Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2013, 08:20:03 AM

Title: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2013, 08:20:03 AM
Rosemary Ainslie has now reportedly found the "lost" Quantum Magazine apparatus, the single-mosfet circuit that many of us began researching in 2009 or before.

She has made a handful of posts today in which she severely misrepresents and even lies blatantly about my own statements, findings and involvement. Some of the lies she told today are of course directly refuted in this video, which I made and posted a bit over a month ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2-gokjcDQQ

The point is that the schematic that Ainslie published in the Quantum article CANNOT POSSIBLY produce the duty cycle she claimed to use, and in fact produces the exact inverse. As I show in the video, both the duty cycle and the frequency of the circuit can of course be adjusted (refuting Ainslie's lies made today) and at no time do I say it is a fixed duty cycle that is produced by the circuit.

It is impossible to tell what duty cycle or schematic Ainslie ACTUALLY used.... we know she has lied, made mistakes, and even gotten other people to bear false witness for her in terms of schematics and conditions under which data is gathered. Only good photographs of the apparatus in use, combined with contemporaneous measurements, will allow anyone to know what arrangement of equipment, at what settings, she actually might use at any given time.

The Quantum-17 circuit published under Ainslie's name has been shown many times, unequivocally, to be unable to make the duty cycle she claims. So either she did not use the published circuit, or she did not use the claimed duty cycle,... or both. Either way the paper is false. If she now shows her apparatus to be using SOME OTHER CIRCUIT....  or she shows that the apparatus makes a different duty cycle than she has claimed.... then the article is false and must be withdrawn, just as her other false "papers" have been.

If she chooses to claim that the 555 timer is irrelevant.... then she must explain why, when the 555 is removed, the circuit is then exactly the Unclamped Inductive Test circuit found in the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2013, 08:42:03 AM
@Mark Dansie:

I see that Ainslie has fired off another "open letter" to you. Please note that she lies to you several times, blatantly, in this open letter, and does not provide any evidence for her lying assertions.

1. I have never said her published circuit produced a fixed duty cycle, or a 90 percent duty cycle only.

2. Mark E's graphs are NOT from simulations, they are from actual builds of the circuit and variants.

3. When other builders here and at Energetic Forum also showed the same thing I showed, Ainslie DID acknowledge the "error" in the Quantum circuit and even "apologised" for misleading people. Now she pretends that only Mark E and I have shown the circuit to be false, when in reality every one who has built it or simmed it knows it is false.

Quote
Poynty and Steve are well able to determine if it is designed to apply a variable duty cycle.  If it DOES show this - then TK - aka Tinsel Koala - commonly referred to  as Little TK or 'ickle pickle' WILL BE CALLED ON TO RETRACT HIS OBJECTIONS IN WHOLE AND IN PART.  As will MARK EUTHANASIUS.  THEN.  Under those circumstances our claims on this subject STAND.  And in the interest of impartial investigation into matters of science - as is widely claimed by both Sterling Allen and Mark Dansie - I INSIST that those retractions be made public.  That - after all - is only fair.


How can I "retract" something THAT I NEVER SAID? It is Ainslie who needs to retract her lies and false claims and misrepresentations of the work and words of others.

No.... what is "only fair" is that Ainslie stop lying about me and what other people have also proven. And I INSIST that Ainslie's apologies and retractions of her PROVEN LIES be made public.



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 24, 2013, 03:17:36 PM
Here are a couple of relevant documents.

Useful info on the test protocol and wave forms.

Unfortunately all the image files linked-to (EF posts) at the end of the IEEE submission were removed.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2013, 04:29:57 PM
Thanks for that. As usual, the real information comes from someone other than Ainslie.

Here's what the mendacious troll has to say this morning:

Quote
Here's the link to TK's post. http://www.overunity.com/13743/rosemary-ainslie-quantum-magazine-circuit-cop-17-claims/msg368786/#msg368786 (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.overunity.com/13743/rosemary-ainslie-quantum-magazine-circuit-cop-17-claims/msg368786/#msg368786)  Unlike him we ALWAYS give the required links when we reference anything.  TK doesn't.  He daren't.  Lest you become aware of the FULL complaint against him.

What a liar! I ALWAYS INCLUDE ACTUAL IMAGES OF AINSLIE's OWN WORDS. Yet she cannot give you a reference for any of her absurd claims about me.
Required links, Ainslie? Where is a link to ANY POST where I have ever said you have a non-adjustable duty cycle? Where is a link to ANY POST where I have said you use an 11 percent, or a 90 percent duty cycle? There are none.

In Ainslie's present set of posts she illustrates that she is not only willing to lie blatantly about the work of others and her own, she also DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES or the importance of her false claims in an article that bears her name.


HERE YET AGAIN IS WHAT I HAVE SAID IN REFERENCE TO AINSLIE'S DUTY CYCLE:

The Article presents a schematic and makes claims about its performance. The claims are NOT TRUE. The schematic presented CANNOT make the duty cycle and frequency claimed, and in fact makes the _exact inverse_ duty cycle, something that could not have happened by a mere "accident" or typo concerning the 555 circuit.
Either the circuit used by Ainslie was NOT the published circuit that bears her name... or the duty cycle used was NOT the 3.7 percent ON that Ainslie claims. Either way the article lies. There are no other alternatives!



Now.... Ainslie has made many claims about me recently, and in her twisted mind she thinks she can do this without providing any evidence at all, yet she wants me to provide LINKS.... to posts that I have already imaged for you and attached to these posts. More delusions--- Ainslie cannot provide any support for her allegations, yet she ignores all the evidence that I provide. She cannot refute me at all with checkable outside references or demonstrations of her own.

Where are the detailed photographs that Ainslie promised?


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2013, 04:43:33 PM
Here are a couple of relevant documents.

Useful info on the test protocol and wave forms.

Unfortunately all the image files linked-to (EF posts) at the end of the IEEE submission were removed.

In the first file you linked, YET ANOTHER schematic is presented. Suddenly there is a recirculation diode, that DOES NOT APPEAR in the original report of this experiment and in fact is not even mentioned. Also there is no 555 timer schematic, instead a Function Generator symbol appears.

Once again, we have CONFLICTING and SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT descriptions of the apparatus used in this experiment. The EIT paper even says that the schematic WAS USED.... but where is the recirculation diode in the Quantum schematic? Nowhere. Where is the detailed 555 schematic? Nowhere, it has been suppressed because of the smoking gun it contains.

Note the schematic from this "paper" below. No 555 timer circuit is given, no separate 12 v power supply for the timer is shown,  and a recirculation diode is included, and the claim is made that this was the Quantum magazine circuit: 

I am rolling on the floor laughing.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2013, 05:00:00 PM
Here are a couple of relevant documents.

Useful info on the test protocol and wave forms.

Unfortunately all the image files linked-to (EF posts) at the end of the IEEE submission were removed.

In the second file you linked, we see the diagrams below.

YET ANOTHER schematic is presented as the "quantum magazine schematic". But this one has DIFFERENT COMPONENT VALUES LISTED and also does NOT INCLUDE ANY recirculation diode.

Furthermore, the Block Diagram shows a scope probe attached to the Drain of the mosfet. This location will of course show a voltage that is HI, at battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF and will show low, near zero volts, when the mosfet is ON.

And of course no waveforms showing Ainslie's "oscillations" are given in either of the "papers".

The Energetic Forum posts have been removed by Aaron and Ashtweth because they found Ainslie's claims to be false!

Note the different component values in the "new" schematic. Can this schematic produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle at the claimed frequency? Which of the THREE DIFFERENT schematics claimed was actually used? Nobody knows and nobody will ever know unless Ainslie posts photos along with her data taken at the same time.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2013, 05:13:37 PM
@Poynt99 and ANYONE ELSE:

Can anyone show me a screenshot of the "approved" Ainslie oscillations using any of the three DIFFERENT circuits she has claimed were used for this experiment? Or made by use of a FG or other equipment in place of the 555 timer section?

Ainslie herself has certainly never shown any interpretable shots from this experiment.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 24, 2013, 08:33:09 PM
Quote
Guys - sadly I can't get those photos up today.  Hopefully tomorrow.  I need someone to operate that camera and he's not available until then.

We will score that as another FAIL on your part then, Ainslie: within 48 hours you said, and later today you said.... now you say "hopefully tomorrow". Well, we will believe it WHEN WE SEE IT and not before.
Quote
Then.  Neither I - nor any of you - have further reason to pay any attention to the absurd nonsense that TK manages to regurgitate - ad nauseum - through pages and pages of RIDICULOUS denials and accusations.  He's lost the plot.  Clearly.  All I can assure you is that the BEST interpretation one can put on those horribly ambiguous terms he uses here...

The Article presents a schematic and makes claims about its performance. The claims are NOT TRUE. The schematic presented CANNOT make the duty cycle and frequency claimed, and in fact makes the _exact inverse_ duty cycle,  - is that one must then assume that the duty cycle is NOT 3% ON but 97% ON.  Unless - as is evidently the case - he's applying his own weird definition to the terms 'EXACT INVERSE' which is outside of common parlance.
No, Ainslie. It is YOU who do not understand COMMON PARLANCE, much less the technical language that your chosen subject requires. Take a look at this video made and uploaded in JUNE OF 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
As anyone can PLAINLY SEE, the circuit that is published in the Quantum magazine makes the EXACT INVERSE of the claimed duty cycle, in both COMMON PARLANCE and technical language. Where you believe, Ainslie, that it makes 3.7 percent ON it actually makes 96.3 percent ON, and so on, throughout its frequency range. It makes the EXACT INVERSE duty cycle. When the scope probe is located at the MOSFET DRAIN, as shown in the block diagram above, the probe will indicate HI, or battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF.
Quote
And as for the rest of that preposterous claptrap...

'something that could not have happened by a mere "accident" or typo concerning the 555 circuit.  Either the circuit used by Ainslie was NOT the published circuit that bears her name... or the duty cycle used was NOT the 3.7 percent ON that Ainslie claims. Either way the article lies. There are no other alternatives!'

Actually.  The alternative is that our little pickle is trying to throw smoke over the claim - by quibbling.

You call it a "Quibble" that you have published THREE FALSE SCHEMATICS for the single experiment, YET AGAIN? That's a QUIBBLE? You take the cake, Ainslie. Nobody would believe it if they didn't see it for themselves, which is why I take images of all your absurd posts.

Quote
I shall post those photographs tomorrow. 
Shall you? We shall see whether you do, or don't.
Quote
We most CERTAINLY could and DID make a 3% ON duty cycle. 
Perhaps you did, who knows. What is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN is that you did NOT do it with any of the schematics YOU CLAIMED TO USE.
Quote
And IF Mark Euthanasius and Tinsel Koala are trying to UPEND the claim based on a POSSIBLE misrepresentation of the circuit diagram - THEN WE ALL KNOW WHY.  They have - very obviously - a STRICT AGENDA to deny all over unity results and to SACRIFICE THE REPUTATIONS OF ALL CLAIMANTS IF and AS necessary.  TK's ONLY genius is in his UNTIRING EFFORTS TO DO THE LATTER.  Thankfully - and typically - he over plays his hand.  He's got the finessing abilities of a bull elephant in musk. 

No, mendacious troll Ainslie. We have a STRICT AGENDA, or at least I do, to prevent YOU FROM PROMULGATING YOUR LIES.

And the term is "Musth" not "musk", you willfully ignorant and overweeningly arrogant troll.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2013, 06:56:22 AM
As usual.... Ainslie insults, whines, bloviates and lies.... but she cannot address the issues and she cannot refute me with checkable outside references, facts or demonstrations of her own.

Three separate, different, schematics claimed for the SAME EXPERIMENT! An altered schematic posted AFTER problems with the original were pointed out! People trying to "replicate" based on a FALSE SCHEMATIC! Ainslie getting banned from forum after forum as her lies and insults emerge!
It's deja vu all over again!

Insult me all you like, troll queen Ainslie... it only makes you look all the more stupid, because you are utterly wrong Yet Again, you cannot refute me and the facts are easy for anyone to check. And it all goes into your Permanent Record.


What is especially hilarious is that so many of Ainslie's little trolling points are utterly and totally refuted in these old videos I'm posting. But she is so arrogant and uncurious that she won't even watch them.... and so she keeps babbling and squawking on about things like "variable duty cycles" and "inverse meaning nothing" when EVERYBODY WATCHING MY VIDEOS knows and understands how utterly and abjectly foolish she is.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: markdansie on August 25, 2013, 07:16:03 AM
Hi TK
I will responding in full with another Article.Mark E has provided a lot of material for it already.
Can I use some of your materials from here? 
Mark


I am thinking of calling it the Zombie Technology...it doesn't want to die
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2013, 07:51:23 AM
Shall we take the points one by one?
Quote
Another little 'x' rated communication for our 'ickle pickle' who vociferously DENIES that he is LITTLE - in any sense of the word.

Hello my dear little thing,

Ainslie has never produced, and CANNOT produce, any evidence whatsoever that I am someone called "Bryan Little" or any other LITTLE at all, by anyone except her, and she does it completely deliberately in order to get a rise from me. In short: the very definition of TROLLING.

Quote
While I know that - on the whole - you're entirely untrammeled by any need to impartiality and while I also know that you are not further handicapped by holding a 'cool' head on those little shoulders of yours - I would caution you that we are about to photograph that equipment responsible for the results in our quantum paper.  It's likely to disturb that extraordinary lack of decency and constraint that you manage.

No, Ainslie, I have been asking you to prove your assertions with evidence since 2009, and you claimed all this time that that apparatus was LOST... and even got Donovan Martin to say the same thing. Now you've suddenly found it... and I think that is GREAT. Show your photographs, because they will show either that you DID NOT use the 555 timer circuit you have claimed, or it will show that you DID use the circuit you claimed. Either way, it is going to be bad for you. Of course what I expect is that you will not show any 555 circuit at all.

Quote
Sadly I will show you the use of a variable duty cycle that enabled that rather extraordinary self oscillation condition - that you deny is possible.

Sadly for you... I have NEVER DENIED that self-oscillation is possible, and you cannot provide any evidence that I have done so. Further, I have never denied that your published 555 circuit's duty cycle can be varied, and you cannot provide any evidence that I have ever done so. As I clearly demonstrate in at least 4 different videos since June of 2009, the duty cycle and frequency can OF COURSE be varied.... but the 3.7 percent On duty cycle at 2.4 kHz as claimed IS OUT OF RANGE OF THE POSSIBLE SETTINGS of the schematic published under your name in the Quantum article. Once again, Ainslie, your lack of education and your arrogance and willfull ignorance have caused you to put your foot into your mouth by making up delusions and then protesting against them... .and ignoring the FACTS.
Sadly for you indeed; you cannot provide any evidence for your ridiculous assertions, as usual.

Quote
Which will put paid to about 6 years of hard work in DENYING EVIDENCE.

More bad math from Ainslie. I first encountered Ainslie in early 2009.  DO THE MATH...hint:  it is now August of 2013.

Quote
I see you're MOST anxious to let the subject fall off the page.

I laugh at you. YOU are most anxious that it does NOT fall off the page, drama queen of trolls. That's why you keep insulting me, because you know I will respond! You are a troll, a most amusing one, toothless and a laughing-stock. Nobody takes you seriously!

Quote
  But that won't help you my sweet.  It will be ON RECORD - that your agenda is actually to DENY OVER UNITY - REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD. 
Ever rosy but never your...
Rosie Pose

Records are indeed being made, Rosie Poser, and my agenda is unimportant and irrelevant to the fact that you are wrong, utterly wrong, and you have been proven to be so, many times over.

Shall we continue?

Quote
Hi Guys - for those who follow these earnest communications to our little pickle - aka Tinsel Koala - and allegedly and erroneously referred to as MR BRYAN LITTLE - here's the next item on the agenda.  You'll see for yourselves how critical this is to the general science discussion.

Ainslie, you know nothing of Science, general or otherwise, and you constantly refuse to discuss issues in a competent and respectful manner, as anyone reading your posts can see for themselves. Every time you refer to Bryan Little, you stick your foot deeper down your throat, and I record these instances with great amusement, for they reveal your inner sickness and disturbed soul.

Quote
My Sweet,

I see that you're rather perturbed that I compared your subtlety of argument to that of an elephant in musk.  You prefer the term 'musth'.  Which is a fair and reasonable complaint.  In future I will do so.


Maybe you should have used a dictionary before you started insulting. Oh... wait.... this is another case of Words Mean Whatever Ainslie Says They Mean. Like solstices in July, like Joules=Watts, like "inverse" meaning nothing.

Quote
(Skip a lot of nonsense)

Quote
Especially with your INSISTENCE that a MOSFET is NOT a MOSFET but a mosfet.

A WHAT? What is this MOSFET that you keep referring to, Ainslie? Surely you cannot possibly mean "Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor" because if you did... you would TYPE IT OUT FULLY every time. Bloviating idiot!

You can't address the issue of the THREE SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT SCHEMATICS you publish under your name, the false claims about duty cycle and measurements and diodes, so you worry about whether or not I capitalize "mosfet". And you don't even realize how stupid that makes you look. Or care! Astounding, but totally par for the Ainslie course.

Quote
And then there's your interpretation of 'exact inverse' which means 'exactly nothing at all'.

It means something perfectly understandable and coherent, and it is even fully correct. Once again you display your willfull ignorance, overweening arrogance and total lack of shame. YOU HAVE BEEN REFUTED, but like a toothless zombie queen you refuse to realize it. But every body else does realize it.

Quote
Meanwhile how 'goeth' it with your GRE?  I trust that it too is in MUSTH - and that it 'floweth' out of your mouth unhindered by the activity of your cerebral cortex.  I look forward to seeing yet more evidence - in due course. 

Take care there my dear little pickle and look after your MUSTH.  It's plentiful - but nonetheless RARE.

I always provide evidence for my assertions, Ainslie. Always. But you don't, you just insult and bloviate, call people names and make a greater and greater fool of yourself, in public yet. It's all going into your Permanent Record, along with all those other records of your mendacity, your arrogance, your ignorance and your trolling insulting behaviour... and your false claims of overunity.






Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2013, 07:55:04 AM
Hi TK
I will responding in full with another Article.Mark E has provided a lot of material for it already.
Can I use some of your materials from here? 
Mark


I am thinking of calling it the Zombie Technology...it doesn't want to die

Absolutely, Mark, use whatever you like, and I have much more besides. The person who has done the most work on this early version is FuzzyTomCat, and he would be a very valuable contact, has tons of his own material and has the "inside story" on a lot of the scuttlebutt.
Please let me know if you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them with materials from my archive.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 25, 2013, 02:57:26 PM
Here are posts where Glen notes a few mods, including a 15k to replace the 10k trimmer to achieve the 3% duty cycle.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-100.html#post71373 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-100.html#post71373)

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-101.html#post71870 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-101.html#post71870)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 25, 2013, 03:46:17 PM
The data from Test #13 is the one they chose to use for the IEEE paper submission, as it showed the most "benefit" as I recall. The images from all the other tests would be nice, but Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 from Test#13 are really the only ones required, as they show the gate drive (CH3) (close to 50% duty cycle and between 200kHz to 400kHz frequency), Vcsr (CH1), Vbat (CH4), and Vdrain (CH2).

Attached is the "100ns" scope shot for that test (Fig. 6 in the IEEE submission).

ETA: Now that I've found Glen's cache of data, here also is Fig. 4:
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 25, 2013, 04:15:29 PM
Here is an active link to the IEEE submission still on SCRIBD:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 25, 2013, 04:24:53 PM
Ashtweth from Panacea was good at compiling information from a project. And although Panacea's website is no longer, the internet never forgets, and I was able to find Ashtweth's large compilation pdf of the work Glen was doing back in 2009. I uploaded it to TK's mediafire account. It is 15M in size and contains 290 pages. All Glen's tests and images are in this document, as well as a lot of other stuff. Test #13 starts on page 197.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/lx2nnz9dnpg34tt/Rosemary_Ainslie_COP17_Heater_Technology.pdf (http://www.mediafire.com/view/lx2nnz9dnpg34tt/Rosemary_Ainslie_COP17_Heater_Technology.pdf)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 25, 2013, 04:49:35 PM
OK,

I've found all the Test data and images from Glen's work (22 tests) on his own skydrive site here:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460!120 (https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460!120)


...and Glen's livestream site that links to the above (links are near bottom of page):

http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment (http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2013, 07:22:55 PM
Here are posts where Glen notes a few mods, including a 15k to replace the 10k trimmer to achieve the 3% duty cycle.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-100.html#post71373 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-100.html#post71373)

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-101.html#post71870 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-101.html#post71870)

You make it sound like replacing the 10k trimmer was the only, and a trivial, modification. But that is not the case. FTC was modifiying AARON's circuit, which had already been much modified from Ainslie's three published claimed circuits. The link in the forum post you cited takes you to the Aaron circuit.

You will note that in Aaron's circuit, almost all the component values have been changed from the original values. FTC changed the 10k to a 15k IN THIS CIRCUIT, not the original posted by Ainslie.  Further, Mark E has tested the AARON circuit and determined that it too cannot make short duty cycles as diagrammed.

I don't know if adding 5 k of resistance could make the difference. Have you simmed this version to see if FTC is correct?

Where is the recirculation diode that appears in the EIT paper's version of the schematic?


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 25, 2013, 07:29:45 PM
TK,

I am not trying to make it sound like anything in particular. I simply restated what was posted in that link.

I have not checked Aaron's schematic nor Glen's update to any great depth. I did notice that Glen's updated schematic doesn't show a 15k trimmer pot.

I have simulated the original Quantum circuit. I used Groundloop's circuit and circuit board for my own testbed.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2013, 08:29:40 PM
The data from Test #13 is the one they chose to use for the IEEE paper submission, as it showed the most "benefit" as I recall. The images from all the other tests would be nice, but Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 from Test#13 are really the only ones required, as they show the gate drive (CH3) (close to 50% duty cycle and between 200kHz to 400kHz frequency), Vcsr (CH1), Vbat (CH4), and Vdrain (CH2).

Attached is the "100ns" scope shot for that test (Fig. 6 in the IEEE submission).

ETA: Now that I've found Glen's cache of data, here also is Fig. 4:

Channel 2, the BLUE trace, is the Drain trace.  Right? And it is DC coupled in those shots, right?

What is the voltage expected at the DRAIN when the mosfet is OFF, and what is the voltage expected at the DRAIN when the mosfet is ON?

Both of the FTC shots you present show a LONG ON duty cycle and a short OFF time.  You can clearly see this in the behaviour of the Current trace, CH1 Yellow, and in the Drain trace, CH2 Blue. The Gate trace is SET to about a 50 percent duty cycle but because of the slow fall  time of the gate signal and the slow mosfet response, the Gate of the mosfet does not turn off at 50 percent but stays on much longer. The true duty cycle at the mosfet DRAIN... hence the current through the load.... is more like 60-75 percent or more ON.

The nice spike in the DRAIN trace is the mosfet turning OFF !!!

Also, Glen appears to be operating at over 400 kHz.

So he's using a different circuit than Ainslie ever claimed, not even one of the three she claimed, and he's operating at a vastly different frequency, 400 kHz rather than the 2.4 kHz she claimed.  SO what has this got to do with Ainslie and her claims?


And as I have just proven on my setup, driven by a FG, these settings produce a mosfet that is almost always ON, and I get a load current of a bit over 1.5 amps with Vbatt = 24 volts.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2013, 08:53:48 PM
The BLUE trace is the mosfet DRAIN trace. As we all know by now, in the high-side load configuration Ainslie used, the DRAIN voltage will be at Battery Voltage when the mosfet is OFF, and the DRAIN voltage falls to near zero volts when the mosfet (Rdss 2.0 ohms minimum) is ON.

Right?

I have annotated the FTC trace to indicate the Vbatt level on the DRAIN trace. Only when the mosfet DRAIN voltage is at or near this red line, is it OFF and not conducting.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2013, 09:32:30 PM
Can you see everything you need to see in this shot below? The amplitude of the DRAIN spike is fully controllable by adding or subtracting inductance between the Load and the mosfet Drain pin. I don't have a 100x attenuating probe, or I could show 600 volt peaks here by adding a bit more inductance.

Any questions? The DC ammeter shows about 1.45 amps and the load resistor is heating like gangbusters.... as it should, since the mosfet is almost totally ON, even with the "50 percent" duty cycle sent from the FG.

That's right, I'm using the F43 to make this trace and its Duty Cycle is set to about 50 percent. The mosfet, due to its slow response time, is staying on most of the time, though, as can be clearly seen in the DRAIN trace.

The Blue cursor is at Vbatt of 24 volts wrt the Drain trace. The Green cursor is at 12 volts wrt the purple Gate Signal trace.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 25, 2013, 11:08:28 PM
She is still at it! Outrageous!

Quote
Guys - after all these years it seems that TK, Poynty and just about everyone engaged in refuting those Quantum paper tests had actually CONCEDED that there was a variable duty cycle - but that we could NOT have managed a 3% ON.  Who would have thought?

After all these years we've CONCEDED? What an outrageous liar you are, Ainslie. My video of June 2009 "refers". I demonstrate the variable duty cycle and the variable frequency of the schematic you published, and that it produces the INVERSE of what you claimed. Once again, your willfull ignorance has trapped you with your foot far down your throat, caught YET AGAIN in an outrageous lying misrepresentation of the facts.

Quote
I've asked Poynty to actually link me to those posts where he's claimed this.  TK you can forget.  He's written all over the place that we were applying a 90% ON.  And TYPICALLY he now denies this. 

Where's the link, Ainslie? You cannot provide it because I NEVER SAID THAT.

Quote
He stormed onto Energetic forum in 2009 or thereby with PRECISELY this complaint. 

Then it should be easy for you to provide some support for your claim. But you cannot. As usual you make claims without providing any support or checkable outside reference.

Quote
And 'Joit' - I think it was - actually wrote that he had built our 555 driver.  Interestingly Joit is Polish - I think.  His English was a bit compromised and I first read that he'd NOT managed it.  I immediately apologised to all and sundry - and was then ASSURED by Joit that INDEED he had found that our circuit config certainly COULD  manage the 3% that we claimed. 


And later, even Joit conceded that YOU, and HE, were wrong and I am right. It's an EASY CIRCUIT TO BUILD, Ainslie, and everyone who has built and tested it agrees, once they get over their mistakes.

EVEN AARON AGREES. See the image of his post below. If you are able to, that is.

Quote

We've now taken some photos of that 555 circuit.  Hopefully you can see all the components.  I'll be asking Steve Weir to do an analysis of that to determine whether the circuit was tweaked beyond the schematic in the paper.  I'm also sending those same pictures to an expert in electronics for a second opinion.  This because that expert is in Cape Town.  I can take the entire apparatus to him - as required - if the photos are not enough.  But I'm hoping that between Poynty and Steve - we'll get some informed opinion.

If the circuit is as diagrammed in the Quantum paper, then it cannot produce the duty cycle you claimed to use, and the article lies. If the circuit is different from the schematic in the Quantum paper.... then the article lies! It doesn't matter what your apparatus has on it NOW or what your duty cycle actually was, for the purposes of this single point.  The article gives a schematic that either was on the board THEN or it does not. Either way, the article lies, because the given schematic cannot produce the duty cycle claimed.

Quote
What angers me is this.  Jandrell insisted that the 555 driver was included in the paper - when according to many other advices - it should NOT have been included.  You will note that the claim is NOT related to that driver.  It is related to the applied duty cycle.  And in that paper we go to some lengths to advise all and sundry that the applied duty cycle will vary depending on the inductance of the circuit components.  We specifically state that this needs to be adjusted to each circuit in order to induce that oscillation.  NO duty cycle recommended for purposes of replication.  YET - Mark Euthanasius has written to advise me that no professional will EVER test that claim UNLESS they PRECISELY replicate our 3% ON.  WHY?  That effectively contradicts our own advices on this.  It's RIDICULOUS. 

Is that really what Mark E said? I don't think so. But that is really  immaterial. The point is that your Quantum article contains FALSE INFORMATION bearing your name. That doesn't disturb you in the least, does it.

Quote
What Poynty is NOW saying is that according to our schematic we could NOT have managed that 3% ON.  I neither know nor care.  What I intend showing is the actual switch that most CERTAINLY could manage a 3% ON.  I KNOW this because we specifically designed it to do this - as we saw that we could improve on results if we could also shorten that 'on' time. 

You don't care that the article bearing your name has false information in it. And you are PROUD of the fact that you don't care !

Quote

But here's the actual cause of my anger.  I'm angry that TK IMPLIED that we had inverted the duty cycle in his efforts to negate the claim.  I'm angry that he now denies this.

Are you going to hold your breath, jump up and down and turn blue? Stomp your feet, have a hissy fit? Your statement is so convoluted I'm having trouble parsing it. Yes, the schematic you published cannot make the duty cycle you claim and in fact makes the inverse duty cycle, and since you don't understand why the mosfet DRAIN voltage is HIGH when the mosfet is OFF, you don't understand why the "exact inverse" duty cycle is significant and CANNOT BE A COINCIDENCE. Plus, the high heat results you claim cannot be made with a true 3.7 percent ON duty cycle but are quite easy to make with the INVERSE 96.7 percent ON duty cycle. So be angry or don't be angry, I don't care BUT GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT, whatever you do, and stop lying about what people have said to you.

Quote
I'm angry that he denies that anyone has successfully replicated that waveform when there are multiple internet samples available and he's well aware of these.

And I'm angry that you claim that I have said that! You can't provide a reference, as usual. You've even claimed that I HAVEN"T REPLICATED YOUR WAVEFORMS, but of course I have. And I just a few minutes ago duplicated some more waveforms.

Quote
  I'm angry that Jandrell insisted that we take out those 2 x 17 hour comparative draw down tests - which would  have ENTIRELY proved the numbers that we were measuring.

Let's hear from Professor Jandrell about that, shall we? Your statements are not credible when you describe something that happened LAST WEEK much less eleven years ago.

Quote
I'm angry that Mark Euthanasius denies that we got accreditation that we published in our Quantum paper.   

You have never provided any evidence at all, so why should anyone believe you? You don't even get DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS right! Unless you provide evidence the default value is that you are simply wrong.

Quote
I'm heartily sick of them all.  There is ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT in terms of PUBLICATION to go beyond the facts that are presented.  And in presenting any such paper the standard is that the test is replicated - and IF the claim is found wanting then that paper is duly published that the claim can be investigated.  This NONSENSE - based on whether or not the facts in the paper may be slightly out or not?  It's ABSURD.  AGAIN and AGAIN, and again.  It does NOT need an applied 3% ON. And these modifications - these retractions that they call for?  It's SO FAR from standard procedure as to make their arguments and their demands COMICAL. That is NOT how published papers are assessed.  They're assessed under experimental conditions ONLY.


Again you are saying that it doesn't matter that your article contains false information. You are astounding!

Quote
IF anyone actually takes the trouble to test that circuit - then - REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF INDUCTANCE ON THEIR RESISTOR  - they WILL of a certainty - get it into that oscillation - that 'flop mode' - call it what you will - at just about any applied duty cycle - provided only that the frequency is ALSO adjusted.  You do NOT need a 'feed back' diode.  You only need to use a MOSFET as this has it's own intrinsic body diode.   And when you get it into that operation mode - that oscillation - you will see for yourselves what we are talking about.  There is a measurable over unity result - and that result is further PROVABLE under operating conditions where a battery WILL outperform it's watt hour rating.

Sorry for the rant
Kindest regards
Rosie

Just like it did on August 10 and 11. Right. You are making false claims that you cannot support with real, properly performed measurements in a well conducted experiment and you have already proven that, beyond any doubt.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 26, 2013, 04:17:41 AM
Well well well.

According to Ainslie's "Debunking Troll 'Spin' as it applies to Science" thread, she has posted the promised photos of the original, formerly "lost", Quantum magazine apparatus.

Of course, one needs to be a logged-in member of that honeypot forum in order to see them.

I wonder what they will show. According to Ainslie they will show that the circuit IS the one posted in the Quantum article and they will show that it DOES make a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle as claimed in the article. Right? It's hard for me to wade through all her insults to determine just how those photos will refute me, but she claims they will.

A nice clear shot of both sides of the 555 board, as requested by .99, so that we can confirm the wiring. I can hardly wait to see it.

But... what will be the verdict if the photos show some other circuit than what was claimed? What then? What if it even has wildly different components in it than are shown in the Quantum published schematic? Is it possible that Ainslie would carry out, YET AGAIN, another conscious deception as to the actual schematic in use, the way she did back in March/April of 2011? Surely not..... she is "honorable" isn't she?


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 26, 2013, 07:48:58 AM
Well well well. It appears that the Ainslie troll has LIED TO US AGAIN.

Remember when she said this:
 
Quote
What I know is that we've got the equipment so will, at least, be able to present the ACTUAL 555 circuit for analysis.  And we will be doing so within the week.  And it is THAT circuit that we used in support of our results.  It's a 555 with a variable resistor to allow for multiple duty cycle settings.

And this:

Quote
Quote
Rose,
Having a closeup look of your 555 circuit is a great idea. Please take some high-res photos of both the top and bottom of the board, thanks.

Poynty - Not only will I show this but will show where the 555 timer is attached to the apparatus where we actually ADJUST the duty cycle as required. 

Guys - if you need any kind of a guide as to just how deep in a pickle is our little pickle just pay attention to his volume.  The rule is this.  'The deeper - the louder'.  And RIGHT now he's at full volume.   Most amusing.

Yes, most amusing, I am laughing out loud!

And this:
Quote
And within the next 48 hours I should be able to put up those shots of the test apparatus that we used for our demonstration of that first Quantum paper.  I'll be relying on Steve's genius to analyse the switch as I've been advised NOT to dismantle this.  Which means that the evidence will be confined to photographs.  But between him and Poynty - I'm satisfied that we'll get a fair report.

And THIS:
Quote
I intend retrieving this later on this morning and will then photograph it and will show the duty cycle switch where we adjusted for both frequency and duty cycle - AND -  the details of that circuit.  Poynty and Steve are well able to determine if it is designed to apply a variable duty cycle.  If it DOES show this - then TK - aka Tinsel Koala - commonly referred to  as Little TK or 'ickle pickle' WILL BE CALLED ON TO RETRACT HIS OBJECTIONS IN WHOLE AND IN PART.  As will MARK EUTHANASIUS.  THEN.  Under those circumstances our claims on this subject STAND.  And in the interest of impartial investigation into matters of science - as is widely claimed by both Sterling Allen and Mark Dansie - I INSIST that those retractions be made public.  That - after all - is only fair.

And if it DOES NOT show what you claim here? Who will be making a public retraction THEN, I wonder.

And this:
 
Quote
I intend retrieving this later on this morning and will then photograph it and will show the duty cycle switch where we adjusted for both frequency and duty cycle - AND -  the details of that circuit.[/color]

Quote
I'm done with this - short of posting those photos.  That should be completed later today.

 
Quote
I shall post those photographs tomorrow. 

Quote
We've now taken some photos of that 555 circuit.  Hopefully you can see all the components.  I'll be asking Steve Weir to do an analysis of that to determine whether the circuit was tweaked beyond the schematic in the paper.  I'm also sending those same pictures to an expert in electronics for a second opinion.  This because that expert is in Cape Town.  I can take the entire apparatus to him - as required - if the photos are not enough.  But I'm hoping that between Poynty and Steve - we'll get some informed opinion.

BUT NOW... we have this:
Quote
Quote
Rose,
May I repost these over at OU?

Absolutely NOT Poynty.  I would consider that a complete breach of the trust between us.  This is NOT intended for those trolls.

Rosie


I am laughing in my coffee. Ainslie does not DARE show the photographs, because they simply do not support her claims! Even though she promised, over and over, to do so!

And they especially do not refute ME in the slightest.

The published schematic in the Quantum magazine article is NOT the circuit of the apparatus that Ainslie has just "found". But she dare not show it because she knows it will subject her to even more ridicule than before. If that's possible, even.

Of course, anyone who is a member of her forum can download them. If they then leak to the public ... whose fault will it be, who can she blame? Certainly not Little Old Me. After all she promised to share them publicly, after all.

All the Ainslie quotes can be found on the last two pages of her "Trolling" thread. But where can the promised photos be found, I wonder?




Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 26, 2013, 08:00:32 AM
Quote
And guys, I might just add this point.  Our little TK with his MUCH VAUNTED skills in electronics - and NOTWITHSTANDING his unending boasts and brags related to his CLAIMED GENIUS - is SIMPLY UNABLE TO REPLICATE THE WAVEFORM THAT GLEN LETTENMAIER MANAGED WITH EASE. 

Somewhat less than competent.  Clearly.  Certainly CONSIDERABLY less than he likes you all to think?  I've said it before - and OFTEN.  When anyone tries to advance any impression of 'excess intelligence' it's simply to hide their lack of this. SELF-EVIDENTLY our little pickle is somewhat bereft. 

