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: 892945
  • *Total Topics: 15675
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 284445 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #690 on: March 11, 2014, 04:36:57 PM »
The whole 2011 MOSFET's connected in parallel when they were really cross connected source to gate was really bad for her credibility.  Suppose that they didn't know at the time of the demonstration that the wires were crossed.  As incompetent as that might have been, it still would have been innocent, had they reported the actual connections as soon as they were discovered.  It is Ms. Ainslie who claims that they deliberately did not do so.  That's a hell of an admission to make.  Then we saw similar things with the June 29 demonstration where only after three and a half hours Donovan Martin admitted that the function generator was not connected as shown in the documents they said that they were reproducing.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #691 on: March 11, 2014, 07:15:39 PM »
It's interesting that you should mention that.

As FuzzyTomCat has documented, the very first descriptions of the 5-mosfet device contained the same schematic that Donovan Martin gestures to in the 2011 demonstration, "This is what you have before you, five mosfets in parallel" or something like that, where the Black lead of the FG isn't even shown, but the actual hardware shows it very visibly connected to the common circuit ground, the bypass position. When this "error" was pointed out and its significance explained to Ainslie.... rather suddenly the "corrected" schematics appeared, which showed the correct, non-bypass location of the Black FG lead..... but obviously this correct location was not the one they _actually_ used.

In plain language, the schematics in the daft manuscripts today, and ever since that early date, have been lies, told and endorsed by Ainslie, Martin, and the other co-authors.

Not only that, but all of the current data in the manuscripts was gathered with the FG Black lead in the _incorrect_, bypass location, completely invalidating it for that reason alone. (There are other invalidating reasons as well.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE

"As you can see" even the person operating the camera knows that there are not "five mosfets in parallel".

The filenames for the schematics below are as FuzzyTomCat assigned them.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #692 on: March 11, 2014, 07:35:28 PM »
It's interesting that you should mention that.

As FuzzyTomCat has documented, the very first descriptions of the 5-mosfet device contained the same schematic that Donovan Martin gestures to in the 2011 demonstration, "This is what you have before you, five mosfets in parallel" or something like that, where the Black lead of the FG isn't even shown, but the actual hardware shows it very visibly connected to the common circuit ground, the bypass position. When this "error" was pointed out and its significance explained to Ainslie.... rather suddenly the "corrected" schematics appeared, which showed the correct, non-bypass location of the Black FG lead..... but obviously this correct location was not the one they _actually_ used.

In plain language, the schematics in the daft manuscripts today, and ever since that early date, have been lies, told and endorsed by Ainslie, Martin, and the other co-authors.

Not only that, but all of the current data in the manuscripts was gathered with the FG Black lead in the _incorrect_, bypass location, completely invalidating it for that reason alone. (There are other invalidating reasons as well.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE

"As you can see" even the person operating the camera knows that there are not "five mosfets in parallel".

The filenames for the schematics below are as FuzzyTomCat assigned them.
Don't forget that when it came to connecting the Chl 1 current sense scope probe they botched that as well.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #692 on: March 11, 2014, 07:35:28 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #693 on: March 12, 2014, 02:54:37 AM »
Wow!  Nano does sound a lot like IST.  I always wondered what happened to him.  The man wound a lot of toroids back in the early days of the original JT topic.

I believe his name was William.

Bill

ETA:  Just realized that Nano is Atommix come back from the banned from about 2 weeks ago.  I still think he is IST as well.  Syntax is identical.

Offline Tseak

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #694 on: March 12, 2014, 06:44:20 AM »
There's an old adage  -  Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not see the difference. Have a nice day Ninibot.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #694 on: March 12, 2014, 06:44:20 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #695 on: March 12, 2014, 08:28:48 AM »
Sometimes there are people who need reminders of the reminders:

"The experiments conducted:  June 29, August 10, and August 11 failed to reproduce the results reported here."

"The privately conducted August 10, and publicly conducted August 11 experiments were unable to corroborate net zero or negative battery draw during periods of Q2 oscillation."

"We therefore obtained heat output that was only a fraction of the input power."

"As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts."


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #696 on: March 12, 2014, 09:08:45 AM »
Ah yes... but recall that at the end of the August 11 demonstration, Ainslie can be heard protesting to Steve Weir that they got completely different results, at the exact same settings, before Steve showed up. And of course we believe the Great Scientist... don't we?

Meanwhile, I've been doing some DC calibration runs with the Tar Baby load, using the Arduino intervalometer photo data logging, and then transcribing manually to the spreadsheet for graphing.

Here's an example data set at one DC power level:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sp2l41x-8k

This is a 60-minute run, sampled once per minute, played back at 1 sample per second.

And here's the graph, attached below, generated by several runs at different DC power levels. Notice anything interesting?


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #696 on: March 12, 2014, 09:08:45 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #697 on: March 12, 2014, 09:54:34 AM »
I notice a couple of things:
There are at least two time constants in the system, a pretty short one and a long one. 

I also notice that the temperature rise versus power coefficient decreases with power, as expected due to increasingly efficient leakage from the vessel with higher temperature drop.  Going from 3.5W to 20W the leakage reduces the temperature rise / W from 3.1C/W to 1.9C/W.  That's probably due to increased convection.  A donut shaped piece of cardboard over the radiant barrier wraps might help that a bit. 

If the 9.76W run had heated up by 23C the linearity would be pretty damned good above 5W.

And I notice the 9.76W run never quite stabilized, suggesting something wasn't completely sealed up.


Offline Thaelin

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1020
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #698 on: March 12, 2014, 05:28:30 PM »
    I would almost think you guys would be totally tired of beating a
dead horse. Yet, you continue to kick it and seem to be enjoying your
selves while at it.
   I stopped reading this thread long ago and still it continues. Would
this not class as a total wast of time?

thay


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #698 on: March 12, 2014, 05:28:30 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #699 on: March 12, 2014, 05:41:24 PM »
    I would almost think you guys would be totally tired of beating a
dead horse. Yet, you continue to kick it and seem to be enjoying your
selves while at it.
   I stopped reading this thread long ago and still it continues. Would
this not class as a total wast of time?

thay
TinselKoala is still conducting useful and informative experiments.  I don't think there is even the corpse of a horse left to beat.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #700 on: March 12, 2014, 06:18:12 PM »
Some things to note:

1. Nanobot / Atommix / IST clearly has no clue. That's what happens when you show up late for class and haven't done a lick of homework all semester.

2. Thaelin... funny.... how do you know we're beating a dead horse if you stopped looking in a long time ago? Never mind, your comments and attention are appreciated.

3. MarkE: Thanks for looking at the graph. Yes, two time constants, probably due to the delay in the start of convection after power is applied. And/or something systematic in the experimental setup or procedure, perhaps in the way I'm starting the data collection. I take the "zeroth" sample to get ambient temp with DC power off, then during the first minute interval I adjust the power (voltage output) of the stabilized PSU to give the nominal value for the series. So in the first minute or perhaps two the power level is changing somewhat. Also, these calibrations are done with the "naked cell" with the small fan I call "boxfan" blowing on it. If I used the full thermal insulation, I now realize, it would take a very much longer time to stabilize and would reach much higher temperatures. This would likely be more precise than the uninsulated cell, and if it becomes necessary to attain such precision, the procedure can be applied to the fully insulated cell quite easily. However, after a few more runs at more power levels, I'll be able to construct a nomogram that will allow one easily to enter the observed 60-minute (or other interval) temperature of the load and read off the equivalent applied DC power level. Once I have the load cell calibrated in this way I will be ready to perform actual experimental runs to determine load heating efficiencies .... if I can ever be allowed to know the operating parameters of the apparatus, something which has been a great difficulty all along... see below for an example.

4. Now... on to substance. The Great Scientist has made much, lately, of the scopeshot known as Figure 8, Test 4, attached below. Note that there are very important pieces of information missing -- we do not know the Duty Cycle and it cannot be determined from the display. Nor do we know the open-circuit voltages of the FG's output setting, and again, we cannot determine these from the display.

The text describing the shot says that the Period of the FG's output was set to " 20 ms ". This means, in ordinary language, 20  milliseconds. This would correspond to a frequency of only 50 Hz, but we know that Ainslie has used very slow frequencies before when she desires to produce high heat in the load. BUT..... the oscilloscope's timebase is set to 500 microseconds per horizontal division (top left of screen). This means that the _entire screen_ of 10 divisions only displays 5 ms, five milliseconds, of the 20 millisecond period of the waveform. The other three quarters of the period could consist entirely of Q1 ON, high current, for all we can determine. It is impossible to tell from the display.

On the other hand, we have seen how casually the Great Scientist treats data and especially how she is deficient in expressing herself mathematically. She has confused "milliseconds" and "microseconds" before. After all, what is a mere three orders of magnitude error? Chopped liver, apparently.  So perhaps the "20 ms" period in the text is supposed to be "20 us", twenty microseconds, for the period. This would of course give us an operating FG frequency of 50 kHz.... much higher than Ainslie typically runs. And it would mean that _each division_ of 500 microseconds horizontally would contain 25 full 20 microsecond periods of the FG's output.  Again... at this resolution it is impossible to determine the Q1 ON duty cycle. (Incidentally.... I can only count 14 peaks per horizontal division, consistently all the way across the screen, instead of the 25 peaks that a 20 microsecond period would produce.)

So... just what is the deal here? 50 Hz, or 50 kHz? 100 percent Q2 oscillations, or some perhaps high proportion of Q1 ON times? The Figure 8 scopeshot, combined with the description in the text, once again is more illustrative of the rather charming.... and pathetic... naivete of Ainslie and her co-authors.

This is NOT a trivial issue, Ainslie. If you are really using a 20 millisecond period and not displaying 3/4 of the signal... ONCE AGAIN that constitutes Fabrication of Data. If you are really using a 20 microsecond period, then you either are once again deliberately obscuring essential information, or you are displaying your abysmal ignorance of proper oscilloscope usage, or... most likely... BOTH.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #700 on: March 12, 2014, 06:18:12 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #701 on: March 12, 2014, 06:47:47 PM »
Some things to note:

3. MarkE: Thanks for looking at the graph. Yes, two time constants, probably due to the delay in the start of convection after power is applied. And/or something systematic in the experimental setup or procedure, perhaps in the way I'm starting the data collection. I take the "zeroth" sample to get ambient temp with DC power off, then during the first minute interval I adjust the power (voltage output) of the stabilized PSU to give the nominal value for the series. So in the first minute or perhaps two the power level is changing somewhat. Also, these calibrations are done with the "naked cell" with the small fan I call "boxfan" blowing on it. If I used the full thermal insulation, I now realize, it would take a very much longer time to stabilize and would reach much higher temperatures. 
That depends on the relative thermal inertia to the thermal resistance of the added insulation.  The radiant barrier material that it looks like you have has a very low thermal mass.  That will tend to offset the very high thermal resistance.  The other option that you have is to regulate the outside temperature of the insulated assembly with the fan duty cycle or speed.  That would tend to reduce the number of time constants in the system.
Quote

This would likely be more precise than the uninsulated cell, and if it becomes necessary to attain such precision, the procedure can be applied to the fully insulated cell quite easily. However, after a few more runs at more power levels, I'll be able to construct a nomogram that will allow one easily to enter the observed 60-minute (or other interval) temperature of the load and read off the equivalent applied DC power level. Once I have the load cell calibrated in this way I will be ready to perform actual experimental runs to determine load heating efficiencies .... if I can ever be allowed to know the operating parameters of the apparatus, something which has been a great difficulty all along... see below for an example.
This could be a major issue.  Ms. Ainslie is likely to reject anything that you produce that does not fit with her "thesis".
Quote

4. Now... on to substance. The Great Scientist has made much, lately, of the scopeshot known as Figure 8, Test 4, attached below. Note that there are very important pieces of information missing -- we do not know the Duty Cycle and it cannot be determined from the display. Nor do we know the open-circuit voltages of the FG's output setting, and again, we cannot determine these from the display.

