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: 514297
  • *Total Topics: 15303
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 248879 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #495 on: February 26, 2014, 12:49:59 AM »
Sure.... but that requires being able to read data from a graph, something that about 1/4 of the population just can't seem to do. Ainslie has never demonstrated any ability actually to read scope traces, which are of course simple plots of voltage (the DV on the ordinate axis) against time (the IV on the abscissa). Any guesses as to whether Ainslie falls in that 1/4, or in the other 3/4 that can?

Now, please don't berate me for mocking someone who is "disabled" in that manner. After all, nobody but her chose her to play in a field where reading graphical data was important. I don't do too much ballet dancing, myself, because I just can't do it. But if I tried to do a grand-plié anyway, and fell on my face in public, I'd think that mockery was pretty appropriate, wouldn't you?

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 #496 on: February 26, 2014, 01:13:59 AM »
History indicates that it is very unlikely that Ms. Ainslie is going to come around to reality.  She is highly vested in her false beliefs.  She has made the mistake of making them a personal issue.  Admitting reality would mean eating all her attacks on the various professors and skeptics she has rabidly attacked.  She has made it so that a graceful exit would be extremely difficult to manage.  What would she say to any of the professors: 

"Oh, sorry for all those scathing accusations of unprofessional conduct I lodged against you.  It never occurred to me that having no training that I had no idea what I was doing.  It was inconceivable to me that even though I was completely lost 99.99% of the time.  It never dawned on me that even though my mistakes were pointed out over and over again that I could have been wrong.  I just assumed that people who disagreed with my proven wrong ideas were evil lackeys for big oil, including you.  Oops.  Say hello to the Mrs. for me.  Cheerio."



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #497 on: February 26, 2014, 02:38:15 AM »
Ainslie has no history of making sincere apologies to anyone.  She once did apologize to me over the duty cycle issue, but as you know, that went the same way as the "retraction".... it was retracted, and she continues to persist in the false claims around that issue. But since then she has been proven wrong about many things she's said about me, over and over and over again, and there has been no hint of apology or correction. As expected from a person with her.... charms.


But I want to pick at that Figure 8 scopeshot a Little more, since she brought it up with her silly, cynical strawman "challenge".

The text of the manuscript clearly misrepresents the truth. The scopeshot shows only 5 ms of the the Q2 oscillation portion of the total 20 ms period, and shows neither the switching "transitions" nor any of the Q1 ON time. We know that the Q2 oscillations only produce relatively minor heating in the load. Ainslie represents the Q2 oscillations in this scopeshot as being responsible for the high load heating she observed, though. I think this is even more dishonest than the Figure 3 and the other shots made with improper connections (if that's the actual reason, which I still am not sure of.) It's dishonest because it's clear -- to those who know how to read an oscilloscope screen -- that a full cycle is not shown, and the important Q1 ON time is not considered, and I believe this is a deliberate obfuscation attempt on the part of Ainslie and her co-authors. The claim that the shot shows the switching transitions is just another Ains-lie. She wants people to believe that the load heats even when it is "disconnected" during the Q2 oscillations and that no power is drawn from the battery at that time, and she offers this carefully selected and set-up scopeshot as evidence for that claim, when it is no such thing. This constitutes the grossest kind of misconduct... I almost typed "scientific misconduct" but of course there is no science anywhere near Ainslie's manuscripts. It's pseudoscientific misconduct of the worst kind, data selection and misrepresentation. Some strange quirk of Ainslie's personality, though, makes her reveal the critical facts that allow her critics to demolish her artifactual edifice, lie by lie. The 20 ms period, the 500 microsecond/division horizontal setting, are examples that allow analysis of the Fig 8 shot to reveal the facts. It is because of her ignorance that she cannot even construct a believable lie!

Of course she could claim, now, that instead of a 20 ms period she really meant a 20 microsecond period. She has made this mistake before.  In that case the scopeshot would look the same, pretty much, with the apparatus operating at a frequency of 50 kHz.... The lack of detail this time resulting from showing 25 full cycles in every horizontal division, 250 full cycles across the screen. This would indeed make the switching transitions stand out. However I can only count 14 peaks per division on the scopeshot, not 25. This is consistent across the screen, so it might not be due to aliasing effects. 14 cycles per 500 microseconds is 28 kHz, and a period of about 36 microseconds.


