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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

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: 524194
  • *Total Topics: 15608
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 276006 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #570 on: March 02, 2014, 12:14:38 AM »
Gmeast, I think we are acknowledging that you have skills and knowledge, and I don't think that is seriously in doubt. But the question is about your own analysis of the things Ainslie has claimed all along, and most particularly in the past few weeks, and even more pointedly in the past several days. I know you read her posts. So... what do you think of her claims now, from a practical scientific viewpoint, and what do you think of her attitude of willfull ignorance and arrogance, from an interpersonal, psychological viewpoint?

We respect you enough to be asking you these questions, that should be plain.

For example, do you believe her plain accusation that I cheated by showing a stored waveform, or in any other way?

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 #571 on: March 02, 2014, 12:21:17 AM »
I'll post which make and model non-inductive resistors I used in all of my tests as soon as I can find the Mouser invoices. I used two values depending on what I was measuring. I used 0.1Ohm resistors for measuring lower voltage drops like for PWM power determinations and 0.05Ohm for the higher voltage drops like for the Inductive Resistor Heater Element. However, I don't use the Q-Array. My setup is much more basic, but measurement is just as rigorous and requires more than just basic measurement skills (and knowledge)... which (even though you don't believe it) I do have.


Regards,


gme
If you have pictures of your arrangement that would help assess where you likely are with respect to parasitic inductance.  You should always use the largest sense resistor value that you can tolerate from a voltage drop and power dissipation standpoint.  The R/L angular cut-off frequency obviously falls with R, and rises with L.  A lot of resistors that are sold as "non-inductive" exhibit 100nH or more inductance.  In the case of Ms. Ainslie's circuits the oscillations occur around 3MHz ~= 20E6r/s.  A 100nH inductance looks like 2 Ohms at that frequency.  The sense resistance would have to be 6 Ohms in order to limit the amplitude distortion to 10%. 

There is another way:  You can make up a sense circuit that places a small series R/C network across the sense resistor that compensates for the R/L response with an RC response.  The capacitor connects to the common side of the sense resistor and you read across the capacitor.  The resistor is adjusted to get a flat frequency response.  This is basically the same idea as the frequency compensation adjustment on an oscilloscope probe.  In order to make the adjustment you can drive the circuit with a fast rising or falling current at a low repetition rate, like 1kHz.  Then just like the scope probe adjustment, dial in a flat response.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #572 on: March 02, 2014, 01:02:43 AM »
Gmeast, has MarkE given you sufficient enlightenment or would you like to discuss my videos? Even though I think that the explanations given in them are perfectly clear, if you start at the beginning--- and especially if you have watched the Negative Bias playlist from the beginning... I would be more than happy to explain any thing in them and I would indeed like your honest criticism of the points that are being made that relate to Ainslie's claims. For example in the post you quoted, she predicted, very nastily, that I would blow out the FG if I used six batteries in series and put those in series with my FG. As you can see from the videos, I have done just that, and not just with the simplified half-Ainslie circuit but also, in the Tar Baby demonstrations, I did it many times.

So... your opinion please. And why are you critical of my attitude towards Ainslie? There is nobody, nowhere that she has insulted more than me, and with all her false accusations, proven lies and ridiculous claims, coupled with her deliberate ignorance and refusal to follow simple explanations... can you blame me that I am angry with her? I have worked long and hard in an attempt to explain the action of the circuit, nobody has made any refutations of my work at all, and yet Ainslie still persists in her remarkable set of errors. Do you deny, for example, that I have shown how the Q2s are turned on in the circuit by Grounding the Gate and Lowering the voltage at the Source pin of the transistor, something that Ainslie clearly believes, still, to be impossible, in spite of the references I have given her to the Common Gate Amplifier configuration? Something that Ainslie has actually accused me of FAKING by showing a stored waveform... on an analog oscilloscope from last century? Would you not be frustrated and angry if someone refused to believe your results that are perfectly ordinary, but rather accused you of FAKING them?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #572 on: March 02, 2014, 01:02:43 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #573 on: March 02, 2014, 02:21:18 AM »
Ms. Ainslie must be a big fan of the old Monty Python routine: "The Argument Clinic".  Even though TinselKoala's videos systematically disprove Ms. Ainslie's claims she's adhering to those disproven claims in a game of:  "No it isn't."  Likely there are very few that Ms. Ainslie fools other than herself.


Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #574 on: March 02, 2014, 02:57:49 AM »
If you have pictures of your arrangement that would help assess where you likely are with respect to parasitic inductance.  You should always use the largest sense resistor value that you can tolerate from a voltage drop and power dissipation standpoint.  The R/L angular cut-off frequency obviously falls with R, and rises with L.  A lot of resistors that are sold as "non-inductive" exhibit 100nH or more inductance.  In the case of Ms. Ainslie's circuits the oscillations occur around 3MHz ~= 20E6r/s.  A 100nH inductance looks like 2 Ohms at that frequency.  The sense resistance would have to be 6 Ohms in order to limit the amplitude distortion to 10%. 

There is another way:  You can make up a sense circuit that places a small series R/C network across the sense resistor that compensates for the R/L response with an RC response.  The capacitor connects to the common side of the sense resistor and you read across the capacitor.  The resistor is adjusted to get a flat frequency response.  This is basically the same idea as the frequency compensation adjustment on an oscilloscope probe.  In order to make the adjustment you can drive the circuit with a fast rising or falling current at a low repetition rate, like 1kHz.  Then just like the scope probe adjustment, dial in a flat response.


You're talking 'apples & oranges'. Looking at the images in my slide show, what's shown are not the types of oscillations seen in the Q-Array or in any other part of Rosie's papers or in other replications. In mine, all you see is a (pretty much textbook - maybe plus one extra cycle) damped oscillation seen when ANY switch that has been charging an inductor is opened. There are only about 12 complete oscillations in the wave, with each one of them being successively of lesser amplitude. The waveform you see in my figures is exactly what you would see from a high-voltage scope with no probe attenuation and set on a 1:1 scale. There's no parasitic 'anything' in such a wimpy waveform as mine and any math scope will return an accurate mean value for the voltage drop across a non-inductive current measuring resistor applied to that waveform.


Something NOT in my data, but that kept me optimistic, yet sober, was the simple fact that my batteries recharged faster following the pulsed loading tests (powering the Heater Element) vs. the purely resistive load tests ... and not by just a little bit ... roughly 6-Hrs vs. 8-Hrs respectively. This was a common factor throughout the dozens of tests I ran. If you look at my 'crazy' startup procedure, you'll see that the batteries were charged (on a charger made for charging AGM batteries) that automatically tapered off and shut down to 20mA. Then the batteries were unhooked from the charger and left to sit for 8 more hours before being loaded on any test.  And also NOT in my published data (and I consider my slide show as "published") is the same battery-charging counterpart as applied to the second resistive load test wherein the lesser load and pulsed load had the same starting and ending battery voltages but wherein the lesser resistive load caused a lower temperature (rise over ambient) than the pulsed load on the same Heater Element test fixture ... yet they took nearly identical times to fully recharge the batteries after those tests. So there's yet another, albeit indirect, result in support of my conclusions as presented in my slide show.


There are too many resultant factors in blatant support of one another. My conclusions are simply NOT the result of measurement error or measurement anomaly.


... but thanks anyway. Regards,


gme

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #574 on: March 02, 2014, 02:57:49 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #575 on: March 02, 2014, 03:34:10 AM »
Gmeast, has MarkE given you sufficient enlightenment or would you like to discuss my videos? Even though I think that the explanations given in them are perfectly clear, if you start at the beginning--- and especially if you have watched the Negative Bias playlist from the beginning... I would be more than happy to explain any thing in them and I would indeed like your honest criticism of the points that are being made that relate to Ainslie's claims. For example in the post you quoted, she predicted, very nastily, that I would blow out the FG if I used six batteries in series and put those in series with my FG. As you can see from the videos, I have done just that, and not just with the simplified half-Ainslie circuit but also, in the Tar Baby demonstrations, I did it many times.

So... your opinion please. And why are you critical of my attitude towards Ainslie? There is nobody, nowhere that she has insulted more than me, and with all her false accusations, proven lies and ridiculous claims, coupled with her deliberate ignorance and refusal to follow simple explanations... can you blame me that I am angry with her? I have worked long and hard in an attempt to explain the action of the circuit, nobody has made any refutations of my work at all, and yet Ainslie still persists in her remarkable set of errors. Do you deny, for example, that I have shown how the Q2s are turned on in the circuit by Grounding the Gate and Lowering the voltage at the Source pin of the transistor, something that Ainslie clearly believes, still, to be impossible, in spite of the references I have given her to the Common Gate Amplifier configuration? Something that Ainslie has actually accused me of FAKING by showing a stored waveform... on an analog oscilloscope from last century? Would you not be frustrated and angry if someone refused to believe your results that are perfectly ordinary, but rather accused you of FAKING them?


