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: 514302
  • *Total Topics: 15303
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 8

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 248908 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #480 on: February 25, 2014, 07:29:20 AM »
Once again... here is a SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT: perform a simple experiment, report and interpret the results. Ainslie dares not do this simple LITTLE thing that would take five minutes to perform. Of course she is incompetent to do it herself, but one would think that Donovan Martin, who at least knows how to turn the scope on, would be interested enough to do a _real experiment that tests an hypothesis_ for a change.

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 #481 on: February 25, 2014, 07:33:20 AM »
It is just amazing to watch that clip where Ms. Ainslie declares her agreement with Steve that adjusting the function generator offset  changed the current and power supplied to the circuit by the function generator, and see her flailing about over the past few days insisting that the function generator is not in the DC current path.
Indeed. That, coupled with her retraction of her retraction of the daft and mendacious manuscripts, demonstrates her utter, self-serving hypocrisy.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #482 on: February 25, 2014, 07:45:30 AM »
If you are not nice, I will introduce Euler!

Heh.... Just as long as Runge and Kutta come along too ... we'll be fine.

But I'm afraid that Ainslie will have to stay behind. Here's a particularly interesting quote that she emitted during a conversation with Poynt99 back in 2012:

Quote
And Ponyty - with respect.  I'm an amateur.  I can easily understand your average equation PROVIDED ONLY that I also understand the terms.  HOW do they calculate PI? And WHY is it 2 x PI which, is 3.14 ? OF WHAT?

--- Quote from: poynt99 on August 10, 2012, 05:03:22 ---Capacitive reactance = XC = 1/(2PI x F x C)
Inductive reactance = XL = 2PI x F x L
where PI is 3.14, and F is frequency.
--- End quote ---
Here's how I read that equation. 
Capacitive reactance is represented by XC = ((1/(3.14 x 2)) x frequency x C)  It makes NO sense to me.    Why is PI 3.14?  How did they get to that number?  You see the problem Poynty Point?  I simply do NOT understand an explanation in terms of an equation.

HOWEVER - on the plus side - I now understand that Capacitance is the inverse of Impedance.  So I'm getting somewhere - hopefully?  Not sure if this has left you with a bigger headache than my own.  But I am really painfully restricted to conceptual understandings.  And that's not an acknowledgement of weakness Poynty Point.  There's nothing wrong with conceptual physics.  The more so if those concepts are clear. But I feel I owe it to you to try and understand those equations.  I'll give it my best shot if you can also just explain how they got to the 3.14 number.  I have no idea where this came from.

Kindest regards Poynty Point.  And PLEASE consider doing a sim on Greg's set up.  He's given a very clear schematic there.
Rosie

Edited
Deleted my reference to C=3.14.  I saw the error there.  But the balance of the question still stands.

Where does PI = 3.14 come from? I dunno... perhaps it has a different value in South African schools. Oh.. wait... it just wasn't covered in any of the basketweaving, poetry or sculpture classes Ainslie pretended to take when she was young. Or maybe PI just hadn't been discovered yet, that long ago.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #482 on: February 25, 2014, 07:45:30 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #483 on: February 25, 2014, 10:51:10 AM »
Mmmmmm, pi.

Offline Tseak

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #484 on: February 25, 2014, 12:31:40 PM »
Mark, you have to realise that capacitance is the inverse of impedance. Only then you will understand. Perhaps this Pi issue has our lady going in circles.

By the way your dummies covers are excellent. Where on earth do you guys find the time to do this stuff?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #484 on: February 25, 2014, 12:31:40 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #485 on: February 25, 2014, 01:26:55 PM »
Mark, you have to realise that capacitance is the inverse of impedance. Only then you will understand. Perhaps this Pi issue has our lady going in circles.