(What's wrong with ignorance? Nothing, per se. I myself, believe it or not, am ignorant of many things. (Now watch the trolls latch onto that one.)
The difference between me and Ainslie, though, is that I recognize my ignorance and I do not engage in fields where I am ignorant, before I mitigate that ignorance with a Little study, if at all. You won't find me telling motherboard designers how to route their traces, for example, and I'm not about to tell NASA how to launch rockets. Ainslie, however, is not deterred by her ignorance: it is willfull and she does nothing to remedy it, except to play lip service to people like Poynt99 and SWeir who try to relieve it. She happily engages power supply designers and mosfet manufacturers to tell them their subject, even though she doesn't even know where PI comes from or why it equals 3.14 (approximately). It is here where ignorance, defended by ego, becomes an unforgivable failing.)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #497 on: February 26, 2014, 02:38:15 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #498 on: February 26, 2014, 04:49:14 AM »
I am getting SICK AND TIRED of your LIES about me, Ainslie, troll queen.

Quote
It is morally contemptible therefore - to PRETEND to a 'higher' or a 'rarified' knowledge which CANNOT ALSO BE RENDERED IN CLEAR LANGUAGE BASED ON LOGICAL CONCEPTS.  Which is PRECISELY what our disclaimers rely on.  You may recall our Little TK's adventures into theoretical physics where he identified the electron as the carrier particle for the electromagnetic force. 
Never have I EVER "identified" the electron as the carrier particle for the electromagnetic force. NEVER. Ainslie, you cannot provide any reference that supports your lying claim, AS USUAL, you reprehensible liar.
Quote
Pages and pages of PURE nonsense.  IF he has now moved to a 'belief' in the photon is the carrier particle he needs must justify it.  Because of a CERTAINTY the photon does NOT qualify.
The only pages and pages AND PAGES AND PAGES of PURE NONSENSE are the pages emitted by YOU, Rosemary Ainslie, liar.  Grow up and read a book, for heaven's sake.  Ainslie, you are so full of yourself that it's a wonder you can even breathe. YOU ARE A LIAR, plain and simple. YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY REFERENCE FOR YOUR IDIOTIC CLAIMS ABOUT ME. It is CERTAIN that the electromagnetic force is carried by PHOTONS, and any physics book will confirm this to be true, and I have NEVER said or suggested otherwise. The electron is the carrier of the UNIT NEGATIVE CHARGE, which is far different from the "electromagnetic force", which is transmitted by PHOTONS.  You cannot support your idiotic claims with EVIDENCE, not a whit. I demand that you STOP LYING and STOP MAKING FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT THINGS OF WHICH YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE. I am really mad about this now, you dirty filthy lousy liar.  Of course I know that you will continue in your lies anyway, since you have no moral compass at all. Or... as some have said lately... perhaps your mind is deteriorating to the point where you will need to be hospitalized soon.

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR. Sound familiar, you liar?

Quote
  IF Mark Euthanasius is insisting that capacitance is the 'root cause' of our extraordinary measurements and equally the root cause of our misconceptions then?  Presumably he has SOME argument for this? 

First, you filthy liar, let's see you provide a REFERENCE for your claim about what Mark E has "insisted". YOU CANNOT, because you are lying again.
Quote


Well?  Let's hear it.  IF our Poynty CLAIMS that he's already proved that the current flow through the function generator is zero - then SHOW US THAT ARGUMENT. 

What? YOU can't even keep your own story straight, a typical failing of the chronic LIAR.

Poynt99 has provided you with the exact analysis of the circuit, and he AND YOU have shown just how much current DOES flow through the FG during the Q2 oscillations. It is during the Q1 ON , non-oscillating period of the cycle that the main current path is not through the FG, and it is this part of the cycle that produces high heat in the load, and the battery most certainly DOES DISCHARGE, during both Q1 and Q2 phases of the cycle, and YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS HAVE SHOWN THIS TO BE TRUE.

I am ever astounded by the depths of your mendacity and the heights of your ignorance, Rosemary Ainslie. Each and every day you post, you overtop yourself, by emitting more and more STUPID STATEMENTS that you cannot back up with references or facts.

Futhermore, you cannot even ADDRESS the real issues: Cut the wire connecting the Sources of the Q2s to the FG, and then produce some oscillations. You should be able to, since your claim is that the Q2s are already disconnected. Surely cutting a LITTLE wire can't make any difference then. But you already KNOW that this will defeat the oscillations, so you can't even bring yourself to lie about it, you won't even discuss it and you certainly won't actually DO the simple, highly scientific, true experiment that tests your claim, cowardly lying troll queen that you are.

The rest of your stupid vapid post is not even worth addressing because it has already been debunked over and over, even by YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #499 on: February 26, 2014, 05:37:54 AM »
The current crop of Ms. Ainslie's misconceptions:

1) That she measured 14App AC current in her circuit.
The fact is that during the June 29, 2013 demonstration, Steve Weir showed team Ainslie to their own satisfaction that the Figure 3 oscilloscope shots could be reproduced by connecting the channel 1 scope probe, the current sense channel, to the wrong side of the current sense resistors.  This happened to be the location furthest from the circuit common that most people would have naturally thought was the Q1 Source terminal side of the current sense resistors.  Due to the kooky wiring under the white breadboard, it is really the circuit common side.  The physical side of the current resistors closest to the circuit common posts was actually wired to the Q1 source terminal.  Ms. Ainslie does not publish the June 29th video on her web site, but it is available around the web.

The upshot is that the Channel 1 voltage readings were not the result of I*0.25Ohms, because the oscilloscope probe was not connected across the 0.25 Ohm resistor array.  The 14A that Ms. Ainslie is currently quoting did not actually exist in her circuit.  One of your excellent videos demonstrates that a similar reading as obtained by Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators can be obtained without making any direct circuit connection.

2) That current does not flow from the Q2 source through the function generator during the oscillations.

Ms. Ainslie's August 11 demonstration proved both the current flows through that path, and that the function generator supplies net power to the circuit.

3) That the oscillations cause great heating in the heating element.

Ms. Ainslie's August 11 demonstration proved that the oscillations only a small amount of power equivalent to about 3W through the heating element, resulting in a temperature rise on the element itself over ambient of ~20C.

4) That on August 11, battery current did not flow during the "Q1 On" times. 

This is correct, it did not.  The function generator drive during those intervals was restricted to about +2V, below the threshold to cause Q1 conduction.  The battery was shown to conduct at the times when current flowed through the heating element:  the "Q1 Off" times.

5) That somehow the measured ~15W average power drawn by her test apparatus from the batteries and ~20C temperature rise at the heating element resistor; corresponding to ~2E dissipation according to Ms. Ainlie's prior calibration tests, indicated over unity operation.

6) That the heating element temperature rise over ambient was not stable.
The August 11 video shows that the temperature readings were stable.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #499 on: February 26, 2014, 05:37:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #500 on: February 26, 2014, 06:02:47 AM »
You've listed a lot of them but there are even more. But never mind, I'm completely disgusted with that baldfaced liar at this point. One cannot trust ANYTHING that comes from her unless it can be verified independently. Is the Figure 8 text "20 ms" really referring to the period of 20 milliseconds, or is it another of Ainslie's "typos" caused by her ignorance of common abbreviations, and did she really  "mean" to say 20 microseconds instead? Who knows? We weren't there to confirm the settings, so it is literally impossible to trust even the description of the scopeshot.

Quote
Ms. Ainslie does not publish the June 29th video on her web site, but it is available around the web.

Indeed it is, in spite of Ainslie's attempt to suppress it, in all its dead-air, thumb-over-microphone, senseless cellphone camera work glory. But for those who can't sit through the entire four hours of nonsense and dead air (they actually went to dinner during the demonstration, just abandoning their audience without explanation...)... I have excerpted the relevant bits.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q

At the end of the Ainslie demo clips I have added a few of my own that treat some of the issues raised in the demonstration.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #501 on: February 26, 2014, 06:38:26 AM »
When someone has magical beliefs it can be very difficult to devise tests.  In the latest bit of pretzel logic, Ms. Ainslie objects to your proposal to disconnect the Q2 source pin as a way of testing whether current goes through the function generator during the "Q1 Off" times or not. 

OK so the hypothesis is that Q1 is essential to these oscillations.  Then just disconnect the gate lead of Q1 and connect that to the Q1 source, or disconnect Q1 completely.  If the oscillations still occur, then the hypothesis that Q1 is carrying the circuit current during the oscillations is disproved.  Assuming that is the case, since you have already shown that it is so, then the Q2 source can be disconnected.  Let's see what Ms. Ainlie's objection is to testing her claim.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #501 on: February 26, 2014, 06:38:26 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline SeaMonkey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1289
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #502 on: February 26, 2014, 07:31:13 AM »
This thread/discussion/rampage has become a
humorous near perpetual motion/emotion display
of the secrets of free energy. :o

It would seem that Rosemary has become quite
adept at, with little expenditure of energy, stimulating
an intense burst of energy in reaction to the action. 8)

A wee bit of a "windup" and the Energizer Bunny
just goes, and goes, and goes... ::)

At its present rate this "relationship" could go on
for decades more. ;) :-* :'(

 :)





Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8369
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #503 on: February 26, 2014, 07:33:50 AM »
Her intellect is challenged alright.  Good word for it and it is her word from her own post.

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #503 on: February 26, 2014, 07:33:50 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #504 on: February 26, 2014, 10:29:14 AM »
That is amazing! Her ignorance really knows no bounds! As Mark says, I have ALREADY SHOWN Many Times that the Q2 can oscillate all by itself. Just pull the Q1 out of its socket during an ordinary demonstration! Oh... she doesn't use sockets. What an idiot.

What the hell does she think she's doing, anyway, with all her lies and misrepresentations. I don't know whether to do YET ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION THAT UTTERLY REFUTES HER SILLINESS, or just to repost all the times I've already demonstrated it.

But didn't I tell you that she would find some handwaving excuse not to do the experiment? And she emits such nonsensical rationalizations. Seriously, how does this woman get through her day, without being able to think her way out of a wet paper sack?

When we were discussing the Figure 3 scopeshot, what was the initial cause that I believed (and still believe) was the reason for the Zero Current in the Q1 ON phase? It was that the Q1 was blown, or disconnected somehow. And I demonstrated the EXACT FIGURE 3 WAVEFORMS by pulling the Q1 out of its socket. Does she think that was FAKED?  Or does she just ignore it because it contradicts her stupidity? WHY DOES SHE NOT DO THE EXPERIMENT HERSELF? Because she can't, that's why, she dare not. She can only bloviate, insult, make false claims and whine.

Oh I am so angry right now I could shoot hoops. That post of hers is literally INSANE. Ainslie is completely and totally deluded.

OK, I've made another video. I'm afraid I let my anger vent a bit. The video uses the circuit built over the schematic so there is no doubt that it is wired "correctly", that is according to the Actual schematic used by Ainslie, with the exception that I am only using a single Q2 (and one Q1 of course). In the video I demonstrate the full circuit operating on 74 volts Vbatt, and I show the normal oscillations. Then I CUT THE WIRES to the pins of the Q1, and show that this DOES NOT AFFECT THE OSCILLATIONS AT ALL. Not a bit. This demolishes Ainslie's stupid assertions about That. Then I replace the Q1 mosfet and again show the full oscillation suite, with enough + gate signal to turn the Q1 ON and heat up the load. Then I CUT THE WIRE from the FG TO THE SOURCE OF THE Q2 MOSFET. Does anyone want to guess what happens then? You there, the wrinkled old crone in the back of the room, what do YOU predict?

Oh, I am still so mad. How can someone be so utterly STUPID as Rosemary Ainslie, and live to adulthood? I just don't get it. She is the very most arrogant and willfully ignorant person I have EVER encountered, the grandest liar, the worst troll ever. Some day, she will get exactly what she deserves, of that I have the utmost faith.

What utter NONSENSE her last post is!

BUT NOTICE WELL... she no longer can claim that the Q2s are DISCONNECTED... since she has herself stated that their sources need to be CONNECTED to the gate of Q1 in order to oscillate. This is of course false, but she has blatantly CONTRADICTED HERSELF.... as all liars do eventually.


Ainslie, child, you should be spanked hard and sent to your room without dinner, and you should be grounded for at least a month.
Take away your cellphone and internet until you GROW UP and learn to respect your betters.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #505 on: February 26, 2014, 11:59:12 AM »
GRE? Yes, I will take a moment to boast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduate_Record_Examinations

When I sat these exams many years ago I was in the 99th percentile all the way across. Based on these scores and my undergraduate academic record I was accepted to graduate school at Stanford and MIT and some others, but I chose to attend the University of California at Santa Cruz, because they gave me a full stipend, teaching assistant positions, and a salary. Plus I like the scenery there. Better to be a big fish in a small pond, I reasoned, and I was right in my choice.

