computed mean Q2 current (as shown in the latest video); and 3) the "Figure 3" configuration as in the Sneak Preview, with the FG offset turned down so that there is "complete restriction of positive current flow" i.e. no Q1 current indicated.... except in my version, there really IS no current shown and no current flowing because my measurement is correct, not fabricated as Ainslie's was.

Each run used 4 x 12V, 5 A-H batteries, and a frequency of 1 kHz and 10 percent HI duty cycle +/- square wave, with no offset except in the last "Fig3" oscs only run. This frequency and duty cycle are similar to what the Ainslie mob chose to use in their recent demonstrations. Each run lasted an hour and took the load to thermal equilibrium and the sample interval was one minute, as usual, and there is a video record of all raw data, recorded and logged by the process I have detailed above. The raw data videos are available for inspection by anyone at any time and my definition of "thermal equilibrium" is well defined and known and can be seen in the raw data. In some cases the cell comes to equilibrium in 40 minutes or less but I still run for the full hour. In all cases the cell temperature changes by less than 0.05 degrees C/minute at the end of the trials.

Since the DC calibration power-temperature relationship is nicely linear, as are the power-temperature relationships for equal parameters of the DUT, an "efficiency" or COP can be determined simply by the ratio of the final temperature of the experimental trials, with the equivalent temperature of the calibration runs at the same power level. Since it is the temperature _over ambient_ that is used, it is not necessary to convert all temperatures to degrees Kelvin in order to calculate the ratios, I think.

The "bottom line" results are as follows:

Trial 1, full waveform with both Q1 current and Q2 oscs: 28.7 W input shown on DMMs, 39.7 degrees C rise above ambient.
The DC calibration temperature for 28.7 W DC input is about 51 degrees C over ambient. Efficiency COP = 39.7/51 = 0.78 or 78 %.

Trial 2, Snubber in place, no oscs only Q1 current + real Q2 current: 25.6 W input shown on DMMs, 33.1 degrees C rise above ambient.
The DC calibration temperature for 25.6 W DC input is about 47 degrees C over ambient. Efficiency COP = 33.1/47 = 0.70 or 70 %.

Trial 3, FG offset enough negative to make "Figure 3", Q2 oscs only and no Q1 current: 10.8 W shown on DMMs, 9.6 degrees C rise above ambient.
The DC calibration temperature for 10.8 W DC input is about 23 degrees C over ambient. Efficiency COP = 9.6/23 = 0.42 or 42 %

I will also be presenting these data in graphical plots a bit later on. Note that the measurements of the input power to the DUT system are actually likely to be somewhat _low_ for various reasons I will discuss later. If it really took more power than indicated, this of course moves the COP numbers even lower.

Some conclusions are immediately obvious. Not only were efficiencies over 1 not encountered at all or even hinted at.... the Q2 oscillations especially are demonstrated to be very wasteful: more than half of the applied power is wasted, spent heating the mosfets and the internal load in the FG !! It never makes it to the "element resistor" at all.

Other conclusions are also clear. I'll leave the further discussion for later, I really need a cup of coffee right now.

MarkE · « **Reply #820 on:** March 24, 2014, 06:55:36 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 24, 2014, 05:42:41 PM

I have data from three very important trial runs.

These runs were designed to compare the performance of the system with 1) the full waveform showing Q1 fully on and full amplitude Q2 oscillations during their respective period portions; 2) the exact same settings on everything except with the Snubber installed to eliminate the Q2 oscillations without affecting either the Q1 current or the computed mean Q2 current (as shown in the latest video); and 3) the "Figure 3" configuration as in the Sneak Preview, with the FG offset turned down so that there is "complete restriction of positive current flow" i.e. no Q1 current indicated.... except in my version, there really IS no current shown and no current flowing because my measurement is correct, not fabricated as Ainslie's was.

Each run used 4 x 12V, 5 A-H batteries, and a frequency of 1 kHz and 10 percent HI duty cycle +/- square wave, with no offset except in the last "Fig3" oscs only run. This frequency and duty cycle are similar to what the Ainslie mob chose to use in their recent demonstrations. Each run lasted an hour and took the load to thermal equilibrium and the sample interval was one minute, as usual, and there is a video record of all raw data, recorded and logged by the process I have detailed above. The raw data videos are available for inspection by anyone at any time and my definition of "thermal equilibrium" is well defined and known and can be seen in the raw data. In some cases the cell comes to equilibrium in 40 minutes or less but I still run for the full hour. In all cases the cell temperature changes by less than 0.05 degrees C/minute at the end of the trials.