By the way your dummies covers are excellent. Where on earth do you guys find the time to do this stuff?
Wait until she hears about variable diractance.  Her swirvel bearings will never be the same.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #486 on: February 25, 2014, 02:00:14 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #487 on: February 25, 2014, 03:15:46 PM »
Mark, you have to realise that capacitance is the inverse of impedance. Only then you will understand. Perhaps this Pi issue has our lady going in circles.

By the way your dummies covers are excellent. Where on earth do you guys find the time to do this stuff?

Heh.... Yes, I can hardly wait for the hard copy versions to appear at my favorite bookstore. I just might print up a bunch of them myself, to distribute as handouts along with the rest of my Ainslie database.

But really, it takes less time and effort to refute Ainslie these days, than it does to... bake a pi. Er, Pie. She is "low hanging fruit" and keeps hanging herself lower and lower with every post she makes. And she uses her own rope!


In all fairness, after Poynt99 gave Ainslie the link to WIKI's article on pi..... she claimed to have known it all along. It was the PI=3.14 part that threw her off, she says. Had it been written " pi = 3.14 " there would have been no problem, according to her. I am NOT JOKING!

You see, Ainslie's computer evidently cannot access Google.... because had she simply typed in " PI= " into the Search Window of her browser, Google would have replied " = 3.14159265 " . Simple, right?

But what are all those extra digits doing there, after the "3.14" part? Those aren't needed in South Africa, surely.


Right... off I go then, to do a LITTLE transcendental meditation.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #488 on: February 25, 2014, 03:38:13 PM »
Just for the sake of completeness in the cleanup, note that she has gotten the order of operations wrong.

Quote
--- Quote from: poynt99 on August 10, 2012, 05:03:22 ---Capacitive reactance = XC = 1/(2PI x F x C)
Inductive reactance = XL = 2PI x F x L
where PI is 3.14, and F is frequency.
--- End quote ---
Here's how I read that equation. 
Capacitive reactance is represented by XC = ((1/(3.14 x 2)) x frequency x C)  It makes NO sense to me.
(sic.. parentheses as in original)

The correct statement of the capacitive reactance relationship has been given by Poynt99 as
XC = 1 / (2piFC)
But even with that equation visible to her, she garbles the order of operations and by tossing in her parentheses apparently randomly, she comes up with
XC = FC / 2pi 

That's what happens when you drop out of school before they get around to teaching Algebra. How does this woman manage to balance her checkbook?

 


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #488 on: February 25, 2014, 03:38:13 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Tseak

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #489 on: February 25, 2014, 04:04:57 PM »

 It was the PI=3.14 part that threw her off, she says. Had it been written " pi = 3.14 " there would have been no problem, according to her. I am NOT JOKING!

And you should be fully aware that MOSFETS are devices that internally solder their own terminals together when they are switched on but mosfets don't exist. Or have I got that the wrong way around?

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #490 on: February 25, 2014, 10:02:19 PM »
Heh... something like that, I think. Ainslie is definitely acronym-challenged.

Have you seen the latest stuff that she has emitted concerning Jandrell and Garrett? Take a look, you will be very amused.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #490 on: February 25, 2014, 10:02:19 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #491 on: February 25, 2014, 10:15:34 PM »
Back to the Figure 8 scopeshot.

Notice, in the text, that the FG is set to produce a cycle with 20 millisecond period, so she claims. But the scope is set for 500 microseconds per division, meaning that the whole screen only shows 5 milliseconds (500 us x 10 divisions) of the Q2 oscillation portion of the signal. The scope's timebase setting is shown at the top left of the screen.

Once again, this constitutes data fabrication, because Ainslie claims that the high heat in the load is produced during the data displayed on the screen. But it is not-- the high heat in the load "cooking it" is produced by the Q1 ON times, where the overall resistance of the circuit is low and there are no oscillations. During the Q1 ON time, the total resistance of the circuit is about 14 ohms, the current path does not go through the FG, and with a 72 volt supply the current will be a bit over 5 amps, dissipating 250 Watts in the load! (And stressing the Q1 mosfet on its tiny heatsink as used in the original setup for the "papers".) The average power dissipated at the load is dominated by this high power during the ON portion--not shown in the scopeshot at all. Since we don't know the duty cycle used, we can't compute the average power at the load, but it is likely to be in the range of 100 Watts, mostly coming through the single Q1 mosfet.