Again,
Rosie


Yes... again, Rosie, you lie. Falling behind, too. Poynt99 posted the "approved" waveform from Glen up above, which by the way is made at a very different set of settings than you claimed, and in just a few minutes later I posted my own duplication of it, using the same scope settings (as far as possible) on my DSO, with a FG driving the circuit, NOT the 555 timer that Glen used. The settings Glen used are nothing like what you reported in the Quantum article, though.
I even used the mosfet you _specified_ but apparently _did not actually use_. There is no problem duplicating your RAW DATA when you REPORT IT CORRECTLY and there never has been. But you haven't even had the common courtesy to do that!

Self-evidently you are a lying troll and you cannot refute me, and not only that, you can't even make a coherent factual challenge.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 27, 2013, 11:34:11 AM
Well well well. The "lost" apparatus that Ainslie "found" in the shed DOES NOT HAVE THE CIRCUIT PUBLISHED in the Quantum magazine article. SWeir took the time and trouble to trace out the actual present configuration of the "found" apparatus.

Not even close. There are major differences throughout, but the 555 timer circuit is nothing like what is in the Quantum article. The actual circuit in the apparatus DOES produce a short ON duty cycle, with limited adjustability. Only a single pot is used, with a fixed "on" time. The pot controls frequency and since the "on" time is fixed, the duty cycle is also varied at the same time. The range I get with my casual breadboard build of the "lost" circuit is from about 6 or 7 percent ON at around 200 Hz at the low frequency end, up to a bit over 1 percent ON at a little over 2 kHz.  I don't think the circuit can produce the exact 3.7 percent at 2.4 kHz claimed, but it can get a nice short ON time at around 2 kHz. Allowing for the usual 20 percent tolerance in cap values, maybe it could make the exact parameters claimed.

HOWEVER..... the published schematic in the Quantum article is very different and shows 2 potentiometers for independent adjustment of frequency and duty cycle. The apparatus itself also has a second potentiometer, that has been connected to something at some time, but is now not connected to anything. What can this mean? Can it mean that the 555 circuit that is in there NOW isn't the one that has always been in there? That's what I think it means.

But regardless of that: the published schematic is very different from what is in there now. (The power section is different too, but we shall leave that for later.) Now I would like a moment of silence, in memory of ALL THOSE HOURS, days, weeks and months that ALL THOSE PEOPLE wasted, discussing a false schematic, trying to get the false schematic published under Ainslie's name to work properly as she claimed. And all this time, the actual apparatus was just a few footsteps away, not "lost" at all.

Now perhaps we can move on, and get some kind of explanation as to why Ainslie might believe that this rat's nest would work, when the 5 mosfet apparatus didn't.  Did I mention that the apparatus doesn't even have the same mosfet part number as what she has been claiming all this time? That's right, apparently not only was the 555 timer not as claimed in the article, but not even the mosfet itself was as claimed.

I think there are a lot of former "replicators" that are getting pretty steamed up at this point. Or they would be, if they knew about it and still cared at all. This deception of Ainslie's even tops the March-April 2011 deception about the 5-mosfet schematic!


(ETA: The circuit certainly cannot even come close to the frequency shown in Glen's scopeshots. It tops out at a bit over 2 kHz, and Glen's shots showing the "Ainslie approved oscillations" are at around 400-500 kHz.)

ETA2: I made an error in my build of the circuit just now, the frequency range I reported above isn't correct. I had a capacitor stuck in the wrong hole on my breadboard!

The true frequency range is quite a bit higher... so I don't think it can go as low as 2.4 kHz, OR as high as 400 kHz but is actually somewhere in between. I'll make more precise measurements after I've had a bit of a kip.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 27, 2013, 12:18:54 PM
While we are at it....

Ainslie says:
Quote
And Guys, apparently Mark Euthanasius subscribes to the adage  that 'unusual claims require unusual proof'.  There is NOTHING unusual in back electromotive force.  What's UNUSUAL is that no-one before has has taken this much trouble to prove that it's a source of energy.  And ALL we're doing is suggesting that certain assumptions related to back electromotive force - be REVISITED.


On the contrary. As usual Ainslie has not done her homework. Any reader of this thread can point to literally dozens of experimenters and devices that attempt to "prove" that BEMF can be utilized as a source of energy. Almost all of them have done a much better job of it than Ainslie has. John Bedini even seems to be making a fairly good living at it, with many different models of motors and solid state circuits that try to do what Ainslie claims is "UNUSUAL". Most of those researchers actually  know the difference between a Watt and a Joule, too!

Quote
But for all that - IF as is suggested - we require UNUSUAL PROOF - then we've SUPPLIED IT.

No, Ainslie has not SUPPLIED any UNUSUAL PROOF. What she has done is CLAIMED various things. All of the claims that have been tested properly have been shown to be FALSE. Without solid evidence, any CLAIMS that Ainslie makes can safely also be taken to be FALSE, since she has a 100 percent track record of fails.

Quote
We got accreditation from experts within multiple companies all of whom are LISTED and PUBLIC.  The onus is not on me to PROVE that accreditation.  It is on him to DISPROVE it - if he's so inclined.

Wrong again. Anyone who makes such assertions needs to provide the evidence. I can claim that General Electric has bought my design for the modified Dirod for a million dollars, twelve years ago. Is it up to you to disprove that, if you contest it? Have you called every single possible person at General Electric who might have had something to do with it? Well then, you must believe me.    NOT.
The kinds of "accreditation" that Ainslie claims will always include a written, signed report with real data in it. Ainslie has never provided a single bit of evidence of any kind for these claims. And we know how she garbles things said to her last week... much less twelve or fourteen years ago.

Quote
Again - under all decent methods of science investigation - the authors are not called LIARS.  They are innocent UNTIL PROVED GUILTY.  For some reason Mark seems to see a need to UPEND this civilized approach to things and call all and sundry LIARS - unless proved otherwise.  And this JUSTIFIED?  SOMEHOW?  Because we've got an UNUSUAL CLAIM?  I think not.

That's right, Ainslie and Martin are not called LIARS because of their unusual claim. They are called LIARS because they have been proven over and over to be LIARS.

- Ainslie claimed to hold a Patent, when she actually had only filed an application and never pursued it further. Her claim of a Patent was a lie.
- Ainslie claimed that she DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO, or make it public, referring to the March 2011 demo video... but she did  post it to her YouTube account, did link to it on this forum and in her blog. Her claim that she did not post the video was a lie.
- Ainslie and Martin claimed in the video and for a month afterwards that there were five mosfets in parallel. This claim was a lie.
- Martin claimed that the oscillations could not be simulated. He lied, and even showed false data while doing it. As soon as the correct circuit was revealed the oscillations were simulated with ease, and in the most recent demonstration but one, Martin admits that the oscillations can be simulated in software. His earlier claim that they could not be, and the presentation of the false data, was a lie. (The data was a lie because it did not accurately represent the actual circuit in the software.)
- Ainslie published the Figure 3 scopeshot that is impossible to make with the hookups claimed. The publication of this scopeshot, and the claims made around it, are lies, that still persist in spite of her left-handed "retraction".  She repeatedly claimed that she could reproduce the shot... which was a lie.
- The Quantum magazine article presents a schematic and makes claims about it that are false. Ainslie has known about the objections to that schematic since at least 2009 and has never until now done anything about it other than claim that IT WAS THE SCHEMATIC USED. Now we see that the apparatus she claims was used, has a completely different schematic. Here, Ainslie has lied for over four years about the actual schematic in the apparatus.
- Ainslie refers to people by names that do not belong to them. Every time she asserts that TK is someone named Bryan Little, she lies.

Every one of these lies, and many more, are fully documented in Ainslie's Permanent Record by images of her posts and references to the actual proofs that they are lies.

Quote
Again,
Rosie

And again and again. There is one sure way for Ainslie to avoid being called a liar... and that is for her to tell the truth.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: markdansie on August 27, 2013, 12:54:03 PM
I am trying to figure out what is motivating her,
Anyway will publish the article soon. There is nothing there and where she could have held a lot of respect in letting go gracefully it is a shame to go out bitter and non accepting.
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 27, 2013, 02:21:08 PM
I made an error in my build of the circuit just now, the frequency range I reported above isn't correct. I had a capacitor stuck in the wrong hole on my breadboard!

The true frequency range is quite a bit higher... so I don't think it can go as low as 2.4 kHz, OR as high as 500 kHz but is actually somewhere in between. I'll make more precise measurements after I've had a bit of a kip.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 28, 2013, 06:23:06 AM
So. Apparently Ainslie is now saying something like this:

It doesn't matter what circuit you use as long as it has a mosfet with a body diode in it and shows some "BEMF" or inductive spike kickback. It doesn't matter what you drive it with, either, or what frequency or duty cycle because the osciilations override that anyway. And it especially doesn't matter that the schematic published in Quantum isn't the one used, or that the FTC Test #13 isn't made with the published schematic, or that the published schematic can't do what is claimed for it. It just doesn't matter! Build anything, and just tune it. You will eventually find the "flop mode" which gives you overunity. And if you don't, after years of trying... .that's not Ainslie's fault, you are just too stupid for pickles.

At the same time it appears that the FTC Test #13 is endorsed by Ainslie as giving the proper waveforms at the proper frequency and duty cycle settings. I say it appears, because it is next to impossible to pin Ainslie down, even after all these years. 
And I am now clear that the scopeshots .99 posted above are from Glen's Test # 13.

So... where are the "oscillations"? There aren't any "oscillations" evident in those shots. And as I showed in my own replication of them using a FG, "careful" tuning is indeed required to get the Drain signal to be a single, tall spike, rather than a bit of an ordinary ringdown. It takes about 30 seconds to "tune" for this. And as I have also shown, the apparatus at that frequency does keep the mosfet ON much longer than the duty cycle setting of the driving system will indicate. In fact with a duty cycle _setting_ of 50 percent, the mosfet is actually ON for something like 80 percent of the cycle or even more. Hence the heating of the load observed.

The mosfet is ON when the Drain voltage is LOW. I have indicated the battery voltage on Glen's screen below. The mosfet is ON as long as the trace is below the red 24volt level of the battery voltage.

I've also reposted my reproduction of the shot, showing Drain and Gate traces, since I only have a 2ch DSO.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 29, 2013, 12:37:01 AM
Ainslie continues to slide down the hill of decompensation. Soon we'll see the fullblown psychosis again, complete denial of reality. If it weren't so funny it would be sad.

Quote
No Poynty.  I am NOT asking you to agree to what duty cycle we used.  I'm DEMANDING that you agree that we COULD generate that 3% duty cycle with the use of our equipment.  This possibility was ROUNDLY DISMISSED.   REMEMBER?  By EVERYONE - INCLUDING MARK EUTHANASIUS AND YOURSELF and our Little TK.  Then hot on the heels of THAT fact - is this point.  IF we claim to have applied a 3% ON duty cycle - then that claim is FEASIBLE - given that we COULD. 
No, AINSLIE. What everyone has been telling you is that the circuit YOU PUBLISHED cannot do WHAT YOU CLAIMED. And that is definitely true. Nobody knows, even today, what circuit you ACTUALLY USED. Even the circuit that Steve Weir drew out for you is only what is in the box NOW, and it clearly has been altered since the Quantum article. 
The 555 timer in the circuit that Weir posted can make the short ON duty cycle but it CANNOT make the 2.4 kHz frequency you claimed to use, for one thing.
So you are still in very hot water: the present schematic ALSO cannot make the dutycycle/frequency combo that you claimed in the article. It uses a different mosfet than you claimed in the article. In spite of the similar part number, the IRFPG50 and the IRFP450 are entirely different performers.

NOBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS, at this point, STILL, what was used in the Quantum article. It is obvious that the apparatus has been modified since the picture on the front page of the Quantum article was taken and it is obvious that the schematic now given uses a different mosfet than what the article claims. And it can't make a 2.4 kHz frequency like the article claims.

The photo on the front page of the Quantum article shows two analog meters in the front panel of the device. There are no meters shown on Steve Weir's schematic. The Quantum article and schematic claim that the frequency and duty cycle are independently adjustable.... but the SWeir schematic cannot do independent adjustment, the "on" time is nearly constant throughout the frequency range and so the duty cycle varies along with the frequency, not independently. One potentiometer instead of two. But on the front page of the Quantum article we can make out... barely.... as many as FOUR potentiometers.

The article STILL LIES, even more now that we know that the circuit you give now is even further away from what the Quantum article claims.

Quote
Mark Euthanasius has stated - VERY PUBLICLY - that BECAUSE we could not have applied a 3% duty cycle - then EVERYONE needs MUST reject the ENTIRE CLAIM related to our Quantum paper.  And you stood behind him.  It's now been shown that we COULD apply that duty cycle.


No, AINSLIE, what we have stated VERY PUBLICLY is that the PUBLISHED SCHEMATIC IN THE QUANTUM ARTICLE cannot do what you claimed it did, and that is STILL TRUE and it is also true that the "new" schematic can't either: it operates at too high a frequency range. And all that has been shown is that NOW the apparatus MIGHT have been able to apply a short ON duty cycle at a much higher frequency than you claimed, IF it was actually what you used THEN.

Quote
THEREFORE do Mark Euthanasius and TK and you need to publicly admit that the BASIS OF YOUR COMPLAINT HAS NOW BEEN VOIDED. 

WRONG AGAIN. Far from being "voided" the basis of the complaint is reinforced. The present schematic doesn't even use the same transistor that you claimed to use and it can't make the low frequency! The timer doesn't have a separate power supply! There is only one potentiometer hooked up!!

THEREFORE do YOU, Rosemary Ainslie, need to admit publicly that YOU STILL HAVE FALSE CLAIMS AND DATA APPEARING UNDER YOUR NAME in publications that you will not correct or remove.

Quote
Unless, of course, you all see that there is NO requirement on the part of you all - who have been FRUSTRATING investigations into over unity claims - over MANY MANY YEARS - to EVER make any admissions at all.  You simply reserve the right to discredit the good work that HAS been advanced - and the good name of researchers who are advancing this work - in your anxiety to PREVENT research into over unity claims.  And you will all of you VERY PUBLICLY - show the UTMOST disrespect to any such claimant - REGARDLESS.  There is NO greater discourtesy that has happened on these forums against my good name, my work, my age, my talents - than this REFUSAL.  If I felt that I'd been gang raped by all you internet thugs - RIGHT NOW I feel DOUBLY OUTRAGED.

Kindest regards
Rosie

Believe me, Ainslie drama queen.... had you been gang raped in your South Africa gated compound, you would know the difference between defending a thesis and defending your life against a gang of black thugs who want to humiliate you physically. People have been gang-raped in South Africa, you  know.... lots and lots of them, it is the  Capitol of the World, apparently, and your self-serving statement shows a disgusting lack of empathy or respect for those women victims of your countrymen. There is an outrage happening all right, and you are the perpetrator, not the victim.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 29, 2013, 12:42:44 AM
And as usual, Ainslie wants other people to do her work for her.

She wants someone to show her what SHE HERSELF HAS NEVER SHOWN, and what doesn't exist in the FTC Test 13 scopeshots!!

I'm not saying it is impossible to get a mosfet to oscillate in the absence of a supplied Gate HI signal from the experimenter's FG or other clocking device .... of course it is possible, and the bigger the rat's nest of wiring the easier that is. I am saying that Ainslie doesn't understand what she is talking about and cannot demonstrate it for herself.

But of course she will distort and alter what I say into something that she can then attack. Watch!

(Note the statement in the Quantum article: "There is a variety of settings that can be applied to the duty cycle (note variable resistors) that results in "overunity coefficients". But the repeatability of such results depends on the precise components used in that circuit." One would think then that the difference between the IRFP450 in the present schematic and the IRFPG50 that the article claims was used... might affect the "repeatability". I'll bet that a lot of Ainslie's early "replicators" are wailing and gnashing their teeth right about now.)

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 29, 2013, 03:43:26 AM
Quoting from the first page of the Quantum article:

Quote
Circuit Diagram: This article describes the precise circuit, as depicted in Figure 1, that is used to expose this benefit in transient energy. This is to enable and urge others to duplicate the experiment and determine the measurements independently.
(emphasis mine.)

The "Figure 1" of course is the circuit with the 555 timer that cannot produce the duty cycle and frequency combination claimed. The PRECISE circuit.

Here is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines "precise":
 
Quote
Precise:adjective marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail:precise directions I want as precise a time of death as I can get
(of a person) exact, accurate, and careful about details:the director was precise with his camera positions
 [attributive] used to emphasize that one is referring to an exact and particular thing:at that precise moment the car stopped

Exact, accurate, careful about details.....  Yet now she wants to claim a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CIRCUIT was used, not even the same mosfet or number of controls or separate power supply. PRECISE !!!!

And she says she will NEVER withdraw the Quantum article. She doesn't care at all that her lies and misrepresentations and urgings to replicate a FALSE CIRCUIT CLAIM are still "out there" bearing her name !

And she urges replicators to use the WRONG SCHEMATIC, once again. Only instead of only a month, this time it has been nearly ELEVEN YEARS that she has perpetrated the deception wrt the schematic used.


The Quantum article Figure 1, followed by the schematic that SWeir drew out and that she posted in her "trolling" forum thread are attached below.

Note that this is NOT the PRECISE schematic that accompanied the Quantum article as Figure 1.  In fact it is VERY DIFFERENT and doesn't even use the same mosfet. Neither does it correspond to the photograph on the front page of the article: there are no analog meters in the new schematic, and there are at least four adjustable potentiometers on the box in the photograph in the Quantum article.

(Coils? P-fet? Not shown? )
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 29, 2013, 04:04:03 AM
Is the present circuit supposed to use the same battery supply for the mosfet and the 555? Why is this part of the schematic not shown? Where is the battery for the power section and how is it hooked up?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 29, 2013, 11:30:05 AM
So.

Recall that with the "NERD" or 5-mosfet circuit, we had FIVE different schematics presented as what was used in the experiment reported in the papers.

1. The single mosfet, FG with no black lead, six battery circuit that Martin said "this represents what you have before you here"
2. The claim that all five mosfets were in parallel
3. The actual circuit of the demo board as traced out by Poynt99, revealing the miswired 4 mosfets and the Black FG lead at the common battery negative.
4. The circuit given in the official publication Paper 1 at Rossi's JNP showing the Black FG lead at the transistor side of the shunt.
5. The circuit given in the official publication Paper 2 at Rossi's JNP showing the Black FG lead at the transistor side of the shunt, and the Q1-Q2 positions reversed.

The only photographic evidence that exists shows that Schematic Number 3 was actually used, not the schematics given in any papers or shown by Martin or Ainslie.

And now we have a similar situation developing. We have _at least_ four different schematics presented as having been used in the Quantum article.

1. The "official" and "precise" schematic given as Figure 1 in the Quantum article, which specifies a 555 timer circuit that _cannot_ produce the dutycycle and frequency claimed, uses a separate 12 volt supply for the timer, and specifies IRFPG50 as the mosfet and shows NO recirculation diode.
2. The schematic presented in the "EIT Paper" submission, which shows a FG symbol for the timer, but specifies a 555 in the text without providing its circuitry... and DOES show a recirculation diode and a gate control potentiometer, and DOES indicate that the frequency and dutycycle are independently variable in the accompanying text. The mosfet itself is not specified in the schematic.
3. The SWeir schematic of the "found", formerly "lost" apparatus, which shows the IRFP450 mosfet, a very different beast than the PG50, no gate control pot on the N-channel mosfet (What is on the P channel mosfet that he mentions but does not show, I wonder. Is there perhaps a tiny blue trimpot soldered to its gate pin?) and a _different_ 555 timer circuit than the "precise circuit" given as Figure 1 in the Quantum article. A diode is included in SWeir's schematic but its type and connections are not shown and not known. The duty cycle and frequency of the SWeir 555 circuit are not independently variable and there is only one potentiometer connected to the circuit and the circuit cannot make a 2.4 kHz output signal, but works at much higher frequency range, and certainly cannot make the claimed 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz.
4. The schematic from the IEEE submission, which is similar to the original Quantum schematic, with many component value changes, and bears the notation "revised 11-26-2009". The IRFPG50 mosfet is specified in the schematic.

And I will wager, although I have no proof at the moment, that the ACTUAL circuit used to produce the data in the Quantum article was likely different still! What are these "coils" that SWeir mentions? How many different ways can that circuit be altered by patch cords?

It is very clever of Free Energy claimants not to specify exact operating conditions or circuitry. It is, in fact, a tradition that pervades the field. Anyone who tries to "replicate" one of Ainslie's circuits finds out that not only does it not do what she claimed it does, but that it isn't even the circuit that she is "currently" claiming she used !!

The original Quantum schematic and the SWeir schematic are posted above. I'll repost the EIT paper schematic and the IEEE schematic below. Compare, contrast, discuss.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 29, 2013, 12:07:36 PM
Curious, isn't it, that all the schematics where Ainslie actually specifies the mosfet, it is the IRFPG50, but in Steve's sketch it is the IRFP450? Could Steve have made an error? After all, the parts look identical except for the number, and it is easy to mistake a "G" for a "4" in that tiny font they use on the mosfet.

Is the difference even important? Maybe checking the data sheets might reveal that they are equivalent and can be substituted with impunity.

Hmmm.... let's check.

Did Steve make an error? Nope.
I can confirm that the schematic he drew shows the IRFP450 mosfet that is in fact shown in the photos of the box Ainslie "found" a few days ago. Was it the one used for the experiments twelve or fourteen years ago? Who knows. One thing is certain: the apparatus has definitely been modified since the photo accompanying the Quantum article was taken.

Are the mosfets significantly different? Yep.
The P450 is significantly faster, has less than 1/4 the ON-state resistance and requires less charge to turn on. It can handle more current but is only rated for 500 volts as compared to the PG50's 1000 volt rating. I can and do use a single IRFP450 in my SassyClassE SSTC. A PG50 will not even begin to work in that circuit.
The IRFPG50 is also significantly more expensive than the P450, at least at my sources.

ETA: It would appear now that both the "official submissions" of papers to actual respected refereed journals, the "EIT" submission and the IEEE submission, both contain Fabricated Data! Data that was not gathered under the conditions specified (circuit schematic and operating parameters) is FABRICATED. It appears that Ainslie has not only carried out her campaign of deception and misinformation here in these forum pages, but also by trying to get her nonsense published in real, respected journals with professional readerships and some cachet in the scientific world. But the submissions contain manifestly false statements. Either that.... or the "box" that Steve Weir so carefully analyzed (once again doing Ainslie's homework for her) was not in fact the apparatus used, because it corresponds to neither of the schematics given in those submissions. Not even close.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 30, 2013, 12:41:44 AM
Here is a simulation I did of the simple 1-MOSFET circuit driven by a FG. I used roughly the same frequency and duty cycle Glen used in his Test #13.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 30, 2013, 03:11:11 AM
Remarkable, isn't it? 

Except in my actual build you can see some _real_ oscillations on the top of the Gate signal, that actually does show up during the mosfet On time, but at low amplitude.
There is nothing particularly significant about this noise in my apparatus. With proper layout it will go away and my traces will be nearly as clean as your sim's.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 30, 2013, 03:27:43 AM
Regarding the Test Apparatus:   (Ainslie posting as "witsend" in the Energetic Forum thread as she was falling out with Glen and Harvey and the rest)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-2.html#post83902
Quote
I have never been called on to produce the circuit apparatus until members of this forum required it.  It would have helped them no doubt. But I dismantled my apparatus when I sent the fluke, the multimeter and the digitial display devices to Aaron.  I said then that I would not again be doing any further experiments.  It had dominated many years of life.  My eyesight was deteriorating.  And I had lost all appetite for this, having done it so extensively for so many years preceding.  Also I no longer had the optimised resistor as one of our team had taken this for independant testing.  I do not, however, have to apologise for this. It is just a matter of fact.  I believe that the other circuit component parts are readily available.  And there is nothing to prevent a replication.  What is required is a patience in searching for the optimised settings on any particular resistor.  I found very few that did not exceed COP>2.  Nor did I take photographs because it did not occur to me that this would be required.  There is a second 'box' or apparatus set up that was sent to ABB Research.  I also don't know what has happened to that apparatus. Glen and Harvey are aware of this.  They know the circumstances intimately.  This argument is being used to discredit the claim.  The truth is I have never undertaken to produce any circuitry.  And I no longer had the apparatus nor the tools to measure.  this put paid to any further attempts at replication.  And frankly, I was rather anxious that a wide variety of resistors would be used and tested.  That's the only way the more precise inductance values will ever be established. 
 
 Between the actual Quantum publication and the new paper prepared for the IET was a total of 7 years.  It was a miracle that the apparatus survived the 3 changes of address that I had.  It was substantially degraded and there was evident rust on the switch. The switch - in any event - had to be rebuilt and at the end of Donovan's final replication done for the IET paper - I effectively gave the resistor and some inductors to a friend - involved in those same tests under Donny's supervision.  The box was banged up and he wanted to 'start again'. Thereafter I willingly dismantled for Aaron.  That's the history of the apparatus.  Frankly I was glad to see the last of it.  Do testing yourselves, obsessively for years on end and see if you would not share that sentiment.  And I am not an experimenter.  My interests are in the theory.

How many different stories are there? As many as she has aliases, apparently. So she did have the apparatus, it wasn't lost at all, it was even repaired and rebuilt so that Martin could "replicate" for the "IET" paper submission, and then it was "dismantled" and parts were sent to Aaron in 2009.

Compare that story she tells above,  to the story of the suddenly "found" apparatus that we have been told recently.

The 555 circuit that SWeir found in the box is not the same circuit that was in the box for the Quantum article. The circuit in the box that we see now was designed and built to correspond to GLEN LETTERMEIER's operating parameters.... not the other way around.

This is proven by the history of the "EIT" or "TIE" or "IET" submission (at various times she has called it all of those). Ainslie was continuing to claim the original specs of 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz. The published circuit was found by all who tried it to be incapable of producing that specified setting. People like Glen came on and started doing Ainslie's homework for her. Then he hit upon the 555 timer mod that would produce the results like those in Test 13 and .99's sim and my hardware above. THEN and only then did Ainslie and Martin or someone rebuild the Quantum box to contain the present 555 circuit, in order to try to match Glen's results for the "EIT" or TIE or IET paper submission.

As you read those threads on EF and Panacea U,  don't forget that many "skeptical" or contrary posts have been deleted, censored, edited away by Ashtweth and Aaron.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 30, 2013, 04:28:50 AM
As I predicted, Ainslie will not be pinned down as to the correct waveform to be used.

Any waveform that does not produce overunity is NOT the right waveform! So it's up to you to find it, silly, not for her to tell you about it. Just build something and tune it, take your pick of at least nine different circuits, and when you get overunity, THOSE are the right waveforms!

Don't try to make Glen's waveforms! They are something different, since he no longer agrees with Ainslie.

But at one time, she was very excited about Glen's waveforms, especially Test 3 and Test 13.

The first image is from today's posts. The second image is from Energetic Forum, October 6, 2009 -- before the falling out and the closing of that thread -- and refers to Glen's Test 3.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html)

And a few posts further on, after a lot of backslapping all around, and dissing the skeptics who have been censored away:
It cannot be said often enough.  You are truly amazing. Historically your efforts here must always be a primary reference.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on August 30, 2013, 04:47:00 AM
The Great Turkey Shoot   :-*
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on August 30, 2013, 07:05:28 PM
Once again,

Here is the circuit I simulated. The position of the shunt resistor is located in series with the Source, but that is the only real difference, and was done as such because all Rose's and Glen's circuits are this way.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 30, 2013, 08:26:38 PM
I've seen that circuit before!  With the exception you note:

It is the power section of the Ainslie Quantum-17 article, of the "EIT" submission, of the IEEE submission and it is the Q1 portion of the 5-transistor NERD circuit. It is the power section of the circuit Ainslie tried to patent.

It is also the Unclamped Inductive Test circuit in the back of almost every N-ch power mosfet's data sheet, most especially that of the IRFPG50.... and it can also be found in the back pages of the IRFP450 mosfet as well.
 As you know.

Interestingly, the data sheets also include the expected waveform at the DRAIN (Vds) and at the CURRENT MONITORING (Ias) point, when stimulated at the GATE by a rectangular pulse of duration Tp. And we find the notation to vary the pulse width in order to attain the required Source Current, ie Power in the Load. Sound familiar to anyone?

That is right. In addition to all of her other faults, it appears that Rosemary Ainslie is a plagiarist, even seeking to PATENT a circuit that has long been in the public domain.
 

Quote
The position of the shunt resistor is located in series with the Source, but that is the only real difference, and was done as such because all Rose's and Glen's circuits are this way.

That's right... but the circuits given in the 5-mosfet PAPERS show the same location as the diagrams in the data sheets exactly. IOW.... the diagrams in the PAPERS are false, because they didn't use the location they claim. Further, the diagram in the Quantum article is FALSE, the diagram in the IEEE submission is FALSE and the diagram in the "EIT" submission is FALSE: none of them correspond to the schematic that Steve Weir drew out from the photographs that Ainslie posted of her box.

But she has "sort of" withdrawn the NERD papers, even though anyone can still see them, without any statement of retraction (except StellaNokia's comments) ,  at Rossi's JNP, their "official publication".

She has yet to do anything about the Quantum paper lies, which have existed since 2002 and have been known by her and the public in general since 2009.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 30, 2013, 08:58:50 PM
Now.... view once again the depths of deception and prevarication that Ainslie will sink to.

A person working with a mosfet circuit who DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY "DRAIN VOLTAGE" ..... but who has repeatedly shown DRAIN VOLTAGE SIGNALS from her various apparatuses..... is both willfully ignorant, and mendacious beyond belief.

Also stupid, if she thinks that anyone will buy her non-cooperative flailing about as anything other than delusional madness.

Quote
I absolutely can't say WHAT it represents.  What is that drain voltage?  I don't even understand the term.  And what circuit have you got there?  And on and on Poynty.  And WHY are you plugging this as Glen's circuit when the ONLY waveform shown is your own.  Frankly I'm done here.  If you want to talk turkey then rename this thread and IF and WHEN you show anything - EXPLAIN it better.  I absolutely WON'T engage unless I have some idea as to what you're saying. 

UNLESS, again, you have an outright admission that Glen's work was a valid replication.  In which case I most certainly WILL continue this discussion.

Rosie

HOWEVER... she has no problem at all discussing the DRAIN VOLTAGE as if she understands perfectly well what it means WHEN IT SUITS HER PURPOSES, and she has shown many diagrams and scopeshots showing a scope probe monitoring the DRAIN VOLTAGE.

Quote
However, there was still no clear evidence of what exactly was going on.  Also apparent was that while the technology was scalable - at approximately a 20 degree rise for every battery added - there was an upper limit determined by the amperage that the zener could manage.  So.  The next test was to up the ante by putting those MOSFETs in parallel.  I went for the full monty - at about 30 amps - thinking that this would still keep the battery voltage in line with the DSO's voltage tolerances.  That was when I recorded our 'first surprise' in my blog.  What was immediately apparent was there was an antiphase relationship of voltage on the source and ground rail - that spoke volumes.  When the drain voltage peaked - the source voltage was at it's lowest.  And when the drain voltage 'troughed' the source voltage was at its highest.  In effect, the returning energy trumped the output - every time - and all the way through each cycle.  Also.  The resonance - that was always restricted to a long spike and some ringing - now 'flattened out' and for a brief period gave a resonating waveform where there was clear early indications of absolute re-inforcement at each phase and stage.  But also apparent was that this resonance actually only occured when the signal at the gate defaulted to negative.  In effect - it was a negative triggering - and that's where the benefit had been hiding. 

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/49/

(Note that this post reveals once again the fact that she thinks that the drain voltage should be high when the current is flowing, but since it is not, she considers that a "surprise".)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 30, 2013, 09:14:29 PM
Let us note once again that on October 6 and 8, 2009, Rosemary Ainslie, posting as "witsend", HAPPILY ENDORSED THE SAME WAVEFORMS and similar ones from FTC (Glen Lettermeier) that .99 is now showing her, and that she now refuses to acknowledge.

Why and how has this change in her attitude happened? It happened because on the 6th and 8th of October 2009 she still thought that Glen's results showed "overunity" performance.  Since she now apparently believes that they don't..... she now disavows any knowledge of the waveforms, and will self-destruct as we watch.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html
Post # 2900 and further on.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 30, 2013, 10:44:11 PM
Ains-lie expects people to replicate her claims.

But she WILL NOT TELL YOU the actual circuit she used. The only way we know the correct circuit for the 5-mosfet apparatus is because poynt99 traced it out from still frames from the March 2011 demonstration. The given schematics from Ainslie and Martin, all four of them, are lies. The schematics in the "papers" and the March 2011 demo video are lies. Only .99's schematic, the fifth one, determined after another month of lies from Ainslie, is the truth.

She WILL NOT TELL YOU the actual circuit used for the Quantum article. None of the three circuits she and her "team" Donovan Martin have presented are the same as what is in the box NOW, and the published Quantum circuit cannot do what she claims. Even the circuit in the box NOW can't make a 2.4 kHz frequency, because it was DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT THE SAME FREQUENCY RANGE that Glen Lettermeier used to make his Test shots back in 2009. But it isn't his circuit either. And the only way we know what is in the box NOW is because Steve Weir reverse-engineered it as much as possible, and revealed that it is NOTHING LIKE the claimed circuit in the Quantum article nor is it like any of the other circuits given. It uses a SINGLE variable resistor instead of TWO, it cannot vary duty cycle and frequency independently and it cannot make a 2.4 kHz frequency, and it DOESN"T EVEN HAVE THE SAME MOSFET that she has been specifying all along. Two mosfets in the box, one P-channel, and one N-channel, but absolutely NO IRFPG50 anywhere in evidence. To this day nobody knows, except maybe her and "Donny", what the circuit was that was used in the Quantum-17 article.

I can guarantee that what is in the box presented in photos on her forum NOW is not what was in the box in 2002. Numbers on chips have meaning! They are part numbers.... but there are more numbers than just the part numbers. THEY ARE DATE CODES giving the date of manufacture of the chips. If a certain part was manufactured in 2007... what is it doing in a box that was "lost" in 2002 and has just now been found? Just how did it get in there? GREMLINS ???

She WILL NOT TELL YOU what settings were used to make the data she claims. She WILL NOT TELL YOU what the scope waveforms are/were. And the reason for all this mendacity and prevarication is very simple: deniability. If you do not get "overunity" she can simply say that you are not using her circuit/waveforms/analysis etc. so you cannot claim to be actually replicating and testing HER circuit and HER parameters. Just as she is doing now with "poynty".

She wants her "replicators" to flail around and when they DO report unusual gains, she jumps on that and claims "success" . But when they DON'T report unusual gains.... it's not even the right circuit , not the right waveforms, and the replicator is too stupid to breathe, much less dare to replicate Ainslie's world-saving circuit.

And if they at first report gains, but then later retract that claim of gains.... Ainslie then retracts her previous endorsement.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 30, 2013, 11:00:46 PM
Here's a little tid-bit that knowledgeable people will know how to interpret:

Quote
STMicroelectronics was formed in 1987 by the merger of semiconductor companies SGS Microelettronica (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SGS_Microelettronica&action=edit&redlink=1) (Società Generale Semiconduttori) of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) and Thomson Semiconducteurs, the semiconductor arm of France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)'s Thomson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_SA). At the time of the merger the company was known as SGS-THOMSON but took its current name in May 1998 following the withdrawal of Thomson SA as an owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics)

The STMicro or ST Microelectronics name and logo did not exist before May of 1998.

And here is another tidbit: STMicro puts DATE CODES on their chips, so that one can determine the date of manufacture of the chip. So do many other manufacturers like Texas Instruments, Philips, etc.

The STMicro NE555N timer chip in Ainslie's box bears the following markings, in addition to the ST logo:

 CHN
 NE555N
 K2B718

So..... DO THE MATH (tm Ainslie).
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on August 31, 2013, 09:19:44 AM
Well.... then.... are _these_ the Mystery Oscillations? Ainslie doesn't want to hear anything about her former collaborator FTC's oscillations... so how about the very different oscillations from her former collaborator and head cheerleader Aaron Murakami?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiSWJ4fp-k4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiSWJ4fp-k4)
uploaded August 6 2009 with the text:
Quote
Contrary to skeptical mythology by false experts, the IRFPG50 is easy to get into oscillation. See diagram and more explanation at www.energeticforum.com (http://www.energeticforum.com)

Well.. this "skeptical mythologist" uploaded this video on July 22, 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948GxRN1Qxo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948GxRN1Qxo)
Here I am monitoring the DRAIN pin of the mosfet, so the trace is "upside down" from Aaron's traces at the shunt and across the load, and I am operating at a frequency high enough to show only a single spindle of the oscillation bursts he demonstrates a couple of weeks LATER.

(Note the impunity with which Aaron swaps probe positions to look across the load with one channel of the Fluke-O-Scope. The one nice thing about that instrument is its isolated channel references. You can have as much as 600 V difference between the channel refs, IIRC, so you can get away with crazy things like scoping "across" the load while your other channel's reference is on the ground rail.)

