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 Members: 83568
  • *Latest: XR IX

  • *Total Posts: 514889
  • *Total Topics: 15319
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 251233 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #315 on: January 27, 2014, 03:21:23 PM »
It's hilarious, isn't it? Ainslie seems to think that she isn't responsible for materials that carry her name as author and that she posted herself. If they contain "errors" or are caught in outright lies, she isn't responsible! She claims that Rossi's JNP posting consists of "publication", then she disavows them and refers to other, more recent edits that appear elsewhere. When some objection to her daft manuscript becomes overwhelming, she simply makes another edit. This has happened many times.
-when it was pointed out that the actual circuit showed the FG current bypass, the new edit appeared that showed the correct, but never used, FG hookup.
-when it was pointed out that the claim of dissipating 5.9 megaJoules was completely implausible under any circumstances... it vanished from a new edit.
-when it was discovered that the channel baseline markers were deliberately edited away from images, a new edit appeared that had them restored.

Yet the old versions still exist. For example, compare the text under Paper 1, Figure 7 in the "official publication" on Rossi's JNP

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645

with the same text in more recent edits of that manuscript, shown in the image below.

Ainslie accuses me again without any evidence. She claims that I've mocked her diagrams because they are hand-drawn. Contrariwise, I have never done this. I mock them because they are _silly_ and _wrong_.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2014, 07:41:26 PM by TinselKoala »

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 #316 on: January 27, 2014, 05:58:06 PM »
TinselKoala I looked at the two Figure 7's and associated texts.  I did not spot any differences.  Can you tell me what I should find?

Ms. Ainslie now claims that at least the battery voltage and current measurements taken at the battery during the August 11, 2013 demonstration are wrong.  She does so without showing any new measurements that she alleges are now correct.  What was proven wrong during that demonstration was the current measurements during the oscillations as measured on the white breadboard. 

In the schematic published by Ms. Ainslie for the demonstration, we can see that the current sense resistors on the breadboard are in the same DC loop as the current sense resistor added at the battery.  Yet the two gave very different results.  The disparate results were predicted by Poynt99 and others.  They result from the huge stray inductance of the wiring between the battery and the breadboard.  The measurements taken directly at the battery do not suffer the distortion those long lead wires impose on measurements taken at the fixture.  The errant measurements are at the white breadboard.  Those effects can of course be nulled should someone bypass the high frequency currents around the lead wires.  I realize that various people have suggested such things to Ms. Ainslie in the past and she was not receptive to those ideas.  If Ms. Ainslie is interested in the truth she could apply a good bypass network across the battery connections at the white breadboard and then compare the battery voltage and current measurements that result at the white breadboard versus those taken at the battery.

Ms. Ainslie has gone on to now deny what she and her collaborators eventually demonstrated June 29, 2013 as well:  That Figure 3 in Paper 1 was the result of measurement error.  Ms. Ainslie currently protests in effect that what is plainly visible in her own demonstrations should be rejected as false.  She does so neglecting to provide any evidence contrary to those demonstrations.

Ms. Ainslie is further unhappy that you have pointed out discrepancies in her schematics.  She offers this protest:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg5323/topicseen.html#msg5323

Quote
The paper has NOTHING to do with the schematic.  It has everything to do with the paths available for the flow of current through the transistors.

I don't know how Ms. Ainslie expects to convey the "paths available for the flow of current through the transistors" if she does not provide an accurate circuit schematic that depicts how those transistors were connected.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #317 on: January 27, 2014, 07:36:45 PM »
The text below Figure 7 in the "official publication" version on Rossi's JNP:
Quote
Steam was evident at all times when the temperature exceeded 62°C,
which points to a secondary exploitable potential.
At no stage  in  this  test  was  any  energy  depleted  by  the  batteries as
measured   in   the   math   trace   and   spreadsheet   analysis.
Therefore it is evident that it is possible to bring water to boil
without any depletion of potential difference from the supply.
Given 4.1 joules required to heat 1 gram of water by 1°C then
over  the  entire 1.6  hour  test  period  about  5  904 000  joules
were dissipated.  The batteries’ rated capacity is

...and the text stops there, and then continues on to major heading VII.

