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: 514352
  • *Total Topics: 15304
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 9

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 249098 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #285 on: January 21, 2014, 06:53:55 AM »
Why, Poynty.... have you been holding out on us? Ainslie says that you have a "faithful" copy of her device! Different in some significant way from my Tar Baby, is it? And you've been doing draw-down tests for three months!!

And she used, in "early days"... an IGBT !!  All these years and this is the first we've ever heard about it. What was that circuit, I wonder? What was its operating frequency and duty cycle? What a hoot this Ainslie is!

I have repeatedly offered to have Tar Baby tested side-by-side with Ainslie's apparatus, or any other "replication" of Ainslie's apparatus, to see if there are any differences in waveforms, heating or battery performance. Tar Baby is ready to go, to any qualified third party who can conduct the tests. Tar Baby uses the same components as Ainslie has claimed to use, can be quickly configured to _any_ of the many different schematics Ainslie has claimed to use, and gives the same waveforms for the same input settings as Ainslie has demonstrated. Ainslie has always avoided any kind of direct comparison like this because she KNOWS that my work with Tar Baby has comprehensively demolished each and every claim she has made about "her" circuit. The challenge to prove that her circuit performs any differently from Tar Baby has been made for several years now. She has even mistaken my Tek DSO scopeshots from Tar Baby experiments as being her own!

Now Ainslie claims to have used an IGBT, in the "early days". This is laughable in the extreme. Early days, 12 or 14 years ago? Used an IGBT? Right.

And they've noticed that the Quantum single mosfet circuit, or some unspecified variation of it, does not oscillate the way that the 5-mosfet circuit does. Surprise surprise!


(Can't run at an output of 30 watts without NUKING her transistors??? That's absurd, and is definitely disproved by her own published data.)


Where are these suggestions that Ainslie claims were made by Mark E? 30 Watts, capacitors.... ???

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #286 on: January 21, 2014, 07:05:29 AM »
TinselKoala the only statement of any value in Ms. Ainslie's post is that they are conducting some new tests.  The rest is noise.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #287 on: January 21, 2014, 07:33:25 AM »
TinselKoala the only statement of any value in Ms. Ainslie's post is that they are conducting some new tests.  The rest is noise.

"They" being the same crew, unsupervised, that cannot read a frequency from a digital oscilloscope, the crew that made the Figure 3 scopeshot "error" and persisted with it for years, the crew that has demonstrated over and over their incompetence in making and interpreting simple measurements, the crew that doesn't know the difference between a Watt and a Joule?

I can hardly wait for her "complete report" of this new testing.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #287 on: January 21, 2014, 07:33:25 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #288 on: January 21, 2014, 09:11:29 AM »
TinselKoala, their prior demonstrations showed that outside guidance made a huge difference.  I doubt they have such help for this go round as evidenced by the procedures Ms. Ainslie has published that  are IMO very poor.  I think that the best they can hope for is that if they report some really extraordinary results that someone will then test using reliable methods and a similar test device. 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #289 on: January 21, 2014, 11:05:11 AM »
TinselKoala, their prior demonstrations showed that outside guidance made a huge difference.  I doubt they have such help for this go round as evidenced by the procedures Ms. Ainslie has published that  are IMO very poor.  I think that the best they can hope for is that if they report some really extraordinary results that someone will then test using reliable methods and a similar test device.

You mean like Deja Vu all over again?

Several years ago she did just that. She reported some really extraordinary results. Someone.... many people, actually, like Aaron, Ashtweth, DrStiffler, Glen Lettenmeier, Poynt99, and many others, including " Little TK " .... tested them using reliable methods and similar test devices. And we all demonstrated -- eventually -- that her claims were false, unsupported by what verifiable data she herself emitted, and full explanations for each and every feature of her apparatus and its performance were given, long ago.

