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

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: 514297
  • *Total Topics: 15303
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 248885 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #180 on: January 10, 2014, 07:43:45 AM »
Ms. Ainslie states on her blog that she does not understand some of my comments:

" I am to be credited with the 'public' reproduction of private tests at August 10 2013 where I apparently 'showed that the heat output from the heating element was only 20% of the energy drawn from the battery'????  Not at all sure what he's saying here. "

For Ms. Ainslie's benefit: 20% means 20 parts in 100, two parts in ten, or one fifth of a whole.  I direct Ms. Ainslie's attention to a portion of her own retraction statement for the source of the 20% figure:

"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." 

2.4W to 3.4W heat output for 14W to 15W input draw from the batteries amounts to 16% to 24% output/input efficiency.  IE the figures yield a median 20% value.  That low efficiency compares very unfavorably against a direct wire connection from the battery to the heating element which would have yielded very close to 100% output heating power versus input electrical power efficiency.   The August 11, demonstration participants: Ms. Ainslie, Donovan Martin, and Steve Weir can be heard discussing those results near the end of the August 11 demonstration.  Ms. Ainslie declared "absolutely" that the output heat power was a much smaller than the measured battery input power.  The fraction was so small that Ms. Ainslie canceled phase four of the demonstration as unnecessary.

The "benefit" that Ms. Ainslie claims, she and her collaborators have failed to demonstrate.  They have instead shown that the majority of energy drawn from the battery is lost in other parts of her circuit other than the target heating element.  In other words, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators have both shown and admitted that her Q-Array operated as she chose requires about five times as much input energy to evolve a given amount of output heat as an ordinary resistance heater.

I hope these expanded comments help Ms. Ainslie better understand my earlier post, and refresh her memory as to her own conclusions.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #181 on: January 10, 2014, 09:32:13 AM »
For those who may have come in late to the revelry, here is a clip from the long demonstration.

The first, short part of the clip illustrates the Ainslie team being surprised -- to the point of suspecting their apparatus -- by a perfectly normal and ordinary behaviour of their circuit, which Steve Weir figured out in seconds, once they had it together enough to present him with coherent data.

The second, longer part of the clip is the final portion of the demonstration, which Mark E. refers to above.

I have done absolutely no editing except to clip these out from the longer 4-hour stultifying recording of what has got to be the most amazing demonstration of incompetence in measurement that I have ever seen. (At one point in another clip the engineer Donovan Martin fumbles about for many minutes trying to determine the frequency of a simple near-sinusoidal signal on the digital oscilloscope, and is unable to do it.) The bad video is because these people decided to perform their important demonstration using a _cellphone_. The bad audio is because of the cellphone's connection and because the operator keeps putting his fingers over the microphone!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY
(Sorry, I didn't realize that the two clips are together in one segment. Edited away the first, redundant one.)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #182 on: January 10, 2014, 11:26:54 AM »
TinselKoala, from what I can tell Ms. Ainslie has confused some of your comments regarding the function generator.  This is a bit surprising because you have talked about it many times. 

Paper 1 shows the black lead of the function generator connected to the Q1 source pin side of the current sense resistors.  As you have said a number of times: because their function generator black lead connects to the function generator mains power green safety earth lead, and because their oscilloscope channel input ground leads all connect to its mains power green safety earth lead, had they connected their equipment as shown in Paper 1, Figure 1 as they said they did, they would have shorted out the current sense resistors through a large ground loop.  The function generator black lead on the Q1 side of the resistors would connect through the function generator green earth wire to the oscilloscope green earth wire and back to the channel input ground wires both connected to the battery side of the current sense resistors. 

Donovan Martin said during the June 29 video that they had at least then connected the function generator black lead instead to the battery negative connection on the white breadboard.  His comments may be verified by observing the location of the black function generator lead.  Moving the lead from the position documented in Paper 1 eliminated the ground loop, but also bypassed function generator current around the current sense resistor.  Your comments that they could not and did not measure the current contribution from the function generator is exactly correct.  Ms. Ainslie vociferously argued that there was no such contribution until the demonstration August 11 proved her wrong.

With the help of outside advisers, including poynt99, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators set-up the August 10, August 11 tests as per Paper 1, but broke the ground loop by disconnecting the green safety lead at the function generator AC plug connection.  At poynt99's suggestion, for one test, they inserted an additional current sense resistor between the function generator black lead and the Q1 source side of the white breadboard CSR bank.  That resistor allowed them to measure the function generator contributed current isolated from Q1 and Q2 currents. During the Q1 OFF / Q2 oscillation period, they found 250mW to 400mW power supplied by the function generator. 