This Q1 ON portion of the total signal is NOT SHOWN on the Figure 8 scopeshot, since it does not show a complete cycle. The scopeshot is a selective bit of data, falsely put up to misrepresent the true behaviour of the system.

Note that she admits that the transistors are stressed by this setting. How do you think she found that out... I don't wonder. But they are not stressed by the voltage... I have used 830s here with the same effect as with PG50s... but rather by the current, and the power dissipation in the mosfet itself that is caused by its carrying 5+ amps. The Rdss of the PG50 is 2 ohms, so at a current of 5 amps the mosfet itself is dissipating 50 Watts... which it won't do for long, on that miserable tiny heatsink. The solder will melt and the wires will come off the pins! (Electronic solder melts at 190C but the PG50 mosfet doesn't fail until well over 200 C.)
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 12:24:02 AM by TinselKoala »

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #492 on: February 25, 2014, 10:19:06 PM »
For those who want more from their AC than their DC:

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #493 on: February 25, 2014, 10:46:05 PM »
For those who want more from their AC than their DC:

uh-oh... straight lines in a log-log graph... I can already see the tears starting to flow....


As an aside, psychological research has actually shown that there is a large subset of the population that can't actually interpret graphically presented data. This appears not to be a matter of learning or experience, according to the researchers, but is actually some difference in the way visual information is processed. I find this last bit a little hard to believe, but the first bit is certainly true. We've certainly seen how hard it is for some people to interpret scope traces, without the numbers in boxes, and the few graphs of data in Ainslie's daft manuscripts are incorrectly presented, like Figure 2 in the first manuscript, which has the Dependent Variable (temperature over ambient) along the abscissa and the Independent Variable (supplied power) along the ordinate, backwards from conventional data graphing. Ainslie's display gives the viewer a completely different impression of the data than would a correctly presented graph.

Reference:
Tufte, ER (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Pretty much the whole book.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #494 on: February 26, 2014, 12:13:57 AM »
uh-oh... straight lines in a log-log graph... I can already see the tears starting to flow....


As an aside, psychological research has actually shown that there is a large subset of the population that can't actually interpret graphically presented data. This appears not to be a matter of learning or experience, according to the researchers, but is actually some difference in the way visual information is processed. I find this last bit a little hard to believe, but the first bit is certainly true. We've certainly seen how hard it is for some people to interpret scope traces, without the numbers in boxes, and the few graphs of data in Ainslie's daft manuscripts are incorrectly presented, like Figure 2 in the first manuscript, which has the Dependent Variable (temperature over ambient) along the abscissa and the Independent Variable (supplied power) along the ordinate, backwards from conventional data graphing. Ainslie's display gives the viewer a completely different impression of the data than would a correctly presented graph.

Reference:
Tufte, ER (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Pretty much the whole book.
One way to overcome intuitive interpretation is to use direct interpretation:  One can simply find dependent results for particular independent input values.  If for example one had a 0.2uH inductor, a known input voltage of 400Vac, and a measured voltage of 4Vac, one would see that ratio is 1/100.  One could then go to the Y axis and find 1/100 as an approximation and then see that low and behold that corresponds to w=R/100L.  Knowing that F is 2.4MHz, and that w=2piF ~15E6, one could estimate that R ~500 Ohms.  Could someone then further use this dark alchemy to estimate the true current?????  Could it be that the current would be a close approximation to:  Ipp = Vpp/jwL????  How much is 4V/5Ohms?????  Is it 14A as Ms. Ainslie insists?

 

OneLink