Ainslie continues to slide down the hill of decompensation. Soon we'll see the fullblown psychosis again, complete denial of reality. If it weren't so funny it would be sad.

No Poynty.  I am NOT asking you to agree to what duty cycle we used.  I'm DEMANDING that you agree that we COULD generate that 3% duty cycle with the use of our equipment.  This possibility was ROUNDLY DISMISSED.   REMEMBER?  By EVERYONE - INCLUDING MARK EUTHANASIUS AND YOURSELF and our Little TK.  Then hot on the heels of THAT fact - is this point.  IF we claim to have applied a 3% ON duty cycle - then that claim is FEASIBLE - given that we COULD. 

No, AINSLIE. What everyone has been telling you is that the circuit YOU PUBLISHED cannot do WHAT YOU CLAIMED. And that is definitely true. Nobody knows, even today, what circuit you ACTUALLY USED. Even the circuit that Steve Weir drew out for you is only what is in the box NOW, and it clearly has been altered since the Quantum article. 
The 555 timer in the circuit that Weir posted can make the short ON duty cycle but it CANNOT make the 2.4 kHz frequency you claimed to use, for one thing.
So you are still in very hot water: the present schematic ALSO cannot make the dutycycle/frequency combo that you claimed in the article. It uses a different mosfet than you claimed in the article. In spite of the similar part number, the IRFPG50 and the IRFP450 are entirely different performers.

NOBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS, at this point, STILL, what was used in the Quantum article. It is obvious that the apparatus has been modified since the picture on the front page of the Quantum article was taken and it is obvious that the schematic now given uses a different mosfet than what the article claims. And it can't make a 2.4 kHz frequency like the article claims.

The photo on the front page of the Quantum article shows two analog meters in the front panel of the device. There are no meters shown on Steve Weir's schematic. The Quantum article and schematic claim that the frequency and duty cycle are independently adjustable.... but the SWeir schematic cannot do independent adjustment, the "on" time is nearly constant throughout the frequency range and so the duty cycle varies along with the frequency, not independently. One potentiometer instead of two. But on the front page of the Quantum article we can make out... barely.... as many as FOUR potentiometers.

The article STILL LIES, even more now that we know that the circuit you give now is even further away from what the Quantum article claims.

Mark Euthanasius has stated - VERY PUBLICLY - that BECAUSE we could not have applied a 3% duty cycle - then EVERYONE needs MUST reject the ENTIRE CLAIM related to our Quantum paper.  And you stood behind him.  It's now been shown that we COULD apply that duty cycle.

No, AINSLIE, what we have stated VERY PUBLICLY is that the PUBLISHED SCHEMATIC IN THE QUANTUM ARTICLE cannot do what you claimed it did, and that is STILL TRUE and it is also true that the "new" schematic can't either: it operates at too high a frequency range. And all that has been shown is that NOW the apparatus MIGHT have been able to apply a short ON duty cycle at a much higher frequency than you claimed, IF it was actually what you used THEN.

THEREFORE do Mark Euthanasius and TK and you need to publicly admit that the BASIS OF YOUR COMPLAINT HAS NOW BEEN VOIDED. 

WRONG AGAIN. Far from being "voided" the basis of the complaint is reinforced. The present schematic doesn't even use the same transistor that you claimed to use and it can't make the low frequency! The timer doesn't have a separate power supply! There is only one potentiometer hooked up!!

THEREFORE do YOU, Rosemary Ainslie, need to admit publicly that YOU STILL HAVE FALSE CLAIMS AND DATA APPEARING UNDER YOUR NAME in publications that you will not correct or remove.

Unless, of course, you all see that there is NO requirement on the part of you all - who have been FRUSTRATING investigations into over unity claims - over MANY MANY YEARS - to EVER make any admissions at all.  You simply reserve the right to discredit the good work that HAS been advanced - and the good name of researchers who are advancing this work - in your anxiety to PREVENT research into over unity claims.  And you will all of you VERY PUBLICLY - show the UTMOST disrespect to any such claimant - REGARDLESS.  There is NO greater discourtesy that has happened on these forums against my good name, my work, my age, my talents - than this REFUSAL.  If I felt that I'd been gang raped by all you internet thugs - RIGHT NOW I feel DOUBLY OUTRAGED.

Kindest regards
Rosie

Believe me, Ainslie drama queen.... had you been gang raped in your South Africa gated compound, you would know the difference between defending a thesis and defending your life against a gang of black thugs who want to humiliate you physically. People have been gang-raped in South Africa, you  know.... lots and lots of them, it is the  Capitol of the World, apparently, and your self-serving statement shows a disgusting lack of empathy or respect for those women victims of your countrymen. There is an outrage happening all right, and you are the perpetrator, not the victim.

Quoting from the first page of the Quantum article:

Circuit Diagram: This article describes the precise circuit, as depicted in Figure 1, that is used to expose this benefit in transient energy. This is to enable and urge others to duplicate the experiment and determine the measurements independently.