The same passage in the version on Ainslie's forum reads:
Quote
Steam was evident at all times when the temperature exceeded 62°C,
which points to a secondary exploitable potential.
[/size][/font]At no stage in this test was any energy depleted by the batteries
as measured in the math trace and spreadsheet analysis.
 Therefore it is evident that it is possible to bring water to boil
without any depletion of potential difference from the supply.
... and then goes on to major heading VII. The absurd claim of dissipating 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours is gone, as is the dangling sentence fragment that emphasizes the fact that they never disclosed the actual battery capacity.

It's clear from the accompanying scope traces and battery voltage measurements that indeed there _was_ depletion of potential difference from the supply. And again... the water wasn't actually boiling, according to Ainslie herself. They never measured the temperature of the water, just some combination of water and heating element temperature.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #317 on: January 27, 2014, 07:36:45 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #318 on: January 27, 2014, 10:58:12 PM »
TinselKoala, I see so she removed 5.9MJ claim from the forum version.  4.18J/gm/C * 850gm * (104C - 82C) comes out 78kJ on my calculator.  What inspired Ms. Ainslie to get a 75X higher figure is a bit of a mystery.  The report said that temperature rise took about 10 minutes, so making the inaccurate assumption that the water heated uniformly to 104C (assume poorly calibrated TCs) then the input power less leakage would have been about 130W.  For an 11 Ohm heater, that would have been an RMS voltage of 37.8V, which certainly could have been realized with a 72V battery stack and Q1 on about 25% of the time.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 02:01:46 AM by MarkE »

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #319 on: January 28, 2014, 02:26:02 AM »
From what I can tell, Ms. Ainslie is not content with Kirchhoff's current law.  She writes and though she presently believes that the current that flows through the negative terminal of a battery can be different than the current that flows at the same time through the positive terminal of the same battery.  Where this excess or deficit charge goes off to or comes from she is not saying.  She has at least committed herself to performing a test to measure the current flow to/from the positive battery terminal.

My guess as to what is going on is that Ms. Ainslie trusts the battery measurements taken at the white breadboard that give her values that she would like, and distrusts measurements that she reads at the battery that give her values that she does not like.  I suggest that if Ms. Ainslie is intent on measuring current at both the positive and negative terminal of the battery that she rent appropriate non-contact current sense probes.  That will eliminate the common mode issues that she will otherwise have to address.  LeCroy CP030 probes should be compatible with her LeCroy oscilloscope.  If she were to twist the lead wires between the battery and the white peg board together for at least one foot, and the pass that twisted pair through the CP030 such that the CP030 is midway along the twisted section, then she would find essentially no net current sensed.  That would prove that the current into or out of the negative terminal is identical to the simultaneous current out of or into the positive terminal, because according to Kirchhoff's Current Law, it is the same current.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #319 on: January 28, 2014, 02:26:02 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #320 on: January 28, 2014, 08:18:50 AM »
Ainslie is crippled by her mental models of electricity and current flow. As Donovan Martin said in the June 29 demo, "it is all about her Thesis". Ainslie has her non-physical set of delusions involving "zipons" and "truants" and other things and has no conception of the realities of electromagnetism or Quantum Electrodynamics. All her "experimental" work has been designed, constructed and performed in an effort to _prove her thesis_. She states this overtly many times in her various emissions. She has no idea of the true nature of the Scientific Method. She is convinced from the outset that her jumbled set of incoherent delusional fantasies about "zipons" and the rest is the Absolute Truth. She thinks her "thesis" is superior to and should replace QED! I am not kidding, her hubris and arrogant ignorance actually extend that far.

Her blinders therefore prevent her from seeing experimental evidence and reasoning logically about what she has seen. Further, she has no idea of the complexities of instrumental measurements of electrical parameters, nor is she able to deal with the simple mathematics involved, as we have seen many times in her botched arithmetic. Her idea of math is to multiply together everything in sight, and if a calculator says it, it must be right. Several times she has emitted statements that would seem to indicate that she believes "positive current" and "negative current" are different things and travel differently in circuit elements. Her cartoons in the second daft manuscript, for example, illustrate some of her misconceptions with respect to current flow. I am afraid there is no way that Ainslie will educate herself or allow herself to be educated, as she already "knows" the Truth.