But wait! Both Aaron and I are using the "wrong  mosfet" !! We are using the mosfet Ainslie _told us to use_, not the one _she actually used_. Or is it? Only the Shadow knows. But what this skeptical mythologist knows for sure is that the different mosfets behave differently in the circuit... because I have tried them both, and other types as well. By far the best performer in heating and "overunity spikes" that I tried back in 2009 was the 2sk1548, which ironically has a higher Rdss than the PG50, but is faster. And a lot cheaper.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 02, 2013, 04:00:44 AM
So let me say it plainly: The "Box", Demo Kit 1, that Ainslie and Martin have claimed many times was "lost" ("You can take my word on that") after the testing reported in the Quantum article.... and which suddenly turned up in her son's shed a couple weeks ago.... and which somehow made it through 3 moves, 3 changes of address without being "found"..... Has a chip in it that was manufactured in May of 2007. 


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 02, 2013, 04:10:52 AM
So her circuit can cause time travel?  I don't remember that being mentioned in the paper.  This is incredible.  A real breakthrough of Nobel prize proportions.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 02, 2013, 03:00:05 PM
Who knows, Bill? After all, she has asserted that the Winter Solstice comes in July in South Africa. Time, like other factual data, is unimportant to Ainslie.

But check the post images below.  It is clear that their story of where the apparatus was, and which apparatus went where, is not consistent.

The "ABB" tests are referenced in the Quantum article and in a newspaper article from November 2002. So whatever apparatus was sent off to them and "never returned" happened before that article was written. The Quantum article has a photo of an apparatus in use, that, as far as can be determined, looks the same as what was "found" a couple of weeks ago. This, I maintain, is the apparatus that was in fact used in the Quantum article. She has told us it was, and for once, I believe her--- but the apparatus has been modified since then and so it could not have been "lost" as both Ainslie and Martin have claimed. Yet Ainslie and Martin both have said that this apparatus was lost. Yet.... in mid-2009 she knew that it was in her garden shed, and that it had been used again, with mods, by Donovan Martin for the IET paper submission. This is when the original 555 timer circuit, which used 2 potentiometers and etc. was replaced with the new circuit and the chip made in 2007, in order to repeat GLEN's frequency settings as he described in his Test 13 and others. The new circuit uses a single adjustment pot and operates in the frequency range (400 kHz or more) of Glen's testing, NOT the original Quantum article's specified 2.4 kHz. 

Donovan Martin replicated Glen Lettenmeier, NOT the other way around !


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: powercat on September 02, 2013, 08:24:29 PM
So her circuit can cause time travel?  I don't remember that being mentioned in the paper.  This is incredible.  A real breakthrough of Nobel prize proportions.

Bill


Lol
Rosemary circuit is certainly running on time travel technology, using energy from the past to power the circuit in the future, most people call it fossil fuels ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 02, 2013, 08:44:09 PM

Lol
Rosemary circuit is certainly running on time travel technology, using energy from the past to power the circuit in the future, most people call it fossil fuels ;D

Exactly.

I still love TK's moniker "Little Miss Mosfet".  I think that is pure genius.  I think I finally cleaned all of the beer off of my keyboard that I spit out when I read that post.  That name should go down in OUdotcom history.

I stumbled into the Rose debacle a few years ago not knowing what was what.  What I thought I observed was a bunch of smart guys beating up on a poor, sincere, sweet old lady who was doing some honest experiments.  I defended her.  Knowing what I know now, I owe all of those smart guys an apology.  This would include TK and Darren, and a few others I am sure.  It was a good lesson for me.  Things are not always as they appear.

I am sorry guys. 

Her behavior is obviously not scientific, honest, defensible, nor admirable at all.  It is one thing to believe in your circuit and to not give up on it.  Contrast and compare Rose and her efforts to Lawrence Tseung and his efforts.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on September 02, 2013, 09:23:01 PM
Thanks Bill.

You and Mags eventually saw the light, and that's a good thing. I think I speak for several folks when I say we appreciate your honesty.  :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 03, 2013, 08:44:25 PM
Yes, all is good now.

@poynt99:

If you are having trouble determining the exact "settings", circuit and waveforms to use in your replication of Rosemary Ainslie's circuit and claims, I would like to direct your attention to Rosemary Ainslie's Blog, "New Light on Dark Energy", where the information you need was posted by Rosemary Ainslie on 21 December 2010.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/12/finally-our-tie-paper.html

This was posted after the "falling out" with FTC, but certainly seems to include a lot of his work.

Of course.... Rosemary Ainslie apparently now disavows those waveforms and settings. Why is the manuscript still up on Rosemary Ainslie's own blog, then?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on September 04, 2013, 01:31:08 AM
TK

Yes, it does make one wonder, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 04, 2013, 01:58:27 AM
TK

Yes, it does make one wonder, doesn't it?

Not really. She has probably lost the password and can't delete it.

 ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 04, 2013, 07:37:23 AM
@poynt99:

Still having trouble with finding the "correct" waveforms?

Well, it turns out that FuzzyTomCat himself posted the proper waveforms over on Overunityresearch.com, back in February 2011. I'm sure you've heard of that site!

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.msg10736#msg10736 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=13.msg10736#msg10736)
Reply # 112


I'll also attach FTC's scopeshot below.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 04, 2013, 02:29:30 PM
I've demonstrated that Ainslie is wrong, many many times. She rants and raves and accuses ME of being "wrong" somehow about the Quantum magazine circuit.... but cannot refute me with facts. The Quantum published circuit does what I say it does, I am not wrong NOW and I was not wrong in JUNE OF 2009 when I first pointed it out.... and nearly TWO THOUSAND forum posts, over two months, it took before AARON finally constructed it and announced that I AM RIGHT. All of this is fully documented in threads that Ainslie has forgotten about:

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-75.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-75.html)

It is amazingy laughable that Ainslie cannot even see the scopeshot that is UP RIGHT NOW on her forgotten blog.

Remember this, Ainslie?

Remember what AARON had to go through to make a circuit that even came CLOSE to your claim of 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz? And he calls it a "replication?" Of course this was before you savaged him and turned him away from you with your lies, insults and disrespect.

Keep on ranting, Ainslie. I have a record of the past that refutes you, in your own words and deeds.

The circuit that is in your box NOW is not the circuit that was in your box when the Quantum article was written. This is PROVEN by the disconnected potentiometer, the higher frequency of operation of Steve Weir's schematic that CANNOT POSSIBLY give a 2.4  kHz signal, and the SMOKING GUN of the presence of a 555 chip that was manufactured in May of 2007. The circuit in the box NOW was rebuilt in early 2009 so that Donovan Martin could REPRODUCE GLEN's  WORK, so that the IET and IEEE submissions might have some data in them that Fuzzy himself didn't generate. They replicated HIS work, not the other way around !

And of course.... we have the treacherous and lying manner in which you deceived your sycophant GMEAST..... by letting him build and test a circuit with all that history without even telling him it was completely bogus. "Has anyone built it? IT DOESN'T WORK" he exclaimed... and many of us observing laughed out loud and are still laughing at that idiot troll's fumblings about.





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 04, 2013, 04:33:08 PM
It's amazing what one finds while going through those old threads for background on the Quantum-17 fiasco.

For example, I finally found some _completely accurate_  waveform data shown by Err-on on the borrowed Tek DPSO TDS3054C.
Data that even I cannot argue with, data that is impeccably gathered and expertly displayed:

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-79.html#post66590



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 04, 2013, 09:51:43 PM
Guys... .here's the TRUTH.

Quote
Guys - here's the TRUTH.  There are hand picked 'trolls' who move through the forums - with the sole mandate to discredit over unity claims.  Let me name some of them.  Obviously 'leading the pack' is our 'ickle pickle' aka Tinsel Koala.  He is paid per video 'seen' which is why he's so anxious to have people view his work.

That is an utter and abject LIE in the words of Rosemary Ainslie. I have never accepted or solicited a single penny from any of my videos and they are not even supported by ads. For Ainslie to assert this utter nonsense is extremely offensive to me, and the reason for that should be obvious to anyone who knows me... and many do.

Quote
  His license to 'kill' is absolute - and includes the right to destroy reputations, work, livelihoods, reputations - of ANYONE HE SEES FIT as he is ENTIRELY exempt from all accountability.  He works at this denial 24/7 and has dedicated these many years to denying our claims.  Sadly - precisely because he's rather excessively and emotionally engaged - he's also lost any reasonable judgement.

An absolute license to "kill"? Oh, really? Who issued me this absolute licence to kill? Whose reputation, livelihood, work, have I destroyed? Mylow's? YOURS?
And yet EVERY SINGLE THING I have maintained about Ainslie and her three-ring circus of circuitry has been proven to be true over and over, from the June 2009 finding of the false schematic in the Quantum paper, the fabricated data and false claims in the 5-transistor device,  on to the present. My judgement is perfectly clear on this: Ainslie has lied, insulted, misrepresented, distorted, fabricated data and gotten others to lie for her, over and over again, and the proofs are in these pages, as I have presented many times over.

Quote
  He's acted very much like Savonarola who managed to frustrate the Renaissance flowering away from the Catholic Church - through a witch hunt that effectively destroyed thousands of samples of great art works.  Including those of Botticelli who is, unquestionably - one of the greatest of that movement.  Anyway - that aside.  Like Savonarola - TK is personally driven by a deep seated hatred of women in general and me in particular.


Another utter and abject LIE, along with a characterization that is positively ACTIONABLE, to use her comical language. It is posts like this from her that absolutely immunize me from any possible threats from her imaginary lawyers. All I need do is show them the images of Ainslie's lying and insulting posts like this one.
I challenge Ainslie to provide any evidence AT ALL that I am misogynistic or any of the other claims she has just libellously made. She cannot.

Quote
And he CANNOT tolerate those who are capable of original thought - precisely because he, himself, is incapable of this.  His knowledge of physics is sadly bereft.

 My knowledge of physics can be compared to Ainslie's at any moment at any time. Let's take a high-school physics test together, shall we? I laugh at you, ignorant troll Ainslie, who says "A Joule is a Watt, the terms are interchangeable" and who has no calculus, no geometry, no math at all beyond punching calculator keys.

Quote
His talents at electronics more than compensate.  He has certainly mastered the art of spin - and uses this to good effect to frustrate any advancement in the quest for over unity.  That he is champion to the cause is endorsed by Mark Dansie who pays tribute to TK's contributions here.  They're all rather proud of his efforts - a pride that is only equaled - if not SURPASSED - by the extraordinary pride of TK himself.  Vainglorious does not cut it.  TK compliments himself with an assiduity that is unequaled and largely based on his absurd and alleged GRE count - whatever that is.

Some people do know what that is, and respect it. People who sit on graduate school admission committees, for example. People who genuinely do dispense "Bursaries" as you call them. Even silly groups like MENSA know what those letters and numbers mean, and you are damn right, I am proud of them and I have every right to be. And every time Ainslie mentions them in the derogatory fashion she does, she betrays her own disrespect and ignorance, and inability to perform up to any real standard on her own.

Furthermore, all of my work is fully documented in my YouTube "lab notes" and ALL OF IT is fully repeatable. There is no "SPIN", no "MISDIRECTION" as Harvey falsely accused me of many times-- before he even built the circuit or saw the light himself. If I make an error I admit it and correct it ASAP. Anyone can repeat my work and see for themselves that I refute you at every step of the way. You do realize, don't you, that the old Energetic Forum threads are still available.

As far as arrogant pride goes, Ainslie: you are the champion Dunning-Kruger example, with no skills, no talent, and no ability to do anything for yourself-- except sling insults. You cannot refute me, so you resort to your laughable attempts to discredit me. But you are proven wrong at every attempt.

Quote
  His rather whacky emotional instability is based on a misogyny that also inclines him to homosexuality. He is uncluttered by 'high principle' and is highly effective as is any criminal sociopath - in this his quest to deny over unity.

Preserved for the record. Ainslie has here called me several things: Emotionally unstable, whacky, misogynistic and "inclined to homosexuality". She has insulted my principles and is calling me a criminal sociopath.... because I have exposed the TRUTH behind her and her insane claims.

At this point, Ainslie, Queen of Trolls... you should be very happy that you do not use my real name. Your imaginary lawyers CERTAINLY are.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 04, 2013, 10:26:05 PM
Meanwhile, back in "reality".....

@Poynt99: Still having trouble locating waveforms? Here's Aaron's replication of Glen's "replication" of the Quantum circuit. Of course, this means Glen's where the mosfet gets much hotter than the load....

Note that he is NOT using the Quantum 555 circuit, he is NOT using the Quantum duty cycle, he is NOT using the Quantum frequency... he is NOT even showing oscillations....
Yet everyone is crowing about Glen "he has done it!"

SO maybe THESE are the operating parameters to use.


Note the blue Drain signal: is the mosfet ON during the spike, ROSEMARY AINSLIE... or it it OFF? Just what duty cycle of the mosfet ON time is being shown here? I know the answer, poynt99 knows the answer... DO YOU, AINSLIE?

What is the mosfet ON duty cycle percentage in this scopeshot? Not the gate signal, the actual mosfet ON percentage.
What is the frequency of the blue spikes?
Can Ainslie even answer these questions, without consulting her "experts"? I doubt it seriously.

WHERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OF OSCILLATIONS, random aperiodic or otherwise? Other than the natural inductive rings visible due to the factors already amply discussed, there is no evidence of any magic oscillations. There will however be _plenty_ of heat seen in the load resistor, and the mosfet itself, using this waveform.


http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-98.html#post70225 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-98.html#post70225)
post 2917
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on September 05, 2013, 04:40:15 AM
This is like the bloody Siege of Leningrad.

Look at this nonsense, "Here we have a poster who is inclined to 'self medicate' and to do so to excess."

It's like making allegations out of thin air just like you can do the "poly-Quantum" circuit, pick your variation, and observe the pulsing inductor create free energy from superluminal nothingness.

Rosie, I think that you have been eating too much wallpaper glue and it's affecting your brain.  (But we are the good guys, I just couldn't resist the line!)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 05, 2013, 07:48:33 AM
It is astounding, isn't it? On the one hand she squawks,
Quote
Can I impose on you to be SPECIFIC.  Where exactly has my behaviour NOT been SCIENTIFIC - HONEST - DEFENSIBLE - NOR ADMIRABLE... AT ALL? 
and then she posts her libels like the above.  If it weren't so comical it would be pitiable. The poor woman is clearly not in touch with reality at all. Publishing articles with false schematics and false claims, fabricating data, lying about circuits in use, refusing to correct her many manifest errors... savaging her former collaborators like Glen, who worked harder than anyone on trying to support her claims with attempts at proper measurements.... Where exactly INDEED? All over the place, for years and years, that's where.


I've been reviewing the old threads. It is very interesting. In one thread from EF I am in the late months of 2009 where Glen has completed his tests and the submission to IEEE has been made, along with some friction entering from Harvey.

Since June of 2009 when I first told them that the Quantum published circuit was wrong, that it did not make the frequency and duty cycle claimed, and that With the claimed duty cycle there will be small heat only, and that the claimed oscillations were a red herring..... it has taken them until late August, early September to realize that each of these things I told them was true. At least four builders determined that the Quantum circuit would not do as claimed (Glen, groundloop (after making circuit boards!), Astweth, Aaron, Joit, and a few others actually built the original circuit faithfully.... and immediately started changing it in various ways to try to get it to do something different than what I told them it would do.)  At least SIX different alternate circuit variations were put forth and tested, and the one that Glen finally settled on operates at over 100 times the frequency of the original, uses a much longer On percentage than originally specified, results in no actual oscillations at all, and results in high heat at the load _and_ the mosfet. And runs the batteries down. Yet they still have their "pdf" which claims that I was wrong about these things.... when it is perfectly clear that I was right and that their "replication" is of a completely different circuit operating at completely different parameters than was claimed in the original Quantum article.

The other thread is on poynt99's OUR, back in February of 2011. This is _after_ Ainslie had released some waveforms and BEFORE she honestly revealed the true schematic she was using, so .99 and others are trying to simulate some waveforms and a continuous oscillation that is coming from a circuit whose schematic is being lied about and concealed by Rosemary Ainslie!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 05, 2013, 04:53:19 PM
Actually Guys.... the lies and insults from Ainslie continue unabated.

Quote
Actually guys - I"m duplicating this post.  It's a new departure into PURE FICTION - authored by that mediocre incompetent who cannot admit that he was ENTIRELY WRONG on his claim that we operated a 90% ON duty cycle in our Quantum Paper's experiment.

What a Liar she is!  What I "claimed", and what every body who has ever worked with the problem knows, is this:
1. The circuit published in the Quantum article CANNOT POSSIBLY make the claimed 3.7 percent ON @ 2.4 kHz frequency that the article claims. In fact it makes the exact inverse of what Ainslie claims in terms of duty cycle, and she did not realize this due to her faulty understanding of what the DRAIN trace means. Confirmed over and over by builders and simulators including Glen, Aaron, Astweth, Groundloop, Joit, poynt99, and many others whom she deceived, even GMEAST.
2. If a TRUE duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz is applied, no substantial heat is produced in the load resistor. This has been confirmed by many of the same persons listed above, including Ashtweth and others.
3. I NEVER ONCE claimed that Ainslie operated "a 90% ON" duty cycle. I believe she operated at a 96.7 percent ON duty cycle IF SHE USED THE CIRCUIT THAT IS PUBLISHED UNDER HER NAME, and if she didn't use that circuit then she should have admitted it and corrected it well before now. Further, if one DOES use the duty cycles available, which is something like 60 to 100 percent ON, from the PUBLISHED QUANTUM CIRCUIT, then one does obtain the high heat in the load as claimed.
4. The Steve Weir decoding of the mess that Ainslie presented just recently as the "found" device used for the Quantum tests.... reveals even more mendacity and misdirection from Ainslie. The photographs of the box show that it contains a NEW, and radically different circuit than what was published in the Quantum article! It contains a NE555N timer chip that was manufactured in MAY 2007 !!!! And the circuit operates at the "Glen" range of frequencies and duty cycles, which is nowhere near that reported in the Quantum article. IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE SAME MOSFET PART NUMBER, but instead uses one that I tested and referred to, the IRFP450, in Post Number 116, made on June 25, 2009 here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-4.html#post58128


Far from being "ENTIRELY WRONG".... the FACTS demonstrate, with references, that I am, and always have been ENTIRELY CORRECT on this matter.

Quote
Here it is AGAIN...

Guys our 'ickle pickle' also variously known as Little TK or Little Brain - sorry, Bryan - has been lapsing into pure FICTION in his anxiety to discredit me.  Golly.  I wouldn't mind so much except that he's using appalling language.  He should at least have copied my flair for articulation.

AND HERE'S THAT NONSENSE...
Since June of 2009 when I first told them that the Quantum published circuit was wrong, that it did not make the frequency and duty cycle claimed, and that With the claimed duty cycle there will be small heat only, and that the claimed oscillations were a red herring..... it has taken them until late August, early September to realize that each of these things I told them was true. At least four builders determined that the Quantum circuit would not do as claimed (Glen, groundloop (after making circuit boards!), Astweth, Aaron, Joit, and a few others actually built the original circuit faithfully.... and immediately started changing it in various ways to try to get it to do something different than what I told them it would do.)  At least SIX different alternate circuit variations were put forth and tested, and the one that Glen finally settled on operates at over 100 times the frequency of the original, uses a much longer On percentage than originally specified, results in no actual oscillations at all, and results in high heat at the load _and_ the mosfet. And runs the batteries down. Yet they still have their "pdf" which claims that I was wrong about these things.... when it is perfectly clear that I was right and that their "replication" is of a completely different circuit operating at completely different parameters than was claimed in the original Quantum article.

Sadly he can't give us a direct link.  That would at least have given some credence to this fantasy.  Clearly his GRE has given UP trying to find enough space in that tiny little brain of his and it's just floated up, up and AWAY.  All he's left with is all that MUSTH.  And we all know how tricky it is to contain this without 'listhping'.  If he weren't entirely MEDIOCRE his latest romps into FICTION would even be amusing.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

The DIRECT LINKS, blind lying troll queen Ainslie, are given in the posts above. Even the scopeshots from your FORMER collaborators are reproduced. These are scopeshots that YOU YOURSELF ENDORSED FULLY as PROVING YOUR CLAIMS.  It is not my responsibility to demonstrate that you are utterly wrong in your idiotic assertions above .... although I have done so. If you wish to challenge ANYTHING in the statements I have made.... provide PROOF, instead of your bloviating insults. Because I provide PROOF and CHECKABLE REFERENCES for all of my statements. But of course, as usual YOU CANNOT.

Do you really want me to list the proofs of the statements I made that you quote above? It will just make you look worse, when people start reading up in the old threads.

1. Since June of 2009 when I first told them that the Quantum published circuit was wrong, that it did not make the frequency and duty cycle claimed, and that With the claimed duty cycle there will be small heat only, and that the claimed oscillations were a red herring...
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
2.  it has taken them until late August, early September to realize that each of these things I told them was true
Proof: DIRECT LINK TO THREAD WHICH CONTAINS EVIDENCE OF AINSLIE's CONTINUING DUPLICITY AND ARROGANT MENDACITY, including proofs of all my statements:
 http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html   
Scroll forward to find the points where each member reports their experiences, and note all the various revisions that people, mostly Aaron, post to the original circuit, finally abandoning it altogether.
3. At least four builders determined that the Quantum circuit would not do as claimed (Glen, groundloop (after making circuit boards!), Astweth, Aaron, Joit, and a few others actually built the original circuit faithfully.... and immediately started changing it in various ways to try to get it to do something different than what I told them it would do.)
Proof: Ditto, in the thread cited above. For example posts # 2680, 2899, 2917, etc.
4.  At least SIX different alternate circuit variations were put forth and tested, and the one that Glen finally settled on operates at over 100 times the frequency of the original, uses a much longer On percentage than originally specified, results in no actual oscillations at all, and results in high heat at the load _and_ the mosfet. And runs the batteries down.
Proof: The IET and IEEE submissions, which are still up on Scribd and which have been linked to many times in the past, and the many different schematics Aaron (Asea) and others posted in the thread linked above.
5. Yet they still have their "pdf" which claims that I was wrong about these things.... when it is perfectly clear that I was right and that their "replication" is of a completely different circuit operating at completely different parameters than was claimed in the original Quantum article.
Proof: Different circuit different parameters: The IET and IEEE submissions, and the reports in the DIRECTLY LINKED thread above. Astweth's statements about the contents of the .pdf that refer to me are in the thread, although the Panacea U. hosting site is no more.

I love it.... you cannot refute anything I say, troll queen Ainslie, and you still persist in your trolling, lying "Bryan Little" idiocy even though you know it's not true.

I've just given PROOFS, including references, for every statement I made that Ainslie calls NONSENSE, a FANTASY.

Yet her claims about me are complete fantasies for which she cannot provide a jot of supporting evidence at all.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 05, 2013, 06:04:52 PM
  Someone asks Ainslie for help in his work on her circuit, _after_ all the work of Glen and others and _after_ she "withdrew" her authorship of the joint IEEE submissions, and she replies, among other mendacities:

Quote
The final point is that the mosfet we always used was an IRFG50.
(sic)  02-17-2010, 01:58 PM

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-6.html#post85727
Post # 152


Oh, really? Then what is the IRFP450 doing in the Demo Kit 1 box, then? 

It is most certainly not an IRFPG50, it is not even an IRFG50, whatever that is.

It IS, however, a mosfet part number that I TESTED AND REPORTED ON in June of 2009.
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-4.html#post58128
Post # 116
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 05, 2013, 06:28:07 PM
By the way, I have about a dozen of those Spectrol precision pots that Ainslie used in the box built for her by Bernard Bulak and Brian Buckley at some time before the Quantum article in 2002. (Unfortunately Bulak is no longer with us.... and nobody  knows where Buckley is.)

As you can see these are the same manufacturer, same model number 534, same resistance range, same tolerance and linearity, right down the line. Same pots.

These are wirewound 10-turn precision pots. WIREWOUND. And in my experience they are very fragile, the pressure of the wiper onto the wire is not all that great, and the power handling capability is low in spite of their size. They can be disassembled and cleaned, if you are careful and lucky.

These of course are the exact same pots that were used to control, originally, the "on" and "off" times, or duty cycle and frequency, of the original circuit, whatever it was, that was in the box. A single one controls the frequency, with a fixed non-adjustable "on" time, in the new circuit with the 555 chip manufactured in 2007.

They get dirty, are rough to begin with and of course are "highly inductive", consisting of a long "spring" of resistance wire that is itself wrapped in a helix inside the pot housing. The reason I have so many of these very expensive potentiometers is because a local manufacturer of MRI equipment decided that they were not reliable enough for their equipment, decided to use another brand, and gave their whole stock of the Spectrol parts to a friend of mine who worked there. He had no use for them so now they are mine.

What a coincidence, eh? Ainslie's old box uses a mosfet that I first described in connection with her circuit in June of 2009, and it uses, or used, the exact same pots that I understand fully to be, themselves, unreliable and capable of injecting _lots_ of noise into the application.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 05, 2013, 07:06:59 PM
Here is a disassembled Spectrol pot of the same type, resistance rating and part number of the ones in Ainslie's box.

1. The exploded parts, showing the multiple sliding contacts and the helix of wrapped resistance wire on the former.

2. A close up of some of the actual resistance wire unwrapped from the helical former. Look closely! This wire is quite a bit finer than a strand of my hair. 

So it's easy to see some things: First, not high power handling. Second, massive inductance. Third, many sliding contacts which will add noise and unreliability. Fourth: Definitely high precision and fine workmanship... but not too sturdy.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 05, 2013, 08:51:56 PM
One seriously must wonder what motivates this person. A sicker soul is hard to imagine. She even resorts to gratuitous insults and defamation against poynt99, who has had nearly infinite patience and forebearance with Rosemary Ainslie the Red Queen of Trolls. Look at how she bullies him now!

Rosemary Ainslie, I have a suggestion for you: Stay away from the sherry until after breakfast, anyway. It seems to be interfering with your antipsychotic medications.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 05, 2013, 11:36:57 PM
Lest anyone wonder about my statements of June and July 2009 concerning False Triggering and Aliasing of the Fluke scope and the cheap DSOs that Aaron and others were using.... Here is an excellent example showing that even a much more sophisticated instrument can be falsely triggered if it is not properly set.

Here is one of Glen's traces, with the trigger set within the noisy ringing signal of the Current trace... instead of using either the scope's external trigger input looking directly at the signal source itself, or a clean signal like the Drain pulse.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html#post84885 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5359-mosfet-heating-circuits.html#post84885)

This is no criticism of Glen (FuzzyTomCat)... I am grateful to him for publishing these scopeshots and all the rest of his work, which is still openly available for inspection in the true Open Source tradition.

(I make the basic drive signal at about 394 kHz or "thereby". There is no sign of  any kind of aperiodic oscillation, other than the normal inductive ringing and noise in the heavily amplified Current signal. The Drain signal shows that the mosfet is OFF and spiking for about 1/2 of one minor horizontal division and the total cycle duration is around either 6 or 8 minor divisions, alternating in lock-step: meaning that the mosfet is making a duty cycle of CLOSE TO 90 PERCENT ON. Measure the traces yourself, those with eyeballs to see.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 06, 2013, 02:45:43 AM
Are you having trouble making your overunity device work? Just can't get the numbers to work out right? Well, maybe you are simply doing it wrong. Here's how to make your device produce OU, every time.
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-9.html#post88234 (http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-9.html#post88234)

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on September 06, 2013, 02:59:46 AM
He's an absolute wizard! (or is that 'lizard'  :P )
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 06, 2013, 04:46:20 AM
In all fairness... Aaron did ask for a check on his low figure, and he showed his working so that his error could be identified... he just asked the very wrongest person he could have asked. A post or two later on, another poster did the calculation properly and explained it, and Aaron demonstrated that he got it and understood, and posted his own correction.

We have never seen anything like that from "witsend" under any alias.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 06, 2013, 11:27:15 AM
Just a swift Little note here: Rosemary Ainslie, the Red Queen of Trolls, has posted a couple more rants in her honeypot: Now, in addition to making rant-posts savaging me, MileHigh and Poynt99, she goes off on Magluvin and then Pirate!

I'm not going to load up the images of the insane rants here, but rest assured: they are in my database and will be sent off to the appropriate individuals when the time comes. And of course if Mags or Bill want the images they are welcome to them, in case she sobers up and tries to remove them from the record.

One wonders, doesn't one, when and IF Ainslie will ever show any real data or make any kind of substantive work furthering her latest set of claims.
In spite of Donovan Martin's statement, made during the June 29 2013 "demo" fiasco :
Quote
The objective behind the (Quantum article -- tk) test was simply not to scrutinize measurements. That's a matter of  opinion always. That's always easy to argue measurements on the scope, from one scope to another, one can argue for days and years to come. Ahm, knowing that, ahm, I think what Rose has been trying to achieve, up to, to now was ah to show some of the waveforms which at times obviously could be very difficult. Because of the simplicity of the circuit, makes it very difficult to obviously achieve (emphasis original) certain fine settings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4


Obviously, what she is trying to ACHIEVE is to insult and denigrate all of her critics so that they will go away, at which point she will start up again with her pestering and her annoying soapsuds "thesis" which is actually a word-salad of delusional conjecture with no contact point with reality.
She has never produced any specific waveforms of her own from this apparatus and has at first enthusiastically endorsed, then repudiated, the waveforms provided by her "replicators"-- easy to do since they all work with circuits different than what she herself claimed to use.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on September 06, 2013, 11:14:40 PM
Siege of Leningrad TK, Siege of Leningrad....   Sigh....

(Great music, I hope that you have real speakers connected to your prime Ubuntu box... Turn it up LOUD.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T500ecHP3pE
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 07, 2013, 03:10:10 AM
Yes, I've got good speakers, 5.1 system and my head is at the focus when I'm at the keyboard. Nice battle music!


Now... since we still appear to be joking around....

The image below shows the latest incarnation of the TKQ17 apparatus.  This is of course a "testbed" for the claims made by Rosemary Ainslie in and around the article published in Quantum magazine, October 2002 issue.

We have of course, long ago, already determined that the 555 timer circuit produces a flipped or inverted duty cycle that cannot operate at the duty cycle range claimed in the article. HOWEVER, in spite of all the ridiculous and varied modifications that people tried in 2009, to get a real 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz setting from the 555 timer... changing components, adding transistors, all of that.... I have implemented a much easier way to do it. All that is needed is the ORIGINAL Quantum circuit, with the exact component values listed in the schematic ... and a simple Double Pole Double Throw switch.

The original Quantum circuit shows the 555 timer powered by its own individual 12-volt battery supply. Great! This fact makes my "Secret of DPDT" solution workable and easy to implement.

What the switch does is to flip the polarity of the output connections of the 555 timer section to the power section. In the Original hookup (A), the switch routes the Gate Pot input to the Pin 3 output of the 555, and the Source of the mosfet to the Negative Rail of the 555 section. In the TKFlipped mode (B), the switch is flipped and now the Gate Pot input is routed to the +POSITIVE RAIL+ of the 555 section and the Source of the mosfet goes to the Pin 3 output of the 555.

This actually works great as long as you remember that the power supplies must be separate. It takes the original timer output and flips it, so that you now get the correct very short ON times and the correct frequency range.

The DPDT switch can be seen in the image of the test apparatus below. However... it isn't being used in the photo! I have disconnected the timer section entirely and am pulsing the gate of the mosfet with the DP101 pulse generator, which can be adjusted into the "Glen" range of 50 percent HI at 450 kHz, if necessary, or to produce a truly short ON pulse at whatever frequency is needed up to about 10 MHz. The unit has a risetime of 5 ns when properly terminated... and I am using a 50 ohm BNC jumper and a 50 ohm cable terminator at the gate end of the cable.

I am here revealing the Secret of DPDT. Do not misuse it, it is extremely powerful mojo, capable of instantly reversing the strongest DC polarities in a snap. It can be dangerous if abused....
 :P

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Magluvin on September 07, 2013, 03:38:07 AM
Just a swift Little note here: Rosemary Ainslie, the Red Queen of Trolls, has posted a couple more rants in her honeypot: Now, in addition to making rant-posts savaging me, MileHigh and Poynt99, she goes off on Magluvin and then Pirate!



Lol. How long ago has it been since I have even posted anything that has to do with her? ???

All because Poynt made a comment with Pirates name and mine? :o ;D

See folks, this is what to expect when you get involved with her.  ;) Posters beware :o


Well, all I have to say is, her circuit doesnt work as claimed and she proved it to herself, after many have proved it first. ;)   Nuff said.  ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 07, 2013, 05:33:13 AM
Enough said for _you_ maybe.... but certainly not enough for LMM.

Meanwhile, I hope that Aaron and gadh and some of the other earnest replicators from 2009 and 2010 are paying attention. It was pretty comical back then to see them going through all their travails in order to get something like Ainslie's original circuit to do something like what she claimed it could do... different component substitutions, even resorting to additional transistors in some cases.

But all they had to do was to use the exact schematic Ainslie published, only install the Secret of DPDT. A two dollar part, no calculations or component subs needed _at all_ in order to attain the specified duty cycle.

Of course Glen finally got his best results using two hundred times the frequency that Ainslie specified, simulating "oscillations" by simply driving the thing faster than the mosfet could keep up. But for those who wanted to try the short ON duty cycle and frequency Ainslie claimed.... sigh.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 07, 2013, 07:16:45 AM
Here is a quote from Rose on her forum about me:

"Pirate Bill is a different kettle of fish.  And he likes his fish cooked 'under unity'.  He sort of took control of a thread that mushroomed into the size of Asia and that struggled through hundreds of thousands of posts re-iterating a relatively useless possible application of under unity.  But that re-iteration became as repetitive as wind and - like wind - it regurgitated way too much acid.  That too became rankly offensive.  Thankfully the thread eventually became SO bloated it simply sank under the the full weight of his outraged pronouncements.  They had NEVER - repeat NEVER, EVER - ACHIEVED OVER UNITY.  Which was sad.  I suspect that without his STRONG and allegedly HONEST leadership - that study may well have broken loose from his agenda and born fruit.  So he served their cause WELL.  And being unusually and uncharacteristically articulate - albeit also somewhat one-dimensional - he was well able to REPEAT that UNDER UNITY CLAIM - ad nausea.   His use to the team now is to support the proclamations of ickle pickle that he too has now 'WIZED UP'.  He is only latterly, but thankfully, and NOW - very well aware of that nefarious agenda promulgated by Ainslie.  Or.  As our 'ickle pickle' puts it AINS...LIE.  And that courtesy the hard work of our Little pickle.  And not only is HONEST BILL the PIRATE a staunch supporter of UNDER UNITY CLAIMS - but he also, latterly sports a sense of humour.  NOTHING fires this up more than TK's genius at plagiarism in CLAIMING the Miss Mosfet moniker for ainslie.  He laughs to the point of choking.  He spills his coffee on his keyboard.  All that FUN.  Those fun videos where the MOSFET is bonked by the PENGUIN.  Those hideous old men on a dying thread who drooled into their laps - all those insinuations - all that JOKE poked at the zipon - all that disgusting reference - SUCH FUN.  It should be written in the annals of HISTORY - for TK's excessively brilliant reach at humour.  INDEED.  Pirate Bill is everything that can be considered TYPICAL and, as Poynty Point calls it - HONEST.   But in some way and with some obscure use of the term honest that Poynty Point is yet to define.  Frankly I think that Pirate Bill is just another little gangster - who is over paid for his hard work at denying over unity evidence.  And Pirate Bill REALLY gets it off on a group bang - especially when it's aimed at MOSFETS.  I just hope he replaces that keyboard.  Ideally with a new persona to operate it."

What the heck is she talking about?  What did I do to deserve this "honor"?  All of the work I have done and posted about has been under unity.  So has hers but, at least I admit this.  I have never claimed overunity on any device or experiment that I have done and posted about.  What topic did I "take control of"?  I believe that I hold the record for the number of views on 2 topics here that I started on this forum.  So what?  I did not take control over any topic.  Nor did I ever claim overunity for any device that I have been experimenting with.

Rose is delusional.  I have done nothing to deserve this drubbing but, I guess that does not matter to her.  I will just chalk this up to Little Miss Mosfet strikes again.  At least I am in good company.

Thanks Rose.  No need to thank me for sticking up for you before I knew what you were about.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 07, 2013, 01:34:39 PM
It is amazing what one learns with a little study. Do you remember Ainslie talking about her physics "teachers", and mentioning Zukov, Feynman, Gell-Mann and Dyson?

Well, we remember "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" of Gary Zukov. Hardly a textbook but a good read, when accompanied by a good pipe and your favorite single malt.

And of course there is Murray Gell-Mann's "The Quark and the Jaguar" and "The Eightfold Way", popular semi-autobiographical works which are far from being textbooks.