Since the DC calibration power-temperature relationship is nicely linear, as are the power-temperature relationships for equal parameters of the DUT, an "efficiency" or COP can be determined simply by the ratio of the final temperature of the experimental trials, with the equivalent temperature of the calibration runs at the same power level. Since it is the temperature _over ambient_ that is used, it is not necessary to convert all temperatures to degrees Kelvin in order to calculate the ratios, I think.

The "bottom line" results are as follows:

Trial 1, full waveform with both Q1 current and Q2 oscs: 28.7 W input shown on DMMs, 39.7 degrees C rise above ambient.
The DC calibration temperature for 28.7 W DC input is about 51 degrees C over ambient. Efficiency COP = 39.7/51 = 0.78 or 78 %.

Trial 2, Snubber in place, no oscs only Q1 current + real Q2 current: 25.6 W input shown on DMMs, 33.1 degrees C rise above ambient.
The DC calibration temperature for 25.6 W DC input is about 47 degrees C over ambient. Efficiency COP = 33.1/47 = 0.70 or 70 %.

Trial 3, FG offset enough negative to make "Figure 3", Q2 oscs only and no Q1 current: 10.8 W shown on DMMs, 9.6 degrees C rise above ambient.
The DC calibration temperature for 10.8 W DC input is about 23 degrees C over ambient. Efficiency COP = 9.6/23 = 0.42 or 42 %

I will also be presenting these data in graphical plots a bit later on. Note that the measurements of the input power to the DUT system are actually likely to be somewhat _low_ for various reasons I will discuss later. If it really took more power than indicated, this of course moves the COP numbers even lower.

Some conclusions are immediately obvious. Not only were efficiencies over 1 not encountered at all or even hinted at.... the Q2 oscillations especially are demonstrated to be very wasteful: more than half of the applied power is wasted, spent heating the mosfets and the internal load in the FG !! It never makes it to the "element resistor" at all.

Other conclusions are also clear. I'll leave the further discussion for later, I really need a cup of coffee right now.

That's interesting data.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #821 on:** March 25, 2014, 02:55:25 AM »

Quote from: MarkE on March 24, 2014, 08:22:02 AM

Wow! She really wrote that and put it on her web site. If Steve sees it he will not be happy.

Steve has seen it, and he has received the email(s) she sent, and you are right... he is not well pleased.

Quote from: MarkE on March 24, 2014, 06:55:36 PM

That's interesting data.

Yes, it is interesting. The trends I identified earlier at lower power and different frequency/duty cycle combos still hold.
I have also done a run with just the FG connected directly to the load, with no intervening circuitry or other power supply _at all_. The temperature of the load cell actually rises by a few degrees C. Not quite as much as the "Figure 3" oscs only runs, but still a measurable and significant amount, which at least indicates that the FG IS INDEED capable of contributing power, meaning heating, to the load, even when used with no other power supply.

Now, what _else_ should I do in an attempt to reproduce Ainslie's claimed OU of >17 or INFINITY? Is there some preferred frequency and duty cycle, some preferred waveform that I should be trying to use? I am happy to consider suggestions as to further parameter sets to explore. It takes about half an hour to set up, an hour to perform the experiment and another 90 minutes or so to cool down for another run. During the cooldown I collate and enter the data into the spreadsheet for evaluation. So I can reasonably do two or three data runs in a day, without too much strain or boredom.

My only guidelines so far have been what Ainslie has herself "published" or demonstrated, and my experiments have shown rather mundane and ordinary and indeed expected results, results predicted by conventional understanding of electronics. There is no hint of any extra power sources in my experiment. All load heating is fully accounted for by the power supplied by the conventional source, battery or power supply; if the FG is supplying significant power (it is, barely) this would actually_reduce_ the COP values I have calculated using only the main power supply values.

Since the Great Scientist's latest pronouncements.... is the "Ainslie effect" now reduced to being merely a claim about battery charge lasting a bit longer when discharging on a pulsing schedule? Well... this is a known phenomenon and does not require the participation of zipons or a new "theory" to replace Faraday, Maxwell, and QED. Will the battery, under _ANY_ discharge schedule, give out more energy than was originally used to charge it? What do you think? I'm not going to explore this issue .... unless and until Ainslie herself actually reports some valid data on the subject. Which could be another four years, until she finds some other poor innocent unsuspecting victims to twiddle her knobs and put up with her twaddling bullying obnoxious ignorant rantings.

Or is it that she still believes her "negative power product" calculations based on spurious data inputs are somehow valid? Yet the batteries discharge normally, yet anyone can reproduce the "negative power product" values by reproducing her bad technique, yet it has been explained and demonstrated just where the spurious values come from. If someone can claim OU based on fabricated and error-ridden data, and ignore all evidence to the contrary including good measurements at the same operating parameters.... that is not Science, it is religion or some other delusional system.