MarkE, you are right about her data selection and cherry-picking. I have previously illustrated how she does this, and I've even posted her admission of ignoring and not reporting data that she didn't like or "understand". She will also attempt to "reinterpret" data in ways that are plainly incorrect and contradicted by the data themselves, such as her bogus Figure 3 scopeshot, where she insists it is giving a correct representation of the current in the circuit, when it plainly isn't and her own demonstrations proved it isn't. There is no hope that Ainslie herself will ever change. She will continue being an object of ridicule, putting forth her insults, false claims and stupid assertions, for as long as she has access to the internet.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #321 on: January 28, 2014, 10:06:58 AM »
Ainslie is crippled by her mental models of electricity and current flow. As Donovan Martin said in the June 29 demo, "it is all about her Thesis". Ainslie has her non-physical set of delusions involving "zipons" and "truants" and other things and has no conception of the realities of electromagnetism or Quantum Electrodynamics. All her "experimental" work has been designed, constructed and performed in an effort to _prove her thesis_. She states this overtly many times in her various emissions. She has no idea of the true nature of the Scientific Method. She is convinced from the outset that her jumbled set of incoherent delusional fantasies about "zipons" and the rest is the Absolute Truth. She thinks her "thesis" is superior to and should replace QED! I am not kidding, her hubris and arrogant ignorance actually extend that far.

Her blinders therefore prevent her from seeing experimental evidence and reasoning logically about what she has seen. Further, she has no idea of the complexities of instrumental measurements of electrical parameters, nor is she able to deal with the simple mathematics involved, as we have seen many times in her botched arithmetic. Her idea of math is to multiply together everything in sight, and if a calculator says it, it must be right. Several times she has emitted statements that would seem to indicate that she believes "positive current" and "negative current" are different things and travel differently in circuit elements. Her cartoons in the second daft manuscript, for example, illustrate some of her misconceptions with respect to current flow. I am afraid there is no way that Ainslie will educate herself or allow herself to be educated, as she already "knows" the Truth.

MarkE, you are right about her data selection and cherry-picking. I have previously illustrated how she does this, and I've even posted her admission of ignoring and not reporting data that she didn't like or "understand". She will also attempt to "reinterpret" data in ways that are plainly incorrect and contradicted by the data themselves, such as her bogus Figure 3 scopeshot, where she insists it is giving a correct representation of the current in the circuit, when it plainly isn't and her own demonstrations proved it isn't. There is no hope that Ainslie herself will ever change. She will continue being an object of ridicule, putting forth her insults, false claims and stupid assertions, for as long as she has access to the internet.
It is an interesting position that she has put herself into.  She obviously wants qualified people to take her unique ideas seriously.  That simply can't happen the way that she seems to be going about things.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #321 on: January 28, 2014, 10:06:58 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #322 on: January 28, 2014, 03:23:20 PM »
That's right. The only way she can get any attention is to misrepresent, exaggerate, and lie about what she has or has not done. If she told the truth she would have faded away long ago.

Look at what she has to say about QED! She cannot even attempt to understand what it means for a theory to make accurate predictions of many different quantities, accurate and precise to many decimal places. She pretends QED is some little set of inconsequential postulates, her being utterly incapable of comprehending what it actually is.

Consulting the Wiki:

Quote
In particle physics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where FULL AGREEMENT between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved. QED mathematically describes ALL PHENOMENA involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a COMPLETE ACCOUNT of matter and light interaction.
In technical terms, QED can be described as a perturbation theory of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Richard Feynman called it "the jewel of physics" for its EXTREMELY ACCURATE PREDICTIONS of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.[1]
(emphasis mine)

To tell Ainslie that QED makes predictions that are precise to thirteen significant digits is a waste of breath .... she has no clue what is meant by accuracy, precision, significant digits, or theoretical predictions. Nor does she realize that any "thesis" that pretends to be better than QED has to make all the same correct predictions, and more, to greater accuracy and precision. Her utter arrogance and hubris prevent her from thinking, at all, about these issues. She has not the prerequisites for understanding!

Not only that, but she has also failed utterly in connecting her "experiments" with her "thesis". Her "predictions" are nothing more than flails. She cannot even state a testable hypothesis properly... and we know she cannot test hypotheses experimentally, due to her utter incompetence and lack of education. The best she can do is to try to demonstrate some phenomenon which she believes supports her "thesis".... and when the demonstrations are properly done, without misdirection, fidgeting, fabricated data or lies.... her own demonstrations soundly falsify her claims.

