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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 317365 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #990 on: April 10, 2014, 05:30:29 PM »
@MarkE:

Here's something I just discovered by accident while making a new video. The Gate Boost circuit has its beneficial effect on the Vcvr waveform, and increases the VBatt and Vcsr spikes.... even when it is _not powered_.

It takes a little more input amplitude from the FG, that's all. No external separate power supply is needed for the Gate Boost circuit!

Apparently the FG is pulling the PNP transistor down enough to provide a lower impedance path to ground for the mosfet Gate charge, so the mosfet is turning off more cleanly even without power to the boost circuit?  Does that sound right?

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #991 on: April 10, 2014, 06:08:27 PM »
@MarkE:

Here's something I just discovered by accident while making a new video. The Gate Boost circuit has its beneficial effect on the Vcvr waveform, and increases the VBatt and Vcsr spikes.... even when it is _not powered_.

It takes a little more input amplitude from the FG, that's all. No external separate power supply is needed for the Gate Boost circuit!

Apparently the FG is pulling the PNP transistor down enough to provide a lower impedance path to ground for the mosfet Gate charge, so the mosfet is turning off more cleanly even without power to the boost circuit?  Does that sound right?
The bias supply is needed for the NPN pull-up transistor.  It has no impact on the PNP pull-down transistor.  That transistor is self-biased by the gate charge.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #992 on: April 10, 2014, 07:10:09 PM »
Still, it's also cleaning up the rise time of the pulse. The resulting Vbatt and Vcsr scope traces look identical to me, whether the Boost circuit is powered or not, the only difference being the output amplitude of the FG required to make the trace is greater when the Boost is not externally powered.  I'll try to demonstrate this in a video later on. 



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #993 on: April 10, 2014, 07:46:53 PM »
Here's the "Supplement" video showing the present Plain Q17 physical layout and explaining the connection block wiring and the probe attach points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvEPWl-zSc0

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #994 on: April 10, 2014, 09:42:10 PM »
Still, it's also cleaning up the rise time of the pulse. The resulting Vbatt and Vcsr scope traces look identical to me, whether the Boost circuit is powered or not, the only difference being the output amplitude of the FG required to make the trace is greater when the Boost is not externally powered.  I'll try to demonstrate this in a video later on.
You may not see a lot of difference in the fall time using a 10 Ohm load.  If your NPN transistor is working in the boost driver, then the gate waveform get through the threshold region much faster.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #995 on: April 12, 2014, 04:33:29 PM »
Well..... where is some data?

The claim of COP>17 and even COP INFINITY has been made by Ainslie. She and others have claimed that excess heat in a load can be produced by a switched mosfet circuit, over and above the heat produced by the same power simply applied in a DC circuit.

So fine. Will someone Please present a data set that demonstrates this? Temperature RATE OF RISE data, as I have done over and over?


I've shown over and over that it takes less than FOUR HOURS to set up and run, gather data, collate and graph it and present a video proof of the experiment and the raw data itself.

We have:

Some batteries/power source > some oscillator/clock/555/FG/battery/PSU bias source > a simple mosfet circuit with 1 mosfet/5 in parallel/ 1+4 in antiparallel > some heater load > some time-temperature graph.

I've presented data from many different variations of the setup and I've shown the heating produced, both RATE of heating and 60 minute FINAL TEMPERATURE. And I've compared those experimental results to control time-temperature graphs made with the same load under the same conditions but with straight, uncontroversial DC power.

And EVERY combination of apparatus and operating parameters (waveforms, settings, etc) that I have tried produces a COP significantly less than 1.

So I'm ready to see someone else's data. Someone else can show me what I'm doing "wrong" by producing a data set using similar apparatus, with proper DC control data and good measurements..... that DOES produce a COP greater than 1, by heating up its load up faster and/or hotter than the same power delivered by straight DC.

WHERE IS ROSEMARY AINSLIE'S DATA THAT SUPPORTS HER CLAIMS OF EXCESS HEAT IN THE LOAD? WHERE IS AINSLIE'S RATE OF TEMPERATURE RISE DATA?

Nowhere, so far. But it only takes FOUR HOURS....... when there is a single competent person doing the testing.

But when there are five or six buffoons who can't even point a camera, speak clearly or operate their own test equipment.... apparently it takes FOURTEEN YEARS or more, and we are still waiting.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #996 on: April 13, 2014, 01:51:27 PM »
Such data as you ask for you know will not be produced because the claimants cannot produce it. 

Ms. Ainslie has painted herself into a corner.  She has declared that she will not produce evidence.  Fine.  Then she leaves herself with her demonstrations of last summer that soundly and completely refute her extraordinary claims.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #997 on: April 14, 2014, 07:05:34 AM »
If a DMM is not registering some fast spike component of a signal..... then it is UNDERESTIMATING the total power in that signal.

If the total power in a signal is UNDERESTIMATED.... then the true total power in the signal is GREATER than that indicated on the meter.