You are right, the procedures she has proposed are naive, very poor.  You will never see data from proper control experiments from the Ainslie crew.  She whines and complains, asserts that my Tar Baby is somehow different from her kludge.... yet she cannot specify how or why she claims this. Tar Baby does everything her version does (how could it not, it's the same circuit!), and in fact I've used it to demonstrate many things she cannot even grasp, like the Q1 oscillations that caused her crew to believe that their FG was malfunctioning!   Her silly protests that I or others have not reproduced her circuit and its behaviour are just that: silly, naive, and mendacious.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #289 on: January 21, 2014, 11:05:11 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #290 on: January 21, 2014, 01:42:11 PM »
TinselKoala, this time around they at least have experience with using better experiment and measurement methods.  Whether they do better than before or fall back into bad practices: only time will tell.   From the procedures they say they intend to use the likelihood that they will produce reliable data is pretty poor.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #291 on: January 21, 2014, 03:58:15 PM »
Mark E. as a relative newcomer to the Ainslie farce, perhaps you aren't aware that Ainslie actually sent, or so she claims, her entire actual apparatus off to a laboratory, allegedly in the USA, for testing and evaluation, a year or two ago. Unfortunately for Ainslie, this laboratory did NOT lose the apparatus, nor was anyone fired for testing it. They returned it to her intact, with extras. This laboratory failed to confirm her claims wrt excess heat, battery charging, battery longevity, and etc. They did see, as have we all seen, the "negative power product" and they explained it to her as instrument artifact caused by the same reasons we have explained: her poor procedures, bad choice of components and ignorant interpretations of instrument indications. When the apparatus was returned to her, they actually told her how to improve her testing, and suggested tests for her to perform. They even included, according to Ainslie, some "special resistors" for her to try. I think, had she followed through with their suggestions, the demonstrations of last June and August would have gone very differently, had they proceeded at all.  Since Ainslie has been uncooperative and uncommunicative about this testing, we still don't know the part numbers of these special resistors or whether they were to be used as non-inductive current-viewing shunts, or perhaps alternate loads. Nor have we ever seen any information as to the identity of this laboratory, who the principals are, and we haven't seen their official report.... and we never will.
She was able to use the excuse of having sent off the apparatus, to "explain" why she didn't do any testing at all for a long time, contrary to her earlier promises and claims.

Ainslie has a long and documented history of not reporting data that does not, in her mind, support her claims.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #291 on: January 21, 2014, 03:58:15 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #292 on: January 21, 2014, 04:28:05 PM »
TinselKoala, that's an interesting story.  I don't expect much of any value to come from Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.  If however they do produce interesting data, I am willing to evaluate it.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #293 on: January 21, 2014, 04:40:03 PM »
TinselKoala, that's an interesting story.  I don't expect much of any value to come from Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.  If however they do produce interesting data, I am willing to evaluate it.

Even though you know, or might believe based on previous track records, that the data will be heavily cherry-picked, selected carefully and heavily edited?

Do you know: the first "edits" of her daft manuscripts that appeared on her vanity honey-pot forum actually had some of the channel baseline markers deliberately edited out from some of the scopeshots, so that observers would not be able to read the traces themselves? When we noticed and commented on this, the excuse was made that this was a result of "compression" or other file transfer artefacts. Curious compression artefacts that deleted ONLY this critical info, and only from scopeshots where it was indeed significant......

Of course once these discrepancies failed to get past her audience, the unedited original images which included the baseline markers were restored.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: One cannot trust ANY data from the Ainslie mob unless it can be replicated at home by oneself.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #293 on: January 21, 2014, 04:40:03 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #294 on: January 21, 2014, 04:52:19 PM »
TinselKoala, unreliable garbage does not interest me.  It's true that a person's track record is a reasonable barometer of what to expect from them.  It is not a 100% predictor.  We will see if they publish anything and if they do what it looks like. 

BTW: Steve hasn't said anything to me about having any involvement with what they are doing.  If they are getting guidance from anyone it is probably not from Steve.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #295 on: January 22, 2014, 06:20:22 PM »
Well, you have to wonder.... how long _does_ it take to heat up 800 grams of water with a static level of 24 volts over an hour?

 :o

Perhaps she seeks to generate some kind of data plot like this one, from data I collected back in 2009 on the single-mosfet circuit with a particular oil-immersion load cell. This plot demonstrates that the Q-17 circuit, operated close to the duty cycle and frequency range specified in the Quantum article, is less efficient than straight "static level" DC from a regulated power supply, conveyed to the _same_ load cell, not a different one, using direct wire connection.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #295 on: January 22, 2014, 06:20:22 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #296 on: January 22, 2014, 07:09:59 PM »
TinselKoala that is yet another of your excellent experiments.  By the looks of things whoever is performing tests for Ms. Ainslie, it looks like they are performing calibration runs.  That would be a good thing to do and if that is what is happening, it suggests that they really do want to generate valid data.

If one were to use the Q-Array as demonstrated August 11, then the curves would have been radically different, reflective of the 5:1 advantage of a simple resistance heater with no other circuitry, over the resistance heater with the Q-Array circuit operating in its oscillating mode.  If anyone cares to perform the tests they will find that efficiency of the Q-Array gets better and better the greater the Q1 on duty-cycle is.  The best efficiency is with a 100% Q1 on duty cycle.  And due to the choice of the IRFPG50 MOSFET, as you have already noted, the efficiency still stands substantial improvement by replacing Q1 with a wire from drain to source.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #297 on: January 23, 2014, 03:54:59 PM »
That's right, and I've used the IRF830 mosfet in the "Q-array" circuit without difficulty throughout its range of operating parameters. This mosfet is much cheaper than the IRFPG50 and has a slightly lower Rdss of 1.5 Ohms. If one wants to leave Q1 on continuously.... then you don't even need any mosfets, and you can just plug a straight wire between the Q1 S and D connection locations. This will provide the most efficient heating of the load, of course. To put it another way, this will provide the _same heating_ in the _same load_ as the fully-populated mosfet version, but at a lower applied voltage from the power supply or battery.