And.... where in my statements above does one find me referring to Ainslie's delusions as a "THEORY"? Ainslie's deluded conjectures do not rise to the level of Theory and never have. Ainslie has no clue as to what a scientific THEORY really is. Her reading comprehension is as usual: she responds not to what people actually SAY but rather to her own distortions and mendacities. I doubt if I have ever referred to her delusional "thesis" as a "theory" just as I refuse to refer to her daft manuscripts as "papers".  Where are the testable predictions, the formal hypotheses, the experimental confirmations, in any of Ainslie's emissions? Nowhere. Her own demonstrations show that she cannot support her conjectures with actual data. Yet QED provides a precise predictive framework that allows scientists and engineers to do things like design and build high-density large scale integrated circuits that behave just as QED -- NOT Ainslie's "zipon" nonsense -- predict they will. She types her words on a computer that could not exist without the understanding of nature and predictive ability of QED!

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #323 on: January 28, 2014, 07:49:45 PM »
In the August 11 demonstration she learned all too well that a function generator most definitely passes current.  Whether she has retained that lesson, I cannot say.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #323 on: January 28, 2014, 07:49:45 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #324 on: January 28, 2014, 08:51:05 PM »
And she could have learned it much before that, simply by trying for herself the simple demonstrations I have provided. But that's not really the important point of the quote. Here is the part that is much more significant:

Quote
Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your "lessons".
(sic)

Ainslie is unteachable. She already knows everything there is to know, and she knows that everything she knows is right.
It's just too bad she is utterly wrong, over and over again.

There is more in that post that illustrates her overweening arrogance and utter unwillingness to learn from _professionals_ who are more educated than she, by far,  and who actually work for a living in the electronics industry. She is talking to picowatt! 

The last line is another hoot:

Quote
And now you are compounding the felony of slander to include allegations of 'lunacy'.

She doesn't even know the difference between libel and slander. Yet she accuses picowatt of "felony", which is of course a libellous statement. It is to laugh out loud !!

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #325 on: January 28, 2014, 11:38:04 PM »
From the looks of things she does not know what it is that she doesn't know.  She  probably really does believe that she's found a way to make free energy.  She acts as though she thinks that she has proven her claims when most recognize how thoroughly her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations refuted them.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #325 on: January 28, 2014, 11:38:04 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #326 on: January 31, 2014, 12:42:32 PM »
It gets more hilarious by the day. Now Ainslie and her "team" are in the position of having to replicate my work and the work of people like DrStiffler and Glen Lettenmeier who actually did make proper measurements of thermal output -- years ago.

But.... CASTROL GTX !! That's the brand of MOTOR OIL that I use in my car !! It's not "mineral oil", it has lots of additives. MOTOR OIL !!


Silly beans..... USE MINERAL OIL USP. GET IT AT THE PHARMACY. IT IS PURE, IT IS CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT, IT COSTS LESS THAN MOTOR OIL, DOESN'T SMELL BAD WHEN IT GETS HOT AND IT HAS SPECIFIC HEAT 0.84.



(ALL CAPS SO THAT AINSLIE MIGHT BE ABLE TO READ IT)

I am laughing out loud.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #327 on: January 31, 2014, 06:48:30 PM »
Give her credit for improving her methods.   You know that she reads what you post here.  I expect that they will switch from motor oil to mineral oil.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #328 on: January 31, 2014, 08:11:25 PM »
Contrariwise... once she realizes that I've been using Mineral Oil USP for years, with its known specific heat, in a container with a known thermal leak rate ... so that I can calculate the actual _energy_ that is applied to the load cell (are you paying attention, GMeast?) ... she is almost certain NOT to do it herself.


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #329 on: February 01, 2014, 04:35:15 AM »
Contrariwise... once she realizes that I've been using Mineral Oil USP for years, with its known specific heat, in a container with a known thermal leak rate ... so that I can calculate the actual _energy_ that is applied to the load cell (are you paying attention, GMeast?) ... she is almost certain NOT to do it herself.
That is not something that I can know.  I like to think that if she thinks it will make her experiment easier to do, and easier to make the point she's convinced that it will, then I think that she will switch to the mineral oil as she should despite that meaning that she is copying you.

 

OneLink