But what about Dyson? When we hear of Dyson, I at least think of Freeman Dyson the great physicist and futurist, author of many popular science works and articles. But wait... it turns out that Ainslie means another Dyson:

Quote
Rosemary Ainslie has been working on the idea since 1999, after reading The Dancing Wu li Masters (http://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Wu-Li-Masters-Overview/dp/055326382X) by Gary Zukov and Conceptual Physics (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PhTea..39..446D) by Sam Dyson.
(from the PESN article compiled by her collaborator Evan Robinson).

Sam Dyson... Conceptual Physics. Sounds like a great title for a textbook. But wait... following the link given in the PESN article, so we know it's the right one....

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PhTea..39..446D

It turns out this is not a textbook at all! It is a two page article, in an issue (a 2001 issue!) of a journal aimed at high school physics teachers.... because that is what Sam Dyson is: A High School Physics Teacher!

Abstract:
Quote
Student preconceptions have the power to greatly affect their expectations and learning in science. This article explores the effects of one teacher's preconceptions about the nature of what is commonly called ``conceptual physics'' and some pedagogical pitfalls of those preconceptions.

Ironic, what? You cannot make this stuff up, Truth is both funnier and more tragic than any fiction. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a high school physics teacher.... but having read a two page article by one, and then citing it as a major chunk of one's physics education, is a Little ironic, isn't it, especially considering the subject matter. A strong set of preconceptions is indeed preventing Ainslie from learning anything of value about physics, electronics and "her" circuit in particular.

I wonder which Feynman she is referring to. Richard Feynman, the great physicist of QED fame.... or Lenny Feynman, the author of "Physics in the Broom Closet", a guide for janitorial supply salesmen?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Hoppy on September 07, 2013, 02:00:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCs5HuoY_Ew
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 07, 2013, 09:30:22 PM
What do you suppose Rosemary Ainslie is trying to do? 

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg5041.html
Post 426

Shouldn't she be studying up, practising, rehearsing for the next Quantum-17 "demonstration", correcting her errors, retracting the false statements she keeps on making?

No, I suppose that's not nearly as much fun as trolling and insulting people for no reason, accusing them falsely and never providing a jot or tittle of evidence for any of it.

While she is insulting people gratuitously, I am working. I have waveforms, I have a digital oscilloscope, I have numbers in boxes. I have copies of all the articles, revisions, submissions, letters of rejection and letters of scope withdrawal. I have names. I have calibration traceable to NIST standards. I have loads and I have 555 timers: the Quantum magazine circuit, the Demo Kit 1 circuit, Glen's circuit.... I have a fast risetime (by 1978 standards) pulse generator, I have analog scopes, I have IRFPG50 and IRFP450 mosfets among others. I have the ability to record long data sequences. I am using reasonably-sized batteries.

I HAVE THE SECRET OF DPDT which has now been "open-sourced".

I have made videos chronicling the story, and I have even exerpted Ainslie's demonstration videos and photographs and other data for easy consumption. Not only that, but I understand the circuit and I have, over the past three days, read all of the old 2009-2010 archived threads on four different forums (Naked Scientists, Energetic, OUR, and this forum) and reviewed Ainslie's blogging posts from that time period.
In short.... DO THE MATH (tm Rosemary Ainslie). I am fully prepared to "replicate" any performance that Ainsie's "team" can present and I am able to analyze the data properly.  Somewhere lurking in the background are much more experienced and knowledgeable people, some of whom Ainslie has already insulted gravely, who may pitch in and help me out and keep me straight myself.

And I'm ready to do it NOW.

In fact I'm uploading an unusually long video, about 17 minutes long, illustrating the Secret of DPDT and my basic apparatus layout, including some capacitor charging with the circuit. It probably will take a couple of hours to upload. Check back here for the URL.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 07, 2013, 09:57:59 PM
Geeze, now she is bashing Stefan Hartman.  What the heck did he ever do to Rose?  This is a real mind bender.  I would like to see the list of folks that Rose has NOT bashed.  I am sure it is a very short list and getting shorter every day.

I may offer T-shirts on my website that say: "I got bashed from Little Miss Mosfet".  Evidently, my target market is a huge one and growing every day.  I could sell thousands.  Given enough time, she will alienate every person on the planet.  Even then she will still insist that she is right, and everyone else is wrong.

Mr. Underunity
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 08, 2013, 02:38:13 AM
The latest video is up for your viewing prreasure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVePUJJVAlc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVePUJJVAlc)

Thanks to SWeir for some constructive discussion that enabled the Secret to be revealed.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2013, 02:26:03 AM
No comments?

How about this then: TK's Quantum-17 Charge Dump.

The basic Ainslie Quantum-17 circuit, but with the 555 timer DPDTd to the TKmode NOT the Ainslie mode..... the circuit draws less than 10 mA in continuous operation and makes very narrow spikies but does not heat the load perceptibly. Reducing the 12volt power to the NE555N down to 9V or below causes the timer/mosfet combo to make the exact "aperiodic" oscillations that Glen and Aaron showed in 2009-2010, but these cause more current drain, some load heating and a bit faster charging of the cap, but are not necessary for the Charge Dump; they are a Red Herring as far as efficiency is concerned. It is neat to see the alternating longer and shorter pulse durations that the timer produces under these conditions, though.

Using the MUR1560 ultrafast highcurrent diode, rather than a 4000-series rectifier, for the "flyback" or charge dump diode results in a faster charge rate to a higher voltage on the cap. The NE-2 and resistor prevent overcharging the 200 V cap: the NE-2 fires at about 125 V and drains the cap back down to about 75 V every forty seconds or so. For now, this represents wasted power; it is just a safety feature to prevent inadvertent overcharging of the 200V capacitor, and in "charge dump recycle" operation it should never fire.
The "recycle" single-pole, double throw switch at top left connects the battery positive pole to the load coil for normal operation and charging the cap, OR to the cathode of the 1n4007 diode, dumping the cap charge back into the battery.
By monitoring the voltage on the cap and operating the switch when the cap is over 60 volts or so, the battery can _apparently_  be made to charge itself. Last night I took my battery supply from 24.4 volts back up to 24.6 volts by manually operating the switch fifty or sixty times, each time as the cap voltage went over about 60 or 80 volts.
It may be possible to automate this process (flipping the SPDT switch) and I will appreciate suggestions as to how to accomplish it.
 8)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Magluvin on September 09, 2013, 03:27:20 AM
Geeze, now she is bashing Stefan Hartman.  What the heck did he ever do to Rose?  This is a real mind bender.  I would like to see the list of folks that Rose has NOT bashed.  I am sure it is a very short list and getting shorter every day.

I may offer T-shirts on my website that say: "I got bashed from Little Miss Mosfet".  Evidently, my target market is a huge one and growing every day.  I could sell thousands.  Given enough time, she will alienate every person on the planet.  Even then she will still insist that she is right, and everyone else is wrong.

Mr. Underunity

Well, she is mad because Stefan would close her threads due to a large part of those threads were just fights and bashing, compared to showing and proving, which most of the proving was done by Poynt, TK, etc, by actually doing tests. All while Rose just typed away. Well, youve seen it.

She was always given warnings from Stefan to get on with it, and she just kept fighting and bashing anything in sight, in 'complete' disregard for the warnings even if there were more than one warning.

The strange thing is, now the cats out of the bag, why the continued bashing? We were wrong for understanding that she was wrong before she knew she was wrong??  She is mad. A womans scorn. ;)   

It aint over by a long shot. Its best to not be involved, unless you 'really' have the time to invest and just cannot find anything better to do. ::) ;) ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 09, 2013, 03:42:03 AM
Mags:

I agree.  I have already been labeled by Rose as Mr. Underunity.  No one will ever change her mind.  It is a fool's errand.  Best to move on like you said.  I really think that she is not a nice person.

Mr. Underunity
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Groundloop on September 09, 2013, 07:41:47 AM
No comments?

How about this then: TK's Quantum-17 Charge Dump.

The basic Ainslie Quantum-17 circuit, but with the 555 timer DPDTd to the TKmode NOT the Ainslie mode..... the circuit draws less than 10 mA in continuous operation and makes very narrow spikies but does not heat the load perceptibly. Reducing the 12volt power to the NE555N down to 9V or below causes the timer/mosfet combo to make the exact "aperiodic" oscillations that Glen and Aaron showed in 2009-2010, but these cause more current drain, some load heating and a bit faster charging of the cap, but are not necessary for the Charge Dump; they are a Red Herring as far as efficiency is concerned. It is neat to see the alternating longer and shorter pulse durations that the timer produces under these conditions, though.

Using the MUR1560 ultrafast highcurrent diode, rather than a 4000-series rectifier, for the "flyback" or charge dump diode results in a faster charge rate to a higher voltage on the cap. The NE-2 and resistor prevent overcharging the 200 V cap: the NE-2 fires at about 125 V and drains the cap back down to about 75 V every forty seconds or so. For now, this represents wasted power; it is just a safety feature to prevent inadvertent overcharging of the 200V capacitor, and in "charge dump recycle" operation it should never fire.
The "recycle" single-pole, double throw switch at top left connects the battery positive pole to the load coil for normal operation and charging the cap, OR to the cathode of the 1n4007 diode, dumping the cap charge back into the battery.
By monitoring the voltage on the cap and operating the switch when the cap is over 60 volts or so, the battery can _apparently_  be made to charge itself. Last night I took my battery supply from 24.4 volts back up to 24.6 volts by manually operating the switch fifty or sixty times, each time as the cap voltage went over about 60 or 80 volts.
It may be possible to automate this process (flipping the SPDT switch) and I will appreciate suggestions as to how to accomplish it.
 8)

Hi TK,

>>and I will appreciate suggestions as to how to accomplish it.

You can try something like this. PS: Must be a TIC106D because of the low triggering current needed.

GL.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 09, 2013, 08:08:48 AM
Thanks GL... that's a good idea, having the firing of the NE2 triggering the thyristor.... But there has to be some way of disconnecting the coil so that the cap discharge goes only into the battery and can't be shunted by the coil. It would be nice to have a "double throw" thyristor!
I'll see if my local supplier has any, if he does I'll test it in the circuit mod you suggest. Thanks!
But I still need to disconnect everything but the battery during the "dump" if it is to work right. I don't need extra power dissipation in the load -- load heating -- but I would like to make the battery "self-charge". If the basic concept tests out I'll just eliminate the "heat" aspect, put in a heavier inductor and see what happens. Soon I expect to discover a Bedini battery charger or something like that in there!
 ;)


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Groundloop on September 09, 2013, 01:38:24 PM
Thanks GL... that's a good idea, having the firing of the NE2 triggering the thyristor.... But there has to be some way of disconnecting the coil so that the cap discharge goes only into the battery and can't be shunted by the coil. It would be nice to have a "double throw" thyristor!
I'll see if my local supplier has any, if he does I'll test it in the circuit mod you suggest. Thanks!
But I still need to disconnect everything but the battery during the "dump" if it is to work right. I don't need extra power dissipation in the load -- load heating -- but I would like to make the battery "self-charge". If the basic concept tests out I'll just eliminate the "heat" aspect, put in a heavier inductor and see what happens. Soon I expect to discover a Bedini battery charger or something like that in there!
 ;)

TK,

I do not think the capacitor will be dumped into the coil and mosfet. The battery resistance is very low, typical
some few tens of milli Ohm. The coil resistance and mosfet reistance combined is much higher. So almost all
the capacitor charge will go into the battery. But I agree with you, the circuit should be disconnected during
the discharge cycle. One way to do it is to "tap" the gate signal of the SCR and use that as a "disable" signal
to the 555 IC. That way the 555 does not pulse the gate of the mosfet when you are discharging the cap.

GL.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on September 09, 2013, 02:54:20 PM
A very neat trick with that switch TK.  ;)

I agree with GL, most of the charge should bypass the coil and go into the battery.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 10, 2013, 01:35:21 AM
Well, I was thinking that the impedance of the coil-mosfet was lower than the battery impedance so power would be wasted in them. But if you both don't think it's an issue that's good enough for me to warm up the soldering iron.
And if it's not an issue then I can just use the neon itself as the switch, right? Just run the neon from the positive pole of the cap, over to the positive batt terminal. Then when the neon fires at around 125 V + Vbatt  it will pulse the battery directly.
What do you think?
(I've got it running this way now, with the 1n4007 in series with the neon. It fires at around 155V and pulses back into the battery. I haven't seen a voltage rise yet, but that might be because I'm running in the underpowered 555 "oscillatory" mode which allows some load heating and yields a DC current of 40-60 mA.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on September 10, 2013, 02:03:22 AM
TK,

If you use the neon as the switch (how much peak current can those things handle?) when that cap lets go thru the neon, it should be a quick discharge. If the discharge is limited by that 220 Ohm resistor, then yes not only are you wasting power in that resistor, but because you won't be utilizing the high coil impedance from the transient nature of the discharge, then you may lose some charge to the coil/MOSFET as well (not much though).

So ideally, get rid of the resistor and like you say, jumper the neon directly from the cap+ to the Bat+ with a short heavy wire.

At least that's how I see things... 8)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 10, 2013, 02:20:00 AM
Yep, I think I'll put the cap and neon right at the battery positive pole, with the fast diode right at the coil low end and run the spike feed over to the cap with a transmission line.

The neon flashes bright purple with the 1n4007 in series, I haven't tried it yet with nothing in series, but I was thinking I might go down to 47 uF on the cap for faster cycle time and less current thru the neon.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Groundloop on September 10, 2013, 03:44:33 AM
Yep, I think I'll put the cap and neon right at the battery positive pole, with the fast diode right at the coil low end and run the spike feed over to the cap with a transmission line.

The neon flashes bright purple with the 1n4007 in series, I haven't tried it yet with nothing in series, but I was thinking I might go down to 47 uF on the cap for faster cycle time and less current thru the neon.

TK,

>>bright purple

Using the Neon bulb as a high current carrying switch will quickly burn off the neon gas and make the
bulb useless. If you want a high current switch then use glow starters for fluorescent light.
The glow starters for fluorescent light has a neon gas filled bulb with a beam metal switch inside.
The beam metal switch will close by the temperature change from the neon light.

GL.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 10, 2013, 04:32:17 AM
You are right, I think I've already ruined a couple of them doing this! Fortunately I still have 60 or so new ones and another 30 that I can salvage from my HV Field Yardstick.

The firing voltage goes up and up until after 10 or so fires they don't want to trigger at all ...  But I get nice purple flashes with the Bedini SGM system and it doesn't wear out the neon, just blackens the glass.... weird huh.

Right now I have the cap down to 47 uF, a diode and a 10R in series with the (new) neon, and it's firing bright orange now, not in the purple region any more.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Groundloop on September 10, 2013, 09:43:53 AM
You are right, I think I've already ruined a couple of them doing this! Fortunately I still have 60 or so new ones and another 30 that I can salvage from my HV Field Yardstick.

The firing voltage goes up and up until after 10 or so fires they don't want to trigger at all ...  But I get nice purple flashes with the Bedini SGM system and it doesn't wear out the neon, just blackens the glass.... weird huh.

Right now I have the cap down to 47 uF, a diode and a 10R in series with the (new) neon, and it's firing bright orange now, not in the purple region any more.

TK,

A third way to make a feedback circuit is to make a high voltage Joule Thief with a third winding.
The third (L3) winding must be impedance matched to your input battery (Eg. few turns).
The L1 and L2 must have a lot of turns and be impedance matched to you high voltage cap.
Just a thought................. :-)

GL.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2013, 02:05:14 PM
Thanks, GL, that circuit is very like some Bedini chargers I've worked with. But I know lots of ways to recirculate power in various circuits. I'm trying to get some kind of worthwhile, or at least interesting, effect from the original Quantum-17 circuit published by, but apparently never actually used by, Rosemary Ainslie and BC Buckley. And which is allegedly being examined Yet Again by Donovan Martin and a team of boffins, to the man, in Cape Town.


Meanwhile, I'm dashing off a short email to my old colleague Rupert:

Hey Rupert

What do you think of this bit of "new physics":

Quote
If the photon comprises two zipons then the zipon would be half the size of the photon.  It is proposed that velocity and mass have an inverse proportional relationship.  So, if the photon moves at the speed of light (C) then the velocity of the zipon would be 2C.  And as velocity and mass are inversely proportional so, if the mass of the photon were given as 1, (as a ratio) then the zipon would be 0.5.  If the electron comprises 3 truants then its mass would be 0.5 x 3 = 1.5.  And, if the proton comprises three electrons then, each electron would comprise 0.5 for the quark.  3 quarks having no volume is 0.5 x 3 = 1.5.  Four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the second truant is 1.5 x 4 = 6.  And four times bigger for the orbital zenith of the third truant is 6 x 4 = 24.   The second and third truant only have two dimensions of volume as they manifest within a prescribed space, that merry-go-round referred to in the field description.  Therefore, 3 second truants, having length and breadth is 6 x 6 x 3 = 108.  3 third truants having length and breadth is 24 x 24 x 3 = 1728.  This gives a mass of 1837.5, minus 1.5 for the quarks that have neither volume or mass, giving a total of 1836. Some variation of this number is, no doubt, required to accommodate the spherical shape of the truants, but it’s complex – a 2 dimensional sphere.

Pretty remarkable, isn't it? And also a lot of nonsense, of course.

μ = mp/me = 1,836.15267245(75).
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mpsme (http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mpsme)

Does that difference count as "some variation required to accommodate a two dimensional spherically shaped truant?"
No doubt.

How's that for a hoot?

Cheers-- and I remain
Your old pal,
--TK
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: conradelektro on September 11, 2013, 03:11:34 PM
@TinselKoala:

I played extensively with feedback from a Joule Thief circuit to the battery which is driving the circuit. I tried feedback "from the back EMF of the L2 coil" and feedback with a L3 coil.

The Joule Thief circuit should draw as little power as possible (which means very high impedance coils L1 and L2, high resistance of R1, L3 could have low impedance).

Let's replace the battery with a big electrolytic capacitor, e.g. 10.000 µF.

Now let's do the following test (see attached drawing):

- The electrolytic capacitor (the one which is replacing the battery) is charged to 5 Volt (or any other Voltage which fits the Joule Thief circuit in use) from an external power source (e.g. with a lab power supply), the Joule thief circuit is running.

- Switch off the external power supply and measure the time till the Voltage over the cap has dropped to 3 Volt (with a stop watch and a Voltmeter over the cap).

Do the test with and without the feed back. With the feedback the measured time should be longer, because one recovers some energy.

But I never could get a longer time. The time measured for the Voltage drop always was the same, with or without the feedback.

May be I did something wrong?

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: the additional diode is not necessary in this circuit, but it would be if feedback comes from the Drain of the transistor (back EMF of L2).
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 11, 2013, 07:05:14 PM
@Conrad: No, I don't think you did anything wrong, it's an excellent test. Time must be measured very carefully... I wonder if there is a way to run "sidebyside" simultaneous comparisons so that precise timing is less of a problem.

It seems that your test indicates that the overall amount of energy in the system is the same, whether you use the diode and "recycle" connection or not. So either there isn't any benefit from the inductive ringing/discharge/spike, or whatever benefit there may be is getting lost in the system somehow and not being used. Perhaps it's radiating away as RF, or heating something you aren't measuring.

But how about this: Instead of putting the recycle output back to the run battery/capacitor, put it into an external battery or capacitor.

So you would be comparing the run time of the "control" system with no charge transfer, to the run time of the experimental system that put some charge on the external cap. The experimental system should be expected to run for a shorter time. Then you could run again, but powered from the external cap only, and time that run time.

So now you have the control system, compared against the (experimental system on main cap + experimental system on external cap) total run time.

This way, if there was any benefit from the energy in the inductive ringdown spike, it would be collected in the external cap rather than disappearing into the circuit to be squandered, radiated or dissipated. There will be losses in the cap system of course but these should be easy to understand and quantify.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: conradelektro on September 12, 2013, 04:06:30 PM

But how about this: Instead of putting the recycle output back to the run battery/capacitor, put it into an external battery or capacitor.

So you would be comparing the run time of the "control" system with no charge transfer, to the run time of the experimental system that put some charge on the external cap. The experimental system should be expected to run for a shorter time. Then you could run again, but powered from the external cap only, and time that run time.

So now you have the control system, compared against the (experimental system on main cap + experimental system on external cap) total run time.

This way, if there was any benefit from the energy in the inductive ringdown spike, it would be collected in the external cap rather than disappearing into the circuit to be squandered, radiated or dissipated. There will be losses in the cap system of course but these should be easy to understand and quantify.

I did the following:

There is an L3 and it drives a LED lamp.

The energy consumed by the circuit is higher if the LED lamp shines and it is lower if L3 is not connected to anything.

Sorry, no precise numbers just a rough quantification. But it was very easily visible, 20% to 50% more energy consumed.


Another observation with very low power pulse motors (a few mW down to 100 µW):

When the back EMF of the drive coil was "used in any way" (e.g. putting a LED there or feedback to battery via a Shottky diode), the power consumption rose a little (up to 10%). Could have been the forward current of the LED or diode, but I do not think so.

------------

Your measurement idea is interesting, I will think about it.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: OscarMeyer on September 13, 2013, 03:11:01 AM
Hi Conrad,
I was just wondering what your circuit had to do with Rosemary's? 
 
Oscar
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 13, 2013, 06:28:35 AM
Hi Conrad,
I was just wondering what your circuit had to do with Rosemary's? 
 
Oscar

Just which "Circuit of Rosemary's" are you referring to?

The one published in the Quantum magazine, but never actually used?

The one determined by S.Weir to exist in the recently found box, that could not have been in there in 2002 since it has a chip with a 2007 date code, a P-channel mosfet in addition to an IRGP450--- which she never reported using --- and only a single potentiometer hooked up?

The one gestured to by Donovan Martin in the 2011 demo, showing a single mosfet and no Black FG hookup?

The one he claimed in the same demo, with 5 mosfets in parallel?

The Actual one used by them, discovered by .99?

The two different ones in the retracted papers, neither of which show the Black FG lead in the place actually used?

The "FTC" schematic that Glen used for the IET and IEEE submissions?

Or the Unclamped Inductive Test circuit that is in the back of just about every power mosfet data sheet?


Just which is "the" circuit of Rosemary's that you are talking about? And just what concern is it of yours anyway? Do you have some work of your own you would like to talk about? Please feel free to do so.

Meanwhile, maybe you can explain this bit of word salad:
Quote
Guys, very simplistically - here's logic behind superluminal velocity.  Forgive the elementary explanations - but it's the best I can manage.  Just for purposes of this argument - assume a wheel diameter at say 1 meter.  4 wheels to the car.  Therefore for every complete turn the wheel covers a distance of 1 meter.  And it makes that complete turn every second.  Therefore, for each minute it is able to cover 1 meter per turn, per second x 60 seconds - being 60 meters per minute.  Now we take the second car that has a wheel diameter of precisely 2 meters.  4 wheels to the car.  So.  For every complete turn the wheel covers a distance of 2 meters.  And IT makes the complete turn every 2 seconds.  Therefore, for each complete turn it is able to cover precisely twice the distance albeit that it too is traveling at 60 meters per minute.  The difference?  It's simply in the number of complete turns.  Now.  Let's draw this distinction.  The frequency at which the 2 meter diameter wheel makes each turn - is half the frequency of the 1 meter diameter wheel.  And this is PRECISELY equivalent to the size of those wheels.  That's UNARGUABLE.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 13, 2013, 07:03:02 AM


Meanwhile, maybe you can explain this bit of word salad:

"Guys, very simplistically - here's logic behind superluminal velocity.  Forgive the elementary explanations - but it's the best I can manage.  Just for purposes of this argument - assume a wheel diameter at say 1 meter.  4 wheels to the car.  Therefore for every complete turn the wheel covers a distance of 1 meter.  And it makes that complete turn every second.  Therefore, for each minute it is able to cover 1 meter per turn, per second x 60 seconds - being 60 meters per minute.  Now we take the second car that has a wheel diameter of precisely 2 meters.  4 wheels to the car.  So.  For every complete turn the wheel covers a distance of 2 meters.  And IT makes the complete turn every 2 seconds.  Therefore, for each complete turn it is able to cover precisely twice the distance albeit that it too is traveling at 60 meters per minute.  The difference?  It's simply in the number of complete turns.  Now.  Let's draw this distinction.  The frequency at which the 2 meter diameter wheel makes each turn - is half the frequency of the 1 meter diameter wheel.  And this is PRECISELY equivalent to the size of those wheels.  That's UNARGUABLE."


What happened to Pi x Diameter?  A 1 meter diameter wheel will not travel 1 meter per rev.  UNARGUABLE?  Oh well.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: conradelektro on September 13, 2013, 03:58:03 PM
Hi Conrad,
I was just wondering what your circuit had to do with Rosemary's? 
 
Oscar

I see a common idea, namely the OU speculations around the back EMF (induced current) in a coil or inductance.

Oscillation (or at least switchin the current on and the off) fed through a coil induces a "back EMF" and many OU-gurus believe that the energy in the back EMF comes not from the power supply but from somewhere else (ether, zero point energy, from where-ever).

We have the same elements in the ill defined circuits put forward by the verbose lady from the tip of Africa:

- oscillation (NE555 and switching transistor)
- an inductance (the heating element)
- and alleged mysterious energy from somewhere but the batteries

I read these "back EMF mysteries" and wanted to measure the energy in the "back EMF" by feeding it back to the battery or capacitor driving such a circuit. I used a Joule Thief type circuit and a pulse motor circuit.

I could not find any energy in the "back EMF" which did not come from the power supply (battery, cap), But as I said, I might have done it wrongly.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 15, 2013, 07:03:01 AM
Quote
Our 'ickle' pickle's argument against paper 1 was ALWAYS based on the CLAIM that we could not have applied a 3% ON duty cycle.  In fact he CLAIMED that we had not even applied a 10% ON - but a 90%.  This was the SOLE basis of his argument LOUDLY AND REPETITIVELY augmenting his general calumny and - as ever - ENTIRELY BASELESS.

No, Ainslie. My argument is FULLY BASED IN FACT and can be demonstrated at any time. Your insults and whining are just delusional rants from someone who has been utterly and soundly debunked... time and time again.
You are a dirty filthy LIAR ROSEMARY AINSLIE. The schematic published in the Quantum article CANNOT make the duty cycle and frequency combination you claimed to use. My argument was ALWAYS based on the SCHEMATIC you published and stood behind. This is definite and proven: the schematic published under your name cannot do what you claim, and if you used it your duty cycle was NOT the 3.6 percent ON that you claimed, and if you did NOT use it.... then the schematic is a LIE. No other alternatives are possible: either you used the schematic in the article or you did not. Either way, YOU LIE.


Quote
Through a miracle of Divine intervention - we FOUND our early experimental apparatus - and thanks to the genius of Steve Weir - we were able to prove that INDEED our apparatus could manage the 3% duty cycle - as claimed.

Again YOU LIE. The circuit in the box, which both YOU and DONOVAN  MARTIN repeatedly claimed was LOST, DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SAME CIRCUIT THAT WAS IN IT FOR THE QUANTUM ARTICLE. The circuit in the box NOW contains a chip that wasn't even manufactured until May of 2007, and it only has ONE potentiometer connected, and it uses A DIFFERENT MOSFET, not the IRFPG50, and it DOES NOT OPERATE AT 2.4 kHz. Yes, it can make a shorter duty cycle, but it CANNOT OPERATE IN THE RANGE CITED IN THE QUANTUM ARTICLE. I am really getting sick and tired of your constant refusals to acknowledge reality, AINSLIE. The circuit in your box NOW is NOT the circuit that was used for the Quantum article, it does NOT operate in the stated frequency range and it is A LIE FOR YOU TO CLAIM OTHERWISE.

Quote
Rather than acknowledge this both he and Mark Euthanasius - then prepared reports of varying levels of complexity and 'misdirection' to continue with their DENIALS.  What's new?  From where I sit - NOTHING's new.  They're now basing their denials on the fact that I made an early 'retraction' related to that duty cycle.  TK - poor sod that he is - actually recovered the text of that early retraction.  What he FAILED to mention that my very first acknowledgement of there being a possible misrepresentation of that duty cycle - was based on a misunderstanding.  An experimentalist BUILT that switch according to the schematic published - and he had NO difficulty in getting the required duty cycle.  His English NOT that clear.  I assumed that he had not achieved the required result.  I apologised to all and sundry.  He explained he DID get it.  I RETRACTED the RETRACTION.  And because our Little TK CANNOT report honestly - he conveniently omitted that FINAL retraction.  As mentioned.  Nothing's new.  Amusingly - I see that Mark Euthanasius is also depending on that early retraction.  No-one can accuse either of them of impartiality.

Kindest regards
Rosie

You are a bumbling fool and so was Joit. ANYONE CAN BUILD THE CIRCUIT, you poor slapper, and see for themselves that you are utterly and stupidly wrong.  Get your "Team" of Electrical Engineers to build the circuit AS PUBLISHED in the Quantum article and test it. Show your work, like I have done several times. This would take your "Team" perhaps half an hour to do, with about five dollars worth of components. DO IT, SHOW THE WORK AND REPORT. But of course you will not.

You accuse ME of not reporting honestly? You lie with every post you make, Rosemary Ainslie. You cannot cite a single case when I have reported something about you inaccurately. Yet I can cite instance after instance when YOU have baldly and outrageously LIED, over and over.

"I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO"
"FIVE MOSFETS IN PARALLEL"
"THE APPARATUS WAS LOST"
Paper 1 Figure 3
etc etc etc.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 15, 2013, 07:31:10 AM
Does the Demo Kit 1 box resemble the schematic published in the Quantum article? No, not in the least. It is evidently the device shown in the photograph in the Quantum article, minus the meters..... but how can it contain a chip not manufactured until 2007? Why does it only have a single potentiometer connected? Why does the schematic drawn by SWeir not resemble the published schematic AT ALL? Why does it operate at a much higher frequency range than the published schematic?

Will the September promised demonstration use the PUBLISHED QUANTUM CIRCUIT, the one that supposedly has been "accredited"? Or will it use some other circuit? Will it use this Box? This different mosfet? NOBODY KNOWS.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 15, 2013, 07:51:49 AM
More pix of Demo Kit 1, the "lost" then miraculously "found" massively overunity device constructed for Rosemary Ainslie by Bernard Bulak, who later committed suicide.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 15, 2013, 10:02:07 AM
 
Quote
To the best of my knowledge absolutely NO part of that apparatus has had any parts replaced - to the best of my knowledge - since 2006 or thereby.

To the best of your knowledge? Well, we already know that isn't true at all.

Liar. The NE555N chip bears a data code indicating it was manufactured in the 18th week of 2007.

Liar. There is NO IRFPG50 in the box. Never has anyone mentioned (except me in 2009) the use of an IRFP450 OR a p-channel mosfet.

Liar. You claimed this apparatus was LOST. But it was never lost at all.

Liar. You claimed that this apparatus was used for the Quantum tests. But it has a completely different circuit in it than was PUBLISHED in the Quantum magazine and CANNOT make the duty cycle and frequency claimed in the Quantum article.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 15, 2013, 10:15:17 AM
The genius troll GMeast writes,

Quote
Rosie,

You made a statement a long while back relating to Tinsel Koala's identity and to his cowardice in NOT revealing his true identity. If there is to be any credibility claimed by this turd, then why can't he come forward with his true identity? Otherwise, he remains nothing more than a FICTIONAL CHARACTER to the readers of these threads. It's likened to holding Sherlock Holmes in regard as a REAL SLEUTH. This holds true for the picowatts, poynty-asses, fagluvin, and others that are too cowardly to stand up and show their true identities instead of hiding behind FAKE ones ... unless they are all admitting to being FAKES.
The unnamed academics and others who have supposedly "vetted" Ainslie's claims are anonymous, and NO ONE CAN CHECK THEIR WORK OR VERIFY THE CLAIMS MADE.

I am anonymous to certain people ... but ALL MY WORK IS PUBLIC AND CAN BE CHECKED BY ANYONE WHO LIKES, and not a single thing I've said or demonstrated has been refuted. Especially not by TurdMouth GMEAST.

And there are plenty of people who know exactly who I am, where I live and so on. People I trust, mostly, but also people who have run games on me and tricked me and threatened me. Am I not supposed to be Bryan Little any more?

If you want to call me a FAKE, GMeast.... try refuting something, rather than shitting out your mouth like you do. I don't need "credibility" because all my work is open, replicable and doesn't even require fancy equipment, it just IS.

Quote
To all readers that are detractors of these technologies: ARE YOU SO GULLIBLE THAT YOU WOULD TAKE THE WORDS OF FICTIONAL CHARACTERS AS THE FINAL WORD(s) ON O.U.? If so ... then you deserve to REMAIN IN DARKNESS FOREVER ... fueled by BIAS,  BLINDNESS and HATE! You are all a bunch of SHEEP!

Greg

Refute me, Greg. YOU CANNOT. And NOBODY has to take my WORD for anything... because I always provide PROOF, outside references, checkable citations, fully worked math, and demonstrations that are REPLICABLE BY ANYONE. Nobody has to take my WORD for the fact that the NE555N chip in Ainslie's device was made in May of 2007... THE DATE CODE IS ON THE CHIP and you can call STMicro yourselves to confirm it.
Just for one example.
You don't have to take my WORD for the fact that the Quantum 555 timer circuit cannot do what she claims it does... you can simply build it for yourself and check it, or you can watch my very clear demonstrations, or you can look at Mark E.'s scopeshots.

Your argument is, as usual, completely bogus GREG. And as far as making your complete identity known on the internet, go for it, nobody is stopping you. Why not publish your address and phone numbers, so people can call and visit you?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 15, 2013, 05:29:14 PM
Hey Greggie baby

Suppose for a moment someone on the internet was constantly using foul language, breaking down, saying things to you like "Fuck you dead" and so on. At the same time, insisting that you identify yourself fully.

Suppose I said "FUCK YOU DEAD" to YOU and insulted you with "turd talk" and homophobic slurs. Would you want me to know where you live?

Somehow I doubt it.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Groundloop on September 15, 2013, 08:52:26 PM
Open letter to Rosemary Ainslie.

Ref. http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg5059/topicseen.html?PHPSESSID=c1c0992981a38982d550373564ed3ca0#msg5059
Post #435
Snip
"Thankfully - they're back on track - and referencing ME - rather than that RIDICULOUS circuit that Groundloop and our Little Pickle are trying to promote in the hopes of distracting you all."
End snip.

Background:

TK asked for a way to discharge a charged capacitor into a battery. I did respond with three ways to do that.
The first was by using a SCR triggered from a neon bulb. The second was by using glow starters for fluorescent light. The third method was by using a high voltage JT circuit connected to the capacitor and then discharge the
capacitor to the battery by a third coil connected to a diode bridge.

Discussion:

All of my three circuit proposal has nothing to do with your circuits or theories.  All three of my circuit
proposals will work in a setting where you want to discharge a capacitor, that has a voltage higher than
a neon bulb trigger voltage, into a load. I have never, to my best knowledge, published any circuits on the
internet that do not work or as a means of distracting people.

Conclusion:

In you post you use the word "RIDICULOUS" about my circuits. I do not think you are capable of determine
if a circuit is "RIDICULOUS" or not. Your knowledge about electronics is basic at best, and non-existent at
worst.

I expect an apology from you!

Groundloop.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 16, 2013, 02:13:25 PM
Ainslie is still making her RIDICULOUS claims, even though EVERY TIME she herself or her team have actually TESTED one of their claims... it has been proven to be false. She even now goes back and distorts and misinterprets the findings of her most recent set of "demonstrations" of incompetence: ALL her measurements are bogus, and this nonsense about the battery being disconnected from the circuit _at any time_ is another of her transparent displays of utter ignorance. She and her RIDICULOUS pottymouth sycophant, or maybe psycho-phant, GMeast can't seem to make connected thoughts come together in their minds.

How does a chip with a date code of May 2007 get into a box that was "lost" in 2006 and not "found" until a couple of weeks ago? The box doesn't even contain an IRFPG50 and doesn't operate at anything even close to the frequency range cited in the Quantum article. I'll tell you how that happens: Ainslie's RIDICULOUS pile of lies has become too big for her to keep track of, and the inconsistencies in her story are becoming glaringly obvious to everyone _with a brain_ that examines the evidence.

Let her rant and insult, make claim after RIDICULOUS claim, many of which have ALREADY been proven to be false. Until she manages to DEMONSTRATE THE REALITY OF HER CLAIMS -- which she will never do -- they are just so much verbal excrement.

Groundloop, waiting for an apology from Ainslie for her insults and lies about you is like waiting for a Solstice in July. You'll never get a sincere apology from the Queen of Trolls, you will just get more lies and distortions and false claims without ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE whatsoever.

She can't even explain why there is only one pot connected in her Demo Kit 1 box when the Quantum article shows three. She can't explain why there is NO IRFPG50 transistor in there, but instead a very different IRFP450. She can't explain the frequency range of the Box circuit, when it is so much higher frequency than the Quantum article claims. She can't DARE to attempt to explain the presence of the 555 timer chip made in May of 2007. She can't explain _anything_ about "her" circuit, she's an ignorant bloviating fool, and her insults and ridiculous claims mean nothing to anyone, except as easy targets to shoot down.

