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: 514987
  • *Total Topics: 15320
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 251815 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #405 on: February 21, 2014, 10:56:17 PM »
I think one big problem is that there are different "theys" operating here. The experimentation and primary data collection was done by Ainslie herself acting pretty much in isolation, once the experiment was set up and the basic knobs and buttons on the scope and FG were explained to her. Then there is the "they" composed of Ainslie and Martin, where she explains verbally what she thinks she sees and Martin attempts to translate that into some form of scientific English. Then there is the "they" composed of the completed team, with some members only doing things like clerical work and graphics, to produce the various editions of the daft manuscripts, to fetch and carry heavy batteries around, and so on. Some of the people whose names are on the manuscripts may never have actually done anything substantive at all; certainly they are unreachable for comment.

The various blog and forum posts that were made by Ainslie herself at and around the time of the data collection resulting in the Figure 3 and the other problematic scopeshots are very revealing. She betrays at least two incidents of mosfet failures, one suspected FG failure caused by her failing to pull out the offset knob, one "chip" failure during some other experimentation, the "fire dragon" incident that melted down her battery clipleads, some kind of incident that caused her to send the scope out for repair/calibration, and so on. There was known trouble with the apparatus, there was also imagined trouble caused by improper operation, and she had to bring in people to look it over and repair it. Why did Martin not question the data that was obtained at that time? Perhaps he was out of the country. We know Ainslie doesn't like to bother him with trivia, like requesting the scopeshots they promised from last summer's fiasco.

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 #406 on: February 21, 2014, 11:01:46 PM »
There have been many mistakes, there remain many misconceptions, and memory looks questionable.  These are not conducive to reliable research.  We will see what comes next.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #407 on: February 22, 2014, 04:21:39 AM »
We will see what comes next, all right. It will consist of more insults and disrespect from Ainslie, more prevarication and false claims without support, more "misrememberings" of the actual events of June 29 and August 10-11. What we won't see  is valid data that supports their claims.

In just the time we have been discussing data logging, for example.... a single dedicated researcher could be sitting at the apparatus, performing runs and recording manually the relevant data. I estimate four or five complete runs to thermal equilibrium could be accomplished per day, without strain, by a single person with a systematic approach and a pre-prepared spreadsheet to receive the data points. No fancy or expensive data logging equipment is really necessary. The LeCroy can save the appropriate screenshots and the rest of the data can be read off the instruments and entered manually into the spreadsheet.

Had Ainslie and her team really desired to produce valid thermometric data they could have done so long ago. They could be doing it now, without any further expense. But they will jiggle and swerve around the data logging issue and in the final end will wind up stalling for more months and years and probably will wind up not releasing any valid data at all. The only valid data they have released in years is that which Steve Weir coaxed out of them and which appears only in the videos of the demonstrations! And this is "released" in spite of them: they still haven't published the actual relevant scopescreen shots that they _claimed_ they saved to the USB stick during the demos. The best versions of the data are in the screenshots from the video that I and MarkE have saved and posted!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #407 on: February 22, 2014, 04:21:39 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #408 on: February 22, 2014, 05:48:17 AM »
I've asked Steve about those screen shots that were supposed to be on the USB stick.  Steve told me that they will not be released.  He did not say why.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #409 on: February 22, 2014, 06:07:05 AM »
Do you see? Ainslie continues in the same old errors, not having learned a single thing! She continues to claim that during the "off", oscillation period, there is no path for current to flow. She has no conception of the actual facts of mosfet behaviour.

Quote
I will try and post a link to that addendum.  What this shows is that for the battery to be delivering energy during that ON period it must first have a PATH to deliver that energy.  IF in fact, the battery cannot discharge energy BECAUSE THERE IS NO PATH for this delivery - then you CANNOT apply the standard vi/dt analysis.  I have argued those measurements as based on the certain evidence that the battery DOES NOT DISCHARGE any energy during OFF period of the duty cycle.  The measurements are the result of the applied voltage that is from counter electromotive force from the element resistor itself.  Those probes CANNOT distinguish the SOURCE of the measured voltage.  It can ONLY measure the ACTUAL voltage.  AGAIN.  Since the battery is NOT discharging energy - THEN ONE CANNOT APPLY vi/dt analysis to the battery.  What I've argued is, apparently,  a well known FACT.  Which is that resonance can 'swing' through a circuit thereby avoiding any passage through the energy supply source.  This argument has the added merit of COMPREHENSIVELY resolving ALL THOSE MEASUREMENTS UP TO AND INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF WATTAGE DISSIPATED AT THE ELEMENT RESISTOR - the ONLY work station on that circuit.


