Ainslie has never engaged in the kind of back-and-forth discussion involving actual points, evidence pro and con. She simply asserts. The notable exceptions being the past two demonstrations, where the Ainslie team was (just barely) responsive to suggestions that they perform particular manipulations of the apparatus and instrumentation. And we know what happened then!

Meanwhile, since she is emitting another of her trademark Blue Rants, shouting her false claims and ridiculous assertions once again, I thought I might provide a slight gloss for my playlist.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V

#1 Shows how the mosfet can be biased ON by applying a negative voltage to the _Source_ pin while the Gate remains at zero voltage. Also illustrates linear operation: the mosfet behaves perfectly normally, just as it should, even though the Gate is pinned to the negative rail and grounded.

#2 Shows how the Function Generator exactly replaces the biasing battery in the simple circuit. Note that the _Source_ pin of the mosfet is COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED PHYSICALLY from everything except the Function Generator and the scope probe. This is the condition Ainslie refers to as "floating". She believes that there is no current path in this condition so it is impossible, in her mind, for the load to be receiving power from the battery. However.... we know, and this video shows UNEQUIVOCALLY, that the FG completes the current path for the main circuit and the load is energized completely normally, just as before, when the _Source_ of the mosfet is lowered to at least 4 volts _below_ the zero voltage level at the negative pole of the battery.

#3 Demonstrates the previous but using the IRFPG50 mosfet with longer wires and some additional inductance in the battery supply jumpers. Then I demonstrate the effects of the FG's Amplitude and Offset knobs on scope traces and circuit behaviour. The result may surprise you... Depending on the settings of the two knobs, scope traces that appear identical can produce different or even _exactly opposite_ circuit behaviour. This is one reason why the open-circuit voltages that the FG is producing, must be known for any particular data point, if the circuit's settings are to be replicated. This information is totally  missing in all of Ainslie's reportage. Nobody has any idea how Ainslie's FG was set, since the Amplitude and Offset settings interact and she never measured the open-circuit voltages. At the end of the video a little low-amplitude parasitic oscillation can be seen on the traces.

#4 Here I remove the non-linear light bulb load and put in a 10 ohm wirewound resistive load, along with a Current Viewing Resistor. Now we have the Q2 portion of the Ainslie circuit complete. Note that around 4:00 in the video I reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot's essential features: Substantial gate drive at or near 12 volts, with no current in the "Q1 ON" portions (since there is no Q1!) and plentiful high amplitude oscillations in the Q1 OFF portions of the duty cycle. All the while, the _Source_ of the mosfet is "floating" according to Ainslie: the only current path to complete the circuit is through the Function Generator. The Function Generator is acting like a battery in series with the negative side of the main battery. Further, I demonstrate determining the frequency of the oscillation, quickly and easily, using the analog scope, and I demonstrate yet again that the common English word "Per" indicates a mathematical division operation.

#4a&b Here I once again remove the FG and substitute a battery and a light bulb in series. (In all these demonstrations the Source of the mosfet is "floating" according to Ainslie, since it is disconnected from everything except the Function Generator.) This arrangement produces constant "Q2" oscillations, and the fact that the light bulb glows, proves unequivocally that current flows in this part of the circuit. The relationship to Ainslie's circuit should be abundantly clear since I use portions of the "standard" Ainslie schematic to show the exact arrangement I am using. Again, at around 3:45 I demonstrate the Figure 3 critical features... easy to do, since there is no Q1 to turn on, it is possible to get the full +12 volts Gate drive without allowing any current to flow. The edges of the oscillation bursts are examined at high resolution on the scope to show that they appear just exactly like the scope traces that Ainslie has provided at similar resolution. Then I once again show the FG removed and the bias battery inserted instead, with a bulb showing current flow.

#4c Here I demonstrate that the circuit, when oscillating, radiates significant power in the RF, contrary to Ainslie's claim. This radiation can interfere with the proper operation of sensitive equipment like digital thermometers. At the end of the video I switch the FG to produce a triangle ramp waveform to drive the mosfet... and we see scope traces very like some of the "weird" ones Ainslie didn't put in the daft manuscripts, but which can be viewed in the archive.

#5 Finally in this part I reassemble the complete circuit (but with a single Q2 instead of 4.) The current flows in the entire circuit are illustrated using DMMs and the oscilloscope. Now, with an operating Q1 in place and the instruments correctly connected, it is no longer possible to obtain something that looks like Figure 3: the current rises in Q1 as the gate voltage increases past +4 volts during the Q1 ON portions of the cycle.