(emphasis mine.)

The "Figure 1" of course is the circuit with the 555 timer that cannot produce the duty cycle and frequency combination claimed. The PRECISE circuit.

Here is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines "precise":
 

Precise:adjective marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail:precise directions I want as precise a time of death as I can get
(of a person) exact, accurate, and careful about details:the director was precise with his camera positions
 [attributive] used to emphasize that one is referring to an exact and particular thing:at that precise moment the car stopped

Exact, accurate, careful about details.....  Yet now she wants to claim a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CIRCUIT was used, not even the same mosfet or number of controls or separate power supply. PRECISE !!!!

And she says she will NEVER withdraw the Quantum article. She doesn't care at all that her lies and misrepresentations and urgings to replicate a FALSE CIRCUIT CLAIM are still "out there" bearing her name !

And she urges replicators to use the WRONG SCHEMATIC, once again. Only instead of only a month, this time it has been nearly ELEVEN YEARS that she has perpetrated the deception wrt the schematic used.


The Quantum article Figure 1, followed by the schematic that SWeir drew out and that she posted in her "trolling" forum thread are attached below.

Note that this is NOT the PRECISE schematic that accompanied the Quantum article as Figure 1.  In fact it is VERY DIFFERENT and doesn't even use the same mosfet. Neither does it correspond to the photograph on the front page of the article: there are no analog meters in the new schematic, and there are at least four adjustable potentiometers on the box in the photograph in the Quantum article.

(Coils? P-fet? Not shown? )

So.

Recall that with the "NERD" or 5-mosfet circuit, we had FIVE different schematics presented as what was used in the experiment reported in the papers.

1. The single mosfet, FG with no black lead, six battery circuit that Martin said "this represents what you have before you here"
2. The claim that all five mosfets were in parallel
3. The actual circuit of the demo board as traced out by Poynt99, revealing the miswired 4 mosfets and the Black FG lead at the common battery negative.
4. The circuit given in the official publication Paper 1 at Rossi's JNP showing the Black FG lead at the transistor side of the shunt.
5. The circuit given in the official publication Paper 2 at Rossi's JNP showing the Black FG lead at the transistor side of the shunt, and the Q1-Q2 positions reversed.

The only photographic evidence that exists shows that Schematic Number 3 was actually used, not the schematics given in any papers or shown by Martin or Ainslie.

And now we have a similar situation developing. We have _at least_ four different schematics presented as having been used in the Quantum article.

1. The "official" and "precise" schematic given as Figure 1 in the Quantum article, which specifies a 555 timer circuit that _cannot_ produce the dutycycle and frequency claimed, uses a separate 12 volt supply for the timer, and specifies IRFPG50 as the mosfet and shows NO recirculation diode.
2. The schematic presented in the "EIT Paper" submission, which shows a FG symbol for the timer, but specifies a 555 in the text without providing its circuitry... and DOES show a recirculation diode and a gate control potentiometer, and DOES indicate that the frequency and dutycycle are independently variable in the accompanying text. The mosfet itself is not specified in the schematic.
3. The SWeir schematic of the "found", formerly "lost" apparatus, which shows the IRFP450 mosfet, a very different beast than the PG50, no gate control pot on the N-channel mosfet (What is on the P channel mosfet that he mentions but does not show, I wonder. Is there perhaps a tiny blue trimpot soldered to its gate pin?) and a _different_ 555 timer circuit than the "precise circuit" given as Figure 1 in the Quantum article. A diode is included in SWeir's schematic but its type and connections are not shown and not known. The duty cycle and frequency of the SWeir 555 circuit are not independently variable and there is only one potentiometer connected to the circuit and the circuit cannot make a 2.4 kHz output signal, but works at much higher frequency range, and certainly cannot make the claimed 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz.
4. The schematic from the IEEE submission, which is similar to the original Quantum schematic, with many component value changes, and bears the notation "revised 11-26-2009". The IRFPG50 mosfet is specified in the schematic.

And I will wager, although I have no proof at the moment, that the ACTUAL circuit used to produce the data in the Quantum article was likely different still! What are these "coils" that SWeir mentions? How many different ways can that circuit be altered by patch cords?

It is very clever of Free Energy claimants not to specify exact operating conditions or circuitry. It is, in fact, a tradition that pervades the field. Anyone who tries to "replicate" one of Ainslie's circuits finds out that not only does it not do what she claimed it does, but that it isn't even the circuit that she is "currently" claiming she used !!

The original Quantum schematic and the SWeir schematic are posted above. I'll repost the EIT paper schematic and the IEEE schematic below. Compare, contrast, discuss.

Here is a simulation I did of the simple 1-MOSFET circuit driven by a FG. I used roughly the same frequency and duty cycle Glen used in his Test #13.