We are at the point now where the Ainslie crew is struggling to find a testable hypothesis.

She has previously claimed that continuous Q2 oscillations were her goal: she expressed ecstasy when long blocks of oscillations occur, and it was her goal to make the longest possible periods of Q2 oscillations when the Figure 3 scopeshot was produced. (The FG is set to its very slowest frequency, the longest possible period of Q2 oscillation that her equipment could produce at that time. She has never demonstrated continuous Q2 oscillations, although her detractors have done so easily, by using the external negative bias supply. Since she does not grasp how this could be, she has never been able to reproduce it.)

Good luck on the "taking water to boil 800 mL" using Q2 oscillations only.

But the Quantum 17 circuit does not oscillate in the same manner. In fact the waveforms that she endorsed, coming from Glen Lettenmeier and that were replicated by Ainslie's team using the 555 timer circuit that was installed sometime AFTER 2007.... those waveforms do not indicate any oscillations, they are simply showing the signal from the timer circuit and the mosfet's response at the high frequency of the drive circuit (over a hundred times higher than the original Quantum magazine circuit can produce). And they show a PG50 mosfet that is being turned ON most of the time, due to its slow response to the high-frequency drive signal, despite the drive signal itself being set to a shorter ON duty cycle. Again.... there are better mosfets to use IF one is concerned about faithfully responding to the drive signal. But IF NOT..... well, we see what happens.

The cartoon drawing below, showing Q2s wired in Strict Parallel, but not acting in parallel, shows how garbled her "understanding" is and how she still cannot state a coherent, testable hypothesis containing operationalized constructs. "A circuit configured thus and so, operating at this specified duty cycle and frequency, will produce effects A and B, which are different from ordinary electronic effects, and which produce excess energy which manifests as C. " Or something like that. We know some of her desired effects. We do not know the circuit, or the operating details, nor do we know upon just what parameters her claims depend. Why don't we know these things? I know why we don't.

(The figure is Figure 9 from "Paper 2". It was drawn when Ainslie believed all 5 of her mosfets were indeed in parallel.... and she has never changed it. She has emitted some silly rationalizations for it, though. Note that the Source of Q1 is shown connected to the Source of Q2, the Gates are connected together, the Drains are connected together. )


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #298 on: January 23, 2014, 05:37:14 PM »
On August 11, with a 72V battery they were getting about 3W into their heater during the Q2 oscillations.  To take 800ml from 20C to 100C she will need 267kJ which with zero thermal leakage she can get in a brief 90,000 seconds, or just over a day.  To actually boil any water into dry vapor, she will then have to add another 2260 Joules for each gram, which will take about 12.5 minutes per gram.  Heating up a to coffee temperature of 60C will be a bit easier, that will only take 134kJ, or just over 12 hours with zero thermal leakage.

Yes, it is true that she does not know how body diodes apply, or don't apply to her circuit, whichever version that might be.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #299 on: January 25, 2014, 06:43:39 PM »
For anyone considering the promised February tests, here is some food for thought.  Take the simplest of circuits: A resistor divider with two resistors:  R1 and R2.  No matter what source drives the two resistors, the current through each of the resistors is the same due to Kirchhoff's Current Law.  That means that the power dissipated by each resistor is: 

P(R1) = R1*Iloop2
P(R2) = R2*Iloop2
P(R1)/PTOTAL = R1/(R1 + R2)

Why does this matter?  It matters because no matter what the power source in the circuit, including energy stored in any hypothetical environmental source, the proportion of that energy dissipated by each of the two resistors in the circuit depends on how big the respective device's resistance is relative to the total circuit resistance.  So, in the Ainslie circuit where one of the resistors is a heater element that outputs desired heat, that resistance should be big compared to the sum of all other resistances in the circuit.  If it is small compared to the other resistances, then it will only dissipate a small portion of the total energy used by the circuit.  In other words it will inefficiently use power from any and all sources:  the battery that supplies the circuit, and the intrinsic energy generator that Ms. Ainslie hypothesizes is part of R1 itself. 

Low efficiency due to R1 being a small portion of the overall average circuit resistance is in fact exactly what we saw in the August 11 demonstration.  If we suppose that Ms. Ainslie's hypothesis is correct, that a resistor has internal energy that it can be coaxed into releasing by applying pulses, or alternatively that the ambient environment will deliver energy to a resistor with the right amount of inductance when pulsed appropriately, then the best chance for detecting that energy occurs when the other circuit resistances are low.  This presents a problem for the Q-Array configuration, because the Q-Array configuration during the Q1 "OFF" times only conducts through the Q2 MOSFETs which only ever partially turn-on and almost all power passes through the internal 50 Ohm impedance of the function generator.


 

OneLink