Another important observation that resulted only because Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators cooperated with poynt99 was their finding that where they had previously thought that their circuit was recharging the battery during the Q1 OFF / Q2 oscillation period, the reality is exactly the opposite:  During the Q1 OFF / Q2 oscillation phase, the battery supplied power to the circuit.  Presently, Ms. Ainslie declares:

"But the loss of energy from the battery during the 'OFF PERIOD' has NOT BEEN PROVED.  ONLY PROPOSED."

If Ms. Ainslie would review the video of her August 11 demonstration, then she can see for herself the battery power draw she and her collaborators measured during the Q1 "OFF PERIOD".

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #182 on: January 10, 2014, 11:26:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #183 on: January 10, 2014, 01:28:27 PM »
Again, Mark E., thanks for that expanded summary. The demo where the ground pin was removed was of course not quite public; I was specifically excluded from watching it. Ainslie clearly doesn't understand the groundloop issue, even if Martin might. It's not possible for me to know just where or how hookups were made or what the results were, but reports are that the current from the FG was indeed easily measured during this part of the demonstration. Ainslie remains muddled about a lot of things. For example, it was shown BY ME, long ago, that a negative bias voltage supplied in lieu of the Function Generator would produce continuous Q2 oscillations. The ACTUAL process by which Q2 is turned on and made to oscillate with the supply of a negative bias voltage is detailed in the video series that I posted a couple of days ago. In addition, the current from the FG was measured, long ago, and the issue was fully explored by me and by .99 in 2011 and 2012, long before Ainslie could even admit that the FG could act as a current path or source for the circuit. Continuous Q2 oscillations are very easy to produce by using a bias battery or power supply. No FG is needed... all that is really needed is a proper understanding of how the circuit operates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8_ZTBtyTvo (uploaded to YT on July 14, 2013)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE (uploaded to YT on June 30, 2013)

Note again that Ainslie is claiming that the circuit that is in the Quantum "box" NOW, which Steve Weir diagrammed and which I have tested, has something to do with the 2002 report in Quantum magazine (hardly a "peer reviewed" journal). She still has not confronted the issue of the 555 CHIP manufactured in 2007 that could not have been in the box for the Quantum article, nor the issue that the present "box" circuit operates at a much higher frequency than the article claimed, AND it uses a completely different mosfet, AND it only has one variable potentiometer where the Quantum circuit has two. It is simply another of Ainslie's trademark mendacities to pretend that the "box" circuit has anything to do with the earlier Quantum article. In fact the "box" circuit was built sometime AFTER May of 2007, to make the frequency and dutycycle combo that Glen Lettenmeier found in his work, not the other way around.

Ainslie is in a rather peculiar position in that she pretends to be able to criticise my demonstrations... yet she does not bother to watch them, or ask her "team" to watch them and "debunk" them. At one time she promised to take them each and tell us specifically what she finds wrong with them. I would love it if she would fulfil that particular promise. It would be high comedy indeed.

(Go ahead... ask her to provide a link to the "replication" that she claims was performed by "joit". But don't hold your breath waiting for it. )

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #184 on: January 10, 2014, 02:52:49 PM »
TinselKoala you are welcome.  Video from the August 11 demonstration is available among other places on Rosemary Ainslie's blog.  They made a point of showing that they had disconnected the function generator green wire.

As far as I gather, Ms. Ainslie does not believe that it is important that she did or ever will publish the exact circuit used for the experiments she reported on in the 2002 magazine article.  Were reasonably accurate timings known, then the details of the timing circuit would not be very important to the truth or falsity of the claimed discovery.   Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge Ms. Ainslie never published oscilloscope shots of what they measured when preparing that article.  This leaves everyone guessing as to what Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators actually observed.

Of late Ms. Ainslie expresses the view that only the duty cycle is important, and not the pulse frequency.  Seeing as that people have tested at the duty-cycle and frequency combination reported in the magazine article and did not see the gains that she reported, then either the both frequency and duty cycle really are important, or as with the Paper 1 and Paper 2, the gains that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators reported were the result of measurement errors.  Ms. Ainslie insists that cannot be the case because she says that independent experts repeated her reported results.  Unfortunately, none of these independent experts have ever stepped forward.  The recently retrieved test fixture does not help much because without making permanent wiring and component changes, it cannot be configured to match either the schematic in the magazine article or to produce the timing stated in the magazine article.