MarkE · « **Reply #822 on:** March 25, 2014, 04:21:14 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 25, 2014, 02:55:25 AM

Steve has seen it, and he has received the email(s) she sent, and you are right... he is not well pleased.

Yes, it is interesting. The trends I identified earlier at lower power and different frequency/duty cycle combos still hold.

Now, what should I do in an attempt to reproduce Ainslie's claimed OU of >17 or INFINITY? Is there some preferred frequency and duty cycle, some preferred waveform that I should be trying to use? I am happy to consider suggestions as to further parameter sets to explore. It takes about half an hour to set up, an hour to perform the experiment and another 90 minutes or so to cool down for another run. During the cooldown I collate and enter the data into the spreadsheet for evaluation. So I can reasonably do two or three data runs in a day, without too much strain or boredom.

My only guidelines so far have been what Ainslie has herself "published" or demonstrated, and my experiments have shown rather mundane and ordinary and indeed expected results, results predicted by conventional understanding of electronics. There is no hint of any extra power sources in my experiment. All load heating is fully accounted for by the power supplied by the conventional source, battery or power supply; if the FG is supplying significant power (it is, barely) this would actually_reduce_ the COP values I have calculated using only the main power supply values.

Since the Great Scientist's latest pronouncements.... is the "Ainslie effect" now reduced to being merely a claim about battery charge lasting a bit longer when discharging on a pulsing schedule? Well... this is a known phenomenon and does not require the participation of zipons or a new "theory" to replace Faraday, Maxwell, and QED. Will the battery, under _ANY_ discharge schedule, give out more energy than was originally used to charge it? What do you think? I'm not going to explore this issue .... unless and until Ainslie herself actually reports some valid data on the subject. Which could be another four years, until she finds some other poor innocent unsuspecting victims to twiddle her knobs and put up with her twaddling bullying obnoxious ignorant rantings.

The rant Ms. Ainslie posted raises the bar on insane even for her. In one paragraph she admitted and then demonized her own recorded observations. She made Steve the bad guy for reminding her of those observations in private. One sentence later she went all Tasmanian devil on some "negative wattage" diatribe. Just for the insane woman's benefit, let's review again her own written statement on the Aug. 11, 2013 matter:

Quote

Reference measurements taken at new sense points directly at the battery bank indicated average net positive battery drain of 14W to 15W. Maximum heater temperature rise during these experiments was 21C.From our electrical DC power to temperature rise tests conducted in 2011 and appear as Table II in this paper, a 21C heater temperature rise corresponds to an equivalent power of between 2.4W and 3.4W. We therefore obtained heat output that was only a fraction of the input power.

As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts.

Details of the test protocols are available as August 11 Demonstration Outline_draft_05.pdf. Test Phases 1 - 3 were conducted during the live demonstration. We ended the demonstration after Test Phase 3 when it became clear that the net battery power drain was far in excess of the possible heater output power.

Now, she's off to the races with the gem you copied, declaring that what she wrote is: duplicitous, a blatant lie, immoral ... . The woman has gone cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. Add Steve to the long list of respected professionals that she's declared are part of some evil cabal. This is going to cost me some beer.

You've already done the 3.7% at 2.4kHz tests before. I suppose that you could repeat them now so that is all done on this gear. Can the F43 generate such timing?

Other tests that you could do might include characterization of the current regulation behavior during Q2 phases with and without the snubber. For instance you could set the function generator low swing to: -4V -8V and -12V and show what that does to the current and heater. You might sneak in a drain voltage capture in the process. There is other fun that you can have with the test fixture, like comparing the uncompensated and compensated current sense waveforms side by side.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #823 on:** March 25, 2014, 05:11:29 AM »

The workhorse F43 Fg that I have been using lately can only go as short as about 5 or 6 percent HI duty cycle. However I have the DataPulse DP101 fast-risetime (last century "fast") pulse generator which can do much shorter duty cycles without difficulty. It has separate positive- and negative-going outputs though which may make it unsuitable for the "Q-array" circuit, but since the 3.7 percent at 2.4 kHz applies to the original single mosfet Quantum Magazine claims it should be no problem to use it for that. The output is also limited to 10 volts max in either direction and the "offset" is controlled just by setting the two output amplitudes differentially. I usually use the negative output as the monitor and the positive output to drive whatever load I'm running. I will have to see if it will work properly. How ever (tm RA)... she has always claimed that there were "oscillations" in her apparatus at that time too. The only such behaviour I have ever seen in the one-mosfet circuit was caused by severely underpowering the 555 timer circuit if used, and/or burned spots on the "gate" potentiometer. It is easy to burn this pot and an ordinary half-watt carbon pot will not last very long, so experimenters should use a "type J" or better pot for the "Gate" pot in the Q-17 single mosfet circuit. The "oscillations" claimed by the folks at Energetic Forum always looked like bad scoposcopy use to me and I even showed the same fake "random aperiodic Hartley resonance" as she called them, things on the Fluke 199 scopemeter I used (among other instruments) back in 2009/2010.