Hi TK,


OK, I've been mean to you I know ... no more. You and she will always butt heads and that's a fact. Rosie is not going to die and go away and neither are you. She has made some good arguable technical points as have you. You'll never be happy until she agrees with you and visa versa. I think Rosie's agenda is genuine in that she is trying to do some good for the world ... me too, and you also in your own way. She doesn't have some high class website out there where she's trying to scam a bunch of investors so I don't know why you continue the type of assault you do as if she WAS scamming people.


I've been going over my work (which you have said on many occasions "... it's not work at all ... ") and I'm happy with what I've done and I've received allot of support ... moral anyway. I believe in DISCOVERY. Mankind has ALWAYS taken what he (thinks he knows for sure) and changed it or fine tuned it or modified it to fit in and support new discoveries and inventions. It just seems that here, in this forum, that has all been turned on its head and pointed in the opposite direction. INVENTION AND DISCOVERY should be encouraged and supported, but not here apparently. Well, I didn't intend to go anywhere specific with this, so that's it.


Regards,


gme

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #576 on: March 02, 2014, 03:36:51 AM »
Well, take some of the points in that ridiculous post of Ainslie's and investigate them. For example, I have 1,891 subscribers, 580 total videos uploaded, with 1,270,131  total views, for an average of 2190 views/video. Of course many of them don't actually have that many views, because some of them have many many more.

See the top line on this page:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA

Ainslie has.... wait for it...... FOUR DIFFERENT YouTube channels with 31 total videos uploaded and 46 total subscribers, and 4196 total views across ALL FOUR CHANNELS. That's an AVERAGE of about 135 views/video, but most of them have much fewer.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rosemary+ainslie&filters=channel&lclk=channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising
Since Ainslie has so many different accounts (WHY?) I might have missed some. If so, please let me know, I'd like to add them to my database.

The video of hers that has the most views appears to be this one with 625 views:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZCioPgKFrU

Whereas, I have Fourteen different videos that each have over 10,000 views, and my most popular videos are these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRQvT8IKlpA  (466,201 views)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afQW8FT02DM (136,702 views)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPuKv9Z-XE  (74,067 views)
And so on.  I've made over 150 videos dealing with various Ainslie topics, and the one that seems to have the most views at 891 is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6lLu7tvCZE
Most of my Ainslie-associated videos have between 200 and 300 views. I can upload an Ainslie video and before I even have a chance to link to it it will have 5 or 10 views. This means that I have subscribers who actually look forward to my videos and watch them as soon as they are notified by YouTube email (subscriber option) that they are ready to be seen. What is 150 x 200, O GREAT SCIENTIST AINSLIE? I'll tell you. It isn't 2,000, or even 20,000. It is 30,000. So my Ainslie videos have in total well over 30,000 views. And that's an insignificant number compared to the total, all right: Ainslie just isn't that important or interesting for most people. They would much rather see a simple Joule Thief or a Tesla Coil than hear another pedagogical debunk of some obscure claim that an idiot named Rosemary Ainslie made.

So ONCE AGAIN, the absurd claims and allegations of the Great Scientist are disproven by ten minutes of research that ANYONE with a computer and an internet connection can verify for themselves.


And she is still denying what I so clearly showed in so many of the recent videos. KEEP IT UP, AINSLIE !! Don't forget that your absurd pronouncements are ON THE RECORD and you will never, ever be able to bamboozle people like you did here, at Energetic Forum and elsewhere, ever again. Whether you know it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not.... your incompetence and your lies are clearly recorded and anyone who types your name into a search engine will come across my videos and analyses, and they will back away from you as fast as they can. Nobody will believe a madwoman who ignores evidence and lies about what she does not hope to understand.

Nobody has EVER refuted any of the videos concerning Ainslie that I have uploaded over the years.







Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #576 on: March 02, 2014, 03:36:51 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #577 on: March 02, 2014, 03:39:59 AM »
 
Quote
Well, I didn't intend to go anywhere specific with this, so that's it.


Well, thanks, but you didn't answer the question. What about her allegations in that particular post where she accuses me of FAKING a perfectly ordinary result because she cannot understand the Common Gate Amplifier configuration? Do you agree with her, or not? It's a simple question and surely YOU have the skills and knowledge needed to answer it. I'll bet you can even answer all the "POP QUIZ" questions correctly. SO?