Ainslie remains utterly confused and continues to emit ridiculous statements that are contrary to actual FACTS that anyone can check for themselves. During what she calls the "OFF" portion of the duty cycle, the Q2 mosfets have their SOURCE voltage LOWERED below the voltage at their Gates. That is, the common connection between the Gate of Q1 and the Sources of the Q2s is receiving a _negative_ voltage which supplies the negative bias current necessary for the oscillations to occur. The Q2s are most certainly connected in a complete circuit with the battery and the load, the oscillations most definitely DO pass current from the battery to the load and the batteries most certainly DO discharge normally during this time. Ainslie is simply ignoring the truth AS USUAL, even after her own demonstrations showed it all to the world. And as if that weren't enough, I have completely dissected and explained the linear operation mode of the Q2 mosfets when their Source voltage is driven below the voltage at their Gate.  Of course the overweeningly arrogant and willfully ignorant Ainslie will not watch, learn and discuss these videos... but other people are doing so, and everyone who does, will recognize Ainslie's ridiculous, cherished ignorance in her statements like the present one.

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






Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #409 on: February 22, 2014, 06:07:05 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #410 on: February 22, 2014, 06:13:15 AM »
I've asked Steve about those screen shots that were supposed to be on the USB stick.  Steve told me that they will not be released.  He did not say why.
Yes, it does seem rather ridiculous and petty, doesn't it? Especially since I have made my own screenshots of the scope display at the times that the Ainslie mob were _supposed_ to be capturing the scope screens. (I've posted these before; if anyone wants to see them again just let me know.)
The shots I made have sufficient resolution to show the important details, so the failure of the Ainslie mob to release their high-resolution images of the exact same things is once again highly revealing. They seek to obfuscate analysis by refusing to release data that shows definitively that they are wrong in their claims, and/or they are so incompetent that they couldn't actually save the shots at all or have lost or deleted them somehow.

I'd love to hear and discuss alternative explanations for this abject and utter failure of theirs to do something they agreed to do in public. Until something comes along that makes more sense, I'm sticking with what I said above: they are deliberately attempting to suppress negative data, and/or they are too incompetent to have made and kept the images in the first place.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #411 on: February 22, 2014, 07:15:51 AM »
And the nonsense from Ainslie  _continues_ !!

Look at how she garbles and misrepresents what people have told her and what they have explained and _demonstrated_ to her. Look at how she fails to grasp the simple explanations and demonstrations I have offered. Look at how she continues to make the absurd claims about function generators not being able to pass current from an external battery!

I don't know how many times I've posted the simple demonstrations that PROVE HER TO BE UTTERLY WRONG about this particular absurd and silly contention. But here it is again.

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

Of course it may be too much to ask for someone of Ainslie's intellectual abilities to be able to understand what is demonstrated in these videos.

Here's what is shown:

A function generator is a clocked, positive-negative power supply with an internal impedance of 50 ohms. You can add offsets to the FG's output, just as if it were a battery or power supply, simply by putting another power supply in series with the FG.
The total voltage is then the ALGEBRAIC SUM of the voltage from the FG and the voltage from the series battery or other fixed or even VARIABLE supply like another function generator at any given instant. The FG's internal impedance is usually 50 ohms as standard.

1) The FG is set to produce a slow sine wave of plus/minus six volts.

2) The LED and moving-coil ammeter are in series with the FG's output.

3) The LED is shown to light and the meter indicates CURRENT whenever the FG's sine wave output exceeds about 3 volts.

4) Then the FG's signal OFFSET control is used to offset the FG's signal so that it is entirely negative and the LED no longer lights and of course the meter shows no current.

5) Then... making no other changes and without harming any small animals or components... an ordinary Chinese 9 volt battery is hooked in STRICT SERIES with the system under test.

6) And the LED lights up and the meter shows current flowing just as before, even though the FG is still making only a negative output.

This demonstrates that the FG and the battery are acting in strict series, and the total output voltage is now sufficient at the top of the sinusoidal waveform to LIGHT UP THE LED and ... of course.... pass current from an external battery supply source via its terminal to its probe (sic).