If the true total power in a signal is GREATER than that measured on the meter.... then the heating, and the RATE OF HEATING, in a load is actually LESS EFFICIENT than calculated using the readings on the meter.

Got that? EVEN LESS EFFICIENT.  If the meters say I'm supplying 10 Watts, but the meters are UNDERCOUNTING because of the spiky signals.... then I'm really supplying something GREATER THAN 10 WATTS....

DEAL WITH IT, AINSLIE..... even your latest laughable excuses are BOGUS AND BACKWARDS. YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY MEASUREMENTS OF YOUR OWN TO BACK UP YOUR STUPID CONTENTIONS AND CLAIMS.... you just yak and yak, and you've been wrong so many times it's a family tradition.


And we NOTE WELL.... yet another week has gone by with NO DATA from Ainslie, just more bloviating and useless squawking -- and, just as I predicted long ago.... she now attacks Steve Weir, the expert who so willingly and patiently gave of his time in a selfless effort to help Ainslie improve her measurements and understanding. Ainslie's true, vile and dank miserable excuse for "character" is on display for all to see.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #998 on: April 14, 2014, 07:19:59 AM »
Like other well respected people that Ms. Ainslie has attacked, her attacks on Steve are completely unfounded. Steve took interest in the DMM averaging issue last year.  He ran tests that confirmed what Poynt99 reported.  I have run my own tests and also confirmed that DMMs do a really good job of averaging signals at least to 20MHz.  Steve has tested to 100MHz and beyond.

Ms. Ainslie claiming that she understands electronic instruments better than Steve is hilarious.  Maybe this DMM thing is why she went all Tasmanian devil on Steve.

It is a safe bet that whatever tests Ms. Ainslie has been conducting, they have not been yielding the results that she wants. 

Offline Tseak

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #999 on: April 14, 2014, 08:47:58 AM »
Like other well respected people that Ms. Ainslie has attacked, her attacks on Steve are completely unfounded. Steve took interest in the DMM averaging issue last year.  He ran tests that confirmed what Poynt99 reported.  I have run my own tests and also confirmed that DMMs do a really good job of averaging signals at least to 20MHz.  Steve has tested to 100MHz and beyond.

Ms. Ainslie claiming that she understands electronic instruments better than Steve is hilarious.  Maybe this DMM thing is why she went all Tasmanian devil on Steve.

It is a safe bet that whatever tests Ms. Ainslie has been conducting, they have not been yielding the results that she wants.

What she doesn't understand is the difference between the ac bandwidth of the instrument and the averaging effect of the time constant when measuring dc. At this stage it suits her to have a diversion to string the issue out longer without producing anything.

Interesting comment from her that no one here has used anything but multimeters for current measurement. Even a brief read back through this thread will show that to be just more BS

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1000 on: April 14, 2014, 11:52:44 AM »
What she doesn't understand is the difference between the ac bandwidth of the instrument and the averaging effect of the time constant when measuring dc. At this stage it suits her to have a diversion to string the issue out longer without producing anything.

Interesting comment from her that no one here has used anything but multimeters for current measurement. Even a brief read back through this thread will show that to be just more BS
I think it is very clear that neither does she have anything to show that supports her claims, nor does she understand much of anything when it comes to science and electronics in particular. 

As to her insistence that DMMs don't measure averages well.  She is dead wrong.  See for example the attached plot of integrating A/D converter response.  DMM's exclusively utilize integrating A/Ds for their precision and economy.   The graph shows that the DMM response becomes closer and closer to the ideal average, the higher in frequency that the measured signal component is.   Non-ideal circuit components ultimately limit how well the reading averages.

See also references such as:  http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/tutorials/MT-027.pdf.  That tutorial lists eight references of its own on integrating A/D converters such as are used in DMMs.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1001 on: April 14, 2014, 01:32:10 PM »
Ainslie continues to display her disordered thought process and inability to reason. Not only does she deny her own properly collected data and persist in claiming her bad and even fabricated data is somehow worthy of consideration, but she fails to accept or even acknowledge the properly collected and analyzed data from others. She even says in so many words: if your data doesn't agree with her claims, it's wrong!

The deluded, irrational Ainslie makes utterly false claims, comes to fake conclusions based on her misperceptions and misrepresentations, and then proceeds to deliver insult after insane insult based on her deluded "reasoning". No corrections will ever be forthcoming from the Ainslie mob, in spite of the very public demonstrations of error, mendacity and incompetence that are the only "publications" they can actually claim. The proofs of her fabrication of data, and her suborning of outright lying by her "coauthor" Donovan Martin are solid and irrefutable. How can these overweeningly arrogant people ever expect to have their claims, made WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DATA AT ALL, to be seriously considered by anyone?