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #578 on: March 02, 2014, 04:53:05 AM »

You're talking 'apples & oranges'. Looking at the images in my slide show, what's shown are not the types of oscillations seen in the Q-Array or in any other part of Rosie's papers or in other replications. In mine, all you see is a (pretty much textbook - maybe plus one extra cycle) damped oscillation seen when ANY switch that has been charging an inductor is opened. There are only about 12 complete oscillations in the wave, with each one of them being successively of lesser amplitude. The waveform you see in my figures is exactly what you would see from a high-voltage scope with no probe attenuation and set on a 1:1 scale. There's no parasitic 'anything' in such a wimpy waveform as mine and any math scope will return an accurate mean value for the voltage drop across a non-inductive current measuring resistor applied to that waveform.
Actually, there probably is.  If you are using a ground clip lead of any kind with a passive scope probe, and the risetime of the waveform is fast, then the probe is likely adding ringing to the measurement.  When you have a chance, try this:  Solder a small 100 Ohm resistor with the resistor body as close to the MOSFET drain connection as you can easily manage.  Then instead of clipping the oscilloscope probe hook to the drain lead, hook it to the other side of the 100 Ohm resistor as close to the resistor body as you can.
Quote


Something NOT in my data, but that kept me optimistic, yet sober, was the simple fact that my batteries recharged faster following the pulsed loading tests (powering the Heater Element) vs. the purely resistive load tests ... and not by just a little bit ... roughly 6-Hrs vs. 8-Hrs respectively. This was a common factor throughout the dozens of tests I ran.
That is not very surprising.  Lead acid batteries suffer less discharge feeding pulsed loads of equivalent energy than continuous loads.   Lead acid batteries can be as little as 60% energy round trip efficient feeding continuous loads.
Quote
If you look at my 'crazy' startup procedure, you'll see that the batteries were charged (on a charger made for charging AGM batteries) that automatically tapered off and shut down to 20mA.
Yes, I have noted that you were pretty meticulous with your procedures.
Quote
Then the batteries were unhooked from the charger and left to sit for 8 more hours before being loaded on any test.  And also NOT in my published data (and I consider my slide show as "published") is the same battery-charging counterpart as applied to the second resistive load test wherein the lesser load and pulsed load had the same starting and ending battery voltages but wherein the lesser resistive load caused a lower temperature (rise over ambient) than the pulsed load on the same Heater Element test fixture ... yet they took nearly identical times to fully recharge the batteries after those tests. So there's yet another, albeit indirect, result in support of my conclusions as presented in my slide show.
Yes, I have noted this as well.  In my mind the next logical step is an actual heat transfer test, because this can be arranged to get a decently accurate measure of actual heat energy evolved from your heating element.
Quote


There are too many resultant factors in blatant support of one another. My conclusions are simply NOT the result of measurement error or measurement anomaly.
I think that you have done a rather good job of measuring the things that you have so far.  You have followed a good logical process, been careful to do things consistently, made a good record of your data, and used more than one type of test to cross-check your work.  Those are all hallmarks of good experimental practice.  I interpret your data as reinforcing the well known phenomenon where lead acid batteries deliver more absolute discharge energy when pulsed than when loaded continuously.  In terms of whether you get more energy out of the heater than you draw from the battery, you need a way to compare the two.  Measuring actual heat transfer to a known thermal mass will get you the energy out information.
Quote


... but thanks anyway. Regards,


gme
I encourage you to continue experimenting.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #578 on: March 02, 2014, 04:53:05 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #579 on: March 02, 2014, 05:14:32 AM »


Well, thanks, but you didn't answer the question. What about her allegations in that particular post where she accuses me of FAKING a perfectly ordinary result because she cannot understand the Common Gate Amplifier configuration? Do you agree with her, or not? It's a simple question and surely YOU have the skills and knowledge needed to answer it. I'll bet you can even answer all the "POP QUIZ" questions correctly. SO?


Hi TK,


Being accused of "faking" results re: scientific experiments is one of the most upsetting things a serious experimenter will experience. I don't condone those types of accusations. Those kinds of comments often occur during the heat of debate. They're inexcusable without question. It happens. Even though I have participated in hurling injurious comments myself, it's wrong for anyone to do it. The truth is, when passions flare, this crap happens.  Rosie is not a technician and admits to not being the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to the details of circuit design, but she IS a good theorist. As I said ... my take on all of this conflict is that the injurious comments (including my own) have ALL been hurled in the heat of debate with equal passion on both sides.