Yet Little Miss Mosfet has proclaimed,
"What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. 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)

OK, LMM, you can go home now, you don't need any more lessons.
You need medication.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #411 on: February 22, 2014, 07:15:51 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #412 on: February 22, 2014, 07:27:30 AM »
Just as a Little reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w

Notice that Steve Weir suggests proceeding on to Phase 4, that is the DC temperature calibration phase... but it is Ainslie and Martin who decide that this is not necessary. Skip ahead to 8 minutes to hear Ainslie say that "this actually represents the end of the demo, we don't need to do any more".
The temperature rise of the load resistor was STABLE. It was no longer increasing. Does Ainslie think that waiting longer would produce a different result? The holes in her thought processes are astounding, the degree of her misrepresentation of even her own work is astonishing.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #413 on: February 22, 2014, 07:47:58 AM »
.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #413 on: February 22, 2014, 07:47:58 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #414 on: February 22, 2014, 06:33:41 PM »
Just as a Little reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w

Notice that Steve Weir suggests proceeding on to Phase 4, that is the DC temperature calibration phase... but it is Ainslie and Martin who decide that this is not necessary. Skip ahead to 8 minutes to hear Ainslie say that "this actually represents the end of the demo, we don't need to do any more".
The temperature rise of the load resistor was STABLE. It was no longer increasing. Does Ainslie think that waiting longer would produce a different result? The holes in her thought processes are astounding, the degree of her misrepresentation of even her own work is astonishing.
These latest missives from Ms. Ainslie are sad to observe.  Yes, it is clear to anyone who watched or watches the Aug. 11 demo replay that Steve sought to have them execute Phase 4 to obtain an exact match of DC power to generate the same temperature rise.  It was Ms. Ainslie who declined and ended the demonstration.  Steve explained that by skipping the Phase 4 test they would have to rely upon the Paper 1 calibration that showed between 2.4W and 3.4W for measurement points below and above that observed Aug. 11.  Ms. Ainslie declared that she was happy with that conclusion.  As you note the temperature rise was stable.  Now, Ms. Ainslie declares that she is no longer happy with her decisions.  Ms. Ainslie is free to repeat the tests and including the Phase 4, and Phase 5 tests that she skipped.

As far as Ms. Ainslie's misconceptions about if and how current flows during the "off" periods, that has also been explained many times, and demonstrated both in videos that you have published, in writing by you and Poynt99, and was demonstrated as Phase 2 of her August 11 demonstration.  Ms. Ainslie simply does not understand ordinary circuit theory or her own demonstrations.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #415 on: February 22, 2014, 08:03:04 PM »
Exactly. And various versions of schematics that show the same thing your diagram shows, have been submitted to Ainslie many times before. The diagram makes explicit the two utter misconceptions that prevent Ainslie from understanding how her circuit works.

First, she cannot fathom how the Q2 mosfets can be biased into the linear, partially conducting region by _lowering_ the voltage at the Source pins by providing a _negative_ signal from the FG. Hence she cannot understand how the oscillations are produced. She has never yet even demonstrated that she knows what a "linear region" of a mosfet's performance actually is, since she always has considered a mosfet as a switch, that can be either ON with zero resistance or OFF , an open circuit, and nothing in between. Further, the mystery of turning on a mosfet by lowering the Source voltage... doesn't fit in with her silly "thesis" at all, therefore it cannot be happening, according to her.

Second, she believes that the Function Generator is somehow opaque to currents and doesn't participate in completing the current path from the Q2 mosfets back to the battery. She believes that the Q2 mosfets are _disconnected_ from the battery supply, because she believes that there is no conduction path through the FG during the "off" or oscillation portion of the complete period.

Both of these ridiculous beliefs of Ainslie have been thoroughly demolished many times, both by detailed explanations and by simple and unambiguous demonstrations, and if she were an honest experimenter who genuinely doubted the FACTS of the matter, she could set up her own simple experiments to prove them to herself. But she isn't that honest experimenter, she is a deluded and willfully ignorant person with an axe to grind and she cares nothing about any FACTS that go against her holy "thesis". It is for that reason that she will not consider the explanations that we and others have given, she merely rejects them without any thought or rational, point-by-point analysis. And each time she does so, she makes herself look more and more pathetically idiotic.