Ainslie chooses to ignore the excellent and complete explorations of the behaviour of DMMs that we have now from three different sources: Poynt99, Steve Weir and Mark E. She cannot even perceive the cross-checks and validations that I have done, showing that there is less than 5 percent error and usually much less, between the DMM and the scope's measurements of the same spiky current. She has proven herself to be incapable of interpreting graphically presented data such as MarkE presents.  Meanwhile she makes absurd assertions and Polly-Parrot squawkings that are not supported by data and in fact are UNSUPPORTABLE, as she has demonstrated herself over and over. Day after day, week after week, month after month goes by.... with NO DATA from Ainslie. Since August 11 2013, where Ainslie publicly demonstrated that her major claims are based on fabricated data, she has released ONE screenshot, and that one single screenshot demonstrates only that she and her "team" have learned literally NOTHING about making measurements, or displaying them on an oscilloscope screen.

Ainslie claims there is an "exploitable potential" in the spiky signals. But who has ACTUALLY measured the energy in these spikes? I HAVE. Who has ACTUALLY drawn off the energy in these spikes to be used in some external circuitry to make real effects? I HAVE.... and Ainslie and her mob NEVER HAVE.  And where, according to Ainslie, does this "exploitable potential" actually manifest itself? WHERE? It does not contribute to excess heating of the load. It does not result in recharging or preventing discharge of the batteries. WHERE IS IT? I will tell you where: There is NO EXCESS ENERGY, and what energy there IS in these "BEMF" or "CEMF" spikes is dissipated in the mosfet body itself, and in RF radiation. Ainslie and her gang of Keystone Kops can neither conceptualize nor measure properly these areas where the spiky signals DISSIPATE power from the BATTERY or power supply. The mendacious mob has even claimed that there is "no RF" when their own testing showed that there is -- their "AV plug" LED lighting up brightly demonstrates that -- and of course my better demonstrations show that there is plenty of RF indeed.

If Ainslie believes or claims otherwise, let her present evidence, in the form of a complete data set that supports her claims. After FOURTEEN YEARS she has been unable to do so, even though it would take a competent individual less than FOUR HOURS to obtain and present such a data set, were it at all possible. But AINSLIE CANNOT !! And the reasons she cannot are because her claims are specious, her "team" incompetent, and her equipment misused.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1002 on: April 14, 2014, 02:57:15 PM »
You know full well that no evidence will be forthcoming.  Your satisfaction needs to come from the quality of your own work.

Ms. Ainslie acts as though she is simply bat shit crazy.  Nothing sensible comes from crazy.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1003 on: April 14, 2014, 04:08:49 PM »
Yes, of course I know that the bloviating Great Scientist will not be producing any real and valid data. Meanwhile, I enjoy all the opportunities to demonstrate her mendacity, arrogance and sheer idiocy that she presents.

Here's a scopeshot from this morning's example run, along with the raw DATA DUMP FROM THE DIGITAL SAMPLING OSCILLOSCOPE, in a comma-delimited text file of 32,000 samples at 10 nanosecond intervals (100 samples per horizontal division), showing the Current and Vbatt traces. I invite Ainslie to show just where any DMM values are used here, and I invite her -- or rather, any member of her team actually capable of doing so, clearly not Ainslie herself -- to perform "integrated analysis" on this file just as they allege to have done on their own.

So where does this "exploitable potential" from these huge, MASSIVE spikes manifest itself, AINSLIE? The batteries do discharge, the heating at the load is only about 70 percent of the value obtained by straight DC delivered at the same "integrated analysis" power level.... so where is the "exploitable potential"? Is it in the heating up of the mosfet itself, where the spike is actually dissipated? That's certainly not very convenient. And it's also something for which Ainslie has never presented even a trace or inkling of evidence.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1004 on: April 14, 2014, 07:41:02 PM »
In case anyone is interested.... here is the associated spreadsheet.

I've imported the raw .CSB data dump file from the Link DSO into the LibreOffice spreadsheet. Then I've put in the formulae to extract the actual voltages from the raw DSO values into columns. Then I've applied the 0.25 ohm CVR value to the Vcvr voltages to convert to amperage values. Then I've multiplied each of the 32k Vbatt and Icvr values together to produce the 32k values of the Instantaneous Power Curve. Then I've found the Mean of those values.... that is, I've integrated (added up all the equal-spaced time slices) and divided by the number of time slices to get the Mean power value. And just as Ainslie does, I get a nicely NEGATIVE "mean power product" of about -2.15 Watts for the overall capture. The capture is the entire scope's buffer of 32k samples at 10 ns per sample, so it covers much more -- about 20 times more -- than the single screen shown above.

So it cannot be argued that I'm not duplicating a "negative power product" with my system. In case it wasn't immediately obvious from the scope traces themselves, the spreadsheet's "integrated power analysis" confirms that I am demonstrating the same "anomalous measurement" that Ainslie attains. And not a DMM reading in sight.

If anyone finds any errors, or has any comments about the spreadsheet, which is nothing fancy... please let me know asap.