Her cheerleader GMeast can't even think for himself, with all that excrement and homophobia floating around inside his skull.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 16, 2013, 02:28:16 PM
Ainslie claims to "know enough" to produce these "oscillations" in the Quantum single mosfet circuit .... but we have NEVER SEEN HER operate her equipment at all. She always has someone else do it!

I tell you right here and now: She does not "know enough" to do anything more than turning the equipment on, if that much. Over the years, she has damaged her Fluke scope, her LeCroy scope, her Function Generator and her battery cables by her incompetent flailings, as well as blowing a bunch of mosfets. She can't do math and refuses to check her work at all, having made many really utterly STUPID errors that betray her ignorance and naivete when it comes to calculations.

If she claims to "know enough" to do anything... let her demonstrate it!

Let her set up a demonstration, operate the equipment and show that her claims can be supported. Of course she cannot do this, the woman is incompetent at everything except manipulating people.

Note her reference to Glen again. She lies when she says he has tried to hide or cover up _anything_. Glen's entire corpus of work is freely available in the excellent collections he has put up for anyone to see. He includes complete raw data, scopeshots, operating parameters, everything. Long videos of running, even. For Ainslie to claim that Glen has hidden or covered up ANYTHING of his work is an absolute lie and an insult to a careful and honest researcher.
Furthermore... we once again see Ainslie's inability to reason. She endorses Glen's "replication" of "oscillations".... when IN FACT, we (.99 in sims and I in hardware) here have made the IDENTICAL WAVEFORMS that Glen has made and that Ainslie endorsed -- and they are not oscillatory waveforms at all in the same sense as the true parasitic feedback oscillations of the "Q-array" miswired mosfet joke. Yet look at what she says about our work. The ignorant bloviating fool even proudly admits to not watching my videos. No wonder she remains so utterly ignorant... she doesn't even know what she is criticizing!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 20, 2013, 01:17:02 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4)

Transcript: (DM = Donovan Martin, RA = Rosemary Ainslie

DM: I effectively mm mm met Rosemary in about 2000, round about then, and at that time the instrument that was available was the (unintelligible), a, it's not here today, it's one with a real wound element is effectively roughly as I recall 8 winds, in fact, just to digress it's the one in Quantum magazine, the referenced there (?).
And um effectively what it was it was a wound coil around this ceramic core with a platinum-based thermocouple ahm, mounted in the center. The objective behind the test was simply not to scrutinize measurements. That's a matter of  opinion always. That's always easy to argue measurements on the scope, from one scope to another, one can argue for days and years to come. Ahm, knowing that, ahm, I think what Rose has been trying to achieve, up to, to now was ah to show some of the waveforms which at times obviously could be very difficult. Because of the simplicity of the circuit, makes it very difficult to obviously _achieve_ certain fine settings. And ahm, going back, back in history what was done back then  was simply a Joule test, and of course Joules doesn't lie. Ahm, there was a control circuit, I'm sure everyone actually, watching (unintel) moment is probably aware of what was done... there was a Control, and then there was the actual Apparatus that was tested against the Control. And in every single instance it outperformed the control by Days. And this obviously was monitored (?) recorded by our local CSIR, and of course BP, and I think it's actually made mention, (unintelligible) I happened to witness the original test at the time as well.
Now the Apparatus has left for California many years ago, and never returned, unfortunately. Now you can take my word on that. (?) ABB Labs, and ahm (unintelligible) up to today, no word, other than the three scientists who originally ah, witnessed the test, and vetted the results were fired two-three months therafter.
So. In the interim there was a second device, which was built, because one was wont to do that. Ahm, the device again was tested, um, at this point, interest was lost. In, in this particular device. Um, to the point where BP actually offered a bursary through our local university

RA: (Hisses) SASOL

DM: Er, SASOL rather. Ahm, offered us bursaries, (to take it?) further. No one unfortunately came to the fore, to take up the challenge. And it's been ahm, it's been a passion of Rosemary's since then. Remember, for her it's not about the electrical circuits, it's about her Field Model, in terms of what she's trying to achieve ...
(end transcript)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 20, 2013, 02:17:08 AM
Well, that pretty much clears everything up...NOT!  I think this proves that none of them know what they are talking about.  As most of us should have learned as little children, if you tell so many lies, it is very difficult to keep up with them...much easier to tell the truth.

Now she is insulting Groundloop?  He has been nothing but helpful in any posting I have ever read of his, and I have read many of them.  His suggestions had nothing to do with her circuit(s) yet she tries to use this to distract from the fact that her many variations of her circuits do not work.  Sure, blame Groundloop.

Little Miss Mosfet should stick to her curds and whey and stop insulting a lot of good, smart, hardworking folks on this and other forums.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Tseak on September 20, 2013, 09:24:37 AM
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Her memory is also conveniently short - or - perhaps her claim that she doesn't read responses is true.  Her latest post:

Quote
Where among a slew of nonsense he also states...

Note her reference to Glen again. She lies when she says he has tried to hide or cover up _anything_. Glen's entire corpus of work is freely available in the excellent collections he has put up for anyone to see. He includes complete raw data, scopeshots, operating parameters, everything. Long videos of running, even. For Ainslie to claim that Glen has hidden or covered up ANYTHING of his work is an absolute lie and an insult to a careful and honest researcher.

Perhaps, dear reader, you could take the trouble to check this Scribd link for yourself.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

This was the paper published by open source collaborators where I was nominated 'first author'.  Scroll down to the data that was published in support of the argument.  Then tell me what data you actually see.  From where I sit I see repeated reference to the statement ... 'Sorry.This person moved or deleted this image'. The same thing from Test 1 through to 13?  I think it is?

If that is our Little Pickle's best sample of Glen Lettenmaier's  'complete raw data, scopeshots, operating parameters, everything' ... then it falls rather short of LITTLE pickle's further statement that 'For Ainslie to claim that Glen has hidden or covered up ANYTHING of his work is an absolute lie and an insult to a careful and honest researcher' begs a certain want of EVIDENCE.  I can PROVE that he's removed his data.  LITTLE TK can only ALLEGE that he has not. 

And conveniently forgotten, from her own forum:

Quote
Rose,

I already had posted this in your "debunking" thread, but I guess it should be here as well since it is about Glen's results:

- The IEEE submission at scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

- The Panacea compilation:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/lx2nnz9dnpg34tt/Rosemary_Ainslie_COP17_Heater_Technology.pdf

- Glen's livestream site with links:
http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment

- Glen's skydrive site with all the test data etc.:
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460!120

So as you can see Rose, all the results from all of Glen's tests are readily available to anyone. It took some sleuthing on my part to find Glen's cache (which he ended up giving me anyway), which I found on my own from a post of yours on EF actually.

Click on the last link above and you can directly download Glen's results from test #13 (or any other)...

As poynt99 says all Glens result are available to anyone.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 20, 2013, 07:15:33 PM
Tseak , as the troll queen Ainslie says,
Quote
Let me see if I can explain this in words of one syllable - or as few as is possible.  Maybe that way you'll understand me better.

All of Glen's results are, as you pointed out, available at his Skydrive site and others. Every bit of his data, including spreadsheets, is there.

Unfortunately for the idiot troll queen Ainslie... they are in .zip folders, and SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THEM.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

This is equivalent to receiving a letter in the mail and not being able to figure out how to open the envelope. Par for the course! Ainslie blames the sender for using an envelope she doesn't know how to open. The Troll Queen insists on remaining ignorant, blaming others for her ignorance, and then lying about it. She claims Glen's data is unavailable.... and it is unavailable TO HER because she refuses to correct her own willfull ignorance. But everybody else with a computer on the planet can Google "zip files" and know, in ten minutes, how to deal with them. Not Ainslie! She prefers to persist in her delusional lying fantasy that Glen is trying to hide something! When it is perfectly clear to everyone that he is not.

Glen (FuzzyTomCat) removed his data from the fraudulent Scribd manuscript because he knows that Ainslie's claims are false!

Now... aren't you understanding Ains-lie a LITTLE better now? Once again, she has made post after post of lying allegations, challenging me to provide evidence WHICH I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED several times. Will she admit she has been ONCE AGAIN PROVEN UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG in her ridiculous claims and allegations? Of course not, she's way too LITTLE a person for that, she will simply continue on insulting and lying with every post she makes.


Hey AINSLIE.... are you having a LITTLE trouble understanding what the word PUBLIC means?

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 20, 2013, 09:18:44 PM
Here are some more images that might allow one to understand Rosemary Ains-lie a LITTLE better:
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Magluvin on September 21, 2013, 04:52:44 AM
Lol. I cant believe she is speculating that TK 'faked' debunking Mylow.  Mylow had motors under the couch cushions in the background. Mylow stood up on the table that his motor was running on while filming and very noticeably steps over, where the fishing line was found much later. In fact TK had suggested that Mylow was 'possibly using fishing line and did a demonstration of how invisible it could be on a YT vid. But to the trained eye, it was others that examined the videos using programs that enhance details, not Tk.

And always remember, feed this thread daily, to keep it up on top the page. ;) ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Magluvin on September 21, 2013, 05:05:36 AM
And why would Mylow, the master of the hand, ever punk out so badly and admit to faking it, if he didnt, just because TK 'pressured' him to plead guilty when innocent?? Na, Mylow was a trickster. He can shuffle a shell game on a magazine at a street corner and rake it up any night of the week. He was very good with pointing the camera here n there while pushing the rotor with the other hand out of view. For the average Joe, yeah, he had them fooled. Even after the bunk and admission, he came back and still had followers. I remember a lot about all that. What a mess he was. But I tell ya, He put up a good fight to protect his fakeness. lol What a character he was. Almost likable, except for all the deception. Couldnt trust a word. Nada. That went on for months. Second longest to Rose I believe. At least top 5.

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 21, 2013, 06:05:56 AM
And why would Mylow, the master of the hand, ever punk out so badly and admit to faking it, if he didnt, just because TK 'pressured' him to plead guilty when innocent?? Na, Mylow was a trickster. He can shuffle a shell game on a magazine at a street corner and rake it up any night of the week. He was very good with pointing the camera here n there while pushing the rotor with the other hand out of view. For the average Joe, yeah, he had them fooled. Even after the bunk and admission, he came back and still had followers. I remember a lot about all that. What a mess he was. But I tell ya, He put up a good fight to protect his fakeness. lol What a character he was. Almost likable, except for all the deception. Couldnt trust a word. Nada. That went on for months. Second longest to Rose I believe. At least top 5.

Mags

Yes, and even after the debunking, Sterling stood behind Mylow and called all of us that did not believe idiots.  Then came the MIB that made Mylow stop posting.  Sure, whatever.

I think Rose is worse than Mylow.  I have no idea how she can sleep at night.  It is surprising that Sterling is no longer backing her.  Now she trashes him as well as the rest of us.  Oh well.

There is reality, and then there is Rose.  You decide.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Magluvin on September 21, 2013, 06:35:50 AM
Yes, and even after the debunking, Sterling stood behind Mylow and called all of us that did not believe idiots.  Then came the MIB that made Mylow stop posting.  Sure, whatever.

I think Rose is worse than Mylow.  I have no idea how she can sleep at night.  It is surprising that Sterling is no longer backing her.  Now she trashes him as well as the rest of us.  Oh well.

There is reality, and then there is Rose.  You decide.

Bill

Yeah, but he is in the top 5. ;]

Ya know, If I went into a bank looking for a job, and claimed to be an expert enough to write new rules in the game of banking, got hired, said I was going to do this that and the other, but the bank soon finds out that I could not do what I said I could do, and they told me I wasnt as good as I said I was, well then I could just tell them that Im not very good at math or counting, cant see just about anything, and my memory isnt squat, and harass people at work almost every day of the week, I think they would keep me around for the big job and endure my incompetence. Because it the right thing to do.  lol

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 21, 2013, 06:51:18 AM
There is a big difference between Ainslie and Mylow. He was a conscious and cynical fraudster. He may have believed in Howard Johnson but he knew full well that his own motors didn't work and couldn't work. Ainslie is different: she truly believes in her "thesis" and has constructed an entire delusional system around it. This causes her to distort reality and do whatever she feels necessary to promote the "thesis" including the lying and insulting and all the rest. Mylow was bad but sane. Ainslie is bad, and in the grips of a profound delusion. In addition she is too arrogant to educate herself properly, believing that she knows enough already, even though her "knowledge" is faulty. Mylow deliberately constructed a fraudulent apparatus with hidden parts (the motor and line); Ainslie fraudulently tests and represents results from a real apparatus that is replicable, in spite of her attempts at deliberate obfuscation and her blundering. Mylow was a fake, a conman, with a great career ahead of him in marketing or law enforcement. Ainslie is just a naive old fool with an overbearing manner, with nothing ahead of her but more failures and refutations of her silly claims.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: minnie on September 21, 2013, 09:48:53 AM
Hi,
    Ainslie is ignorant, I just looked up the word in my dictionary and she's an exact match.
 Mylow was fraudulent which is quite a different thing. Some fraudulent people are achievers
because they go on to the next scam.
  Ignorant people don't get anywhere because they don't listen to others, study the facts
and just go on thinking they know it all.
                                                      John,
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 21, 2013, 05:59:07 PM
TK:

I get it now.  Rose has discovered a path to OU by utilizing the Reality Distortion Field.  I wonder if she can patent this?

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: powercat on September 21, 2013, 06:55:25 PM
Rosemary has forgotten a very important part of her circuit, one of these needs to be fitted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T9w6htMEpY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T9w6htMEpY)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 24, 2013, 09:48:28 AM
Lost? Forgotten? Patented? 

 :P

 ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on September 27, 2013, 04:22:54 PM
Well, here it is almost the end of September and Ainslie still has produced absolutely no evidence for any of her claims. Perhaps she thinks the trail of confusion she has laid down will distract from the FACT that her claims are bogus and have no evidence whatsoever to support them.

Nor will she commit herself to endorsing any waveforms as being the "correct" ones to produce the effects she claims. How very convenient! She can't show any evidence of her own claims, no waveforms that "work", but she is sure that anyone NOT producing her claimed effect is therefore using the wrong waveform.

But wait.... in the IEEE and IET submissions, which according to Ainslie were checked and reproduced by Donovan Martin Himself, the waveforms are specified. They are GLEN's waveforms, shown in the links to Glen's work above, and reproduced by Poynt99 in simulation and by ME in hardware, using the circuit that GLEN used at the operating parameters that GLEN discovered and that Ainslie endorsed. But of course, now that people are once again ready to examine those claims, and have the Demo Kit 1 box _actual schematic_, thanks again to a third party Steve Weir, no thanks to Ainslie, she rejects Glen's work and the waveforms she formerly endorsed. And of course she does this without providing any evidence, any waveforms of her "own".

Whatever, dude. Those of us who _can_, are still _doing_, and are ready to test Ainslie's claims again, whenever she can actually get it together to state what they are: A specified circuit, operating at specified parameters, producing a specified effect. Not some lying conglomeration of delusional fantasy, false schematics, references to fifteen year old "vetting" with no documentation, and broken promises to share data.

In the image below, you can see my current test setup. This uses a NE555N timer in the _exact_ timer circuit that SWeir determined from Ainslie's recent photos of the "lost" apparatus containing the chip made in 2007. I am using the same make and model of "off" time control potentiometer, a 10-turn Spectrol 50k wirewound pot, and I am using the IRFP450 mosfet that ACTUALLY appears in the "Demo Kit 1" box rather than the IRFPG50 that Ainslie has ALWAYS claimed they used. I even found a turn-counting dial for the potentiometer, so that precise settings can be reproduced, just like on Ainslie's Demo Kit 1 box from the garden path... er, shed.

The load is an 11-ohm load made from the nichrome wire ripped out of a blow-dryer. The test board has positions for added inductance in the load side of the mosfet and it has the Gate potentiometer which was apparently not used in Ainslie's box, again in spite of the claims made. I have found that this pot is generally turned all the way to minimum resistance for the effects that I like: good fast cap charging from MY external diode syphon system. You can see the diode, the ultrafast MUR1560, attached to the bottom leg of the load, with the line leading off leftwards to the cap-neon-system to dump the spike power back to the battery (out of view to the left.) The IRFP450 works better: it charges the cap faster, than the IRFPG50 at the same timer settings. I've put a little inductance (the brown thing with the white dot) in series with the Gate leg to simulate the rat's nest inductance in the box. Is this really  necessary? I dunno.

The NE555N timer circuit makes a fixed "on" time that is a short HI pulse, and the potentiometer varies the "off" time, thus varying frequency and duty cycle simultaneously. They cannot be independently controlled by the Demo Kit 1 circuit. I've left in the "Secret of DPDT" on the board, but for this set of demonstrations the switch is in the "Q17" mode, that is, not inverting, since the actual pulse output of the timer circuit does make a short HI duty cycle. Again, in stark contrast to the originally published and still uncorrected Quantum magazine article circuit.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on December 07, 2013, 07:20:31 AM
Well, just as I predicted, Ainslie is attempting to "retract" her earlier fake retraction of the two daft manuscripts which contain DOCUMENTED and PROVEN falsified data, along with all the other major nonsense they contain.

She forgets, as is typical, that she cannot reproduce the data in the manuscripts, such as the famous Figure 3 scopeshot upon which the outrageously hilarious OU conclusions are based. She also forgets that the manuscripts contain conflicting schematics and that they both lie about the actual circuit used. She also ignores the fact that even her colleague Donovan Martin has been caught in misrepresentations and outright lies on Ainslie's behalf. None of this prevents her from making her continuing claims without presenting a shred of credible evidence. She continues to lie about me, as well. In short, the Ainslie comedy continues. The goalposts keep moving, the claims mutate, the excuses and rationalizations, the insane theorizing, all continue apace, but what you will never see from Ainslie and her collaborators is an honest, repeatable set of experiments using proper measurement and analysis methodology.

She knows better now, than to publish actual schematics or real data!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on December 07, 2013, 04:30:19 PM
Just when Rose thought you were down for the count. ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: markdansie on December 07, 2013, 09:23:07 PM
TK Check you PM
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on December 22, 2013, 08:52:30 AM
Well.... I see the lying Ainslie is back at it in full form.

Quote
It seems that our Little TK is sinking down to the very bottom of his own pickle barrel.  You will recall that he based his ENTIRE refutation of our Quantum paper on the CERTAINTY that we had inverted our duty cycle - that we were running at a 10 percent OFF / 90 percent ON.

That's a clear, outrageous and outright lie. The circuit published in the Quantum article has been analyzed fully and CANNOT make the claimed duty cycle. Further, the "found" apparatus does not even contain anything like the same circuit published in the article and doesn't operate anywhere near the same frequency range. This has been proven over and over again. Ainslie is true to her lying form here once again.

Quote
  He certainly convinced the most of those members on OU.com - which speaks to the efficacy of pure REPETITION of an allegation.  Clearly all that's needed is to say something often enough for it to be believed. 

No, all that was needed was for anyone to build and test the circuit... which they did, and found that I am correct and that Ainslie lies. Everything I say is supported by demonstrations that are repeatable by anyone, and by outside references and images provided by Ainslie herself.

Quote
BUT.  That allegation was finally contradicted by the evidence. By a miracle of good fortune we found our original apparatus.


The apparatus that Ainslie and her dupe Donovan Martin both repeatedly lied about when they said it was "lost." The apparatus that contains a chip that was manufactured well after the date of the Quantum article. The apparatus that does NOT contain the circuit published in the Quantum article but an entirely different circuit. The apparatus, in short, that Ainslie continues to lie about to this day.

Quote
And Steve Weir did the required analysis to PROVE that we could and did have the capability of tuning to less than 10% on AS WE CLAIMED - IN THAT PAPER. 

On the contrary, lying troll Ainslie. Steve Weir analyzed the circuit from the photos and showed that it WAS NOTHING LIKE the circuit in the Quantum article, and cannot produce the FREQUENCY that is claimed in the Quantum article, but operates at a much higher frequency. It also contains a chip with a manufacturer's date code that PROVES that it could not have been used at the time of the Quantum article. The entire statement of Ainslie concerning Weir's findings and the "found" apparatus is a total lie.

Quote
This ENTIRELY negates his BEST argument.

On the contrary, Ainslie: the photos and Weir's reverse-engineering PROVE my argument: the found apparatus IS NOT the circuit claimed in the article and WAS NOT used in the experiment described. This is INCONTROVERTIBLE; the photos clearly prove my point here and show that Ainslie continues to lie baldly and without compunction.

Quote
His other arguments are too varied and confusing to follow. 
For an uneducated overweeningly arrogant fool as Ainslie, no doubt. But others follow and agree with my arguments.

Quote
The bulk of them claim is that I ...LIE.  Which is CLEARLY just a case of gross projection.

No, Ainslie. Your lies have been documented over and over and over again, from the "I did not post that video" lie to the "taking water to boil" lie, to the lies about the true schematic used for the "papers"... and on and on. Your lies are manifold... and documented.

Quote
His own facility in the art of deception - his MENDACITY, which is his preferred term - is EXTRAORDINARY.  It shows a flair for innovation which, one hopes, would at least have secured him SOME kind of financial compensation.
Ainslie cannot point to a single instance of my "mendacity". She accuses without a shred of evidence. Whereas, I have documented references and images of many many lies that have been uttered by her and have shown them many times in this and other threads.

Quote
  The more clumsy of those efforts are those that make miniscule variations to the posts that he CLAIMS are COPIES of my own posts and that they're needed FOR POSTERITY?  Lest I alter them?  He even invented a couple of posts and CLAIMED that I authored them.

Another outright and egregious libellous LIE. The images I have made of Ainslie's posts are done with the specific intent of preserving her utterances, since she is WELL KNOWN to go back and change or remove her posts, editing meanings, long after the originals are made. The accusations that I have made up or edited any of these images of Ainslie's posts are simply more of her ridiculous and unsupported lies.

Quote
God forbid that I ever use such clumsy language.  In any event,  I think he meant to say that those copious posts were needed for his own PROSPERITY.  But it's all backfired.  I was told that his disappearance from the forums is because he's terminally ill.  Frankly I doubt this.  I think he's been retrenched because he's blown his cover and can no longer enjoy that duplicitous technique.  And since life itself begs a kind of 'terminal' condition - then I'm not inclined to waste sympathy on him.  I too feel that I'm aging at speed - at a terminal velocity.  Which is why I am working this hard to expose those 'techniques' of troll spin.

And it goes on. The Troll Queen cannot provide any evidence or support for her lying allegations.

Quote
Poynty - to his credit - tried an intellectual approach.  He firstly recommended that it would be good enough to use the measurements of a standard digital multimeter.  He STRONGLY urged all and sundry to RELY on the average - and OVERLOOK the fact that these instruments CANNOT POSSIBLY GIVE AN ACCURATE VALUE OF ANYTHING SWITCHING AT THE SPEEDS OF OUR SWITCHES NOR THEIR RESULTING OSCILLATIONS.  It was one way of both FUDGING the results AND invalidating them as dependable value by any EXPERT in the field. With this kind of heavily flawed evidence, there was no one who mattered who would EVER take any over unity claims seriously.  Which makes it a SCOOP of no mean dimension.

THEN.  He DUPED me into retracting our own over unity claim in PAPERS 1 & 2 - by showing that the advantages that we were measuring were most CERTAINLY NOT recharging the batteries.  He was absolutely CORRECT.  BUT.  AGAIN.  I was too precipitous with my retraction.  The questions related to that self-perpetuating number teased my mind.  Eventually I did my own detailed analysis and found that INDEED - the advantage did NOT go through the battery.  But it most CERTAINLY was evident in the heat over the element resistor.  It was just that the resonance simply moved backwards and forwards through the resistor without EVER going through the battery.  Suddenly we had both the explanation for that anomalous heat signature as well as an explanation for the discharge of the battery - albeit at a rate that generated an efficiency in EXCESS of the battery's watt hour rating. 

How ridiculous can you get? Ainslie and her "team" of sycophants showed over and over their incompetence, their ignorance, and their inability to reproduce their own FALSIFIED data when being observed. Now she claims falsely that she was "duped" when what really happened is that she finally encountered someone who knows what they are doing and agreed to work with him in public.

Poynt99's clear explanation of Ainslie's circuit and the measurement issues is documented in a series of videos, that I have gathered into a playlist on my YT channel.

Ainslie's own demonstrations proved that there is NO "anomalous heat signature" and that the power supplied by the battery exceeded the power dissipated by the load resistor. This is clearly documented in the video of the most recent demonstration, also available in a playlist on my YT channel.


Quote
AND BY THE WAY.  WE'VE NOW OFFICIALLY REMOVED OUR RETRACTION AND AGAIN STAND BY THE RESULTS AND CLAIMS IN THE PAPERS 1 & 2 DETAILED UNDER OUR FLAG

Ainslie refers to the papers that contain false schematics that were never used in the experiment. The papers that contain clearly fabricated data, scopeshots that are impossible under the claimed conditions, and wild claims about experimental conditions that never actually happened. The data that cannot be reproduced under the conditions stated in the paper. The paper that contains a wild and ridiculous "thesis" that has no correspondence with reality and is nothing more than an ignorant mismash fantasy cartoon delusion... and doesn't even correspond to the actual circuit used when it tries to explain it!

The mind boggles at the very thought of it.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 22, 2013, 03:42:51 PM
So, she has retracted the retraction?

I don't think we even have a word that covers this do we?  Re-retraction? Unretraction?  Retractionous interuptus?

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on December 22, 2013, 05:06:22 PM
How about "de-retracted" or "disretraction"?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on December 23, 2013, 12:08:02 AM
How about "Pseudoscientific misconduct"?

The "papers" contain fabricated, false data. The Figure 3 scopeshot and others are presented as valid and significant, but as we all know, they cannot be obtained under the conditions stated. If an "error" was made in the original collection, it must have been identified and corrected because subsequent scopeshots indicate no similar problems. Yet the bogus data remains in the papers: therefore this constitutes a deliberate fabrication of data in order to give appearance of support to the main claims. Other scopeshots showing more plausible data sets are egregiously misinterpreted by Ainslie in the papers, for example where she claims no current is indicated in a particular trace, when there clearly is, and she draws conclusions based on her false interpretations. This also constitutes fabrication.

The "papers" contain false claims about the schematic used: they misrepresent the location of the Function Generator Black or "ground" output lead, a significant fabrication which disguises the fact that the true location used by the experimenters allows a current path to bypass the Current Sense Resistor, thus invalidating all power measurements using data from this resistor. The location given in the schematics was never actually used by Ainslie or her "team", not even in the most recent video demonstration.  Furthermore, the two "official publications" of the papers, really just blog posts on Rossi's vanity blog, do not even agree that much: they have the positions of the Q1 and Q2 transistors in different locations, a highly significant difference. Other versions of these manuscripts (there are several) have this "error" edited away without comment, as well as having other significant alterations. All versions that I can find still contain the lie about the location of the FG black lead, however.

The "papers" contain false claims about the results of the described experiment: the batteries did in fact measurably discharge over the course of the trials, as evidenced by Ainslie's own data, and the experiment never actually boiled water in any quantity.

All of this is fully documented and can be verified by anyone, using Ainslie's own data, blog and forum posts, and scopeshots. The utter abject failure of Ainslie's "team" to reproduce the data in the video demo last August, coupled with the clear power measurements which showed far more battery power drawn than was dissipated "over the element resistor", are preserved for posterity and can be viewed in the playlist on my channel.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 09:26:01 AM
The lying Queen of Trolls just won't quit.

Quote
Ok Guys - here's the problem as it relates to our Quantum Paper - October 2002.  Correctly anyone who claims over unity results needs to have some kind of credibility in support of that claim.  Our own were impeccable - resting as they did - and DO - on the measured evidence.  Sadly a condition to publication was the required OMISSION of 2/3rds of that measured data.  This compromised the claim - as was intended by Professor Jandrel who reviewed that paper.

No evidence for this "omission" is presented. No data, just more claims without support. If Ainslie claims to have more data... what is preventing her from posting it NOW? Only the FACT that it actually does not exist.
And we should remember that one of our present posters is also from South Africa and even works with Professor Jandrell. The good professor may not like to hear how Ainslie is distorting his role in the matter.


Quote
  The second compromise came from Tinsel Koala was widely acclaimed as the 'debunker' of Mylow's proof of over unity.  In as much as he has FALSELY debunked our own experimental evidence - I'm entirely satisfied that he also FALSELY debunked Mylow's claim.  I do not care - one whit - that Mylow may or may not have admitted some fraudulent representations.  Had I been as weak as TK clearly 'hoped' then I too would have withdrawn the claim and admitted anything that he required.  It is inordinately difficult to 'fight one's corner' when put under the kind of attack that I have been subjected to by him and by many other players on the internet.  Thankfully I was equal to that nonsense.  Sadly Mylow was not.

MyLOW was an admitted fraud. Yes, I was INDEED the first one to DEMONSTRATE what others had found by careful analysis of Mylow's videos, that he was using a fishing line drive belt and a remote motor, and Mylow himself even posted an ADMISSION on my YT video illustrating his method of fakery. This is all on record, in places where Ainslie cannot change or alter the FACTS of the matter. There are many witnesses to this affair of Mylow and the lies he promulgated and their debunking. Mylow, LIKE AINSLIE, also suborned others to lie for him in his cheating fraudulent vain attempt at glory and attention.
But MYLOW at least had the integrity finally to admit that he was lying. Ainslie, even when confronted by incontrovertible evidence of her falsehoods and mendacity... persists in her lies and delusions, as we all can see with this present set of verbiage from Ainslie. She has no integrity or honesty at all, not even as much as Mylow. No shame either, since she has been found out, over and over, but still won't admit her lies and errors.
Ainslie accuses me of "falsely debunking" Mylow? What a joke! What part of my debunk of Mylow was in any way "false"? Did Mylow actually have a working HJ motor? Of course he DID NOT. Did he use any of the several possible methods I illustrated in my debunks? Of course he DID. Did he finally admit, in public for all to see, that I was RIGHT? Of course he DID.
As usual Ainslie cannot support any of her libels against me with actual facts, actual references or links to anything that supports her absurd contentions. And as usual, I CAN support ALL of my claims with facts, demonstrations, checkable references and the work of colleagues. My debunk of her claims is also preserved in many videos, all of which contain enough information for anyone to repeat them to see if they are "false" as Ainslie accuses, or not. Where are the "debunks" of my videos illustrating the problems with Ainslie and her claims? Nowhere. Ainslie's August demonstration in fact SOUNDLY SUPPORTED my debunks, especially showing how the Figure 3 scopeshot could not be made as Ainslie claimed.

Quote
In any event - TK came in on the CLAIM that we had inverted our duty cycle.  He claimed that we were running the duty cylce at a 90% ON and not 10%.  He further claimed that this was evident in the schematic.  Which was nonsense.

Now you are tangling yourself up, AINSLIE. You don't seem to realize that the Quantum circuit AS YOU PUBLISHED IT can be built and tested by anyone, and they all find the same thing: it CANNOT make the duty cycle you claimed to use. Simple as that: it cannot. It CAN however produce the exact inverse duty cycle, that is a 3.7 percent OFF duty cycle.... and you, AINSLIE, have demonstrated many times that you STILL cannot grasp the FACT that the DRAIN of the mosfet will be AT BATTERY VOLTAGE... that is, HIGH.... when the mosfet is OFF. Hence your continuing confusion about the duty cycle produced by the Quantum Magazine circuit. Anyone can build and test that circuit for themselves and see that it DOES NOT and CANNOT produce the duty cycle you claimed in the paper. So either the schematic is right .... meaning that the article LIES because it could not have used the 3.7 percent ON dutycycle claimed ... or that the data was gathered using a different circuit--- meaning that the article LIES. Either way, the Quantum article is a compendium of error and lies and it's no wonder that nobody pays any attention to it any more. Any reference to the circuit Steve Weir analyzed as being related to the Quantum Magazine article schematic is also an abject LIE on the part of Ainslie, because that circuit was not even built at the time of the Quantum work, it contains different components and can't operate at the frequency claimed in the article.


Quote
  A certain Joost - an experimentalist - replicated that circuit from the schematic and found NO inversion.  But this made no difference.  TK held to that claim and persisted with it for the entire 3 years that he's dogged my representations on the internet in his efforts to discredit our work.

His name, I believe, was Joit, not "Joost", and he finally acknowledged that I AM RIGHT, as have everyone else who built and tested that circuit, EVEN GMEAST. The schematic exists, still, and anyone can build it for themselves and see that I am STILL RIGHT. Go ahead, Ainslie.... have anyone you like build and test THAT CIRCUIT and publish the results. You will not..... because it will expose you ONCE AGAIN as an abject and incompetent LIAR.

Quote
Thankfully - as you're all aware - we were able discount this nonsense when Steve Weir did a detailed analysis on our actual apparatus.  Here he conclusively proved that we could reduce the on time for up to 5% of each duty cycle - AS CLAIMED - and AS DENIED, for all those years - by our Little TK.

Now you are really lying, Ainslie, in such an obvious manner that it is surprising even to me. The depths of your attempted duplicity are amazing. The circuit that Steve Weir analyzed WAS NOT THE QUANTUM MAGAZINE CIRCUIT. What is more, the photos of the circuit Weir analyzed PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that it was NOT the circuit used for the Quantum article! It contains a chip that was manufactured in 2007! It is, in fact, GREG LETTENMEIER's circuit and operates at a frequency MUCH MUCH HIGHER than the Quantum magazine circuit. The circuit Weir analyzed uses a different mosfet, only a single adjustable potentiometer, and cannot make the combination of duty cycle and frequency that the ORIGINAL QUANTUM MAGAZINE ARTICLE claims was used for the data in that article. Steve and others HAVE INDEED analyzed the original Quantum Magazine article circuit as well and they AGREE WITH ME about that circuit: it cannot make the duty cycle claimed with the component values stated.
Quote
  What's significant and rather sad - is that TK does NOT have the required INTEGRITY to admit this.  He dare not.  Because the minute any such admission is made then with it would be the required acknowledgement of results that are MEASURED to exceed unity.  That elusive barrier that - as a result of his hard fought efforts - still remains largely unacknowledged anywhere in the world.

Unless and until TK can make an open acknowledgement that his initial representations related to that duty cycle inversion were quite simply WRONG - then anything that he says further - on this subject - is of NO CONSEQUENCE.


Ainslie really takes the cake. She is pointing to a blue sky and screaming that it is green. Anyone can see that she is lying! She isn't even doing a good job of it, because the circuit exists and has been built and tested many times by many people.  Nobody really knows just what duty cycle she might have used, but what is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN is that the schematic published in the article cannot make the duty cycle she claimed to use. This is incontrovertible and is easily tested BY ANYONE with the skills and apparatus to do so. Go ahead, Ainslie, do it yourself. Get your techs right now to reproduce the EXACT QUANTUM MAGAZINE CIRCUIT and test it. Report the results! Go Ahead! I DARE YOU to do it. Just like your whining for over a year that the Figure 3 scopeshots were honest and reproducible easily.... you lie and your ignorance of your topic is profound. Just as with the Figure 3 fabrication, you and your techs will NOT BE ABLE to produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle using the circuit published in the Quantum article. GO AHEAD... .TRY IT YOURSELF, you ignorant troll. You cannot do it, just like you cannot reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot under the claimed conditions... because it is an outright LIE and a whole-cloth fabrication.

Quote

It is therefore NOT surprising that he no longer claims anything at all.  I, for one, am enjoying the fact that he's lost his voice together with this complete destruction of his credibility.  It is of ABSOLUTELY no consequence if there were or were not any major or minor errors in the representations of that duty cycle schematic.  The claim - the essential essence of the claim - rests on the measured evidence.  And any attempt to upend that claim based on such objections are clearly SPURIOUS - and are simply advanced in his efforts to deny the feasibility of defeating those unity barriers. 


Ainslie is utterly laughable. She just said that it doesn't matter whether she is reporting critical features accurately.... but it IS INDEED of great consequence that she LIES and continues to LIE about what she has done and how she did it. Not just the Quantum article is full of lies, but also the later work with the "Q-array" kludge.... lie after documented lie, starting with the schematics and continuing to the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot and others, going on past the "bring water to boil 700 ml" lie, through the "batteries do not discharge" lie... all of the rest of it, documented and provable fabrications. As far as my "credibility" goes, anyone can test for themselves the work that I do, because it's all documented fully and doesn't need fancy expensive apparatus to do. Most particularly my many videos that demonstrate the various LIES and ERRORs and simple stupidities coming from Ainslie: anyone can repeat them and see that I am correct about what I claim. And I definitely DO STILL MAINTAIN that Ainslie is a liar who gets others to lie for her (Donovan Martin) and I have documented these lies for anyone to see. The Quantum magazine schematic does what I say it does, the "found" circuit that Steve Weir analyzed is NOT the circuit that was in the box for the Quantum magazine trials, the later "papers" are full of fabricated lying "data" and false claims, and Ainslie herself is so tangled up in her own lies that she cannot keep facts straight at all.