The argument for measurement error is very strong.  You have shown that the combination of pulse frequency, but inverted duty cycle is attainable using the circuit depicted in the magazine article.  As you have shown that would account for much of what was reported in the magazine article.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #184 on: January 10, 2014, 02:52:49 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #185 on: January 10, 2014, 04:43:21 PM »
For example, it was shown BY ME, long ago, that a negative bias voltage supplied in lieu of the Function Generator would produce continuous Q2 oscillations. The ACTUAL process by which Q2 is turned on and made to oscillate with the supply of a negative bias voltage is detailed in the video series that I posted a couple of days ago.
TK,

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I discovered and posted about this prior to your demonstrations. I even designed a "High Frequency Burst Oscillator" which takes advantage of this negative bias.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #186 on: January 10, 2014, 05:43:41 PM »
TK,

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I discovered and posted about this prior to your demonstrations. I even designed a "High Frequency Burst Oscillator" which takes advantage of this negative bias.
Yes, I'm sure you did. You did a lot of analysis while I was still "on a break". I think my earliest video illustrating continuous oscillations using a separate bias battery was probably this one, from April 2012:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU

While looking for that, I also found this old thing, from August 2009, where I actually do boil water using the Quantum single-mosfet circuit, driven by a pulse generator instead of the 555 circuit, and I show several interesting things on the Fluke Scopemeter's display including the aliased combs that Ainslie claimed were "random aperiodic Hartley oscillations" when her sycophants made them at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #186 on: January 10, 2014, 05:43:41 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #187 on: January 11, 2014, 01:20:54 AM »
TK,

If you look at the posts from around that time, you'll see that Rose was reluctant to believe that all that was needed to make her circuit operate was a negative DC bias. And partially to prove it (and partially to use it for power testing tutorials), I designed the high frequency burst oscillator. I never did build and test it, but it worked quite nicely in the sim, and one can not really tell the difference between its output and that from her circuit, when mine is in burst or pulse mode (also does continuous oscillation mode).

PS. The file date on the scope capture "burst_osc_scope01.png" is 2011-07-13.
 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #188 on: January 11, 2014, 05:17:55 AM »
Yes, that work of yours took place while I was working on something else. I didn't resume work on Ainslie's claims until February or March of 2012, according to the video record. 2011 was taken up with other things of greater importance. I doubt if I was really paying much attention to Ainslie in 2011, although I did try to keep up with the forum posts. I stopped playing around with the single mosfet Quantum system in late 2009, then did a lot of work on Steorn's Orbo claims during 2010. Then a little bit of Rossi e-kitty rebuttal in early 2011.
How time flies when you're having fun, eh?
 ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #188 on: January 11, 2014, 05:17:55 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #189 on: January 11, 2014, 05:36:14 AM »
Indeed.

And how much fun did we have kicking Steorn's butt over the bogus Orbo pulse motor measurements? Damn I did a lot of sims on that thing too.  :o

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #190 on: January 11, 2014, 07:10:41 AM »
And I did a lot of bench work. I think I must have wound and tested 12 pairs of toroids on "Orbette 2.0".

At least the lads had stumbled upon an interesting effect, what I call "core effect", and came up with a pulse motor using it. I was surprised at how such a relatively weak effect could result in a pulse motor that worked so well, in terms of acceleration and torque.

Too bad there didn't turn out to be anything interesting or significant like that, in Ainslie's mashup. In her case the psychological factors are what amazes.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #190 on: January 11, 2014, 07:10:41 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #191 on: January 11, 2014, 07:19:57 AM »
poynt99 you've done some really good investigative work on this.  It is terribly unfortunate that Ms. Ainslie elects to dismiss your fine work and cast dispersions on you.

As you probably know Ms. Ainslie continues to insist against all verifiable evidence that she has demonstrated "Unity Barrier" violations, IE more energy out than in.  She continues to make declarations that directly contradict her own demonstrations and other well-established facts.  Ms. Ainslie insists that whatever circuit and whatever operating conditions were actually the basis of the magazine article that they were successfully replicated, "accredited", and endorsed by qualified professionals acting on behalf of their employers.  Ms. Ainslie has failed to produce any statement from any such third party expert or their employer.  Ms. Ainslie would do her claims a world of good were she to actually produce such an endorsement.

Ms. Ainslie invokes Greg East's experiments as confirmation of her own.  There are many flaws with that assertion, the first of which is that Mr. East reports outputs in the area of 125% of input whereas Ms. Ainslie claims outputs of 1600% of input and more.  Disparities of these magnitudes are not comparable.  Further, Ms. Ainslie's own demonstrations have shown that she has relied on faulty measurements that yielded false impressions of ~10X or more gains where in actuality she and her collaborators demonstrated the circuits as were only ~20% efficient. 