I answered you question I hope. Regards,


gme

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #580 on: March 02, 2014, 05:33:43 AM »
Yes, do continue and do take the advice to heart. I would like to see Gmeast's results from those well-conducted thermal experiments too. If he gets reliable and valid results, then there is much I can do for him to further his research, and I don't mean my video experiments. It would not involve me at all, after the handshakes.

Now, however, let me address a couple of Gmeast's points.

 
Quote
She has made some good arguable technical points as have you.
What valid arguable technical points has Ainslie made? I think I must have missed them. Please provide a link to a valid technical point that Ainslie has made, that someone else didn't tell her first. On the other hand, if you want to see some INVALID "technical points" that Ainslie has made, they exist by the multiple myriad, and I can give you links if you like. Here's one that contains many completely invalid such points, and their invalidity has been demonstrated by Ainslie herself under the guidance of Steve Weir on August 11, 2013.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679
Quote
You'll never be happy until she agrees with you and visa versa.
That's absolutely wrong. I am happy indeed that she does NOT agree with me. She proved to me that she is incapable of learning due to the blinders imposed by her "thesis" all the way back in 2009. Every video demonstration she ignores, every silly accusation that I am faking anything, is further proof of that fact. I am happy to point out to the world that she is utterly wrong, that she lies and misrepresents her own work and the work of others, that she is disrespectful of knowledge, skills and education since she has so little of any of those herself, and so on. I am particularly happy that she currently is stuffing her foot down her throat with her pronouncements about my tests, which after all can be easily reproduced by anyone. Why don't you yourself try the test in the video she so stupidly objects to? You will obtain my exact results, UNLIKE those who attempt, say, her Quantum-17 experiment with the 555 timer circuit she published and still hasn't corrected or retracted. And I'm quite sure that she would rather spit on my grave than see me agreeing with her--- something that I would gladly do if only she were right about something. Did you know that the Solstice, or maybe the Equinox, occurs in July in South Africa? According to Ainslie, it does. Have you worked for yourself ANY of the "calculations" she has posted in support of her "thesis"?  And so on. I might feel some sense  of satisfaction if Ainslie actually  learned something, stopped lying and insulting, and stopped making her false claims, but I've known for years that she will never do so. So I'm having fun illustrating for the world, or whatever portion is interested, the phenomenal case of Dunning-Kruger Effect that Ainslie is, and along the way I know some people are learning some things from me, and I've learned much from others as well. That kind of thing makes me happy. Seeing a deluded and delirious old woman twisting in the wind, hanging from the rope of her own calumny and false claims, doesn't really make me happy, rather, it makes me sad to know that a life has been wasted, that someone with obvious native intelligence can be so poorly educated, that an arrogant and foul disposition has taken over her life.

As to the damage that Ainslie has done: No, she isn't conducting a slick fraud, but she has attempted to gain monetary awards and has indicated that she will again, based on her false claims and lies about her experimentation. (Note that the manuscripts refer in several places to the Temperature of the Water, and then recall that Ainslie has admitted to us that she never actually measured the water temperature, for just one example of her overt misrepresentation of her own diddling). Go over to Energetic Forum and ask Aaron and Ashtweth if they felt their experience with Ainslie was valuable and if it taught them anything. Well, I do know that at the beginning of the affray they could not even use a simple DSO properly, and by the time she got banned from there they could at least display a stable waveform screen, so that's something.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #580 on: March 02, 2014, 05:33:43 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #581 on: March 02, 2014, 05:38:01 AM »

Hi TK,


Being accused of "faking" results re: scientific experiments is one of the most upsetting things a serious experimenter will experience. I don't condone those types of accusations. Those kinds of comments often occur during the heat of debate. They're inexcusable without question. It happens. Even though I have participated in hurling injurious comments myself, it's wrong for anyone to do it. The truth is, when passions flare, this crap happens.  Rosie is not a technician and admits to not being the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to the details of circuit design, but she IS a good theorist. As I said ... my take on all of this conflict is that the injurious comments (including my own) have ALL been hurled in the heat of debate with equal passion on both sides.


I answered you question I hope. Regards,


gme
No, it seems that you are avoiding answering the question, which was "Do you agree with her" that I faked the data.