Quote

You will recall that the reason this experimental evidence was ever required, was to support an eccentric field model - that proposed that all matter was based on a magnetic dipole.  That proposal conforms to the properties required for the Higgs Boson.  The quest from hereon in will be to work with that model rather than waste more time on those experiments which, at their best, are not nearly as usable as is the potential exposed by this model.  However, before this chapter is entirely closed - we'll be running those tests as detailed in our protocol thread.  Then hopefully - we'll work with the argument at the heart of that field model.  I can't wait.  These past 13 years have been a departure that it would really have been better to avoid.  The more so as our academics no longer seem to care about measured evidence.  They prefer their own science which is no longer based on experimental proof.  In any event, the fact is that the potential in these electrical applications are BORING compared to the potential in working with the field directly.


Kindest regards
Rosie

Ainslie never even heard of a Higgs Boson when she wrote her "field model" which is nothing more than a bunch of deluded ignorant cartoons. She cannot even reproduce her own claimed data when she is being watched to keep her honest.... she proved that amply in August. Her "papers" are full of fabrications and errors and delusions. 

I can hardly wait for Ainslie to produce some more actual data. However, I think she's learned her lesson: any report that is of sufficient quality to allow reproduction will also show, just as in the past, that she is wrong, utterly and completely wrong, and may, in fact, show ONCE AGAIN that she deliberately falsified data and presented it for publication, like the Figure 3 scopeshot (and others.)

I am really getting sick and tired of Ainslie claiming that the Quantum circuit performs as stated in the article, and insulting me over my analysis of it. I AM CORRECT, and this has been proven over and over many times. Now that she is invoking the good name of Steve Weir in an attempt to support her claims and her insults against me..... I am really angry. Steve made no such determination as she claims about the Quantum magazine article; his analysis was of a completely different circuit that could NOT have been used in 2002 since it contains a chip manufactured in 2007. Ainslie lies about and even distorts the meaning of the help she receives, when anyone can check the facts for themselves. How, then, are we to believe ANY of her claims, made without a shred of support, of testing by BP, SASOL, and those other alphabet agencies ten or twelve or fourteen years ago, when they cannot be checked by any means? We cannot and should not believe them, that much is certain.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 09:41:39 AM
Here's another laughable set of lies and libels, from someone else who cannot get his facts straight.

Where is all this new and expensive equipment I'm supposed to be collecting? GMeast cannot support his claim with facts and references.

Where is an _earlier_ demonstration of Mylow's fishing line drive than mine? Sterling Allen even acknowledged that I was the first "replicator" of Mylow's motor, but he weaseled and wouldn't give me the prize he offered, because my replication wasn't OU. Never mind that I did it the same way as Mylow, that it was a true and precise replication of all the important features, never mind that Mylow's wasn't OU either ....

Yes, some people did video analysis that showed the fishing line in Mylow's vids at about the same time but these weren't demonstrations or replications like I performed, and they were widely challenged by the usual flock of believing sheep. Not until I actually demonstrated that the fishing line drive would work across the room and even around corners did it finally sink in that Mylow was a cynical fraudster.

Again, GMeast cannot support his claims about my role in the Mylow debunk with facts and references.

Neither can he support his claims about his own apparatus with good and properly performed measurements and calorimetry. He is simply emitting his usual verbal flatulence and cannot actually refute me in any regard, nor can he provide incontrovertible support for his own silly claims.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 02:07:31 PM
The Quantum magazine article clearly states:

Quote
This article describes the precise circuit, as depicted in Figure 1, that is used to expose this benefit in transient energy.


And the Figure 1 schematic has been given here and elsewhere many times. But as I and many others have proven, over and over, that circuit cannot make the claimed short ON duty cycle. Ainslie whines and moans about this, forgetting that anyone can build it and see for themselves that she is lying, baldly and blatantly, about this circuit's performance.

One may wonder, therefore, why that precise circuit as depicted in Figure 1 was NOT used subsequently, and was instead replaced, sometime AFTER MAY OF 2007, with a completely different circuit, the one that Steve Weir analyzed from the photographs. A completely different circuit that:
1) operates at a much much higher frequency than the original Quantum circuit;
2) contains only a single adjustable potentiometer instead of the two depicted in the "precise circuit" of the Quantum article;
3) contains a DIFFERENT MOSFET, the IRFP450, instead of the very different IRFPG50 that Ainslie has always... ALWAYS.... claimed they used;
4) contains a 555 timer chip manufactured in May of 2007, proving that the circuit in the box could not have been used for any of Ainslie's published or posted data;
5) contains many other components such as chokes and diodes that were never mentioned in any of Ainslie's material;
6) is essentially a "replication" of Glen Lettenmeier's circuit performance parameters.

Indeed one may wonder... or may simply conclude that the more knowledgeable members of Ainslie's "team" knew and understood the problems with the "precise circuit in Figure 1" and chose to use Glen's circuit instead... since it makes waveforms that Ainslie approved at the time.

Ainslie has never adequately explained these discrepancies, instead preferring to libel me and her other critics, but never, NEVER providing any evidence or proof of her ridiculous and indeed insane assertions. For years in this forum she even claimed that the box was LOST, when it in fact was in her possession the entire time, even including her several moves of household. Somebody modified that box after May of 2007.... it was never "lost" at all, that is just another one of her and Martin's lies, constructed so that she could continue with her dog-and-pony show without providing evidence. But now her "finding" of the box has backfired, because the photos show the "smoking gun" of the circuit and the date code on the timer chip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 04, 2014, 03:33:12 AM
Is Rose actually claiming that Mylow did indeed have a free energy magnet motor?  Even after he admitted his fakery?  Even after TK and other smart guys here on OU proved it was faked?  I was one of the folks that enhanced a still shot from his video clearly showing the fishing line to the motor on his couch.  Sterling banned me from his site for pointing this out.

So, if she is now claiming that Mylow was not showing fakery, and she is now claiming that her original results were indeed more output than in, what are we to believe?

I know what I believe.  Rose has to be smart enough to know that we all know she is lying right?  What is her point then?

What might happen if Rose hooked her unit up to Mylow's motor?  Would it cause a rift in the space/time continuium?  That might be dangerous.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: gmeast on January 04, 2014, 07:03:24 AM
The Quantum magazine article clearly states:
 

And the Figure 1 schematic has been given here and elsewhere many times. But as I and many others have proven, over and over, that circuit cannot make the claimed short ON duty cycle. Ainslie whines and moans about this, forgetting that anyone can build it and see for themselves that she is lying, baldly and blatantly, about this circuit's performance.

One may wonder, therefore, why that precise circuit as depicted in Figure 1 was NOT used subsequently, and was instead replaced, sometime AFTER MAY OF 2007, with a completely different circuit, the one that Steve Weir analyzed from the photographs. A completely different circuit that:
1) operates at a much much higher frequency than the original Quantum circuit;
2) contains only a single adjustable potentiometer instead of the two depicted in the "precise circuit" of the Quantum article;
3) contains a DIFFERENT MOSFET, the IRFP450, instead of the very different IRFPG50 that Ainslie has always... ALWAYS.... claimed they used;
4) contains a 555 timer chip manufactured in May of 2007, proving that the circuit in the box could not have been used for any of Ainslie's published or posted data;
5) contains many other components such as chokes and diodes that were never mentioned in any of Ainslie's material;
6) is essentially a "replication" of Glen Lettenmeier's circuit performance parameters.

Indeed one may wonder... or may simply conclude that the more knowledgeable members of Ainslie's "team" knew and understood the problems with the "precise circuit in Figure 1" and chose to use Glen's circuit instead... since it makes waveforms that Ainslie approved at the time.

Ainslie has never adequately explained these discrepancies, instead preferring to libel me and her other critics, but never, NEVER providing any evidence or proof of her ridiculous and indeed insane assertions. For years in this forum she even claimed that the box was LOST, when it in fact was in her possession the entire time, even including her several moves of household. Somebody modified that box after May of 2007.... it was never "lost" at all, that is just another one of her and Martin's lies, constructed so that she could continue with her dog-and-pony show without providing evidence. But now her "finding" of the box has backfired, because the photos show the "smoking gun" of the circuit and the date code on the timer chip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4)


OOOOHHHH ... "Date Code". You're my hero sleuth. I can't tell you how much fun it is to watch you go crazy over the nonsense claims and accusations you make. You just get so frenzied ... like you're saving the world or something or made some great discovery. You are insignificant. It's entertaining for sure though. You are truly a psychotic wreck and narcissistic prick. You can just sense your cranial pressure building .... POP! and R.I.P.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 04, 2014, 08:02:25 AM
Oh, so now you are deliberately antagonizing me with insults, in the hope that I will have a cerebral aneurism, POP, and die? Remarkable. Some might call that attempted internet murder!

Never the less, troll sycophant idiot GMeast, the date code is on the chip. This is REALITY. Take a look up above! Do you deny that that is a photograph of the 555 chip that is presently in Ainslie's box? Do you deny that it has the numbers on it that it has? Do you deny that that is a date code? Did you check the reference? I even gave the link to how to decode STMicro date codes. The 555 timer chip was manufactured in May of 2007, there is no doubt about that. And there is absolutely no doubt that the box has been altered! Look at the pictures. It no longer contains the Quantum Magazine circuit, many components are obviously disconnected (and didn't appear at all in the Quantum article's schematic) and it doesn't even use the "right" mosfet. Instead of whining your insulting posts why don't you LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE and explain or refute it if you can. But you cannot.

Quote
Hi Guys,

Our Little TK has risen from the dead and is back lurking on his Hate Thread at OU.com.  And being the little fairy that he is, he's parading his usual amateurish sleuthing skills in loud screams that would, typically, be the envy of your average Banshee.  Apparently there's some chip included in our apparatus that was manufactured in 2007.  I have NO idea what the significance of that chip is.  I have never altered nor changed any aspect of that apparatus.  I simply do not have the skill set.  Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has there been any REASON to change anything at all - as we have quite simply not used that demonstration model since 2003.  So.  I challenge the ALLEGATION that this chip was only manufactured in 2007.  If it's true then through a miracle of no mean dimension - it has somehow assimilated itself onto our apparatus.  His authority for this claim is about as comprehensive as his claim that I authored this post. http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg5034.html#msg5034 (http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=11862f7a64114b6195683ba2420be01b&/topic,2311.msg5034.html#msg5034)  Effectively I would be more inclined to believe this IF and ONLY IF we had a full report on the subject by that chip manufacturer.  My eyes are not the best but I see too that he interprets an '8' on the last digit?  Not sure that this is right.  BUT.  In either event ... SO WHAT?

Here again Ainslie admits her ignorance and lack of research skills, even though I cited the reference for the date code in the photo analysis above. She pretends to talk about circuitry but cannot even identify a 555 timer chip ON HER OWN PHOTOGRAPH.  She also again LIES BLATANTLY claiming the box was not altered or used since 2003.

SO WHAT? It proves that Ainslie is an abject liar, and ignorant of her topic to boot, that is "so what". A chip that was made in 2007, placed in a circuit to make Glen Lettenmeier's waveforms and frequencies, has nothing to do with the Quantum article of 2002 or the data therein.

Quote
Surely?  The requirement here is to disprove Papers 1, 2 & 3 - on the bases of those claims.  And more to the point - with a presentation that is at least as comprehensive and articulate as is presented in those papers.

This has been done, over and over again. Ainslie refuses to look at the disproofs and refutations, preferring to insult and wheedle and condemn things she has never even examined or thought about seriously. She also refuses to recognize that HER OWN DATA disprove her claims soundly.

Quote
In effect the call is on them all to do their own draw down tests.  THEN.  PUBLISH THOSE RESULTS.  Sadly and for reasons that entirely elude me - they avoid this like the plague.

Here Ainslie lies again, or perhaps displays her overweening arrogant willfull ignorance and denial of facts again. I have performed, posted and discussed MORE and MORE COMPREHENSIVE drawdown tests than Ainslie ever has. Her ignorance, her willfull ignoring of my work and my data and my video explanations does not make them "go away" or cancel what they contain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BK4rx01INY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BK4rx01INY)

We have never seen, to this date, ANY DATA on battery drawdowns from Ainslie. None at all. Just claims without any support.

Quote
  TK - all of them -  ALL those detractors and disclaimants - employ and enjoy sloppy experimental standards - undefined terminologies - badly constructed circuits with little or no relevance to the circuits under discussion - appalling measurement protocols.

This is incredibly false. Ainslie doesn't know the standard terminology of her topic. The depths of her ignorance are preserved in her own words in many posts. She even thinks a Watt and a Joule are the same thing. As noted above she cannot even identify a 555 timer chip. The famous Box is a rat's nest, as anyone can see from her photos. The 5-mosfet device violates every principle of mosfet amplifier circuit layout and construction. Her "protocols" are childish at best and nonexistent most of the time: she just turns knobs and fiddles about. The circuits I and Poynt99 have examined are the _exact_ circuits that she herself has published, all of them, and other variants, and we have _real data_ on those circuits. The circuits we made produce the _exact_ waveforms that Ainslie herself has posted in her forum posts and manuscripts. Below I will attach her, and then my, versions of the current Box circuit layout, so that the reader may judge and "make up your own damn mind" as to the veracity of Ainslie's current accusations and rants. I will also attach a real graph of real time-temperature data, obtained and presented properly, in stark contrast to Ainslie's silly methods.

Quote
  And they yet have the temerity to ASSUME that this is adequate for purposes of denial.  And MOST SADLY - it appears that they're right.  NO ONE challenges their authority.  I've said it often.  It is a DISGRACE to science and the quest for discovery. 


And yet not Ainslie, nor anyone else, can refute my analyses or support her claims. The DISGRACE is that Ainslie has returned "from the dead" with her denials of reality and her continuing claims of "overunity" from a vastly INEFFICIENT mosfet circuit.

Quote
What is at stake here is the rare proof of measured evidence of Over Unity.  That's a BIG claim.  It needs a skilled and reasoned refutation.  What's been put on the table to counter this is very far from adequate - has very little relevance to science and is promoted by despicable personalities who are compulsively unable to deny their need to bully old women.

Kindest regards
Rosie

And yet... the results and analyses that we have presented can be repeated by anyone with the skills and equipment. Our results can be solidly confirmed by anyone who tries. But what about Ainslie's? How to go about reproducing the fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot that is at the heart of her "rare proof of measured evidence of Over Unity"? She herself has shown that this scopeshot is false, but she can't even think past that to realize that the claims based on the scopeshot are therefore untenable... and unrepeatable. Ainslie has no conception of what real Science is about, nor does she understand the Scientific Method or scientific communication. She even refuses to learn the standard language of science: mathematics.

Bully old women, what a laugh. Should she be held to some other standard because she's an old woman? I don't think so. First she pretends to be a scientist, then when she is criticised for sloppy work, falsification of data and unsupported, wrong, claims.... she claims to be a bullied old woman. Cue the tiny violins, my heart weeps for her. The record proves that she is an insulting, hypocritical and ignorant internet poster, no matter what her  or age might be. Some of her posts might have been made by a potty mouth 8 year old.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 06:46:25 AM
You know, it's a funny thing. People -- mostly Ainslie sycophants with no skill, credentials, capabilities or understanding of their own -- want to disrespect me, libel me, complain about my lack of technical knowledge and skills.... yet these same people will not analyze and dissect any of my videos or forum posts, in order to refute me with facts, checkable references or demonstrations of their own. Why not? I know why not: they CANNOT. After all, I always provide enough information for anyone to check my work, and I'm certainly unpopular amongst that crowd. So why don't they do their due diligence, like CHECKING THE DATE CODE on the chip in Ainslie's box for themselves? I know why: when they cannot support their contentions against me, they just wind up looking silly, like GMYeast. But if they don't even _try_ to refute me or provide specific information about what they object to, there's nothing to contend with. They can continue making accusations and claims without evidence... since you can't prove "no evidence" to be wrong.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Grimer on January 05, 2014, 07:48:56 AM
I sympathise TK. I know how it feels.  ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 10:16:57 AM
I sympathise TK. I know how it feels.  ;)

You must be referring to your water power law work from many years ago, because lately, I'd put you pretty strongly in the "claims without evidence" camp, when you aren't actually in the "supporters of claimants who don't provide evidence" camp next door.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 11:21:01 AM
I see the whining Ainslie is still trying to insult and denigrate, without actually addressing ANY of the very strong points I've made in my posts or my videos. She also lies about my videos, but after all, by her own admission she doesn't watch them. She is too ignorant to evaluate or even pretend to understand what's going on and she somehow thinks that my demonstrations aren't logical, scientific or organized, or something. What an utter fool she is! I challenge her, ONCE AGAIN, to take any one of my videos and refute it, or tell us just how it's not clear, how it doesn't apply, how it's not scientific. Here, try these ones for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rgB3WlXtU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rgB3WlXtU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0DziLllc0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0DziLllc0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vm2ZTDUyyA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vm2ZTDUyyA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jENARrROGs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jENARrROGs)

Any questions? Do we think Ainslie might benefit from watching videos like these?

And apparently Ainslie believes there is no such thing as a "mosfet", since she seems to think that capitalization of the acronym is necessary. One can cite literally millions of instances in the literature where the lower-case is used. But since she thinks it's so important... there is no such thing as a MOSFET, either, Ainslie troll: the part is a Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor, and if I ever see her refer to it as a MOSFET again, without typing it out fully... I will report her to the Grammar Police (again).

Lol. What a story. Ainslie cannot refute a single point that any of us critics have made -- she cannot even verify a Date Code or hazard a reasonable explanation for it -- so she just lies and insults, over and over again. She has neither the eyesight nor the vision to grasp what's right in front of her face.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 11:33:50 AM
Compare my video demos to what Ainslie posts as a demonstration, after months of preparation and promises:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9IRONEArVU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9IRONEArVU)

The audio is so bad because the "cameraman" is holding a finger over the cellphone's microphone! How's that for "obfuscation" !!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: markdansie on January 05, 2014, 12:02:29 PM
I admire rosemary for having a go at a free energy device. However I do not admire her behavior in not accepting the reality she has fallen well short of demonstrating anything that comes close to overunity. The academic world has closed the doors on this and the real problem is the lack of qualifications from an electronics and measurement perspective. I intend to give this no further publicity at conferences or at Revolution_Green.com as it was all over game set and match a few months ago.
Mylow is one of the most famous tricksters claiming a free energy device. TK was among many who early called it what it was which was a fake. He was busted red handed using fishing lines. Many others are now being made accountable through the courts or are serving time like the another South African Mike Brady.
Please do not get all bitter and twisted over this TK as those who criticize you do not count and only have a few of the true believers still following like lost sheep. Anyone with a reasonable amount of electronics or even science experience has long lost interest and quite frankly does not care.
I am called many names, and even a demon by those who try an promote, profit from false free energy claims. Wear the criticisms with a badge of honor, and be proud you are not only true to yourself but speak volumes to the 99% rational population. Its like trying to convert extreme religious factions into believers of another faith. You will never succeed.
I backed of covering Rosemary as she was ill and very few have any faith in her abilities to understand what is really going on. It has been my experience that the poor researchers and the ones that fail only look selectively at data that supports their hypothesis and will not let go even if the smoking gun is staring them in the face
I am sure I will face anotehr public flogging in some irrelevant forums only to further grow my reputation. Just like when Sterling goes of frothing at the mouth about me it just introduces me to a larger audience. So enjoy life and stop bashing your head against the brick wall,. Let Rosemary just fade into the background like the hundreds before her. Let her live in peace with her beliefs and faith.
Kind Regards
Mark 





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 12:44:40 PM
Here's a little quiz. True, or false? Anyone can participate, but I request that answers be supported with evidence.


1. The Figure 3 scopeshot cannot be reproduced using the schematic and setup claimed by Ainslie and Donovan Martin in the manuscripts posted under their names. Yet the major claims of the manuscripts depend on conclusions drawn from this and similar -- also non-reproducible, invalid -- scopeshots.

2. The Quantum magazine published schematic cannot produce the short ON time duty cycle claimed in the article.

3. The recently found Quantum magazine apparatus contains a 555 timer chip that was manufactured in May of 2007, along with a different part number mosfet,  and other parts not found in the original schematic.

4. The "box" circuit diagrammed by Steve Weir differs substantially and significantly from the Quantum magazine article circuit, both in performance and construction.

5. Ainslie attempted to cover up the "mistake" that led to the "Q-array" of the 4  miswired mosfets, after the release of her first video demonstration in 2009. She lied about the schematic in use and even told .99 that she wished she could have continued the deception longer. Over 400 forum posts here alone discussed the WRONG CIRCUIT, with her conscious knowledge that she was deceiving everyone.

6. Ainslie repeatedly claimed that she "did not post that video", referring to the video of the first demonstration that she posted to one of her four YouTube accounts.

7. Ainslie and her co-conspirator Donovan Martin both claimed that the apparatus was sent off somewhere and never returned.

8. The postings of the two manuscripts on Rossi's blog contain different schematics purporting to describe the same apparatus. In some other versions the schematics agree with each other... but not with the reality of the apparatus as she used it.

9. Neither of those schematics is actually correct, because Ainslie and her crew always used a different location for the Black FG lead than is shown on those schematics.

10. Ainslie's own data show clearly that her batteries do discharge over the course of several days of experimentation, contrary to her claims.


Hint: I have repeatedly posted references and other proofs that show that each of the above statements is TRUE. Can anyone contradict me by proving that any of them are FALSE?




Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 01:02:23 PM
Hi Mark, we crossed posts there.

I would gladly leave her to her peace... but she refuses to cease and desist with her insults and libels against me (and you, and Sterling, and Stefan, and .99, and just about everyone else who has ever criticized her). And she's got a couple of sock-puppet sycophants who parrot her insults and add their own filth to the mix as well. She offended me greatly with many of her libels and her homophobic slurs and her threats, and as long as she persists I will stand up for myself and my work. I will not tolerate people lying about me or misrepresenting my work, even if they are doing it on an obscure and silly blog that contains nothing else of significance. Not only that, I am proud of my expensive education, and I have credentials that I worked hard for and earned at great expense, and my teachers and advisors were people at the top of their fields. Ainslie is an uneducated barbarian who thinks that reading Gary Zukov's popular book constitutes a physics education. I will not sit still for insults and disrespect from overweeningly arrogant and ignorant fools like Ainslie. Besides.... I've got some time on my hands, and it's kind of fun seeing what she comes up with next, how far down her own throat she can stick her foot, like in the August fiasco "demo" of incompetence and ignorance. She learned one lesson then: never give actual data or details, because they _will_ be examined and fabrications will be uncovered. So now we just get claims from her, no data or descriptions at all, and that's all we will be getting in the future.

Thanks for the note, I'm glad you are still watching. Look at it as sport, because that's really all it is. As you note, from a scientific and technical aspect she has been utterly put down, long ago, and all that is left of her "work" and her "thesis" is a twitching mess, full of holes, contradictions, falsehood and fabrications.

Cheers--
--TK

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Grimer on January 05, 2014, 02:33:53 PM

You must be referring to your water power law work from many years ago, because lately, I'd put you pretty strongly in the "claims without evidence" camp, when you aren't actually in the "supporters of claimants who don't provide evidence" camp next door.

LOL. Err ... I would prefer you called them hypotheses. After all Avagadro didn't have any evidence and Mendeleev's system wasn't exactly free of holes.


I bet Newlands kicked himself for not having the intestinal fortitude to stick to his guns when he was being mocked and howled down.

Had he done so we would now know it as the Newlands system.


No, I am not referring merely to the discovery of the equations of state for water vapour but my whole body of work both published and unpublished (i.e. internal notes of the Road Research Laboratory, now TRRL and the Building Research Station, now BRE).

One thing we can say about Rosemary. We know who she is. She doesn't hide behind a stupid anagram.

You claim to have all these wonderful qualifications but where is the evidence? You could be a complete bullshitter.

I believe you in spite of the lack of evidence for the same reason I believed Mylow because I believe in trusting people until I am given good reason not to.



Edit: Incidentally , the work on water vapour was done after I retired. I can't recall offhand exactly when but if it were forty years ago I would now be over 100. Though my mother lived to 102 and I hope to emulate her I can assure you that I'm not that old.


Trust me. ;-)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 06:50:20 PM
Frank, the very real evidence for whatever "qualifications" I have can be found in my posts and my many YT videos. I use YT as my "lab notebook" as well as for instructional and demonstration videos. Anyone can repeat anything I do for themselves; the things I post on this forum can be confirmed and are supported by evidence that is checkable by anyone willing to do the homework. If there is anything I have _ever_ posted, anywhere, that you think is lacking empirical support please point it out to me specifically and I will do my best to correct the omission. When I speculate or hypothesize I hope that I always indicate it clearly, and when I satirize I hope it's obvious, even to you.

Now... let's see if any of that applies to the "known" Rosemary Ainslie. Does it, or not?

The reasons certain people wish to remain anonymous on the internet should be clear to you, Frank. But there are plenty of people reading this post who know exactly who I am, how to reach me, where I live, etc. Just because you don't know me, doesn't mean that I am not known. Ainslie has stalked me off of the internet and on it, by calling and emailing people who she thinks might know me, and she has threatened me, in addition to stating her insane beliefs that I have somehow had something to do with breakins and computer hacking at her walled compound in Cape Town. Do you want a paranoid, unstable, clearly mentally disturbed person with an axe to grind, even one a world away, to know just where YOU live and where you bake your bread?


Why don't you answer the true-false quiz? Don't you need the extra credit? And why do I need to "trust you"? Is there some question about you that I must take on faith, that you can't or won't prove unequivocally? Are you that unreliable that I must be exhorted to "trust you" in order to believe your words? Nobody need "trust" me: they can simply see for themselves. As Gary H. says: Make up your own damn mind.

That gets another rofl.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 06, 2014, 12:21:33 AM
Do you see the kind of pitiful lying she's engaging in now?

1. The Figure 3 scopeshot cannot be reproduced using the schematic and setup claimed by Ainslie and Donovan Martin in the manuscripts posted under their names. Yet the major claims of the manuscripts depend on conclusions drawn from this and similar -- also non-reproducible, invalid -- scopeshots.

Quote
Utter nonsense.  We replicated these PRECISE numbers publicly late last year under the watchful eyes of Steve Weir.

ROFL! Everybody that watched that demonstration knows that Ainslie COULD NOT produce those "precise numbers" at all. This is on PERMANENT RECORD that can be checked by anyone.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q)


2. The Quantum magazine published schematic cannot produce the short ON time duty cycle claimed in the article.
Quote
Possibly.  But it's IRRELEVANT.  Who cares?  The actual apparatus has been technically evaluated to do what is claimed.

No, it is not IRRELEVANT that a publication exists with FALSE SCHEMATICS and which makes FALSE CLAIMS about "the precise circuit" used. It is NOT IRRELEVANT that many people tried to reproduce that work, using the published schematic, and wasted many many hours of time and effort doing so. It is also NOT TRUE that the Quantum circuit was "technically evaluated to do what is claimed." Evidence, remember? There exists NO EVIDENCE supporting Ainslie's claim of "technical evaluation" of the Quantum magazine article circuit... except the work that was done by me and many others showing it could NOT produce the claimed duty cycle reported in the article.
The appropriate reference here is the Quantum article itself, where one can see Ainslie claiming that the "precise circuit" must be used to obtain her claimed effects.

3. The recently found Quantum magazine apparatus contains a 555 timer chip that was manufactured in May of 2007, along with a different part number mosfet,  and other parts not found in the original schematic.
Quote
I simply do not believe this and won't.  Not until I see a comment from the manufacturers.  I have changed NOTHING.  I'm not capable.  And there was NO REASON to change anything.  EVER. To the best of my knowledge that apparatus has not been used since 2003.  This is pure fabrication.  Very much in line with those posts that you CLAIMED were authored by me but were your own paltry efforts.  If I can find it I'll post a link.

Ainslie lies when she accuses me of altering ANY of her posts, or claiming something that I wrote was written by her. The link she  pretends to provide goes nowhere, so I have no idea what she is talking about.
And it makes no difference whatever what Ainslie "believes". The chip has the date code that it has, and if Ainslie doesn't believe it... maybe she should do some research on her own to find out. But that is contrary to Ainslie's philosophy.
This statement of hers here is enough, on its own, to condemn Ainslie as a bald-faced liar, overweeningly arrogant and incapable of doing her own research. The STMicro company date codes are available to anyone who searches for them... and it was Steve Weir himself who first gave me the information about that chip's date code, after I asked him about it. I subsequently confirmed the STMicro date code from several other sources. Ainslie is lying, plain and simple, and doesn't even have the integrity to CHECK A REFERENCE which proves that she is doing so.


http://application-notes.digchip.com/005/5-9794.pdf (http://application-notes.digchip.com/005/5-9794.pdf)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 06, 2014, 01:18:38 AM
4. The "box" circuit diagrammed by Steve Weir differs substantially and significantly from the Quantum magazine article circuit, both in performance and construction. 
 
Quote
The 'box' was constructed to enable a variety of circuits.  The Quantum article simple published an 'extrapolation' of that circuit used for the Quantum paper.

The Quantum paper specifies "the precise circuit" to be used, in so many words ... but that "precise circuit" is not now in the "box" AT ALL, only remnants of it. The circuit in the "box" now is RADICALLY DIFFERENT from the circuit published under her name and has nothing to do with that earlier circuit... at all. Ainslie simply lies when she claims it does.
The reference here is Steve Weir's reconstruction of the circuit in the box now, and the Quantum article schematic. Look for yourselves. Build and test.... you will see the differences immediately. The circuit in the box NOW doesn't even contain the mosfet part that Ainslie has always specified: IRFPG50, but instead contains the very different IRFP450. Ainslie lies when she claims this box hasn't been altered since 2003, as is PROVEN by her own photographs.

5. Ainslie attempted to cover up the "mistake" that led to the "Q-array" of the 4  miswired mosfets, after the release of her first video demonstration in 2009. She lied about the schematic in use and even told .99 that she wished she could have continued the deception longer. Over 400 forum posts here alone discussed the WRONG CIRCUIT, with her conscious knowledge that she was deceiving everyone. 

Quote
No 'mistake'.  We attempted to HOLD BACK on a release of the actual circuit until we'd managed academic accreditation of both that circuit and the consequent oscillation.  Our concern was that Glen Lettenmaier and others would try and STEAL authorship as they attempted on our Quantum circuit.  In point of fact our Poynty resolved this dilemma to our entire satisfaction.  After his exposure there would be NONE who would claim it was NOT designed by ourselves.

The FACT that the miswiring was initially an inadvertent mistake is PROVEN by the cartoon diagrams in the second daft manuscript which pretend to explain her "thesis" as it relates to the experimental procedure. The cartoons show the Q1 and Q2 mosfets in STRICT PARALLEL, all sources connected together. Ainslie probably didn't actually realize this "mistake" for some time, perhaps not even until .99 discovered it and revealed it publicly.
The FACT of Ainslie's attempts at cover-up are well known and even acknowledged by her. This is amazing: she lied, mislead and continued to try to do so, long after many people told her that there was something wrong since their replication attempts didn't behave like her scopeshots indicated. She LIED, blatantly and outrageously, for nearly a solid MONTH, over 400 forum posts, discussing the WRONG CIRCUIT. Either she lied at the beginning of that period, or the end, when she claimed to know about it already. These are FACTS and I've provided the references many times. Ainslie made material misrepresentations of the schematic used, and got Donovan Martin to lie for her multiple times.

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

6. Ainslie repeatedly claimed that she "did not post that video", referring to the video of the first demonstration that she posted to one of her four YouTube accounts. 

Quote
In all my life - I have NEVER posted any youtube video anywhere at all.  I do not know how it's done.  I rely on others to do this.  It's a failing that I don't usually bring to public attention.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g/videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g/videos)
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont/videos)
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising (https://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising)

Any questions? Here are three of Ainslie's YouTube accounts, with many videos that SHE HERSELF uploaded.  It is of course a VIOLATION of YT's terms of service to let someone else use one's account logins. The earlier demo video, with all the lies and smoking guns, has been removed... also by Ainslie herself... but still exists on my channel for anyone to view. Check the location of the Black FG lead in that video, and you will see another one of Ainslie's lies... because it is at the Common Battery Negative, as it is in every other available photo of any of Ainslie's apparatuses.

7. Ainslie and her co-conspirator Donovan Martin both claimed that the apparatus was sent off somewhere and never returned.
Quote
No idea what you're on about.  We had a second demo set made as a duplicate of our own - which was shipped to ABB Research in North Carolina - for Colin Bowler.  THAT was the kit that was NEVER RETURNED AND FOREVER LOST.  Our own apparatus was first lost and then FOUND.

Where is the evidence for these claims? Nowhere. Not a shipping receipt, not a photo, nothing. We only have the word of a PROVEN LIAR that any of this ever happened. We have Ainslie claiming that the apparatus was LOST since 2003.... but it has been altered at least twice, the latest time sometime AFTER May of 2007. This is proven beyond doubt by the photographs of the contents of the box, and Ainslie's own admission that she sent some components of the box to Aaron and/or Ashtweth for their own researches... sometime around 2009.

8. The postings of the two manuscripts on Rossi's blog contain different schematics purporting to describe the same apparatus. In some other versions the schematics agree with each other... but not with the reality of the apparatus as she used it.
Quote
Quite right.  So WHAT?  They address two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES.

So what? The papers lie and don't even agree with each other.... and Ainslie replies "SO WHAT" ??? ? That's pseudoscientific misconduct of the worst kind.

9. Neither of those schematics is actually correct, because Ainslie and her crew always used a different location for the Black FG lead than is shown on those schematics.
Quote
The function generator probes are CORRECTLY detailed for the measurements shown in those waveforms. 

This too is a manifest LIE. The FG Black lead was never located where it is indicated on the schematics. In EVERY photo of Ainslie's apparatus it can be seen at the common ground, NOT the transistor side of the CVR as is proper. The original schematics included with the very first postings of the "papers" showed it, if they showed it at all, at the common ground point, and the schematics weren't changed until AFTER several people pointed out that the location ACTUALLY USED allows a current path to bypass the CVR.

10. Ainslie's own data show clearly that her batteries do discharge over the course of several days of experimentation, contrary to her claims.
Quote
WHY would I claim this when the data contradicts it?  And WHY would I draw attention to this discrepancy in the paper itself if I was trying to HIDE SOMETHING as you're implying?

Why indeed? I know why: it is because Ainslie cannot interpret graphical scope displays and doesn't understand what they actually indicate. Furthermore, anyone can point to many times when Ainslie claimed her batteries did not discharge... but as I have shown previously several times, an inspection of scopeshots that Ainslie posted herself (and which she falsely accuses me and others of "rifling" from her computers, LOL) shows that the battery voltages do decline over the course of several days of testing during which she claims very clearly the exact opposite.


Do you see: Every item in the Little Quiz, she lies about,  and she cannot provide ANY REFERENCES OR EVIDENCE for her continuing series of lies and false claims. While every FACT that I mention is supported by checkable outside references and demonstrations.



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 06, 2014, 01:49:51 AM
A report from STMicro, the application note AN926:

http://application-notes.digchip.com/005/5-9794.pdf (http://application-notes.digchip.com/005/5-9794.pdf)

Here's an image of part of the first page. Note the STMicro logo, compare to the chip in Ainslie's box. Note the date code: one digit for the year, two digits for the week of manufacture. 718 = 2007 (the company did not exist as "STMicro" in 1997) and 18th week: May of 2007.


Now... is there any further doubt in anyone's mind as to the veracity of my assertion that the chip was not manufactured until May of 2007?

And so its presence in the box PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT that Ainslie is lying through her teeth about this box and its history. Liars need perfect memories and perfect knowledge of their topics. Ignorant liars like Ainslie are always uncovered by proper research and logical thinking.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 06, 2014, 02:46:15 AM
Now... continuing on with debunking false claims and libels: Look at the image of "Neo's" post below. Where is there ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that I or Mark Dansie have ever engaged in "women bashing"?  There is none whatsoever.

Ainslie happens to be female, but that has nothing to do with the reasons she is "bashed". She is criticized solely on the merits, or rather lack thereof, of her postings, claims, insults, lies and misrepresentations. She, on the other hand, has repeatedly emitted sexual slurs, innuendos, insults and the like that directly attack the masculinity of her critics, most of whom happen to be male. For example she more than once has referred to TK as a "poor little sod".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod_%28word%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod_%28word%29)

Here's a little video that Ainslie posted to one of her three or four YT accounts. Who is "bashing" whom, and for what s e x or gender?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Grimer on January 06, 2014, 08:08:48 AM
Frank, the very real evidence for whatever "qualifications" I have can be found in my posts and my many YT videos. I use YT as my "lab notebook" as well as for instructional and demonstration videos. Anyone can repeat anything I do for themselves; the things I post on this forum can be confirmed and are supported by evidence that is checkable by anyone willing to do the homework. If there is anything I have _ever_ posted, anywhere, that you think is lacking empirical support please point it out to me specifically and I will do my best to correct the omission. When I speculate or hypothesize I hope that I always indicate it clearly, and when I satirize I hope it's obvious, even to you.