Do I expect Ainslie to watch, think about, and discuss these videos coherently, considering the points they make and their implications for her claims and her "thesis"? Of course I do not. I present them merely to show, once again, just how comprehensively and thoroughly she has been refuted in her claims, and how ridiculous her protestations and her misrepresentations of my work are.

Thank you... we aim to please.

Posted on July 9, 2013:
What does the CSR channel actually measure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w

Posted on July 30, 2012:
Mosfets: How Do They Work, Part 9:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUcx3haZbA



Actually the two capacitor videos, from July 4 2012,  are probably a prerequisite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-5UPbSrv8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo

Hi Mark,

I just wanted to say we are grateful to have your presence here and a belated welcome.  I burnt out on the Ainslie drama a long time ago but I was once a protagonist (antagonist?)  It's an exercise in spinning wheels in mud from my perspective.

Anyway I hope that you have some fun around here.  Beware of compressed magnetic potential energy balls, wear goggles!

MileHigh

TK:

Didn't you mean MOSFETS?  I am sure this was just an oversight on your part....ha ha.  I'm sorry, I could not help myself.  Yet something else Rose was attempting to redefine.

Bill

I think it's absolutely hilarious that she objects to my non-capitalization of the acronym. I always respond by telling her there is no such thing as a MOSFET.... the device is a Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor and if she doesn't write it out IN FULL every time, she is a dirty, dirty, dirty sinner.

TinselKoala, thanks.  Those are both great demonstrations. 

If you are willing it would be great if you could shoot a video similar to the first video but where you actually connect the scope probe to the current sense resistor so that we have a direct reproduction of the latter part of the June.

Even if you do not shoot an additional video, you've already demonstrated the electronic principles involved that account for effects seen in the June 29, and August 11 demonstration videos. 

Thanks again.

Oh, sorry. I meant to put this one in too. Posted June 27, 2013:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdZAPZG6Fyo

You are welcome, again.

Note that I use an insulated load cell, with the load resistor element immersed in 250 ml of mineral oil (specific heat 0.84), and the thermometer measures the temperature of the oil, not some unknown combination of oil and element temperature. Readings are generally taken after agitation. Thus, a measured temperature rise of the oil allows one to calculate fairly accurately the actual input of energy to the load cell. Further, by looking at the time it takes for the load cell to return to ambient after being warmed, I know the "leak rate" of the cell, so that I can refine the energy calculation even more.

Ainslie's temperature data, I believe, is seriously flawed due to her naive methodology. She has her load element dangling in mid-air with the temperature thermocouple attached directly to the metal housing, or perhaps only suspended near it at times, since she repeatedly talks about temperature "over" the load resistor. I don't trust the DC temperature calibration data for this reason. We haven't discussed the thermometry much up to this point, but this is another area where the experimental technique and data interpretation of the Ainslie team is seriously flawed.

Do you see? I told you that she would not be responsive to a reasoned discussion of actual points. She persists in maintaining those fictions which her own data disprove. I will wager that she has not even watched the recordings of her farcical demonstrations.... and I will point out that the screenshots which Steve Weir guided them to make have never been posted publicly as they agreed to do... in fact Ainslie has never even mentioned them again.



There are "innocent" mistakes, and then there are deliberate falsifications. You may think that innocence deserves gentler treatment, and perhaps it does, but I reserve my right to berate people for the deliberate falsifications and cover-ups. And when "mistakes" persist for years after they have been pointed out and paths to correction defined.... then those who commit them become highly beratable, in my book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4

if you know all this, tell me then why keep wasting your time on this?
is it because you feel you need to prove something to somebody?
don't you see its a waste of time?
Just publishing the your test results would be sufficiënt.
you can use that precious time to work on real things.
but then again, what is real? how would you define real? it seems that real is simply electrical signals interpeted by the brain.
and then again, you would not recognize overunity if it bit you in the arse..

nope too busy making screenshots in stead of scopeshots, too busy running ancient and out dated routines...
it takes practice to break the habbits.

Why don't you tell me, newbie Turbo, just what you think "overunity" looks like, and why I might not recognize it if it bit me in the arse. Please be sure to include lots of references to your own work, and some demonstrations of "overunity", so I'll know what to look out for.

Also, you should check with the person who is forcing you to look at this thread, and ask him why he's not leaving you alone so you can work on your own "routines".