(That's the "short form" of this:"Do you deny, for example, that I have shown how the Q2s are turned on in the circuit by Grounding the Gate and Lowering the voltage at the Source pin of the transistor, something that Ainslie clearly believes, still, to be impossible, in spite of the references I have given her to the Common Gate Amplifier configuration?")

If you do not agree that the video demonstration was faked, please say so directly. Note that she has had plenty of time to "cool down" , and that I have produced several further videos showing the same thing since that one, and she still today accuses me of faking it.  I know you can repeat my demonstration in minutes in your own lab, and I know it would do Ainslie a world of good to actually understand what I am demonstrating in those videos. You are someone she trusts and believes in. So stop being a politician and be a scientist for a while, please.

(And by the way, note that the scopeshot that STILL appears as "figure 3" in Ainslie's first manuscript is definitely "fake" and that this was proven by Ainslie and Martin themselves under the guidance of Steve Weir in the latest demos posted by Ainslie.)

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #582 on: March 02, 2014, 06:11:05 AM »
No, it seems that you are avoiding answering the question, which was "Do you agree with her" that I faked the data.

(That's the "short form" of this:"Do you deny, for example, that I have shown how the Q2s are turned on in the circuit by Grounding the Gate and Lowering the voltage at the Source pin of the transistor, something that Ainslie clearly believes, still, to be impossible, in spite of the references I have given her to the Common Gate Amplifier configuration?")

If you do not agree that the video demonstration was faked, please say so directly. Note that she has had plenty of time to "cool down" , and that I have produced several further videos showing the same thing since that one, and she still today accuses me of faking it.  I know you can repeat my demonstration in minutes in your own lab, and I know it would do Ainslie a world of good to actually understand what I am demonstrating in those videos. You are someone she trusts and believes in. So stop being a politician and be a scientist for a while, please.


No, I don't agree you faked anything. But understand that I have NO first-hand knowledge of anything relating to that but I give you the benefit of the doubt.  At the same time, it's illogical to ask such a question ... how would I know? But there's so much of that whole picture I've either avoided or don't understand or care about. I'm small potatoes anyway. I know I stated here that I could never get the 555 timer to operate at the Hz and DC (PW) as published, but I don't consider that important at all. I'm sure you know the great number of circuits that are posted on these forums that DON'T work as published and they seem to ALL require some 'tweeking'. I did get the 555 circuit to work with very nearly the same resistor values as shown, but I had to add another POT and then it worked. But I remember how you made such a big deal of it as if to say " ... see, see ... it's fraudulent..." or something. That detail was just not important in any way. Remember, I also stated that I never fully followed the whole Q-Array circuit and arguments ... mostly because they had nothing to do with the direction of my research and circuit ... which is really just a simple PWM motor control heating an Element rather than running a motor. Remember, I wasn't there for the beginning of all of this. So, If you think I'm acting as a politician, well I'm not ... I'm replying based on what I know and what my experiences are and trying to be objective ... at this point. MarkE seems to be able to do the 'objective' thing pretty well from what I can tell.


I'm not on anyone's side but my own regarding this 'energy stuff'. Please understand that.


Regards,


gme

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #583 on: March 02, 2014, 06:21:59 AM »
OK so you do not agree with Ainslie that the demonstration was faked. Thank you for stating it directly, I hope she doesn't start savaging you because of it.
We differ on the importance of supplying correct information in a scientific report, evidently, but let's let that pass for the moment.

The specific demonstration that Ainslie has accused me of faking is very simple, and it would take you  moments to set it up and see for yourself what happens. The later ones are even simpler to set up, requiring only one mosfet, one light bulb, one load resistor, a function generator and an oscilloscope, and a few inches of wire.

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

Only slightly more complex is the current measurement and 74 volt battery demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a1plHZwmWg

Have fun! I'll bet it would take you less than half an hour to perform that experiment for yourself.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #584 on: March 02, 2014, 06:27:16 AM »
Greg here is the analysis that I performed on the control circuit (555 portion) of the 2002 magazine article.  I think that the duty-cycle claims were a matter of confusion.  I went to great effort to analyze and test 555 circuit variations to show what could and could not be done with either the published schematic or the published schematic with variations.  The bottom line is that without substituting at least four components, it is simply not possible to get the timing that the magazine article claimed.  However, it is trivial to get the exact complementary timing with the schematic as shown in the article.  Since the article did not include any oscilloscope shots, we are left to deduce what was really built and tested.  I conclude that what was built is the schematic and that the timing was the listed frequency and complementary duty cycle.


 

OneLink