Now... let's see if any of that applies to the "known" Rosemary Ainslie. Does it, or not?

The reasons certain people wish to remain anonymous on the internet should be clear to you, Frank. But there are plenty of people reading this post who know exactly who I am, how to reach me, where I live, etc. Just because you don't know me, doesn't mean that I am not known. Ainslie has stalked me off of the internet and on it, by calling and emailing people who she thinks might know me, and she has threatened me, in addition to stating her insane beliefs that I have somehow had something to do with breakins and computer hacking at her walled compound in Cape Town. Do you want a paranoid, unstable, clearly mentally disturbed person with an axe to grind, even one a world away, to know just where YOU live and where you bake your bread?


Why don't you answer the true-false quiz? Don't you need the extra credit? And why do I need to "trust you"? Is there some question about you that I must take on faith, that you can't or won't prove unequivocally? Are you that unreliable that I must be exhorted to "trust you" in order to believe your words? Nobody need "trust" me: they can simply see for themselves. As Gary H. says: Make up your own damn mind.

That gets another rofl.


Thanks Al. Very illuminating.


When I said "Trust me" that was a light hearted quip taken from one of the Michael Winner ads


Do I want paranoid person with an axe to grind, or even worse an axe, knowing where I live?


Certainly not. I had a few paranoid moments myself when Dr Blackman threatened to hound me.  :)
In the circumstances you have good reason to want to remain anonymous and not reveal more about yourself than a hairy arm.
As for the quality of your electronics stuff but if your exposé of Mylow is anything to go by it must be pretty good.  I presume any progress on the WhipMag is still under wraps.


 
.


[size=78%] [/size]
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Grimer on January 06, 2014, 08:20:29 AM
Now... continuing on with debunking false claims and libels: Look at the image of "Neo's" post below. Where is there ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that I or Mark Dansie have ever engaged in "women bashing"?  There is none whatsoever.

Ainslie happens to be female, but that has nothing to do with the reasons she is "bashed". She is criticized solely on the merits, or rather lack thereof, of her postings, claims, insults, lies and misrepresentations. She, on the other hand, has repeatedly emitted sexual slurs, innuendos, insults and the like that directly attack the masculinity of her critics, most of whom happen to be male. For example she more than once has referred to TK as a "poor little sod".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod_%28word%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod_%28word%29)

Here's a little video that Ainslie posted to one of her three or four YT accounts. Who is "bashing" whom, and for what s e x or gender?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs)
That video is certainly appalling. I sympathise.


I can see you have quite enough on your plate to cope with without attempting the gravity conundrum.


Sorry I suggested it.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: markdansie on January 07, 2014, 03:09:27 AM
I thought I would give Rosemary a mention on my attempt to change the subject


http://revolution-green.com/debunked-thane-heins-regenx-delayed-lenz-shorted-coil-acceleration-effect/ (http://revolution-green.com/debunked-thane-heins-regenx-delayed-lenz-shorted-coil-acceleration-effect/)



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: markdansie on January 07, 2014, 03:35:05 AM
Hi Tk
It seems I am no longer loved. I recieved the following via Skype
I updated the article
http://revolution-green.com/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/ (http://revolution-green.com/rosemary-ainslie-the-end/)



Hi Guys,


it seems that Mark Dansie has joined the battle against Ainslie and has stepped in to assist our Little TK as he falls against the ropes.  No surprise as they share the same employer.  And the same agenda.  And that agenda has nothing to do with the promotion of scientific discovery.  Far from it.  Mark unashamedly denies free energy claims across the board.  This includes Rossi's data that has been independently verified by acknowledged experts in the art.  And that refusal alone is more than enough to destroy his public credibility.  And - from a more personal perspective - his credibility for me was UTTERLY voided when he REFUSED to publish the fact that we'd withdrawn our RETRACTION of the claims in Paper 1 & 2.  So has Sterling.  One would expect a reporter - anyone who professes to comment on science - to, at its least - report on the facts. He/they no longer bother to keep up with the news - especially when that news defeats his/their agenda.  And NO-ONE can accuse him or them of impartiality.  Which under usual circumstances would be the ONLY quality to qualify someone for reporting on anything at all.   Mark recommends that TK shouldn't mention me so that this blog can be forgotten.  Our hit rate at the moment is in excess of 4000 per day and climbing.  IF this is the 'obscurity' he's recommending - then LONG may such obscurity last.


Here's this month's stats alone...


2014-01-01    0    0    0    317    4,260
2014-01-02    0    0    1    340    4,594
2014-01-03    0    5    0    327    4,767
2014-01-04    0    1    3    385    6,493
2014-01-05    0    6    3    400    4,779


So - a small personal message for our Mark Dansie.  Eat your heart out.  The 'obscurity' of our blog gives us a higher hit rate than the entire OU.com forum enjoys on a daily basis.  Who would have thought?  I'm of the opinion that they read here because - unlike you - they want to evaluate the other side of this 'story' that you and TK try to promote as 'truth'.  While the number who post here are slim - the 'hit rate' is nonetheless extraordinary.


Kindest regards
Rosie
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: powercat on January 07, 2014, 12:29:16 PM
Quote
Our hit rate at the moment is in excess of 4000 per day and climbing.


Rosemary that's a big claim, one can only assume it's like all your other claims, you have deliberately lied or at best you have made a measurement error, it's also possible that you are using a third party or some software (Spambot) to produce the figures falsely, you just can't help being deceitful.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 07, 2014, 03:25:21 PM
Most likely the high count is grossly inflated due to the barrage of spam-bots accessing the pages there. Look at their "users online" if you can; 90% are spam bots.

The funny thing is, both her and Chess seem to think that they actually have that many hits from real people.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 07, 2014, 07:20:17 PM
Once again, we see that Ainslie cannot refute any of the criticisms against her claims, so she resorts to more paranoid, false accusations and insults. She now has the data from the manufacturer that she wanted, about the 555 chip's date code.... so she simply forgets about it and will no longer address the issue. She now has seen the links to three of her old YT accounts, with videos that only she could or would post.... so what happened to her denials, her claims that she "never" posted anything to YT?  She has yet again been demonstrated to be a facile, yet transparent, liar.

The fact that she is now "unretracting" the manuscripts, with their Figure 3 and other impossible scopeshots intact, indicates more than ever that she is _falsifying_ data. She has forgotten totally that she and her "team" failed miserably to reproduce those data when they were being watched so they couldn't cheat (in fact she now claims, contrary to all sense, that she "did" reproduce them, when the record clearly shows that she -- or rather her team of "experts" -- failed miserably to do so, in public.). But later scopeshots were produced that do not share the problems in Figure 3: this can only mean that whatever caused the bad data, it was discovered and corrected for those later shots. This means that SOMEONE on the Ainslie team knew that the Figure 3 and similar shots were bad... but they made it into the manuscripts and were used to support the main claims anyway. This constitutes clear and egregious and conscious _fabrication_ of data. Now she wants to "unretract" this fabricated data and has announced her intention to claim several monetary prizes, but has submitted no new data, instead choosing to claim that the earlier data is valid, when it is clearly not ..... this then constitutes pseudoscientific fraud.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: markdansie on January 08, 2014, 01:51:24 PM

Rosemary that's a big claim, one can only assume it's like all your other claims, you have deliberately lied or at best you have made a measurement error, it's also possible that you are using a third party or some software (Spambot) to produce the figures falsely, you just can't help being deceitful.


I think it is not deliberate it is just out of ignorance like her claims.
Kind Regards
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Grimer on January 09, 2014, 01:25:28 AM
...
Where is an _earlier_ demonstration of Mylow's fishing line drive than mine? Sterling Allen even acknowledged that I was the first "replicator" of Mylow's motor, but he weaseled and wouldn't give me the prize he offered, because my replication wasn't OU. Never mind that I did it the same way as Mylow, that it was a true and precise replication of all the important features, never mind that Mylow's wasn't OU either ....

Yes, some people did video analysis that showed the fishing line in Mylow's vids at about the same time but these weren't demonstrations or replications like I performed, and they were widely challenged by the usual flock of believing sheep. Not until I actually demonstrated that the fishing line drive would work across the room and even around corners did it finally sink in that Mylow was a cynical fraudster.
...
What really pissed me off about Mylow was that he had a statue of St Joseph clearly visible in his videos. No doubt to give assurance to people like me that he was being honest. Diabolical - which figures since the devil is the father of lies.


I say, do you think Rosemary is possessed. :D


It would certainly explain her persecution of you and all her lies (allegedly). I added that because I'm in no position to judge her science.


Do you remember that appalling poster who attacked me on the Steorn forum, TK, with multiple references to shit and stuff. I'm sure he was possessed. I felt most uncomfortable - it was really horrid. Fortunately Shawn eventually banned him.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 09, 2014, 02:41:44 AM
I don't think I believe in "possession" in quite the same way you do, Frank. I definitely do believe in evil people, though, and I believe in "evil" as a force or attribute of human consciousness. Externalizing it and anthropomorphizing it into "demons" and a "Satan" as some personal adversary of "Good" .... well, if it helps some people come to grips with what is inside of every human, then fine. A model can be as good as reality for some purposes even if the model is "incorrect".

Ainslie is evil, in my opinion. The evidence for this can be seen in her insulting and disrespecting language, as well as in the manifest lies she has told. Your Satan is the "Father of Lies" after all.

I've given links to three of Ainslie's YouTube accounts, where anyone can see the videos she made, and the descriptions, which carry her inimitable style, and the personal details which describe her. It is a violation of YouTube's terms of service for a person to let other people use one's YT logins. Further, just because someone else may have been sitting at the computer to press the "Enter" key to initiate the upload... Ainslie is nevertheless fully, 100 percent responsible for those things that are uploaded, in her name, on her YT channels. Hence, for her to protest, over and over, as she has been doing lately, that she isn't responsible for them and didn't upload them... is more baldfaced lying, distorting the truth, or whatever you want to call it. Certainly it is NOT the TRUTH for her to claim no responsibility for the videos and the uploads to channels bearing HER NAME and HER CONTACT DETAILS. So there's no need for you to put "allegedly" in there. She has been proven to be a liar, over and over again, and the YT videos on her channels constitute just one set of proofs. The schematics in the various versions of her "papers" are another set of proofs of her lying: the Quantum magazine schematic has been explained over and over as being utterly unable to perform at the specified values, and the two different 5-mosfet schematics posted in her "papers" show the Black FG lead in a location where it was never actually used by Ainslie or her team, and in fact _could not have been used_ due to the groundloop problem that would have existed with her _non-isolatable_ equipment. The month-long deception about the true circuit used, after the earlier demonstration, constitutes another set of proofs of Ainslie lying, continually and repeatedly.


Quote
In all my life - I have NEVER posted any youtube video anywhere at all.  I do not know how it's done.  I rely on others to do this.  It's a failing that I don't usually bring to public attention.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g/videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g/videos)
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont/videos)
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising (https://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising)

A wife who hires a hitman to kill her husband.... may NEVER have fired a gun in her life, may not know how it is done, may RELY ON OTHERS TO DO THIS for her. But morally and legally she is JUST AS RESPONSIBLE, or even more so, than the person who actually pulled the trigger. I can cite case after case where the triggerman got less punishment than the person who hired him. If something is done by your order, in your name, using materials you provide, and it would not have been done without your instigation.... then you are responsible, just as if you yourself performed the entire act. Legally, morally, we all know this to be true. All of us, except Rosemary Ainslie.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: gmeast on January 09, 2014, 08:01:45 AM
I don't think I believe in "possession" in quite the same way you do, Frank. I definitely do believe in evil people, though, and I believe in "evil" as a force or attribute of human consciousness. Externalizing it and anthropomorphizing it into "demons" and a "Satan" as some personal adversary of "Good" .... well, if it helps some people come to grips with what is inside of every human, then fine. A model can be as good as reality for some purposes even if the model is "incorrect".

Ainslie is evil, in my opinion. The evidence for this can be seen in her insulting and disrespecting language, as well as in the manifest lies she has told. Your Satan is the "Father of Lies" after all.

I've given links to three of Ainslie's YouTube accounts, where anyone can see the videos she made, and the descriptions, which carry her inimitable style, and the personal details which describe her. It is a violation of YouTube's terms of service for a person to let other people use one's YT logins. Further, just because someone else may have been sitting at the computer to press the "Enter" key to initiate the upload... Ainslie is nevertheless fully, 100 percent responsible for those things that are uploaded, in her name, on her YT channels. Hence, for her to protest, over and over, as she has been doing lately, that she isn't responsible for them and didn't upload them... is more baldfaced lying, distorting the truth, or whatever you want to call it. Certainly it is NOT the TRUTH for her to claim no responsibility for the videos and the uploads to channels bearing HER NAME and HER CONTACT DETAILS. So there's no need for you to put "allegedly" in there. She has been proven to be a liar, over and over again, and the YT videos on her channels constitute just one set of proofs. The schematics in the various versions of her "papers" are another set of proofs of her lying: the Quantum magazine schematic has been explained over and over as being utterly unable to perform at the specified values, and the two different 5-mosfet schematics posted in her "papers" show the Black FG lead in a location where it was never actually used by Ainslie or her team, and in fact _could not have been used_ due to the groundloop problem that would have existed with her _non-isolatable_ equipment. The month-long deception about the true circuit used, after the earlier demonstration, constitutes another set of proofs of Ainslie lying, continually and repeatedly.


http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g/videos (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g/videos)
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont/videos)
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising (https://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising)

A wife who hires a hitman to kill her husband.... may NEVER have fired a gun in her life, may not know how it is done, may RELY ON OTHERS TO DO THIS for her. But morally and legally she is JUST AS RESPONSIBLE, or even more so, than the person who actually pulled the trigger. I can cite case after case where the triggerman got less punishment than the person who hired him. If something is done by your order, in your name, using materials you provide, and it would not have been done without your instigation.... then you are responsible, just as if you yourself performed the entire act. Legally, morally, we all know this to be true. All of us, except Rosemary Ainslie.


TK, YOU ARE A PSYCHO ... OCD TO THE MAX.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Grimer on January 09, 2014, 08:34:36 AM

TK, YOU ARE A PSYCHO ... OCD TO THE MAX.


No he isn't.


He is a seeker after the truth. And that makes him unpopular with people like you.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 09, 2014, 11:00:03 AM

TK, YOU ARE A PSYCHO ... OCD TO THE MAX.
GMEAST Whatever else TK may or may not be, he has proven himself an excellent experimental scientist.  He uses sound methods to investigate the subjects he is interested in, is willing to be surprised by what what he observes, and shares his methods and results in clear and comprehensive presentations.

We are now more than eleven years past the publication of Ms. Ainslie's magazine article.  In all of that time there has not been a single replication of the heat output energy gain over input electrical energy that she and her collaborators reported.  In all of that time neither Ms. Ainslie nor any of her collaborators have reconciled the absolute proven fact that the  "precise circuit" depicted in that article is incapable of producing the timing also specified in that article as producing the alleged energy gain.  Many experimenters have attempted variations of the circuit and timing and none have obtained her reported gains.  However, TK has reliably demonstrated that the gains reported in the magazine article could easily be the result of Ms. Ainslie misunderstanding the operation of her own test apparatus.  Rather than honestly explore TK explanation to determine if it is the truth, she has engaged in very personal public squabbles.

TK and many others have spent many hours attempting to find out from Ms. Ainslie exactly what circuit was used to obtain the observations that led her and her collaborators to their extraordinary conclusions.  I have myself fully investigated and reported on the timing portion of the apparatus reported in that article.  To this day, no one knows for certain what circuit was used or what measurements were observed.  That fault lies with Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators, not with the replicators, including TK.  In fact of late Ms. Ainslie expresses the view that the "precise circuit" does not matter.  Yet, neither she nor any of her collaborators have shown any configuration that yields the results claimed in that magazine article.

It is now several years since Ms. Ainslie first presented her "Q-Array" circuit, and composed with her collaborators the two papers:  "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity
Measured on Switched Circuit Apparatus", and "Proposed variation to Faradays Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure".  Ms. Ainslie to her credit publicly reproduced her private tests of August 10, 2013 on August 11, 2013 showing that the energy gains that she thought she had obtained with the "Q-Array" fixture were in fact illusions caused by measurement errors.  She showed that the actual heat output from the heating element using the "Q-Array" circuit was only 20% of the energy drawn from the battery.  Also to her credit, she then withdrew the two papers.

Now, with absolutely no new evidence, Ms. Ainslie attempts to reinstate her claims.  These are claims that she and her collaborators proved false in August 2013.  Coincident with that incredible decision, Ms. Ainslie has elected to throw barb after barb against persons who have not only consistently shown their work, but shown their work to be correct.

If as your posts suggest, you believe Ms. Ainslie's claims then I suggest you attempt to replicate her experiments and claimed results, and stop taking cheap shots at people who already have.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 09, 2014, 03:22:30 PM
There are a few psychos on this forum (including one posting in this thread mentioning and with OCD), but TK is certainly not one of them.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 09, 2014, 07:44:20 PM
Thanks for chiming in, Mark E.

The "groundloop" problem is this.

The Negative pole of the battery is used as the common ground reference point for all oscilloscope probes. The primary scope used by Ainslie, the LeCroy WaveJet 324, has all of the probe reference leads connected to the chassis ground, which is connected to the mains ground through the ground pin of the power cord. All scope probe "grounds" or references are connected to chassis and mains ground.
See pages 10 and 11 in the 300 series manual.

http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/manuals/wj300a-gsm_reva.pdf

However, the "ground" or Black output lead from the Function Generator should NOT be connected at this point because doing so allows the FG to bypass the circuit's Current Sense Resistor (CSR or CVR). To allow the CSR to see all the important currents in the circuit the FG Black output lead must be connected on the transistor side of the CSR, not the battery side.

BUT.... on many Function Generators, the Black (BNC shield) output lead is also connected to the chassis ground and the mains ground! This means that a groundloop is formed: the Black FG lead is connected to the scope grounds, back through the Mains ground connection. So, in the claimed Ainslie circuit given in the two daft manuscripts, the scope grounds are on one side of the CSR and the FG ground is on the other side of the CSR, effectively shorting it out. Therefore the CSR will not give reliable readings of the currents in the circuit.

The Function Generator used by Ainslie was the IsoTech GFG 8216a. I can't tell explicitly in the manual whether the chassis ground is permanently connected to the Black (BNC shield) output, but going by the "ground" symbols on each of the BNC connectors I believe it is.

http://www.artisantg.com/info/PDF__496E7374656B5F4746475F38323535415F4D616E75616C.pdf

IF the GFG8216a FG does indeed have its Black output lead connected permanently to chassis and mains ground... then the only way that one may get valid readings from the CSR when connected as shown in the two manuscripts would be to use a ground lift adapter on one or the other of the instruments, to avoid shorting the CSR by the groundloop. No mention of this problem, or the use of a ground lift adapter, is made in the manuscripts. But we know already that the Ainslie team never actually used this connection! They always used the FG Black output lead connected at the common circuit ground, the battery Negative pole.

Tl;dr: All the current data from the scope used in the Ainslie reports is invalid. It was either obtained with an effectively shorted CSR (If they actually used the schematic in the reports) OR it allowed the current path through the FG to bypass the CSR altogether (if they used the same connection they always used in all available photos and demonstrations.) The only way around this difficulty would be for the Ainslie team somehow to show that, for the manuscripts, they did indeed use the connection in the schematics given, AND used either a ground-lift adapter or an isolated FG. Otherwise, all the current data is invalid.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 09, 2014, 11:33:32 PM
Thanks for chiming in, Mark E.

The "groundloop" problem is this. ...

TinselKoala, you are welcome.  During the June 29 demonstration Donovan Martin confirmed what you note:  The Instek function generator black lead connects to the mains earth.  The function generator was connected to the battery instead of the transistors as they documented in their papers.  The function generator debacle is one of the discrepancies between what Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators said they had done and what they actually did that you and others have exposed. 

Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators should be grateful that skilled persons such as yourself and poynt99 have taken so much time to figure out her actual circuits and test configurations.  She should be grateful that you have determined major error sources.  Were Ms. Ainslie to have actually made a discovery, knowing the actual conditions needed to reproduce that discovery would be important to all concerned.

Over these many years Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators have shown that they have not made the discoveries that they have claimed.  Diligent efforts by replicators such as poynt99 and yourself, as well as Ms. Ainslie's own June and August demonstrations have established without any doubt that the thermal energy gains that they thought they had were all illusions.  Those demonstrations probably would never have happened had it not been for you and poynt99.  Whether they acknowledge it or not, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators are deeply in your collective debt.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: gmeast on January 10, 2014, 02:19:13 AM
GMEAST Whatever else TK may or may not be, he has proven himself an excellent experimental scientist.  He uses sound methods to investigate the subjects he is interested in, is willing to be surprised by what what he observes, and shares his methods and results in clear and comprehensive presentations.

We are now more than eleven years past the publication of Ms. Ainslie's magazine article.  In all of that time there has not been a single replication of the heat output energy gain over input electrical energy that she and her collaborators reported.  In all of that time neither Ms. Ainslie nor any of her collaborators have reconciled the absolute proven fact that the  "precise circuit" depicted in that article is incapable of producing the timing also specified in that article as producing the alleged energy gain.  Many experimenters have attempted variations of the circuit and timing and none have obtained her reported gains.  However, TK has reliably demonstrated that the gains reported in the magazine article could easily be the result of Ms. Ainslie misunderstanding the operation of her own test apparatus.  Rather than honestly explore TK explanation to determine if it is the truth, she has engaged in very personal public squabbles.

TK and many others have spent many hours attempting to find out from Ms. Ainslie exactly what circuit was used to obtain the observations that led her and her collaborators to their extraordinary conclusions.  I have myself fully investigated and reported on the timing portion of the apparatus reported in that article.  To this day, no one knows for certain what circuit was used or what measurements were observed.  That fault lies with Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators, not with the replicators, including TK.  In fact of late Ms. Ainslie expresses the view that the "precise circuit" does not matter.  Yet, neither she nor any of her collaborators have shown any configuration that yields the results claimed in that magazine article.

It is now several years since Ms. Ainslie first presented her "Q-Array" circuit, and composed with her collaborators the two papers:  "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity
Measured on Switched Circuit Apparatus", and "Proposed variation to Faradays Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure".  Ms. Ainslie to her credit publicly reproduced her private tests of August 10, 2013 on August 11, 2013 showing that the energy gains that she thought she had obtained with the "Q-Array" fixture were in fact illusions caused by measurement errors.  She showed that the actual heat output from the heating element using the "Q-Array" circuit was only 20% of the energy drawn from the battery.  Also to her credit, she then withdrew the two papers.

Now, with absolutely no new evidence, Ms. Ainslie attempts to reinstate her claims.  These are claims that she and her collaborators proved false in August 2013.  Coincident with that incredible decision, Ms. Ainslie has elected to throw barb after barb against persons who have not only consistently shown their work, but shown their work to be correct.

If as your posts suggest, you believe Ms. Ainslie's claims then I suggest you attempt to replicate her experiments and claimed results, and stop taking cheap shots at people who already have.


Someone may or may not be 'an excellent experimental scientist' (as you put it), but when that person obsesses over 'needing' to crush or destroy someone else, as he does, any admirable qualities are overshadowed by this serious character flaw ... it is tantamount to pouting and stomping his feet in an uncontrolled fit. And to call someone "EVIL" is a little bit over the top ... very immature.


As for if I believe Rosemary Ainslie's claims, and if so why don't I replicate the experiment? I have been familiar with some of the observations made of Inductive Resistor Heater experiments performed by researchers over the course of the past 20 years. Upon learning of Rosiemary Ainslie's work I decided to finally build a variant of here experiment. My YouTube channel has a video slide show of my experiment and the results. I am convinced that there is something to what she claims. Of course TK considers any support for Rosemary Ainslie's claims to be scientific haressy, and so I have become just as Evil (I guess) and guilty by association. That sort of reasoning is childish ... again, very immature.     


Later,


Greg
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2014, 02:35:46 AM
LOL....

No, not by association, but rather, guilty in your own right.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: picowatt on January 10, 2014, 02:40:46 AM

Someone may or may not be 'an excellent experimental scientist' (as you put it), but when that person obsesses over 'needing' to crush or destroy someone else, as he does, any admirable qualities are overshadowed by this serious character flaw ... it is tantamount to pouting and stomping his feet in an uncontrolled fit. And to call someone "EVIL" is a little bit over the top ... very immature.


As for if I believe Rosemary Ainslie's claims, and if so why don't I replicate the experiment? I have been familiar with some of the observations made of Inductive Resistor Heater experiments performed by researchers over the course of the past 20 years. Upon learning of Rosiemary Ainslie's work I decided to finally build a variant of here experiment. My YouTube channel has a video slide show of my experiment and the results. I am convinced that there is something to what she claims. Of course TK considers any support for Rosemary Ainslie's claims to be scientific haressy, and so I have become just as Evil (I guess) and guilty by association. That sort of reasoning is childish ... again, very immature.     


Later,


Greg


Apparently you now no longer believe a battery is necessary to produce your observed "effect" and have considered performing your experiment with $15,000 worth of capacitors in place of the battery.

Would it not be wise to first perform your experiment using one $5 capacitor fed by a DC supply?

It would be quite impressive if your circuit produced more heating in the load for a given power supply I and V than when that same power supply I and V is connected directly to your load resistor.

If necessary, and as I suggested some time ago with regard to the use of a battery, the DC supply can be isolated from your circuit regarding AC (i.e., HF) using inductors.     

PW

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2014, 02:57:23 AM

Someone may or may not be 'an excellent experimental scientist' (as you put it), but when that person obsesses over 'needing' to crush or destroy someone else, as he does, any admirable qualities are overshadowed by this serious character flaw ... it is tantamount to pouting and stomping his feet in an uncontrolled fit. And to call someone "EVIL" is a little bit over the top ... very immature.


As for if I believe Rosemary Ainslie's claims, and if so why don't I replicate the experiment? I have been familiar with some of the observations made of Inductive Resistor Heater experiments performed by researchers over the course of the past 20 years. Upon learning of Rosiemary Ainslie's work I decided to finally build a variant of here experiment. My YouTube channel has a video slide show of my experiment and the results. I am convinced that there is something to what she claims. Of course TK considers any support for Rosemary Ainslie's claims to be scientific haressy, and so I have become just as Evil (I guess) and guilty by association. That sort of reasoning is childish ... again, very immature.     


Later,


Greg
Greg, when discussions degenerate to mud slinging there is little that can be accomplished.  That applies to everyone.  I don't know and I don't care who threw the first punch.  The fighting goes on as long as people keep throwing them.

TK's criticisms of Rosemary Ainslie's: claims, methods, and self-contradictions are scientifically valid.  If you dismiss the information that he or anyone brings to the table because of personal dislike, then you only deny yourself knowledge.

I briefly went through your slide show.  I see that you took efforts to develop an experiment protocol that you believe is sound.  I note that you believe you are seeing possible energy gains of around 25%.  That is very different than Rosemary Ainslie's claims of 16:1 from the magazine article and 10:1 or more from the Q-Array papers.  It is also close enough to 1.0 to want to question the assumptions and test them to make sure the 25% gain is not due to measurement error.  If it is real then you've found something extraordinary.  If there is a different thread where your experiments have been discussed, let me know and I will respond to your experiments there.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: gmeast on January 10, 2014, 05:29:35 AM
Greg, when discussions degenerate to mud slinging there is little that can be accomplished.  That applies to everyone.  I don't know and I don't care who threw the first punch.  The fighting goes on as long as people keep throwing them.

TK's criticisms of Rosemary Ainslie's: claims, methods, and self-contradictions are scientifically valid.  If you dismiss the information that he or anyone brings to the table because of personal dislike, then you only deny yourself knowledge.

I briefly went through your slide show.  I see that you took efforts to develop an experiment protocol that you believe is sound.  I note that you believe you are seeing possible energy gains of around 25%.  That is very different than Rosemary Ainslie's claims of 16:1 from the magazine article and 10:1 or more from the Q-Array papers.  It is also close enough to 1.0 to want to question the assumptions and test them to make sure the 25% gain is not due to measurement error.  If it is real then you've found something extraordinary.  If there is a different thread where your experiments have been discussed, let me know and I will respond to your experiments there.


"Briefly" is NOT good enough. This is the problem with those with TK's narcissistic mind-set .  I don't care about Ainslie's 16:1 or 10:1 or anything else including the Q-Array papers.  My tests have been done multiple times and not only by me. In other forums I have shown tests conducted that take into account the Charge/Discharge efficiency of the battery and charger... the results are the same and there is no measurement error that can account for the results. You have simply found a forum wherein you can be the social misfit bully you most assuredly are in real life. Your intent here is NOT to make any significant contribution to the betterment of mankind and to free humanity from the choke-hold of the energy monopolies ... just like TK, Picowatt, and Poynty-ass. I feel very good about my place in this and my honest motive to help mankind. What can you say toward that end. Oh, by the way ... have you ever heard me ask for money? The answer is "NO"! ... So don't go anywhere down that road. Welcome to the forum ... you have been well indoctrinated by the likes of TK and clan ... AKA: The 3 Stooges. You seem to fit in very well. Congratulations ... mankind will assuredly show their appreciation and gratitude to you for your support of mankind's perpetual enslavement by the energy brokers.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2014, 05:37:16 AM
Still at it?

Consider the "rofl" repeated!


Here's what happened when GMYeast tried to 'replicate' Ainslie's Quantum magazine circuit.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2014, 06:01:27 AM

"Briefly" is NOT good enough. This is the problem with those with TK's narcissistic mind-set .  I don't care about Ainslie's 16:1 or 10:1 or anything else including the Q-Array papers.  My tests have been done multiple times and not only by me. In other forums I have shown tests conducted that take into account the Charge/Discharge efficiency of the battery and charger... the results are the same and there is no measurement error that can account for the results. You have simply found a forum wherein you can be the social misfit bully you most assuredly are in real life. Your intent here is NOT to make any significant contribution to the betterment of mankind and to free humanity from the choke-hold of the energy monopolies ... just like TK, Picowatt, and Poynty-ass. I feel very good about my place in this and my honest motive to help mankind. What can you say toward that end. Oh, by the way ... have you ever heard me ask for money? The answer is "NO"! ... So don't go anywhere down that road. Welcome to the forum ... you have been well indoctrinated by the likes of TK and clan ... AKA: The 3 Stooges. You seem to fit in very well. Congratulations ... mankind will assuredly show their appreciation and gratitude to you for your support of mankind's perpetual enslavement by the energy brokers.
Greg, I am sorry, but I wanted to watch Gary Hendershot's program and did not have time for anything more than a cursory look before Gary's program started.  I wanted you to know that my comments were based on a first brief look.

If you are going to make your introduction to me a fit of personal attacks, then I will simply let you go your own way.  I don't see how your attacks on others are any more acceptable than TK's behavior you criticize.  And I certainly do not see anything that justifies the vitriol you direct at me.

If you want help getting at the truth, whatever it may be, then I am happy to offer advice on tests that you can do to get there.  If you are correct, then that can help you produce evidence that will be persuasive to a wider audience.  If you are mistaken, then that can help you find where you went wrong.  I leave it up to you:  If you want my help then just be civil with me as I have been with you.  If you don't, then good luck with your research anyway.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2014, 07:43:45 AM
Ms. Ainslie states on her blog that she does not understand some of my comments:

" I am to be credited with the 'public' reproduction of private tests at August 10 2013 where I apparently 'showed that the heat output from the heating element was only 20% of the energy drawn from the battery'????  Not at all sure what he's saying here. "

For Ms. Ainslie's benefit: 20% means 20 parts in 100, two parts in ten, or one fifth of a whole.  I direct Ms. Ainslie's attention to a portion of her own retraction statement for the source of the 20% figure:

"Reference measurements taken at new sense points directly at the battery bank indicated average net positive battery drain of 14W to 15W. Maximum heater temperature rise during these experiments was 21C. From our electrical DC power to temperature rise tests conducted in 2011 and appear as Table II in this paper, a 21C heater temperature rise corresponds to an equivalent power of between 2.4W and 3.4W. We therefore obtained heat output that was only a fraction of the input power." 

2.4W to 3.4W heat output for 14W to 15W input draw from the batteries amounts to 16% to 24% output/input efficiency.  IE the figures yield a median 20% value.  That low efficiency compares very unfavorably against a direct wire connection from the battery to the heating element which would have yielded very close to 100% output heating power versus input electrical power efficiency.   The August 11, demonstration participants: Ms. Ainslie, Donovan Martin, and Steve Weir can be heard discussing those results near the end of the August 11 demonstration.  Ms. Ainslie declared "absolutely" that the output heat power was a much smaller than the measured battery input power.  The fraction was so small that Ms. Ainslie canceled phase four of the demonstration as unnecessary.

The "benefit" that Ms. Ainslie claims, she and her collaborators have failed to demonstrate.  They have instead shown that the majority of energy drawn from the battery is lost in other parts of her circuit other than the target heating element.  In other words, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators have both shown and admitted that her Q-Array operated as she chose requires about five times as much input energy to evolve a given amount of output heat as an ordinary resistance heater.

I hope these expanded comments help Ms. Ainslie better understand my earlier post, and refresh her memory as to her own conclusions.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2014, 09:32:13 AM
For those who may have come in late to the revelry, here is a clip from the long demonstration.

The first, short part of the clip illustrates the Ainslie team being surprised -- to the point of suspecting their apparatus -- by a perfectly normal and ordinary behaviour of their circuit, which Steve Weir figured out in seconds, once they had it together enough to present him with coherent data.

The second, longer part of the clip is the final portion of the demonstration, which Mark E. refers to above.

I have done absolutely no editing except to clip these out from the longer 4-hour stultifying recording of what has got to be the most amazing demonstration of incompetence in measurement that I have ever seen. (At one point in another clip the engineer Donovan Martin fumbles about for many minutes trying to determine the frequency of a simple near-sinusoidal signal on the digital oscilloscope, and is unable to do it.) The bad video is because these people decided to perform their important demonstration using a _cellphone_. The bad audio is because of the cellphone's connection and because the operator keeps putting his fingers over the microphone!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY&list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q&index=10)
(Sorry, I didn't realize that the two clips are together in one segment. Edited away the first, redundant one.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2014, 11:26:54 AM
TinselKoala, from what I can tell Ms. Ainslie has confused some of your comments regarding the function generator.  This is a bit surprising because you have talked about it many times. 

Paper 1 shows the black lead of the function generator connected to the Q1 source pin side of the current sense resistors.  As you have said a number of times: because their function generator black lead connects to the function generator mains power green safety earth lead, and because their oscilloscope channel input ground leads all connect to its mains power green safety earth lead, had they connected their equipment as shown in Paper 1, Figure 1 as they said they did, they would have shorted out the current sense resistors through a large ground loop.  The function generator black lead on the Q1 side of the resistors would connect through the function generator green earth wire to the oscilloscope green earth wire and back to the channel input ground wires both connected to the battery side of the current sense resistors. 

Donovan Martin said during the June 29 video that they had at least then connected the function generator black lead instead to the battery negative connection on the white breadboard.  His comments may be verified by observing the location of the black function generator lead.  Moving the lead from the position documented in Paper 1 eliminated the ground loop, but also bypassed function generator current around the current sense resistor.  Your comments that they could not and did not measure the current contribution from the function generator is exactly correct.  Ms. Ainslie vociferously argued that there was no such contribution until the demonstration August 11 proved her wrong.

With the help of outside advisers, including poynt99, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators set-up the August 10, August 11 tests as per Paper 1, but broke the ground loop by disconnecting the green safety lead at the function generator AC plug connection.  At poynt99's suggestion, for one test, they inserted an additional current sense resistor between the function generator black lead and the Q1 source side of the white breadboard CSR bank.  That resistor allowed them to measure the function generator contributed current isolated from Q1 and Q2 currents. During the Q1 OFF / Q2 oscillation period, they found 250mW to 400mW power supplied by the function generator. 

Another important observation that resulted only because Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators cooperated with poynt99 was their finding that where they had previously thought that their circuit was recharging the battery during the Q1 OFF / Q2 oscillation period, the reality is exactly the opposite:  During the Q1 OFF / Q2 oscillation phase, the battery supplied power to the circuit.  Presently, Ms. Ainslie declares:

"But the loss of energy from the battery during the 'OFF PERIOD' has NOT BEEN PROVED.  ONLY PROPOSED."

