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: 83535
  • *Latest: Fritzman

  • *Total Posts: 514381
  • *Total Topics: 15304
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 7
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 21

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 249360 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #540 on: February 28, 2014, 01:57:19 AM »
The August 11 demonstration video will be here when it is done uploading, probably in an hour or so. I have a really slow upload connection.

http://youtu.be/ld-LTPxmoQA
It also appears to be back up on her web site.

The function generator black lead fun occurs at 23:10:

23:10 (RA pointing to circuit common and referring to the function generator leads) "Shouldn't the black lead be connected to this common or doesn't it matter?"
23:18 (SW)"Paper 1 has it where Donovan has located it now."
23:23 (RA) "OK. That's good."

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 #541 on: February 28, 2014, 05:51:53 AM »
I don't detect any attempt by Ainslie to respond to the Pop Quiz items. Maybe she's sleeping in class again. Sherry in the mornings will do that to you; you are not as young as you used to be, are you Ainslie.

Well, too late, Ainslie child, you flunked. Try paying more attention. Coming to class regularly, shutting up and paying attention,  and asking appropriate questions will help you understand your topic; insulting and shouting down your teachers with your deluded ideas about how things _should work to support your "thesis"_ will not. Doing a little homework on your own, or with a local or internet tutor, will also help. If you ever want to get a real scientific publication on your CV... you will have to buckle down, change your attitude, and LEARN SOMETHING FOR A CHANGE.

http://youtu.be/kWpzpgNnzew

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #542 on: February 28, 2014, 07:12:24 AM »
I don't detect any attempt by Ainslie to respond to the Pop Quiz items. Maybe she's sleeping in class again. Sherry in the mornings will do that to you; you are not as young as you used to be, are you Ainslie.

Well, too late, Ainslie child, you flunked. Try paying more attention. Coming to class regularly, shutting up and paying attention,  and asking appropriate questions will help you understand your topic; insulting and shouting down your teachers with your deluded ideas about how things _should work to support your "thesis"_ will not. Doing a little homework on your own, or with a local or internet tutor, will also help. If you ever want to get a real scientific publication on your CV... you will have to buckle down, change your attitude, and LEARN SOMETHING FOR A CHANGE.

http://youtu.be/kWpzpgNnzew
That video nicely demonstrates as did the previous video that Q1 is not needed for the oscillations.  Ms. Ainslie's hypothesis that Q1 carries the oscillatory current is as false as her ideas that during the oscillations there are many amperes peak carried by the circuit.  It is only Q2 that provides the amplification needed for the oscillations.  If you wanted you could continue the pedagogy by demonstrating the relative AC currents that flow through the source and the gate leads of Q2.  Or you can leave those exercises to the interested student.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #542 on: February 28, 2014, 07:12:24 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #543 on: February 28, 2014, 07:32:57 AM »
Yes, but what it really illustrates is the utter ignorance, stupidity and arrogance of Rosemary Ainslie... who accuses me of FAKING the demonstrations. The first one she thinks I used a stored waveform !! The second one she can't quite figure out how I'm doing it but she's sure it must be fake. I don't think she's seen the latest one yet.  It's HILARIOUS seeing her twisting in the wind. Just as I predicted, she will not accept ANY evidence no matter how clearly presented, no matter how simple-minded and easy FOR ANYONE TO TRY FOR THEMSELVES, if it's contrary to her "thesis" it's wrong, by definition. Ainslie's an arrogant fool, and she's not even a good liar, because her lies are so transparent and she winds up contradicting herself frequently.

With every rant that rejects reality she emits, she puts herself down more and more. She is in the position of having to see that her whole effort, her whole being, practically, over the last fourteen or sixteen years has been a futile chasing of smoke and mirrors. There is no "there" there at all. That has got to be extremely depressing for her. What will happen when Donovan Martin or Steve Weir tells her that my demonstrations are 100 percent honest and that anyone can repeat them for themselves and get the exact same results? What will she say IF she manages to learn that the common gate amplifier has been known and used for many many years, with never a hint of OU? I imagine she has to be defending her ego very strongly right now. That old cognitive dissonance is ringing her bell. Ask not, Ainslie, for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee, child, it tolls for thee.