Regarding the Test Apparatus:   (Ainslie posting as "witsend" in the Energetic Forum thread as she was falling out with Glen and Harvey and the rest)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-2.html#post83902

I have never been called on to produce the circuit apparatus until members of this forum required it.  It would have helped them no doubt. But I dismantled my apparatus when I sent the fluke, the multimeter and the digitial display devices to Aaron.  I said then that I would not again be doing any further experiments.  It had dominated many years of life.  My eyesight was deteriorating.  And I had lost all appetite for this, having done it so extensively for so many years preceding.  Also I no longer had the optimised resistor as one of our team had taken this for independant testing.  I do not, however, have to apologise for this. It is just a matter of fact.  I believe that the other circuit component parts are readily available.  And there is nothing to prevent a replication.  What is required is a patience in searching for the optimised settings on any particular resistor.  I found very few that did not exceed COP>2.  Nor did I take photographs because it did not occur to me that this would be required.  There is a second 'box' or apparatus set up that was sent to ABB Research.  I also don't know what has happened to that apparatus. Glen and Harvey are aware of this.  They know the circumstances intimately.  This argument is being used to discredit the claim.  The truth is I have never undertaken to produce any circuitry.  And I no longer had the apparatus nor the tools to measure.  this put paid to any further attempts at replication.  And frankly, I was rather anxious that a wide variety of resistors would be used and tested.  That's the only way the more precise inductance values will ever be established. 
 
 Between the actual Quantum publication and the new paper prepared for the IET was a total of 7 years.  It was a miracle that the apparatus survived the 3 changes of address that I had.  It was substantially degraded and there was evident rust on the switch. The switch - in any event - had to be rebuilt and at the end of Donovan's final replication done for the IET paper - I effectively gave the resistor and some inductors to a friend - involved in those same tests under Donny's supervision.  The box was banged up and he wanted to 'start again'. Thereafter I willingly dismantled for Aaron.  That's the history of the apparatus.  Frankly I was glad to see the last of it.  Do testing yourselves, obsessively for years on end and see if you would not share that sentiment.  And I am not an experimenter.  My interests are in the theory.

How many different stories are there? As many as she has aliases, apparently. So she did have the apparatus, it wasn't lost at all, it was even repaired and rebuilt so that Martin could "replicate" for the "IET" paper submission, and then it was "dismantled" and parts were sent to Aaron in 2009.

Compare that story she tells above,  to the story of the suddenly "found" apparatus that we have been told recently.

The 555 circuit that SWeir found in the box is not the same circuit that was in the box for the Quantum article. The circuit in the box that we see now was designed and built to correspond to GLEN LETTERMEIER's operating parameters.... not the other way around.

This is proven by the history of the "EIT" or "TIE" or "IET" submission (at various times she has called it all of those). Ainslie was continuing to claim the original specs of 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz. The published circuit was found by all who tried it to be incapable of producing that specified setting. People like Glen came on and started doing Ainslie's homework for her. Then he hit upon the 555 timer mod that would produce the results like those in Test 13 and .99's sim and my hardware above. THEN and only then did Ainslie and Martin or someone rebuild the Quantum box to contain the present 555 circuit, in order to try to match Glen's results for the "EIT" or TIE or IET paper submission.

As you read those threads on EF and Panacea U,  don't forget that many "skeptical" or contrary posts have been deleted, censored, edited away by Ashtweth and Aaron.

The Great Turkey Shoot   

I've seen that circuit before!  With the exception you note:

It is the power section of the Ainslie Quantum-17 article, of the "EIT" submission, of the IEEE submission and it is the Q1 portion of the 5-transistor NERD circuit. It is the power section of the circuit Ainslie tried to patent.

It is also the Unclamped Inductive Test circuit in the back of almost every N-ch power mosfet's data sheet, most especially that of the IRFPG50.... and it can also be found in the back pages of the IRFP450 mosfet as well.
As you know.

Interestingly, the data sheets also include the expected waveform at the DRAIN (Vds) and at the CURRENT MONITORING (Ias) point, when stimulated at the GATE by a rectangular pulse of duration Tp. And we find the notation to vary the pulse width in order to attain the required Source Current, ie Power in the Load. Sound familiar to anyone?

That is right. In addition to all of her other faults, it appears that Rosemary Ainslie is a plagiarist, even seeking to PATENT a circuit that has long been in the public domain.
 

The position of the shunt resistor is located in series with the Source, but that is the only real difference, and was done as such because all Rose's and Glen's circuits are this way.

That's right... but the circuits given in the 5-mosfet PAPERS show the same location as the diagrams in the data sheets exactly. IOW.... the diagrams in the PAPERS are false, because they didn't use the location they claim. Further, the diagram in the Quantum article is FALSE, the diagram in the IEEE submission is FALSE and the diagram in the "EIT" submission is FALSE: none of them correspond to the schematic that Steve Weir drew out from the photographs that Ainslie posted of her box.

But she has "sort of" withdrawn the NERD papers, even though anyone can still see them, without any statement of retraction (except StellaNokia's comments) ,  at Rossi's JNP, their "official publication".

She has yet to do anything about the Quantum paper lies, which have existed since 2002 and have been known by her and the public in general since 2009.