Where is Donovan Martin in all of this? Why doesn't Ainslie consult with Martin about these issues? Does Martin _agree_ with Ainslie about these two points? Let's hear him say so, then, and let's hear him justify the position, against the arguments we have made. Does Martin NOT agree with Ainslie about these points? Perhaps he should let Ainslie know, then, that she is stuffing both feet down her own throat whenever she continues to emit these absurd "explanations" of her circuit.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #415 on: February 22, 2014, 08:03:04 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #416 on: February 22, 2014, 09:12:19 PM »
One of the more astounding things about Ms. Ainslie's latest protests is that  Phase 2 of the August 11 experiment measured the function generator current during the "off" phase. For Phase 2, they modified the circuit ever so slightly to put a current sense resistor in series with the function generator black lead.  That resistor clearly showed the current that Ms. Ainslie disputes flowing through the function generator during the "Off" times.  It showed the net power external power contribution of the function generator as well.  Then in Phase 3, they measured the same current flowing through the battery with a sense resistor there, as well they should since the resistor in Phase 3 was schematically simply on the other side of the big CSR resistors from the sense resistor used to measure the function generator current.   Ms. Ainslie either doesn't understand and/or doesn't recall her own demonstration.  She is now arguing against herself.

It is difficult to say whether Donovan Martin is still engaged with Ms. Ainlie's efforts.  If she performs another demonstration, or publishes new material I suppose we will find out.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #417 on: February 22, 2014, 09:37:04 PM »
Donovan Martin's name still appears on the daft manuscripts as second author. He has not issued any statement of retraction or withdrawal of his authorship, as far as I am aware, nor has he ever deigned to post a rebuttal or explanation or justification for the events that transpired during the demonstrations -- events which proved beyond any doubt that Ainslie's claims are false and much of the data completely invalid. In the ordinary course of scientific publication this lack of response would indicate that he still endorses the data and the conclusions found in those writings which bear his name.
He is saved from professional embarrassment only by the fact that the daft manuscripts have NOT been published in any peer-reviewed professional journal -- and never will be published.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #418 on: February 22, 2014, 11:00:49 PM »
Donovan Martin's name still appears on the daft manuscripts as second author. He has not issued any statement of retraction or withdrawal of his authorship, as far as I am aware, nor has he ever deigned to post a rebuttal or explanation or justification for the events that transpired during the demonstrations -- events which proved beyond any doubt that Ainslie's claims are false and much of the data completely invalid. In the ordinary course of scientific publication this lack of response would indicate that he still endorses the data and the conclusions found in those writings which bear his name.
He is saved from professional embarrassment only by the fact that the daft manuscripts have NOT been published in any peer-reviewed professional journal -- and never will be published.
It could be any:  He believes in the ideas as published despite the demonstrations he participated in, and established science.  Or, He doesn't believe in those ideas and is unconcerned that he has put his name to them.  Or, He doesn't believe but has other pressures on him that keep him from withdrawing his name.  Suppose for example that he does not wish to embarrass or offend Ms. Ainslie.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #419 on: February 22, 2014, 11:22:52 PM »
All of those explanations for Martin's silence are plausible, even probable. None of them are scientific, and none except the first are ethical.

Martin doesn't want to embarrass Ainslie, so he keeps his name on two manuscripts full of errors, inaccuracies, claims that have been soundly falsified over and over both by outside workers and the Ainslie team themselves, and an absurd "thesis" that has no connection with reality. Right.

How about this for an explanation for Martin's silence: Ainslie is known to be trouble around the house, since she is so deluded about the nature of Reality, so Martin and her other friends let her play on the internet to keep her out of trouble. Nobody in their right mind believes her, least of all those close to her like Donovan Martin. Most of her internet correspondence happens with people on the other side of the planet, who hardly exist as far as South Africa is concerned. Allowing her to play on the internet and to pretend to "publish" her fantasies and delusions keeps her busy and prevents her from distracting the maids, cook and gardeners in her walled compound. Any criticism she might receive from the internet is harmless, and gives her something to look forward to. She can insult and disrespect _us_ all she likes and nobody "important" has to suffer her at home. She can feel like she has allies against the evil Internet Troll Company, and no adverse local effects need occur. Just keep her bills paid and her batteries charged up and she'll stay out of the Real People's hair. The Northern Hemisphere of the Earth is irrelevant to South Africa, after all.



 

OneLink