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

Quote
In electronics, a common-gate amplifier is one of three basic single-stage field-effect transistor (FET) amplifier topologies, typically used as a current buffer or voltage amplifier. In this circuit the source terminal of the transistor serves as the input, the drain is the output and the gate is connected to ground, or "common," hence its name.

The image below is from the Wiki article. Look familiar, there, Little Miss Mosfet?

Ains-lie, you "dare not deliberately misrepresent anything?" Then why do you do it all the time, then? Why have you misrepresented, just yesterday, the location that you ALWAYS used for the Black FG lead? I found photos of every apparatus you have used since 2009 that show the Black FG lead positioned exactly where you MISREPRESENTED that it was not, you liar, and the proof is up above in this thread. Many of the proofs are in YOUR OWN PHOTOS. I certainly don't have to work very hard at all to demonstrate that you misrepresent things every day, and if it's not deliberate.... then you need to get your medication adjusted, because you are hallucinating again.

And my anger at you, Rosemary Ains-lie, is not fake. It is real, and it is only the fact that I am a gentleman that I don't _really_ give vent to my true feelings about you and your lies. All the years of your insults and lies are coming back to you now, because these last few days of your ignorant and accusatory comments show to the Whole World that you haven't got a clue, you haven't got a clue that you haven't a clue, and that people should stay away from you because you don't know what the hell you are doing. You are a menace, Rosemary Ainslie, a destroyer of reputations. Donovan Martin will never be able to live down his association with you; you made him LIE FOR YOU many times and I've posted the proofs of that already. That's reprehensible, beneath contempt.

I dare you: Sit with Donovan Martin OR ANYONE YOU LIKE and watch my last three videos. Or just the two. Then break out your damned digital oscilloscope, if you haven't broken it already, and DO THE TEST YOURSELF. It will work for you just as it works for me and for anyone else who can actually wire a circuit. But you will not and YOU DARE NOT, because you do know, or fear, in the dark depths of your malign and mendacious soul.... that I am right and you are wrong. Haven't you noticed that nobody, not even chessnyt or gmeast, supports your "analysis" of my videos directed at your issues? What do you think the reason for that might be?  Never mind, I know that you do not think.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #544 on: February 28, 2014, 08:27:22 AM »
Ms. Ainslie discounts the existence of the very gate capacitance that she can read as Figure 5. in the IRFPG50 data sheet.  And what does that gate-drain capacitance do?  It passes current, the only current through the current sense path.  In the case of Ms. Ainslie's experiments prior to June 29, 2013, and as shown in that demonstration, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators hooked up their current sense voltage probe across a piece of wire.  During the June 29, and August 11 demonstrations, the same wire was still within the probe loop, but at least they included the sense resistors.  The problem there is that the impedance of the wiring inductance at the oscillation frequency is many times the impedance of the current sense resistor.  Donovan Martin's befuddlement at that fact can be seen in the June 29 video.  Those inductance problems were not fixed during the August 11 demonstration.  Instead, relatively low inductance current sense was separately set-up at the battery.  Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators simply did not, and she still does not understand wiring parasitics and what to do about them.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #544 on: February 28, 2014, 08:27:22 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #545 on: February 28, 2014, 07:28:23 PM »
This is just too good to let it pass by without further analysis. My demonstration here "refers".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4

And here is what the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie has to say about the demonstration:

Quote
Then he tells us to 'watch this' when he cuts Q1 OUT OF THE CIRCUIT.  COMPLETELY.  A very dramatic moment.  Golly.  That's at the 5.09 minute mark.  The CULMINATION OF HIS ARGUMENT. 
Not quite the CULMINATION, yet, Ainslie. Just an illustration, yet another one, that your claims are utterly FALSE and that you don't have a clue about mosfet operation in general or in the particular application of the Common Gate Amplifier that forms half of the "Q-array" circuit.
Quote
That argument that thus far is based rather tenuously on zero measurements actually measured -
That's a lie. Just because you have chosen to ignore all the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS that go into my argument, that were made by me, by Poynt99, and even by YOU.... that does not mean that they do not exist.
Quote
  and a 'flimflam' of nonsense related to the scalability of those voltages. 
The only "flimflam" of utter nonsense is coming from YOU, the Great Scientist Troll, Rosemary Ainslie. You cannot provide any support for your idiotic claim that my demonstrations ANY OF THEM are "nonsense" in any way.
Quote
Quite frankly, dear Reader - I'm rather surprised.  Consider where we're at here.