MarkE · « **Reply #824 on:** March 25, 2014, 06:21:35 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on March 25, 2014, 05:11:29 AM

The workhorse F43 Fg that I have been using lately can only go as short as about 5 or 6 percent HI duty cycle. However I have the DataPulse DP101 fast-risetime (last century "fast") pulse generator which can do much shorter duty cycles without difficulty. It has separate positive- and negative-going outputs though which may make it unsuitable for the "Q-array" circuit, but since the 3.7 percent at 2.4 kHz applies to the original single mosfet Quantum Magazine claims it should be no problem to use it for that. The output is also limited to 10 volts max in either direction and the "offset" is controlled just by setting the two output amplitudes differentially. I usually use the negative output as the monitor and the positive output to drive whatever load I'm running. I will have to see if it will work properly. How ever (tm RA)... she has always claimed that there were "oscillations" in her apparatus at that time too. The only such behaviour I have ever seen in the one-mosfet circuit was caused by severely underpowering the 555 timer circuit if used, and/or burned spots on the "gate" potentiometer. It is easy to burn this pot and an ordinary half-watt carbon pot will not last very long, so experimenters should use a "type J" or better pot for the "Gate" pot in the Q-17 single mosfet circuit. The "oscillations" claimed by the folks at Energetic Forum always looked like bad scoposcopy use to me and I even showed the same fake "random aperiodic Hartley resonance" as she called them, things on the Fluke 199 scopemeter I used (among other instruments) back in 2009/2010.

The pulse generator sounds like it will do the job. Or you can hook up a 555 to generate the timing. My personal preference in that regard is to use two 555s, but it can be done with one.

Cookie	Origin	Persistency	Information and Usage
ecl_auth	overunity.com	Expires after 30 days	This cookie contains the text "EU Cookie Law - LiPF cookies authorised". Without this cookie, the Forums' software is prevented from setting other cookies.
SMFCookie648	overunity.com	Expires according to user-chosen session duration	If you log-in as a member of this site, this cookie contains your user name, an encrypted hash of your password and the time you logged-in. It is used by the site software to ensure that features such as indicating new Forum and Private messages are indicated to you. This cookie is essential for the site software to work correctly.
PHPSESSID	overunity.com	Current session only	This cookie contains a unique Session Identification value. It is set for both members and non-members (guests) and it is essential for the site software to work correctly. This cookie is not persistent and should be automatically removed when you close the browser window.
pmx_upshr{NAME}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records your display preferences for the site's Portal page if a panel or individual block is collapsed or expanded
pmx_pgidx_blk{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the page number for the site's Portal page if the page for a individual block is changed.
pmx_cbtstat{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the expand/collapse state for a CBT Navigator block content.
pmx_poll{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the id for the current poll in a multiple Poll block.
pmx_{fadername}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the state for a Opac-Fader block.
pmx_LSBsub{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current category and the state for a static Category block.
pmx_shout{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current state of a Shout box block.
pmx_php_ckeck	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set, if a Syntax check on a PHP block is initiated and will be deleted if the function executed.
pmx_YOfs	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set on portal actions like click on a page number. The cookie is evaluated on load the desired page and then deleted. It is used to restore the vertical screen position as before the click.

1	We are aware that Google uses additional cookies it stores on your PC and when you browse our site and all other sites. These are used to target advertising and Google currently does this without seeking your permission. Four of these cookies we know about are named "rememberme", "NID", "PREF" and "PP_TOS_ACK" and are stored in Google's cache on your computer.
2	If you are accessing this site using someone else's computer, please ask the owner's permission before accepting cookies.
3	Your browser provides you with the ability to inspect all cookies stored on your PC. In addition your browser is responsible for removing "current session only" cookies and those that have expired; if your browser is not doing this, you should report the matter to your browser's authors.
4	We regret and apologies for any inconvenience this causes to members and guests who are accessing our web site from outside the European Union. It is not currently possible for us to interrogate your browser and obtain geographic location information in order to decide whether or not to prompt you to accept cookies.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims (Read 382663 times)

MarkE

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

MarkE

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

Tseak

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

MarkE

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

MarkE

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

TinselKoala

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

MarkE

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims