One would think such things.  And such issues were raised with Ms. Ainslie many times.  But rather than recognize that her supposed 17X gain was the result of a 24X+ underestimation of the input energy / continuous power, Ms. Ainslie simply declared that because the output is thermal it would be difficult to close the loop, and because she unilaterally declared that she had proven her claims there was no need to close the loop.  Isn't it amazing that having been exposed to Ms. Ainslie's supposed miraculous discovery more than a decade ago that no one including ABB and the other esteemed organizations that she claims endorse her claims have not exploited them?

Well, that's because scientists who examined her device get fired, two-three months later (quoting Donovan Martin here) and Big Oil and the South African energy cabal are suppressing the technology, doncha knowit.

But Ainslie isn't making such claims any more, is she? Oh.... that's right..... before Steve Weir showed up they were getting completely different results at exactly the same settings. The conclusion is obvious to Ainslie: SW must have corrupted their data or settings or procedure somehow.

She claims the output is thermal, and greater than can be obtained with a straight wire DC connection at the same power level, so self-looping is difficult and irrelevant anyway. Fine. Let her show some thermal RATE data then, that supports her contentions. Let's see a simple data set consisting of the circuit used, the FG settings and the waveforms, and a valid time-temperature graph of a well-specified load.

As I've demonstrated over and over, such a data set can be obtained, collated, analyzed and presented for public examination in less than four hours, using "garage sale" equipment (although it is nice to make pretty pictures on a DSO to impress the bourgeoisie).

Yet, in all the twelve or fourteen years that Ainslie has been squawking at night and disturbing the peace, she has NEVER presented such a complete, honest and valid data set in support of her absurd contentions. And when people DO present such data, which fails to support her crazy deluded and ignorant claims, she flails and flops and squawks that the "replication" isn't correct in some way..... some hand-waving, post-hoc and irrelevant way.... and she moves the goalposts Yet Again.

COP > 17? Disproven. COP INFINITY? It is to laugh. Batteries that don't discharge? Disproven. No current during high load heating as shown in Figure 3? Disproven and shown to be a fabrication. Significant role of oscillations in producing heating? Disproven. Solstice in July? Silly ignorance. Joules and Watts interchangeable? Persistent arrogant ignorant delusion. Claims that I rifled her computer, faked video demos, displayed stored traces on an analog scope? Paranoid delusions of an ill mind. More heat in the load than is predicted by the DC input power? More and more data points disproving this are happening every day, and not a single valid one in support of Ainslie has been produced by anyone, anywhere.

So now Ainslie has moved the goalposts Yet Again, retreating yet without acknowledging defeat, and the claim has reduced to saying that the charge on the batteries will last longer on a pulse-discharge regimen than on a straight continuous DC discharge at the same average power.  Which of course is a known fact of LA battery chemistry.

So just where is the OU claim now? What "COP" is Ainslie reporting? How do you get a "COP" claim from batteries lasting a bit longer under a known-to-be-better discharge cycle?

We know for sure that the Quantum Magazine COP>17 claim is bogus and cannot be supported at all, that there actually exists NO VALID DATA in support of her claim since she did not correctly report the real operating parameters. She made her erroneous calculations based on a completely false evaluation of what the circuit was doing, in combination with her muddling of Joules and Watts.

Meanwhile, my thermal RATE data is demonstrating quite clearly that all variants and all parameters tested so far are showing COPs of 0.7 to 0.8 at best, if heating the load is considered the output parameter.

If one wishes to criticise my methodology or my apparatus ... fine, then let them go ahead and demonstrate, using better techniques and equipment .... a DIFFERENT RESULT.

Well, at the moment all horizontal surfaces and almost all of the test equipment is involved in the Ainslie affair in one way or another.

I am set up now, or can be set up in moments, to use any one of the many different circuits right or wrong that Ainslie has claimed to use, to make electrical and thermal measurements and compare the results with each other and with the DC calibration results. I can cover the entire frequency range from DC to 3 MHz and the entire duty cycle range, except for one or two percent on either end. I can also operate at discrete frequencies that are even higher if necessary, although the mosfet itself can't operate at anywhere near the higher range of frequencies.  I can make continuous Q2 oscillations, I can do it with a FG or a 555 timer or even a battery bias source, I can power the timer from the main batteries, I can do battery rundown tests using heavy or light loads and timelapse video. I can set up and run a trial on any of the circuits at any obtainable waveform and have results in about four hours. Realistically, if I use batteries for the trial, I can only do two to four runs per day as I must recharge the batteries for each run, but if I use the PSU I can do a new run every two hours (one for the run and one for the cool-down, while I enter the data).

I do have a couple of other experiments and projects scattered around but none are quite so .... entertaining .... as the Little Miss Mosfet affair.

Now, I'm posting Poynt99's annotated copy of Ainslie's latest trace again. Compare the Yellow Current trace in her shot, with the top, orange "wo boost" trace in my shot above.

Note the features:
 
The initial little peak when the FG starts the positive ramp up on the gate signal. Present in both traces.
The following valley back down to baseline. Present in both traces.
The slow risetime increase to the peak value. Present in both traces.
The little "notch" right when the FG starts the decreasing ramp on the gate signal. Present in both traces.
The deep negative-going spike. Present in both traces.... but of _greater amplitude_ in mine.
The fuzz on top of the next two rising peaks in the ringdown. Present in both traces.
The underdamped ringdown of slightly greater length than the original positive pulse. Present in both traces.

Ainslie's trace shows a frequency of 187.2 kHz, mine shows about 189 kHz.  Ainslie's duty cycle is only about 25 percent from the looks of the Gate signal; mine is 31 percent, measured by the scope.

Would anyone like to dispute the fact that I am "claiming" to have reproduced Ainslie's current trace here, in all significant respects? Shall we argue about one percent error in the frequency?
 

The colors are wrong!

Daddy.... why does TK's scope display look so much better than LMM's fancy LeCroy screens? I thought TK had anemic, geriatric, garage sale equipment. Oh well, never mind, can I have an icecream sandwich? Please?


 

Ah, it had to be something like that. Well, my daddy was colorblind, so don't expect too much from me.


Meanwhile, back at the lab....

Here's what the Vbatt and Vcvr traces look like with the MarkE gate boost circuit engaged. Warp 10, Scotty! Look at that spike in Vbatt, going all the way off the screen at the top, over 200 volts above baseline. (The measurements at top right are correct, as far as I can tell.) And see the nicely shaped main current pulse, which will waste less heat in the mosfet.

That is a great demonstration of parasitic wiring inductance and capacitance.  The faster that the MOSFET switches, the more pronounced inductive distortion is in the current sense, visible as rising to a higher value that then declines exponentially during the on phase.  And Warp 10 is right for that turn-off.  With limited parasitic capacitance to dump charge into, the greatly sped-up turn-off of the MOSFET requires a much higher voltage.  With a fast enough driver one can easily exceed the Vds rating of the MOSFET, which is why a TVS from drain to source is a good idea.

Sorry, no credit cards accepted...cash only.  But, have no fear, we offer a money back guarantee.**

Bill

** The term "money back guarantee" is not intended to express nor imply that actual money, cash, or anything of value of any kind, will ever be returned to anyone, at any time, for any reason.

Fraudco Enterprises, a Cayman Islands enterprise offers a 100% money back guarantee on their fraud information kit.  For just $24.95 plus S&H you'll get dozens of tips on frauds that are out to take your money and how to avoid losing your money to them.  If you are not completely delighted, then just return your kit postage paid within 30 days and Fraudco Enterprises will refund your purchase price of $8.95.  Order now, and we will send you two kits for the price of one.  Just pay the additional S&H.

_{In order to receive refund, returns must be received at our Nairobi offices within 30 days of date of order.  Orders typically ship in 14-21 days.  S&H is $9.95 per kit.  Local taxes will be added where applicable.  Credit card, cash or money orders only.  NO COD orders.}