Yes indeed--- consider where we are "at" here.
Quote
He's definitely CUT OUT Q1. 
Finally a bit of correct statement from Ainslie. Stop the presses! Sound the trumpets! Toss the confetti! Open the champagne!
Ainslie has typed something that is actually TRUE for a change!
Quote
And we've got his function generators' terminal - STILL CONNECTED AT THE WRONG PLACE ON THE BACK END OF THE SENSE RESISTOR. 
The very same WRONG END that ROSEMARY AINSLIE AND DONOVAN MARTIN HAVE ALWAYS ALWAYS USED UNTIL THE AUGUST 11, 2013 DEMONSTRATION.
Quote
And to entirely confuse the issue - we've ALSO got the PROBE from that function generator applying a negative signal to NOTHING BUT the SOURCE RAIL of the circuit.
That's right--- it entirely and utterly confuses the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie, because she is completely and totally ignorant of her chosen topic and the well-studied configuration of the simple mosfet Common Gate Amplifier.
Quote
  is that clear?  The terminal and the probe are now in series.

Perhaps she means that the FG's Red and Black wires form a series circuit with the main battery, the load and the FG when the Q2 transistor is "on" and oscillating. Unfortunately for ALL HER MEASUREMENTS IN THE TWO DAFT MANUSCRIPTS, the current sense resistor is NOT in this series circuit and so does not monitor an extremely critical parameter. ALL the data, every jot and tittle of it, that Ainslie has published before August 11, 2013, is invalid because of this misconnection, deliberate I believe, of her current sense scope probes.
Quote

 And yet?  We see a CLEAR evidence that there's absolutely NO variation to that oscillation?  Presumably and technically the function generator CAN deliver a signal anywhere you put it.  So IF during this period it's applying a positive signal - to the negative rail of the battery supply - that point that it shares the common node with the two scope terminals?  Then?  CONVERSELY it would be applying a NEGATIVE signal to the directly to the source rail of Q2.  Because Q1 is UNARGUABLY DISCONNECTED.
All Hail the Great Scientist! She makes another correct observation. Will wonders never cease? Perhaps she has actually learned to magnify her screen and to listen to what someone is telling her instead of talking over them and misstating what they have said to her.
Quote
  Is THIS the cause of that oscillation?   Surely NOT.

ROFL! SURELY SO, naive ignorant Ainslie child, and anyone with the equipment can test it for themselves, and anyone with an internet connection and a computer-- and basic research skills, which you are sorely lacking -- can see myriads of correct explanations for the phenomenon of FEEDBACK OSCILLATIONS IN A COMMON GATE AMPLIFIER CIRCUIT.
Quote
It can't be.
And why not? Because it goes against the Great Scientist's "thesis" that's why not, and because the Great Scientist has neglected to learn anything about how mosfets DO work. This, in spite of three years of video demonstrations which she has ignored, millions of words of actual confirmable explanations from many different people and many different sources on the internet. A clearer display of willfull ignorance and overweening arrogance I have never seen.
Quote
Because that oscillation stays true and it certainly HAS NOT CHANGED.  ANYWHERE.  AT ALL.  Not by one iota.  Hasn't 'turned a hair'.  Still the same.  EXACTLY the same as it was in the previous minute.
Can this be true? The Great Scientist has made YET ANOTHER CORRECT OBSERVATION. This is earth-shaking, being the very first time in history that Ainslie has said three true things in one post.
Quote
That's TRULY miraculous.
INDEED it is, but not for the reasons you think, o Great Scientist.
Quote
Perhaps Mark Euthansius can give us an explanation for this.  I think HE was the one who called for this test.
And he has already done so many times, as have many other people. Just because you cannot see the Eiffel Tower from your backyard in Cape Town does not mean that it does not exist, or that other people have not seen and understood it for what it is.
Quote
  It's AMAZING.  Quite simply INCREDIBLE.
I knew you would be amazed, and I predicted that you would not believe it, and ONCE MORE I AM RIGHT.
Quote
The very first evidence anywhere that a function generator can deliver a signal through its TERMINAL while its PROBE stays precisely in series with that both that terminal and not the GATE - NOTA BENE - BUT the source leg of Q2.
WRONG AGAIN, Ainslie, you lying troll. I've done this same demonstration for you at least six times since 2012, and the Common Gate Amplifier is no mystery to those who know their subject.
Quote
  The usual point at which to apply a signal is at the GATE of a MOSFET.  And the ONLY gate available for that signal is NOW GONE.  CUT OUT.  VANQUISHED.  It's extraordinary.  I can't for the life of me think of an explanation. 
More true statements. Will wonders never cease!  Ainslie cannot for the life of her, think, or follow a logical argument, or believe the evidence of her own eyeballs if it contradicts her "thesis".
Quote
Unless, of course, he's simply showing us a signal that he stored on that scope shot from the previous setting.  But FAR be it from me to show up our Little pickle as a liar and a cheat.  That would hardly be ladylike.
And here we have the CRUX of the matter. The Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie would rather accuse me of CHEATING by doing something that is really impossible without additional equipment not in evidence -- showing a stored waveform on a 40 year old, low-end analog scope -- than getting up off her scrawny duff to make a phone call or two, or HEAVEN FORBID she would actually deign to do the silly, ten-minute experiment HERSELF. Perhaps the Great Scientist, the expert metrologist Rosemary Ainslie, can tell us how a STORED WAVEFORM can be varied in real time by changing the FG settings, as I do in that portion of the video after I cut out the Q1. Even her LeCroy, even the 30,000 dollar Tek scope that I used for Tar Baby's play dates, can't do that.
Quote
  Rather let our more qualified Readers who dip in here - establish the truth for themselves.  IF you need to.
I see the facepalms happening throughout the world. YES ! I wholeheartedly invite ANYONE at all to "dip in here", watch my demos and check my references, perform the experiments for themselves. Just be sure to tell the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie what your findings are.
Quote
Personally I think it justifies a good laugh - rather than any further investigation.
So says the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslile! Of course you don't want any further investigation into anything that shows that your claims are false, your data are fabrications and your conclusions are based on stupid math errors performed on the fabricated data. However, we lesser scientists, who don't already know everything,  prefer to perform experiments that actually test well-formed hypotheses, and we CHECK OUR WORK before releasing it publicly, and we CORRECT ERRORS when they are demonstrated, and we DO NOT ALLOW OUR NAMES to appear on "publications" which contain fabricated data and bogus claims culminating in demonstrably false conclusions.

Now watch the next two videos showing some more things that the Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie will tell you I am faking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilT3LRF0hUA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWpzpgNnzew

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #546 on: February 28, 2014, 08:18:57 PM »
Each missive that Ms. Ainslie has posted has dug a deeper hole.  I vote more demonstrations that show the reality of the situation.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #546 on: February 28, 2014, 08:18:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #547 on: February 28, 2014, 08:30:33 PM »
OK, here's one:

Displaying Stored Waveforms from the Tektronix 2213A Analog Oscilloscope

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcHg5gGB5xk

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #548 on: March 01, 2014, 03:14:01 AM »
Wait just a minute:  Canon didn't make that camera in the 1970s.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #548 on: March 01, 2014, 03:14:01 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #549 on: March 01, 2014, 03:20:53 AM »
Ahhh.... you got me.

That's what happens when you do YouTube demonstrations.... there is always someone who knows the material and can provide a _proper_ analysis of what is being demonstrated.

(Too bad my printer is out of ink. I would have taped a printout of the screen to the scope.)



BTW, I would sure like to find a (free) copy of the Manual for this Epic Instruments WaveSaver. Internet searches have not yielded anything. Any ideas? (The outputs are on the back panel; it doesn't just "eat" waveforms without spitting them back out.)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #550 on: March 01, 2014, 06:03:15 AM »
Look! She's baaack!

Quote
LOL.  Guys I've just dipped in at OU.com and see another 3 pages or thereby - of TK's MISDIRECTIONS.  He has a pop quiz for me.  Can someone advise him that I've got a POP QUIZ FOR HIM?

Here it is.  Run your function generator in series with that BANK of batteries at about 72 volts or thereby - and with or without that ridiculous 'extra winding' that you've added.  And then let us know how it fares.  I predict an explosive discharge - from both the machine and you.
Extra winding added? What the heck are you talking about? The circuits I used, especially the one in that video, are YOUR EXACT CIRCUITS and there is no "extra winding". Oh.... you must mean the inductance I added which approximates the length of YOUR OWN BATTERY WIRE INTERCONNECTS, as shown below. But it is really not completely necessary, it just boosts the amplitude of the illusory oscillations on the battery trace AS YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS PROVE.

And did it escape your notice, o Great Scientist, that I did EXACTLY THAT SERIES CONNECTION in the video to which you make your stupid objections? Or is my FG not connected in SERIES with those 72 volts of batteries?  Of course it is. Did you notice any explosions? If you did, it was your own brain popping from the strain of trying to follow a chain of logical reasoning. Again, refer to YOUR OWN SCHEMATIC to notice that the FG is in series with the batteries when the Q2s are on.

I predict you cannot answer any of MY popquiz questions, ignorant Ainslie .... and I am once again proven right about you, o Great Scientist Ains-lie.

Quote


Here's another.  How many people still buy into your ABSURD misdirections?

There are nearly two thousand subscribers to my YouTube channel. How many subscribers are there to all three of your YT channels added together?  THIRTY TWO.

How many people are buying into your fraudulent "papers", your fabricated data and your incompetent "demonstrations"? I can't find anyone who is still believing in your idiocy. Can you? Please provide a link.
Quote

And here's another.  Do you REALLY think that I'm likely to ever watch another one of your videos? 

Of course NOT, o Great Scientist. It would be very disappointing to me if you actually stopped making your stupid and idiotic statements, each one of which is disproven by one or another of my videos. You are simply displaying once again your willfull ignorance and your inability to deal with facts.
But other people DO watch them and nobody has managed to refute them yet. Why don't you ask Donovan Martin or Steve Weir to explain them to you. Or chessnyt, or gmeast. Let's see.... who else is there that we could ask to help you?   

NOBODY, that's who.

Quote
Kindest regards
Rosie
Hypocrite troll queen, how do you sleep at night? Oh... I forgot, you have plenty of Mother's Little Helpers to rock you off to dreamland.

There is not a word of misdirection in any of my videos concerning you and your claims. YOU, however, cannot utter a statement without including lies, misdirections, false claims and insults, and you cannot provide a single reference to support your idiotic contentions.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #550 on: March 01, 2014, 06:03:15 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #551 on: March 01, 2014, 06:33:11 AM »
Note that she still persists in her fantasies and false claims! The person will NEVER be able to understand the operation of her "own" circuit, because she refuses to look at the references that prove her wrong and explain the situation correctly!

THE BATTERY IS NEVER DISCONNECTED, silly child Ainslie. THE Q2s ARE NEVER DISCONNECTED. THE FG  DOES INDEED provide the necessary connection and this has been proven to you over and over and over again. The currents you think you "measure" and that I have also shown present no danger to even YOUR namby-pamby FG under the operating conditions you prefer. You are willfully ignorant of the explanations and proofs and you refuse to perform any real experiments to test your own claims. You could not even design such an experiment.... yet I have presented them to you in various forms since 2009. Your ignorance is no excuse for your.... IGNORANCE, since it is deliberate on your part.

And your misrepresentations of the role of the capacitance mentioned by MarkE and Poynt99 and the mosfet data sheet indicates that you STILL have no clue. The currents flowing through that capacitance is what really makes the _feedback_ and the phase shift that amplifiers require in order to oscillate. And since you have no clue as to how capacitors work your statements about how much current they may or may not be able to handle are just stupid handwavings, flailing about like a fish out of water, about to choke on her own spittle.