Ms. Ainslie now charges that the sound protocols that you suggested, and that she accepted were "FAR from satisfactory".  Ms. Ainslie does not elaborate on what it is that she finds lacking in those methods, or why she chose to use protocols she believes to be unsatisfactory in her demonstrations, or why she agreed with the measurement results that those methods produced as can be seen in the demonstration video. 

Finally, in Ms. Ainslie's most recent posting she forcefully asserts: 

"The current flow measured directly at the negative terminal of the battery shows NO discharge during the 'OFF' period." 

That is incorrect.  The August 11 demonstration video shows battery current draw as measured reliably at the battery during the 'OFF' period.  Any who care to take the time can review the video of the August 11 demonstration and observe the fact that the battery discharges during both the 'ON' and 'OFF' periods of the Q1 MOSFET.  This is most readily observed during measurements reliably taken at the batteries themselves, which is a set-up that you skillfully suggested, and Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators accepted.


 




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #192 on: January 11, 2014, 07:39:47 AM »
If your test protocols or measurements produce results that Ainslie doesn't like, then they are wrong, QED. Ainslie will never tell you how or why, nor will she produce any kind of experimental demonstration of why they are wrong. Simply disagreeing with Ainslie is enough to make you "wrong". And when the evidence that she is indeed wrong, utterly and completely, becomes overwhelming, she simply brushes the issue under the rug. Like the issue of the 555 timer chip, manufactured in 2007, that is in the box she claims has been untouched since 2003.

What is more curious, and  laughable, about Ainslie is that things that are right one day, become wrong the next, as you have pointed out. Ainslie and .99 and SWeir agreed beforehand on what was to be tested and how, and what the criteria would be for passing or failing the test of claims. These procedures and constraints were 'right', discussed, accepted and approved .... until they proved Ainslie to be wrong, and then they became "FAR from satisfactory" in Ainslie's fantasy. Yet she cannot explain why or suggest better, alternative procedures and criteria. She continues to talk about "battery run down testing" but has never actually performed this kind of test in spite of opportunity after opportunity and promise after promise. Yet those who HAVE performed such tests, using precise replications of her _claimed_ circuit and her _claimed_ waveforms, have uniformly found that there is no gain in battery performance; IOW that the batteries are run down at normal rates by the Ainslie circuits, just as measurements of current draw would predict.

Ainslie repeatedly chatters about these replications and confirmations by engineers from various companies, a decade ago, without any documentation of any kind. Not an email, not a graph or receipt, nothing has EVER been offered as evidence in support of Ainslie's claims in this regard. Yet she continues to make them. But we have all seen how she distorts and misrepresents statements made by others, and she can't even provide an accurate and coherent account of events that occurred three or four months ago, much less ten or twelve years ago. Without checkable, independent outside evidence, one cannot take _anything_ that Ainslie says at face value. The story of the various schematics is just one such story. Nobody really knows, to this day, what _actual_ circuit was used for any of Ainslie's reported "experiments". Only the visual record of the demonstrations, which provide photographic evidence of the actual apparatus, can be trusted.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #193 on: January 11, 2014, 08:04:04 AM »
Ainslie also egregiously misrepresents my work and my findings. For example, she whines that I haven't reproduced certain waveforms. However, I have indeed reproduced every waveform Ainslie and her teams have ever presented, and I've explained how. Ainslie has even mistaken a screen image of waveforms from my work, taken on a borrowed Tek scope, for one of her own! I've demonstrated several different ways that the bogus Figure 3 scopeshot could have been obtained. Ainslie now is representing that they were able to reproduce the Figure 3 data during their demonstration. What she forgets to mention is that their "reproduction" was accomplished by hooking their oscilloscope up incorrectly, differently from the locations given on the schematic. So what? She seems to think that repeating this vast error somehow legitimizes the shot! On the contrary, it demonstrates willfull fabrication of data, because the Figure 3 is known to be bogus, yet appears in the manuscripts anyway and is key to the conclusions drawn about the claims made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wy8w9MWJY

At least one completely bogus claim has been removed from "current" edits of Ainslie's daft manuscripts. But the internet never forgets -- see the image below.


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #194 on: January 11, 2014, 08:25:13 AM »
If your test protocols or measurements produce results that Ainslie doesn't like, then they are wrong, QED. ...
Years ago there was a scientist whose comments I admired who had a tag line something like:  "patience, persistence, truth".  I think that is a very wise approach.  I try as I can to emulate his philosophy by focusing on the data.  In terms of dealing with Ms. Ainslie I am interested in any data she presents as it relates to her extraordinary claims.

 

OneLink