So every time the highschool dropout Ainslie, who doesn't even know what PI=3.14 means, mentions the GRE... she is proving over and over again just how ignorant and lazy she +really+ is.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #505 on: February 26, 2014, 11:59:12 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #506 on: February 26, 2014, 12:53:46 PM »
My internet is glacially slow this morning, but in half an hour or so the new video should be viewable.
http://youtu.be/RTTA80T0BU4

I'm pretty irate during this video, I sound like I'm about to pop my clutch; I'm still seething at the idiocy of the insulting disrespectful troll queen liar Rosemary Ainslie. Donovan Martin, or somebody, needs to rein in that woman, explain things to her in terms she might be capable of understanding. What's a single syllable word for "oscilloscope" I wonder?


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #507 on: February 26, 2014, 01:00:30 PM »
Her intellect is challenged alright.  Good word for it and it is her word from her own post.

Bill

Intellect? That is a term that doesn't apply to Rosemary Ainslie. She has a big vocabulary, and a mass of delusions, and a vile evil disposition, but no intellect, no honesty, no education, no skills, nothing like that at all.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #508 on: February 26, 2014, 01:22:40 PM »
She just cannot stop being an idiot. Might as well expect a leopard to change its spots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
Quote
Examples The electromagnetic force can be described by the exchange of virtual photons.
The nuclear force binding protons and neutrons can be described by an effective field of which mesons are the excitations.
At sufficiently large energies, the strong interaction between quarks can be described by the exchange of virtual gluons.
Beta decay is an example of an interaction due to the exchange of a W boson, but not an example of a force.
Gravitation may be due to the exchange of virtual gravitons.
 

http://www.physicsforidiots.com/particlesandforces.html

Quote
Bosons are the particles that carry force. They are characterised by having whole integer spin e.g. -1, 0, 1, and don't obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, so you can have loads of them in the same space. Each of the fundamental forces of nature has its own Boson(s).
For Electromagnetism the force carrier is the Photon. They are sometimes called virtual photons as they only exist for very small intervals of time or space. If an electron gets near another electron it emits a virtual photon which is absorbed by the second electron and lets it know it need to move away.

http://sciencepark.etacude.com/particle/forces2.php

Quote
2. The electromagnetic force   Carrier: Photons (g)
 Photons is responsible to 'carry' electromagnetic forces. It is also known as the particle of 'light' as they also 'carry' light as what we see. They have no mass, and no charge and can exchange between two particles over infinite distance. This is also the reason why light can travel to infinite distance and we can see stars that are far away. Detailed theoretical description of photons is given in quantum electrodynamics (QED).

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model
Quote
Three of the fundamental forces result from the exchange of force-carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called “bosons”. Particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other. Each fundamental force has its own corresponding boson – the strong force is carried by the “gluon”, the electromagnetic force is carried by the “photon”, and the “W and Z bosons” are responsible for the weak force. Although not yet found, the “graviton” should be the corresponding force-carrying particle of gravity. The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains well how these forces act on all of the matter particles.


Do you want more? Find them yourself, then, Rosemary Idiot Ainslie. Or better yet... find a SINGLE VALID REFERENCE that agrees with YOU, for a change. You cannot -- because you are utterly, abjectly and transparently WRONG.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #509 on: February 26, 2014, 01:36:55 PM »
When someone has magical beliefs it can be very difficult to devise tests.  In the latest bit of pretzel logic, Ms. Ainslie objects to your proposal to disconnect the Q2 source pin as a way of testing whether current goes through the function generator during the "Q1 Off" times or not. 

OK so the hypothesis is that Q1 is essential to these oscillations.  Then just disconnect the gate lead of Q1 and connect that to the Q1 source, or disconnect Q1 completely.  If the oscillations still occur, then the hypothesis that Q1 is carrying the circuit current during the oscillations is disproved.  Assuming that is the case, since you have already shown that it is so, then the Q2 source can be disconnected.  Let's see what Ms. Ainlie's objection is to testing her claim.

Well.... then just lower the cut point to below the connection to the Q1 gate. This leaves the Q2 source connected to the Q1 gate as normal, but disconnects the FG from both. What happens then, AINSLIE? You get nothing, that's what. No heat, no current flow, no oscillations at all, because you have disconnected the FG.

The video does not show that test. What would be the point? It would be like not hooking up the battery and expecting something to happen.

What it does show, however, is that Ainslie manages to contradict herself completely ("The Q2 mosfets are disconnected while oscillating" but they "must be connected in order to oscillate") and be utterly wrong (the connection doesn't do what she claims it does and is unnecessary) at the same time. That takes some doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4

I can't wait to see what nonsense and insults she'll spew after this. Tangled up in her own web of calumny, that troll queen is.

 

OneLink