Further, you once again LIE when you claim that the high heat in your loads are produced by anything other than current running through the Q1 transistor during its ON time. And you can't have it both ways, AINS-LIE..... I either replicated your results or I didn't, make up your mind. The difference is that I DO NOT MISREPRESENT OR LIE ABOUT MY RESULTS.... the way you continuously do, as evidenced in your latest madwoman's rants. Your very last sentence is a total LIE as proven by YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #552 on: March 01, 2014, 07:12:43 AM »
It is all just so silly now.  Kirchhoff's Laws instruct us well how to measure a circuit and determine where the energy sources are.  There is no need to assume when we can readily measure.  Ms. Ainslie has during her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations has proven the invalidity of the measurements produced in her papers.  It is what caused her in a fleeting moment of lucidity and honor to withdraw those papers.  Now she chooses to attempt to reassert that which she herself has disproven.  It's mind boggling.

She now asserts that she disconnected the batteries:  Yes when the clip leads were disconnected.  And Yes when the function generator was a positive voltage but too low to turn Q1 on the circuit did not conduct current.  But Ms. Ainslie wishes us to believe that the battery was disconnected during periods when current passed through the heating element.  And that is patently false as proven by her own demonstrations.  Ms. Ainslie insists that she has shown "upwards of 14 amps during this 'off' period".  Again, Ms. Ainslie is oblivious to the errors in her measurements.  What she can rightfully claim is that she has observed upwards of 3.5V pp measured across each:  her current sense resistors plus wiring to her circuit common, as well as just the wiring from her current sense resistors to her circuit common.  Both were clearly in evidence during the June 29, 2013 demonstration.  What Ms. Ainslie demonstrates herself incapable of reasoning out is that if the signal is essentially the same, as Donovan Martin ultimately showed that it was across both the combined resistors and wiring, as just the wiring, then what is the source of the majority of signal voltage?  The big clue is that it's what was common to both of the essentially identical measurements:  the wiring.  And why might that be?  It is of course because a 6" chunk of wire offers considerable impedance to a 3MHz signal. But fear not.  TinselKoala has some low inductance resistors handy and will be demonstrating why a 3.5vpp voltage only means 14A when measured across 0.25 Ohms resistance without multiple volts of L*di/dt.

And from there it is downhill for Ms. Ainslie as she attempts to bootstrap her misinterpreted 3.5Vpp into a current and then that current into a capacitance that she denies exists despite the MOSFET manufacturer:  International Rectifier providing a handy plot of that capacitance versus drain to source voltage.  Has Ms. Ainslie attempted a computation?  Say if we take  the lower end of that graph at about 100pF for each of the four Q2 MOSFETs, we end up with ~400pF which at 3MHz works out to ~130 Ohms total.  Can ~130 Ohms more or less in series with a greater than 200V signal pass more or less an Ampere of current?  Can an ampere of current across 0.2uH at 3MHz produce 3.5V swing?  Inquiring minds who haven't mastered the "Hand Calculators for Dummies" book may have to wait for TinselKoala to post his video.

And now Ms. Ainslie misquotes Poynt99.  Poynt99 has correctly stated that destructive powers do not flow through the function generator.  That is a fact.  Ms. Ainslie again forgets where she measured the oscillatory currents up to August 11:  around, and not through the function generator, because the function generator was directly connected to the same circuit common as the ground lead of her CH1 oscilloscope probe.  The oscilloscope CH1 (current) probe did not register voltage or current through the function generator.  Ms. Ainslie betrays her ignorance of the mechanics of her own circuit when she attempts to assert that the 3.5Vpp signal she measured had anything to do with either the function generator or for that matter her current sense resistors.

There is absurd denial in play.  It is all from Ms. Ainslie.  I like TinselKoala dare Ms. Ainslie to get any expert on record.  See if any competent engineer will go on record in support her claims.  See if any competent engineer will dispute TinselKoala's demonstrations.

As to Ms. Ainslie's closing claim: 
Quote
MOST ASSUREDLY - we have AMPLE proof that there is MORE ENERGY measured from our element resistor than has been supplied by the energy supply source.
Her August 11, demonstration clearly showed ~15W battery draw for what was also shown to be between 2.4W and 3.4W evolved heating power from her "element resistor".  Only in a very perverse world is:  ~3W greater than ~15W.  Such a world is the world of Ms. Ainslie, and she is proud to say as much.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13971
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #553 on: March 01, 2014, 08:26:40 AM »
I swear this is like shooting fish in a barrel, using a 12 ga shotgun.

I just made another video that the Great Scientist will refuse to watch. I used a slightly different method to make the same points.