The text describing the shot says that the Period of the FG's output was set to " 20 ms ". This means, in ordinary language, 20  milliseconds. This would correspond to a frequency of only 50 Hz, but we know that Ainslie has used very slow frequencies before when she desires to produce high heat in the load. BUT..... the oscilloscope's timebase is set to 500 microseconds per horizontal division (top left of screen). This means that the _entire screen_ of 10 divisions only displays 5 ms, five milliseconds, of the 20 millisecond period of the waveform. The other three quarters of the period could consist entirely of Q1 ON, high current, for all we can determine. It is impossible to tell from the display.

On the other hand, we have seen how casually the Great Scientist treats data and especially how she is deficient in expressing herself mathematically. She has confused "milliseconds" and "microseconds" before. After all, what is a mere three orders of magnitude error? Chopped liver, apparently.  So perhaps the "20 ms" period in the text is supposed to be "20 us", twenty microseconds, for the period. This would of course give us an operating FG frequency of 50 kHz.... much higher than Ainslie typically runs. And it would mean that _each division_ of 500 microseconds horizontally would contain 25 full 20 microsecond periods of the FG's output.  Again... at this resolution it is impossible to determine the Q1 ON duty cycle. (Incidentally.... I can only count 14 peaks per horizontal division, consistently all the way across the screen, instead of the 25 peaks that a 20 microsecond period would produce.)

So... just what is the deal here? 50 Hz, or 50 kHz? 100 percent Q2 oscillations, or some perhaps high proportion of Q1 ON times? The Figure 8 scopeshot, combined with the description in the text, once again is more illustrative of the rather charming.... and pathetic... naivete of Ainslie and her co-authors.

This is NOT a trivial issue, Ainslie. If you are really using a 20 millisecond period and not displaying 3/4 of the signal... ONCE AGAIN that constitutes Fabrication of Data. If you are really using a 20 microsecond period, then you either are once again deliberately obscuring essential information, or you are displaying your abysmal ignorance of proper oscilloscope usage, or... most likely... BOTH.
I have a couple of ideas:  If your thermal resistance is low enough then you could perform a 100% Q1 on, and 25% Q1 on w/o any Q2 oscillations.  You could run 100% Q2 oscillations.  And you could run 25% Q1 on w/ 75% Q2 oscillations.  If your thermal resistance is too high then you will need to think of something else.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #702 on: March 12, 2014, 07:27:36 PM »
All doors open lead to somewhere !!!!!!! ??? ??? !!!!!!!!
Are we doing Chinese fortune cookies now? Here's one I just picked up off my desk:

Get your mind set ... Confidence will lead you on.


Not "lead you onward".....  ;)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #703 on: March 12, 2014, 07:34:39 PM »
MarkE said,
Quote
Ms. Ainslie is likely to reject anything that you produce that does not fit with her "thesis".

Of course she will. Do I care much? No, I don't. As I've said before, Ainslie has demonstrated herself to be completely immune to logic, reason, evidence, outside references or instruction from those who know their subject. If it conflicts with the "thesis", it is wrong, QED.  Hence no amount of experimentation or demonstration on my part (or anyone else's, even her own) will change Ainslie's one-track mind by a single iota... this is given. Ainslie has also demonstrated a talent for goalpost-moving that is unprecedented  in my experience. (With the possible exception of PJH, or whatever he calls himself, and his "quenco".)

However, onlookers and potential reviewers who examine the issues without the blinders of a foregone "thesis" conclusion will be able to tell which end of the paradigm is up, I have no doubt of that. And I may be able to demonstrate what an actual publishable paper reporting an experiment really looks like.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #704 on: March 13, 2014, 01:33:11 AM »
Low power DC load temperature calibration is complete. I've plotted one cool-down cycle on the graph as well as the 10 runs at various DC power settings.

The final plot is nice and linear. Given a measured temperature at the 60 minute mark, one may confidently read the equivalent DC power level from the plot.


Real data has a certain beauty to it. I have always thought that was one of Nature's great truths.

 

OneLink