Method:
I put a 1 ohm wirewound "concrete" power resistor in series with my "kelvin probe" noninductive 1 ohm resistor soldered directly to the leads of a scope probe. These resistors are in strict series and so, obviously, will have the exact same _true_ current flowing through them. I placed this setup on the negative terminal of the run battery stack. Initially I used only two batteries. I isolated the FG's outputs from the chassis ground by using the F43's Isolation Switch. I connected another scope probe across the ordinary resistor, so now I have two channels each of which should show the same current IF the currents are really there. Right? Neither probe is attenuated, both are used in the '1x' position and both channels of the scope are set to 2 volts per vertical division. I hooked the FG outputs up exactly as before, with the Black output at the battery negative terminal and the Red output to the mosfet Source pin, where NOTHING ELSE is connected. I then turned up the amplitude of the FG and I show that the non-inductive resistor's indicated current is _much smaller_ than that indicated by the probe on the ordinary wirewound resistor.
Then I moved the FG Black lead to the correct side of the CVR assembly and showed the same thing.

Then I hooked up all six batteries in series to make a nominal 72 volt supply, actually measured over 74 volts, and repeated the demonstration using the higher voltage supply. Since the FG Red lead is the ONLY thing connected to the Source pin of the single mosfet, all the currents in the circuit MUST flow through the FG itself which is in strict series with the entire 74 volt power source.  In spite of the Great Scientist's squawkings .... the only thing that exploded was her brain.

The video will take a little while to process and upload, maybe two hours. I have to splice the segments together and go through 2 transcoding stages then the upload time. The demonstration itself took less than ten minutes.


Parts and instruments used:

IRFPG50 mosfet (one)
1 ohm non-inductive resistor, Ohmite WNER50FE
Xicon wirewound power resistor 1 ohm 5 watt
Dale 5 ohm 20 watt wirewound resistor (load) HL-20-02Z-5
Fluke 83 DMM to check resistances
Interstate F43 Sooper Dooper FG
Tektronix 2213A magic oscilloscope
6 ea. 12 volt, 5 A-H Sealed Lead Acid batteries, fully charged

Hypotheses tested:

1) If a non inductive Kelvin-probe resistor and an ordinary resistor with the same values are used to sense the same currents, they should read the same IF the currents they are measuring are real. On the other hand, IF inductances have a significant role in creating illusory voltage amplitude readings, the non-inductive resistor should read considerably lower than the ordinary resistor when measuring the same currents.

2) If the high currents inferred by looking at the voltage drop across the more inductive CVR are REAL, on the order of ten amps or more, this might put the FG at risk of failure. On the other hand, IF the measurement is spurious, then there aren't those high currents flowing through the FG at all and it is safe.

Results:
The non-inductive Kelvin probe gave much lower voltage drop readings for the same currents, than did the ordinary resistor/scope probe arrangement. The two probes were measured simultaneously in a series arrangement so that the identical current was in both probes at the same time. This result was true regardless of the Black FG lead location or the number of batteries in the supply.
The 74 volt battery supply did not damage anything. The load resistor was observed to be very slightly over ambient temperature after the 72 volt trial but remained at ambient during the 24 volt trial.


Conclusion:
The Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie is not so great after all, as every one of her predictions has been proven FALSE and in fact, silly and stupid.


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #554 on: March 01, 2014, 08:42:35 AM »
This will be interesting to watch.  It will add an interesting chapter to the High Pass Filters for Dummies book.  Remember that  Ms. Ainslie never measured directly across her low inductance resistors.  Her oscilloscope ground clips were always connected to those bolts that fed through to the circuit common plate, and from there another 5" to 6" of wire to the bolts that then went through the board to the short wires that connected to the CSR low side, the CSRs themselves, and then wires to the bolts from the Q1 Source common plate near the resistors underneath the board.  So even though her resistors were arguably much lower inductance than your cement resistor, the extra inductance of her series wiring added much more inductance than you have with your probe and ground clip placements.  The other thing to note is that the CSR w0 angular frequency is:  R/L.  Past w0 for a 1 Ohm resistor plus her wiring inductance, her quarter Ohm array will create 4X the signal gain that a 1 Ohm resistor does.

 

OneLink