If Ms. Ainslie would review the video of her August 11 demonstration, then she can see for herself the battery power draw she and her collaborators measured during the Q1 "OFF PERIOD".
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2014, 01:28:27 PM
Again, Mark E., thanks for that expanded summary. The demo where the ground pin was removed was of course not quite public; I was specifically excluded from watching it. Ainslie clearly doesn't understand the groundloop issue, even if Martin might. It's not possible for me to know just where or how hookups were made or what the results were, but reports are that the current from the FG was indeed easily measured during this part of the demonstration. Ainslie remains muddled about a lot of things. For example, it was shown BY ME, long ago, that a negative bias voltage supplied in lieu of the Function Generator would produce continuous Q2 oscillations. The ACTUAL process by which Q2 is turned on and made to oscillate with the supply of a negative bias voltage is detailed in the video series that I posted a couple of days ago. In addition, the current from the FG was measured, long ago, and the issue was fully explored by me and by .99 in 2011 and 2012, long before Ainslie could even admit that the FG could act as a current path or source for the circuit. Continuous Q2 oscillations are very easy to produce by using a bias battery or power supply. No FG is needed... all that is really needed is a proper understanding of how the circuit operates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8_ZTBtyTvo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8_ZTBtyTvo) (uploaded to YT on July 14, 2013)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE) (uploaded to YT on June 30, 2013)

Note again that Ainslie is claiming that the circuit that is in the Quantum "box" NOW, which Steve Weir diagrammed and which I have tested, has something to do with the 2002 report in Quantum magazine (hardly a "peer reviewed" journal). She still has not confronted the issue of the 555 CHIP manufactured in 2007 that could not have been in the box for the Quantum article, nor the issue that the present "box" circuit operates at a much higher frequency than the article claimed, AND it uses a completely different mosfet, AND it only has one variable potentiometer where the Quantum circuit has two. It is simply another of Ainslie's trademark mendacities to pretend that the "box" circuit has anything to do with the earlier Quantum article. In fact the "box" circuit was built sometime AFTER May of 2007, to make the frequency and dutycycle combo that Glen Lettenmeier found in his work, not the other way around.

Ainslie is in a rather peculiar position in that she pretends to be able to criticise my demonstrations... yet she does not bother to watch them, or ask her "team" to watch them and "debunk" them. At one time she promised to take them each and tell us specifically what she finds wrong with them. I would love it if she would fulfil that particular promise. It would be high comedy indeed.

(Go ahead... ask her to provide a link to the "replication" that she claims was performed by "joit". But don't hold your breath waiting for it. )
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2014, 02:52:49 PM
TinselKoala you are welcome.  Video from the August 11 demonstration is available among other places on Rosemary Ainslie's blog.  They made a point of showing that they had disconnected the function generator green wire.

As far as I gather, Ms. Ainslie does not believe that it is important that she did or ever will publish the exact circuit used for the experiments she reported on in the 2002 magazine article.  Were reasonably accurate timings known, then the details of the timing circuit would not be very important to the truth or falsity of the claimed discovery.   Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge Ms. Ainslie never published oscilloscope shots of what they measured when preparing that article.  This leaves everyone guessing as to what Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators actually observed.

Of late Ms. Ainslie expresses the view that only the duty cycle is important, and not the pulse frequency.  Seeing as that people have tested at the duty-cycle and frequency combination reported in the magazine article and did not see the gains that she reported, then either the both frequency and duty cycle really are important, or as with the Paper 1 and Paper 2, the gains that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators reported were the result of measurement errors.  Ms. Ainslie insists that cannot be the case because she says that independent experts repeated her reported results.  Unfortunately, none of these independent experts have ever stepped forward.  The recently retrieved test fixture does not help much because without making permanent wiring and component changes, it cannot be configured to match either the schematic in the magazine article or to produce the timing stated in the magazine article.

The argument for measurement error is very strong.  You have shown that the combination of pulse frequency, but inverted duty cycle is attainable using the circuit depicted in the magazine article.  As you have shown that would account for much of what was reported in the magazine article.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 10, 2014, 04:43:21 PM
For example, it was shown BY ME, long ago, that a negative bias voltage supplied in lieu of the Function Generator would produce continuous Q2 oscillations. The ACTUAL process by which Q2 is turned on and made to oscillate with the supply of a negative bias voltage is detailed in the video series that I posted a couple of days ago.
TK,

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I discovered and posted about this prior to your demonstrations. I even designed a "High Frequency Burst Oscillator" which takes advantage of this negative bias.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2014, 05:43:41 PM
TK,

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I discovered and posted about this prior to your demonstrations. I even designed a "High Frequency Burst Oscillator" which takes advantage of this negative bias.
Yes, I'm sure you did. You did a lot of analysis while I was still "on a break". I think my earliest video illustrating continuous oscillations using a separate bias battery was probably this one, from April 2012:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC7zJouJAoU

While looking for that, I also found this old thing, from August 2009, where I actually do boil water using the Quantum single-mosfet circuit, driven by a pulse generator instead of the 555 circuit, and I show several interesting things on the Fluke Scopemeter's display including the aliased combs that Ainslie claimed were "random aperiodic Hartley oscillations" when her sycophants made them at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7zQdplnCA8
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 11, 2014, 01:20:54 AM
TK,

If you look at the posts from around that time, you'll see that Rose was reluctant to believe that all that was needed to make her circuit operate was a negative DC bias. And partially to prove it (and partially to use it for power testing tutorials), I designed the high frequency burst oscillator. I never did build and test it, but it worked quite nicely in the sim, and one can not really tell the difference between its output and that from her circuit, when mine is in burst or pulse mode (also does continuous oscillation mode).

PS. The file date on the scope capture "burst_osc_scope01.png" is 2011-07-13.
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 05:17:55 AM
Yes, that work of yours took place while I was working on something else. I didn't resume work on Ainslie's claims until February or March of 2012, according to the video record. 2011 was taken up with other things of greater importance. I doubt if I was really paying much attention to Ainslie in 2011, although I did try to keep up with the forum posts. I stopped playing around with the single mosfet Quantum system in late 2009, then did a lot of work on Steorn's Orbo claims during 2010. Then a little bit of Rossi e-kitty rebuttal in early 2011.
How time flies when you're having fun, eh?
 ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 11, 2014, 05:36:14 AM
Indeed.

And how much fun did we have kicking Steorn's butt over the bogus Orbo pulse motor measurements? Damn I did a lot of sims on that thing too.  :o
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 07:10:41 AM
And I did a lot of bench work. I think I must have wound and tested 12 pairs of toroids on "Orbette 2.0".

At least the lads had stumbled upon an interesting effect, what I call "core effect", and came up with a pulse motor using it. I was surprised at how such a relatively weak effect could result in a pulse motor that worked so well, in terms of acceleration and torque.

Too bad there didn't turn out to be anything interesting or significant like that, in Ainslie's mashup. In her case the psychological factors are what amazes.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2014, 07:19:57 AM
poynt99 you've done some really good investigative work on this.  It is terribly unfortunate that Ms. Ainslie elects to dismiss your fine work and cast dispersions on you.

As you probably know Ms. Ainslie continues to insist against all verifiable evidence that she has demonstrated "Unity Barrier" violations, IE more energy out than in.  She continues to make declarations that directly contradict her own demonstrations and other well-established facts.  Ms. Ainslie insists that whatever circuit and whatever operating conditions were actually the basis of the magazine article that they were successfully replicated, "accredited", and endorsed by qualified professionals acting on behalf of their employers.  Ms. Ainslie has failed to produce any statement from any such third party expert or their employer.  Ms. Ainslie would do her claims a world of good were she to actually produce such an endorsement.

Ms. Ainslie invokes Greg East's experiments as confirmation of her own.  There are many flaws with that assertion, the first of which is that Mr. East reports outputs in the area of 125% of input whereas Ms. Ainslie claims outputs of 1600% of input and more.  Disparities of these magnitudes are not comparable.  Further, Ms. Ainslie's own demonstrations have shown that she has relied on faulty measurements that yielded false impressions of ~10X or more gains where in actuality she and her collaborators demonstrated the circuits as were only ~20% efficient. 

Ms. Ainslie now charges that the sound protocols that you suggested, and that she accepted were "FAR from satisfactory".  Ms. Ainslie does not elaborate on what it is that she finds lacking in those methods, or why she chose to use protocols she believes to be unsatisfactory in her demonstrations, or why she agreed with the measurement results that those methods produced as can be seen in the demonstration video. 

Finally, in Ms. Ainslie's most recent posting she forcefully asserts: 

"The current flow measured directly at the negative terminal of the battery shows NO discharge during the 'OFF' period." 

That is incorrect.  The August 11 demonstration video shows battery current draw as measured reliably at the battery during the 'OFF' period.  Any who care to take the time can review the video of the August 11 demonstration and observe the fact that the battery discharges during both the 'ON' and 'OFF' periods of the Q1 MOSFET.  This is most readily observed during measurements reliably taken at the batteries themselves, which is a set-up that you skillfully suggested, and Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators accepted.


 



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 07:39:47 AM
If your test protocols or measurements produce results that Ainslie doesn't like, then they are wrong, QED. Ainslie will never tell you how or why, nor will she produce any kind of experimental demonstration of why they are wrong. Simply disagreeing with Ainslie is enough to make you "wrong". And when the evidence that she is indeed wrong, utterly and completely, becomes overwhelming, she simply brushes the issue under the rug. Like the issue of the 555 timer chip, manufactured in 2007, that is in the box she claims has been untouched since 2003.

What is more curious, and  laughable, about Ainslie is that things that are right one day, become wrong the next, as you have pointed out. Ainslie and .99 and SWeir agreed beforehand on what was to be tested and how, and what the criteria would be for passing or failing the test of claims. These procedures and constraints were 'right', discussed, accepted and approved .... until they proved Ainslie to be wrong, and then they became "FAR from satisfactory" in Ainslie's fantasy. Yet she cannot explain why or suggest better, alternative procedures and criteria. She continues to talk about "battery run down testing" but has never actually performed this kind of test in spite of opportunity after opportunity and promise after promise. Yet those who HAVE performed such tests, using precise replications of her _claimed_ circuit and her _claimed_ waveforms, have uniformly found that there is no gain in battery performance; IOW that the batteries are run down at normal rates by the Ainslie circuits, just as measurements of current draw would predict.

Ainslie repeatedly chatters about these replications and confirmations by engineers from various companies, a decade ago, without any documentation of any kind. Not an email, not a graph or receipt, nothing has EVER been offered as evidence in support of Ainslie's claims in this regard. Yet she continues to make them. But we have all seen how she distorts and misrepresents statements made by others, and she can't even provide an accurate and coherent account of events that occurred three or four months ago, much less ten or twelve years ago. Without checkable, independent outside evidence, one cannot take _anything_ that Ainslie says at face value. The story of the various schematics is just one such story. Nobody really knows, to this day, what _actual_ circuit was used for any of Ainslie's reported "experiments". Only the visual record of the demonstrations, which provide photographic evidence of the actual apparatus, can be trusted.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 08:04:04 AM
Ainslie also egregiously misrepresents my work and my findings. For example, she whines that I haven't reproduced certain waveforms. However, I have indeed reproduced every waveform Ainslie and her teams have ever presented, and I've explained how. Ainslie has even mistaken a screen image of waveforms from my work, taken on a borrowed Tek scope, for one of her own! I've demonstrated several different ways that the bogus Figure 3 scopeshot could have been obtained. Ainslie now is representing that they were able to reproduce the Figure 3 data during their demonstration. What she forgets to mention is that their "reproduction" was accomplished by hooking their oscilloscope up incorrectly, differently from the locations given on the schematic. So what? She seems to think that repeating this vast error somehow legitimizes the shot! On the contrary, it demonstrates willfull fabrication of data, because the Figure 3 is known to be bogus, yet appears in the manuscripts anyway and is key to the conclusions drawn about the claims made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wy8w9MWJY

At least one completely bogus claim has been removed from "current" edits of Ainslie's daft manuscripts. But the internet never forgets -- see the image below.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2014, 08:25:13 AM
If your test protocols or measurements produce results that Ainslie doesn't like, then they are wrong, QED. ...
Years ago there was a scientist whose comments I admired who had a tag line something like:  "patience, persistence, truth".  I think that is a very wise approach.  I try as I can to emulate his philosophy by focusing on the data.  In terms of dealing with Ms. Ainslie I am interested in any data she presents as it relates to her extraordinary claims.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 08:32:42 AM
Years ago there was a scientist whose comments I admired who had a tag line something like:  "patience, persistence, truth".  I think that is a very wise approach.  I try as I can to emulate his philosophy by focusing on the data.  In terms of dealing with Ms. Ainslie I am interested in any data she presents as it relates to her extraordinary claims.

Yes... and the problem with that, as you may have noticed by now, is that you cannot rely on data she "presents" unless you can confirm it by checkable independent references. She has willfully misrepresented data and events, over and over again. How can you possibly tell what is true and what is not, coming from her, unless you can verify it independently?

If only we had reliable data from Ainslie in the first place, with complete and accurate descriptions of procedures and apparatus, much of the difficulties people have had with this project would never have happened. Had we encountered an attitude of "patience and truth" from Ainslie, a cooperative and honest attitude, we likely would not be here today discussing her "retracted retraction" comedy of errors. Certainly we have had an attitude of "persistence" from her: persistence in error, in mendacity, in amazing arrogance, in willfull ignorance of her chosen topic.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2014, 08:54:05 AM
Yes... and the problem with that, as you may have noticed by now, is that you cannot rely on data she "presents" unless you can confirm it by checkable independent references. She has willfully misrepresented data and events, over and over again. How can you possibly tell what is true and what is not, coming from her, unless you can verify it independently?

If only we had reliable data from Ainslie in the first place, with complete and accurate descriptions of procedures and apparatus, much of the difficulties people have had with this project would never have happened. Had we encountered an attitude of "patience and truth" from Ainslie, a cooperative and honest attitude, we likely would not be here today discussing her "retracted retraction" comedy of errors. Certainly we have had an attitude of "persistence" from her: persistence in error, in mendacity, in amazing arrogance, in willfull ignorance of her chosen topic.
Yes, there are definitely large discrepancies between what Ms. Ainslie asserts and what verifiable evidence shows.  I don't care about the cause so much as the fact.  In this case, I enjoy the luxury of having read about her projects only after others such as yourself had found major problems.  For that I am in your debt.

Whatever the reasons why Ms. Ainslie has represented the things she has that have proven untrue, at this point I don't see that it is of value to me to try and determine why.  It may be a combination of factors that I would never correctly guess.  What matters is that she has disproven her energy gain claims.   Allowing that there is always a tiny chance that despite all the current evidence that she might yet have been onto something, if she, or a supporter should someday come back with tangible and reproducible evidence of something extraordinary then that evidence should be fairly evaluated like any other. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 09:15:41 AM
Yes, of course I agree that new data should be evaluated on its own merits, if and when it is presented. Ainslie's present course of action, repealing her retraction and reiterating her claims without presenting a shred of new data, nor refuting any findings from her critics, while at the same time continuing with her insults and misrepresentations of fact.... is all the more pseudoscientific misconduct and only dampens the chances of herself or others like her being taken seriously in the future. Ainslie is her own worst enemy, as others have noted as well.

Meanwhile, the image below shows the fundamental "calculation" that led Ainslie to make her silly claims. Ainslie has never taken the trouble to correct this "calculation" to arrive at a correct answer, nor has she demonstrated a grasp of the basic quantities involved (the Watt and the Joule), or the reasons why her "calculation" is so wrong. When one uses her own stated input data, and the correct value for the capacity of her batteries (60 amp-hours) one arrives at a very different conclusion. It is instructive to work through this example.

Notice her amazingly arrogant tone, even in the midst of displaying her monumental ignorance. "Do the math" indeed. One LOLs....

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2014, 10:08:31 AM
The only place where we depart is that I do not see value in attempting to assess Ms. Ainslie's motivation or character.  I think that is potentially distracting from evaluation of her claims.

Her misunderstanding of Joules and consequent irrational multiplication by time is a gross scientific error.  Someone with better formal education in science would not be expected to make such an error and/or to have checked their work much more thoroughly.  It may be that she erroneously multiplied the required heat by time as a misunderstanding of how to treat thermal leaks.  I disagree with the idea that errors, even gross errors should be a basis for ridicule.

I think that mistakes are a natural and critical component of learning.  I think a defining quality of a person is not how many mistakes that they make, but what they do to try and find their own mistakes, and what they do once a mistake is found.  I think as engineers and scientists it is important to encourage those around us and the generations coming up behind us to challenge themselves without fear of ridicule when they make a mistake.

Peer review works and is necessary because anyone can make a mistake, even a big mistake.  I think it is sufficient to point out the error and the correct calculation.  Yes, her lack of understanding of basic physical units strongly suggests that her assumptions and calculations are far more likely to be wrong than an experienced professional.  However, we would be mistaken to assume that all of our own work or that of any experienced professional is free of debilitating errors. 

Whatever Ms. Ainslie's behavior, and whatever her mistakes, I think that it is valuable to stay focused on the data and not the person.  If a person can be taught, then that is one more person with tools out looking for the truth.  If a person cannot be taught, then that eventually becomes self-evident.  Most of the community will be on notice to be wary of that person's declarations. 

We are unfortunately at a point where Ms. Ainslie has recently made and continues to make statements that are at great odds with proven facts, including proven facts she has herself demonstrated, acknowledged and previously accepted.  And Ms. Ainslie does herself no favors by making rude remarks and wild accusations.  However, I think it is up to us as responsible technical professionals to stick to the facts, and present them as objectively as possible without attacking individuals.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 11:16:42 AM
I have no argument with the above, in principle. However, Ainslie is no naive newcomer who deserves benefit of doubt: she has been banned from at least three forums (Naked Scientists, Energetic Forum, this forum several times, and some other forums as well) because of her insulting behaviour, her non-cooperativeness and her arrogant ignorance. She utterly refuses to be taught, to learn from others or to educate herself in her topic. She utterly disrespects the learning and credentials of those who disagree with her, yet she is grossly undereducated and has no credentials of her own. Her former collaborations, with Glen Lettenmeier, "Harvey", Ashtweth, Aaron Murakami, and others, which initially started out with them believing in her and supporting her claims, have always dissolved in acrimony when her true nature and the true facts have come to light. If she was just someone who made a few mistakes, that would be one thing. But the fact is that she routinely misrepresents material matters and routinely insults, disparages and even threatens those who would try to correct her errors and to find out the truth.

For example, here are the blog and forum posts where she posted and made public the video of the 2011 demonstration, where the 5-mosfet device was presented as having all 5 in parallel.... and then the posts where she denies having posted the very same video.

Note that in the blog post she refers to the video as "the proof" of her claims. Yet a year later she wants to deny posting the video completely and to deny its relevance to her claims. Why? I know why.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2014, 12:03:37 PM
I do not challenge the incidents that you describe.  What I am trying to say is that no matter what someone else says or does, we can choose to stick to the data and only the data.  If another person acts badly let that be their action alone.  If they refuse all counseling, all tutelage, then let that be on them.  If they constantly assert against reality, then defend the facts.  In other words, if we choose to treat other people as though their errors are innocent, we spare derailing ourselves or the technical discussion.  It doesn't matter whether someone else is the Mother Theresa or Joseph Goebbels of science.  Sticking to the technical facts keeps the discussion focused on the topic.  Over time even well crafted propaganda does not stand up against clearly articulated science.  Sooner or later most people are smart enough to notice the difference between those who consistently offer compelling evidence with their argument versus those who argue with empty hands. 

On the other hand, veering off on personal issues creates many opportunities to muddle topics and in some cases play into the hands of unscrupulous debaters.  This can frequently seen in political debates where one debater works their opponent until their opponent lets loose with a fit of anger.  At that point the audience reacts to the opponent's anger and not their argument. Some politicians are very good at using this trick.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 11, 2014, 03:43:24 PM
poynt99 you've done some really good investigative work on this.  It is terribly unfortunate that Ms. Ainslie elects to dismiss your fine work and cast dispersions on you.
Thanks Mark.

It is unfortunate indeed. Rose and her colleagues could learn a great deal if they would only put aside their pride and listen. And if they insist I am wrong, a cogent explanation as to why would be expected, but we never get one.

Quote
Ms. Ainslie now charges that the sound protocols that you suggested, and that she accepted were "FAR from satisfactory".  Ms. Ainslie does not elaborate on what it is that she finds lacking in those methods, or why she chose to use protocols she believes to be unsatisfactory in her demonstrations, or why she agreed with the measurement results that those methods produced as can be seen in the demonstration video. 
I am uncertain to what she refers actually. Rose objects to essentially everything I write, so if she wants an answer, I would suggest she be more specific as to what protocol she is referring to.

Quote
This is most readily observed during measurements reliably taken at the batteries themselves, which is a set-up that you skillfully suggested, and Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators accepted.
Is Rose now suggesting that the battery power measurement should NOT be performed right at the battery? Or is she saying that the battery power measurement is irrelevant somehow?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2014, 05:44:57 PM
Ainslie has set herself up as an object of ridicule and mockery. The scientific issues have been settled, years ago. There has been nothing new to emerge in years of discussion except the Quantum "box" and its smoking gun: the 555 chip made in 2007. Ainslie has no clue about her circuit or how to measure any aspect of its performance. She still doesn't know the difference between a Joule and a Watt. (Are a "mile" and a "mile per hour" the same thing?) She parrots terms without understanding their meaning and won't bother to learn the standard terminology of her topic.

Take a close look at her Figure 9. This cartoon was drawn by her _before_ they realized that the Q2 mosfets are in backwards, and has never been revised. Note that she has the Source of Q2 connected to the Source of Q1, and the Gates of the two connected together. This cartoon represents her "understanding" of the operation of the circuit.... and it doesn't even correspond to the way the circuit is wired!

I've included a few more post images that show Ainslie's attitude, as well. Note her repeated lies, her name-calling, her unfounded ridiculous accusations, the libels and threats.

Do you see, Mark E., that it is Ainslie who chooses the tone of the argument, not I?




Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 12, 2014, 02:26:23 AM
Thanks Mark.

It is unfortunate indeed. Rose and her colleagues could learn a great deal if they would only put aside their pride and listen. And if they insist I am wrong, a cogent explanation as to why would be expected, but we never get one.
I am uncertain to what she refers actually. Rose objects to essentially everything I write, so if she wants an answer, I would suggest she be more specific as to what protocol she is referring to.
Is Rose now suggesting that the battery power measurement should NOT be performed right at the battery? Or is she saying that the battery power measurement is irrelevant somehow?
Poynt99, I am afraid that I have not seen anything more specific by Ms. Ainslie than what I described.  If I were to take a guess it would be that she is now discounting the validity of battery voltage and current measurements taken right at the battery.  In her own demonstrations, those measurements showed both that the wild battery voltage swings as measured at the breadboard did not exist at the batteries, and that the batteries supplied net power during both the Q1 on and off phases.  Those measurements taken at the batteries established that as your simulations and demonstrations had already shown long before the demonstration that wiring inductance between the batteries and the measurement points fouled the battery voltage and current measurements.

On her blog, Ms. Ainslie recently declared that the demonstrations did not show net battery power draw during both Q1 on and off phases when the fact that they did is readily observed in the August 11 demonstration video.  Ms. Ainslie has not elaborated on what she relies on to make these declarations that are at clear odds with her own demonstration. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 12, 2014, 02:48:43 AM
Ainslie has set herself up as an object of ridicule and mockery. The scientific issues have been settled, years ago. There has been nothing new to emerge in years of discussion except the Quantum "box" and its smoking gun: the 555 chip made in 2007. Ainslie has no clue about her circuit or how to measure any aspect of its performance. She still doesn't know the difference between a Joule and a Watt. (Are a "mile" and a "mile per hour" the same thing?) She parrots terms without understanding their meaning and won't bother to learn the standard terminology of her topic.
...
Do you see, Mark E., that it is Ainslie who chooses the tone of the argument, not I?
Each of us choose the tone in which we offer our arguments.  My view is that by staying focused on data, and avoiding personal issues discussions stay on track, and the important messages: the ones that concern the data, are the ones that are heard by most of the audience. 

It is obvious that Ms. Ainslie made gross errors concerning the concepts and measurement units for work and power.  It is also apparent from very recent comments on her blog that she may well still be struggling with those concepts.    I suggest to you that all are best served by simply pointing out what is wrong and what the correct facts are.   That may seem trying when someone engages in personal attacks.  I find that under most circumstances people who make personal attacks only get as much power as we give them.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 12, 2014, 03:39:14 AM
I have been lambasted by Rose with libelous claims and insults and I am just an observer of these proceedings.  I think is is because I no longer defend her.  It is too bad that the "science" (if any) gets lost in all of the drama with her.

TK and .99 have documented many, many postings which seem to be ignored.  Hell, I watched that online demonstration  (the one with the cell phone camera) and had no idea what the heck was going on.  As it turns out, no one doing the "demonstration" seemed to know either.  My advice:

If you don't know how to use a scope, or a camera, or do not understand the circuit that you are demonstrating, then do NOT do a demonstration.  Pretty simple really.  That demo left a lot more questions than it answered.

If Rose claims otherwise than, I have no idea how to respond to that.  .99 did his level best to try to guide them but, they either had no idea of what he was asking or, they knew the circuit was bogus from the get-go.  I was not impressed.

Why was the paper retracted and then un-retracted when there is no evidence making this un-retraction valid?

These folks are just lost.  I almost feel sorry for Rose,....almost.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 12, 2014, 03:46:11 AM
Bill, the June 29 demonstration went very badly including the dead air, their resistance against poynt99's guidance, their confusion concerning Q1 oscillations, and most of all their shifting of the goal posts when it was immediately apparent to them that their demonstration was contradicting their claims of being able to reproduce Figure 3 using the set-up of Figure 1.  For those patient enough to sit through it, including the more than one and a half hours of dead air, they did eventually take useful measurements.  Those measurements showed unequivocally that Figure 3, Figure 6, and Figure 7 in the paper were the result of measurement error.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: hoptoad on January 12, 2014, 04:11:19 AM
Rosemary's claims are proof of perpetual motion and cop >1.

Her ridiculous claims keep resurfacing in a perpetual motion cycle as she Craps On Perpetually about her silly cop > 1 circuit !

Unfortunately, it seems there is also a perpetual number of people who discover her claims for the first time and resurrect discussion about it.

It really should have died a perpetual death years ago!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 12, 2014, 04:29:54 AM
Rosemary's claims are proof of perpetual motion and cop >1.

Her ridiculous claims keep resurfacing in a perpetual motion cycle as she Craps On Perpetually about her silly cop > 1 circuit !

Unfortunately, it seems there is also a perpetual number of people who discover her claims for the first time and resurrect discussion about it.

It really should have died a perpetual death years ago!

I perpetually agree with you.  But, Rose will not admit that she is, and was, wrong so....the beat goes on.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 12, 2014, 07:36:07 PM
The "demonstration" from June 29 showed their utter contempt for their audience, as well as their own incompetence and ignorance. The entire 4 hour recording is nearly impossible to watch, so I've excerpted the important parts and put them into a playlist on YT, along with a few of my own demonstrations that illustrate the issues.

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


Here's one of my favorites: Determining Frequency With A Digital Oscilloscope

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6659TrVblYE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6659TrVblYE)


(From one of the comments:
Every single trace screen has, at the very bottom line, just to the right of the words "LeCroy"..... a frequency number displayed. "f=1.48376MHz" or whatever. The scope constantly computes the frequency of the triggering channel, you can't even turn this function off. All he needed to do was to press the "Auto" button, turn the timebase two clicks to spread an oscillation block across the screen, then read the bottom line. The pompous dolt.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 12, 2014, 08:08:23 PM
Each of us choose the tone in which we offer our arguments.  My view is that by staying focused on data, and avoiding personal issues discussions stay on track, and the important messages: the ones that concern the data, are the ones that are heard by most of the audience. 

It is obvious that Ms. Ainslie made gross errors concerning the concepts and measurement units for work and power.  It is also apparent from very recent comments on her blog that she may well still be struggling with those concepts.    I suggest to you that all are best served by simply pointing out what is wrong and what the correct facts are.   That may seem trying when someone engages in personal attacks.  I find that under most circumstances people who make personal attacks only get as much power as we give them.

Don't you find it at all ironic, or significant, that most of what is _actually_ known about these circuits and their behaviour comes from Ainslie's detractors? The data that we can trust doesn't come from Ainslie at all, it comes from others who have examined her output and who have simulated and built her various claimed circuits.

Her critics and detractors have determined the following, from the trustable data:
The Quantum published schematic cannot do what Ainslie claimed.
The circuit, minus the timer, which Ainslie attempted to patent (claiming it as her own), is in fact the simple unclamped inductive test circuit given in every power mosfet data sheet.
The "5 mosfet in parallel" circuit, claimed by Ainslie in the 2011 video, blog and forum posts, is no such thing.
The Figure 3 scopeshot and others like it are bogus, making Ainslie's claims that depend upon them also bogus.
The batteries used in these circuits do indeed discharge, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
No water was actually boiled by Ainslie in the experiments described in the manuscripts, contrary to Ainslie's deliberately misleading language.
The "box" contains a vastly different circuit than was claimed in the Quantum article and operates at a vastly different frequency, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
The "box" contains a chip manufactured in May of 2007, whereas Ainslie claims it hasn't been touched since 2003.

And on and on. Most of what we know is _in spite_ of Ainslie's mendacity and incompetence, rather than being due to her honest reportage and cooperative discussion.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 05:41:22 AM
Don't you find it at all ironic, or significant, that most of what is _actually_ known about these circuits and their behaviour comes from Ainslie's detractors? The data that we can trust doesn't come from Ainslie at all, it comes from others who have examined her output and who have simulated and built her various claimed circuits.

Her critics and detractors have determined the following, from the trustable data:
The Quantum published schematic cannot do what Ainslie claimed.
The circuit, minus the timer, which Ainslie attempted to patent (claiming it as her own), is in fact the simple unclamped inductive test circuit given in every power mosfet data sheet.
The "5 mosfet in parallel" circuit, claimed by Ainslie in the 2011 video, blog and forum posts, is no such thing.
The Figure 3 scopeshot and others like it are bogus, making Ainslie's claims that depend upon them also bogus.
The batteries used in these circuits do indeed discharge, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
No water was actually boiled by Ainslie in the experiments described in the manuscripts, contrary to Ainslie's deliberately misleading language.
The "box" contains a vastly different circuit than was claimed in the Quantum article and operates at a vastly different frequency, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
The "box" contains a chip manufactured in May of 2007, whereas Ainslie claims it hasn't been touched since 2003.

And on and on. Most of what we know is _in spite_ of Ainslie's mendacity and incompetence, rather than being due to her honest reportage and cooperative discussion.
Oh, no I do not find this surprising at all.  This sort of thing happens a lot with people amateurs who think they have discovered a new big thing.  Whether they choose to acknowledge it or not: Ms. Ainslie, her collaborators, and basically anyone interested in her claims owe skeptics such as yourself and poynt99 who have applied their time and skills dissecting the claims and the purported tests a great debt for all the verifiable facts that you have collectively revealed.

With the possible exception of ever boiling water, and with only tiny doubt about the device date code yes you undoubtedly are correct on all the remaining points.

Whether Ms. Ainslie boiled water or not is less certain to me.  A 72V supply such as they had could apply nearly 500W to an 11 Ohm heating element such as they had.  To go from 25C to 100C and 100C liquid to vapor requires ~2600J/gm, or conversely they could boil about 12gm/minute.  So depending on duty cycle, water volume, and run time, boiling was possible with her fixture.

For all of her mistakes, reversals, contradictions of proven fact, and untoward behavior, nothing forces rude behavior or ridicule in return.  I suggest things work out best by leaving personal squabbles behind as insignificant noise.  The way things are, Ms. Ainslie or someone who thinks her ideas have merit are on the line to show that they do.  It does not seem that either Ms. Ainslie or anyone else is going to take any effort in that direction.  Thanks to the efforts of people like you and poynt99 her claims have for all effect been put to rest.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2014, 09:02:22 AM
In an effort to resolve your remaining doubts, I have attached below the STMicro Application Note that gives their date code marking schemes. I've already  posted the image of the chip, taken from Ainslie's photograph, up above. STMicroelectronics did not exist under that name in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics)
Therefore the "7" in the date code must refer to 2007.

Next, I've attached the image of Ainslie's blog post describing the _single trial_ that is the basis for the report and "taken to boil" claim in the manuscript. (This is also the trial described by the "So. Do the math." bad mathematics in the post up above.) Why do you think she uses the convoluted language "taken to boil"?

Note that the scopeshot that accompanies that post is another of the problematic ones, where there is no current shown in the yellow CVR trace in spite of the ample gate drive during Q1 ON portions of the duty cycle.

Further, according to Ainslie's methodology, the thermocouple is attached directly to the heating element, and by Ainslie's own admission.... they _never measured_ the actual temperature of the water at any time. The claim of "taking water to boil" is completely bogus.

Quote
It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles...
Quote
We have NEVER measured the temperature of the water...
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 10:42:20 AM
SGS Thomson as it was known up to 1998 looks like they used the slanted ST logo prior to 1997.  I have been able to locate data sheets from as early as 1995 with the slanted ST logo.  I think you are right that the chip was made in 2007.  But I am not certain.  A picture of a 1997 chip would resolve this question.

In the additional quotes that you've posted, she stated that she did not evaporate the water, IE she did not actually boil it.  I concede your point.

I would be cautious about interpreting any current sense waveforms that she has ever posted prior to June 29 due to the errors shown during the June 29 demonstration.  Erroneous placement of the probe on the wrong side of the CSR was shown to generate Figure 3 like waveforms where no current appeared to flow during Q1 on time, when in reality multiple amps were flowing.  At the same time oscillation currents show up on their fixture during Q1 off times no matter which side of the CSR they used for their probe.  Which side does not affect the amplitude much, and the amplitude is an artifact of parasitic inductance in their wiring and their probe set-up.  Poynt99 demonstrated these latter issues.






Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 01:24:38 PM
Ms. Ainslie continues to assert claims that her demonstration videos contradict.  At this time she claims that measurements taken August 11 at the battery show zero battery power draw during the Q1 off intervals.  These are the intervals when the circuit oscillates.

"the voltage waveform taken directly at the negative terminal of the battery - shows a current delivered during the 'ON' period of the duty cycle.  During the 'OFF' period the current defaults to zero.  This indicates that the current that is measured to flow through the circuit during this 'OFF' period is somehow generated from an energy supply that is NOT from that battery supply.  The indications therefore are that provided only that there is a continual negative signal applied to the Gate of Q1 (which represents the OFF period referred to) then that current flow can be perpetuated.  The implications of this are extraordinary."

The tests measurements taken at the battery can be seen in the video from about 1h 3min to 1h 5min.  The Q1 'OFF' period current oscillations are plainly evident as is the net battery power draw both graphically, and from the numerical measurements generated by the oscilloscope.  The battery power drain as computed by the oscilloscope is seen to be ~14W.  Shortly thereafter, the heater thermocouple reading was taken at 39.1C, and the ambient temperature thermocouple reading at 18.0C.  The heating power associated with that 21.1C temperature rise as measured by Ms. Ainslie's calibration reported in Paper 1 was between 2.4W and 3.4W.  The approximately 20% output over input power efficiency is not as Ms. Ainslie declares 'extraordinary'.  It is very poor.  Most of the power drawn from the battery is wasted in the four "Q2" power MOSFETs that are linearly biased during the oscillations.

Ms. Ainslie goes on to say:

"My early retraction was based on the irrefutable evidence that there was NO oscillation during the 'OFF' period that could be seen or measured at that battery negative terminal.  "

However, her now withdrawn retraction stated as the reason for the retraction was the far less than unity performance demonstrated.  The retraction makes no mention of missing Q2 oscillations.  And, as the video shows, the Q2 oscillations were in plain view.

"In June and August 2013 demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this
paper. The 2013 experiments were conducted under more stringent protocols than the originals. The experiments conducted: June 29
August 10, and August 11 failed to reproduce the results reported here.

The June 29 experiments were unable to bias Q1 as in Figure 3 without current flow also indicated in Figure 3.
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. Reference measurements taken at new sense points directly at the battery bank indicated average net
positive battery drain of 14W to 15W. Maximum heater temperature rise during these experiments was 21C. From our electrical DC power
to temperature rise tests conducted in 2011 and appear as Table II in this paper, a 21C heater temperature rise corresponds to an
equivalent power of between 2.4W and 3.4W. 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.
Details of the test protocols are available as August 11 Demonstration Outline_draft_05.pdf. Test Phases 1 - 3 were conducted during the
live demonstration. We ended the demonstration after Test Phase 3 when it became clear that the net battery power drain was far in excess
of the possible heater output power.
This retraction relates to the this circuit variant and does NOT represent a retraction of the claims in the Quantum paper published in 2002
a copy of which can be found at this link... Paper 3"

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 01:36:46 PM
Ms. Ainslie currently asserts additional disproven ideas:

"What no-one could manage was an explanation for, or an analysis of, the path or the source of that oscillation.  This included Poynty - TK - Picowatt - MileHigh and the rest.  It was variously ASSUMED that the battery was passing current through the probes of the function generator itself - directly from the GATE of Q2 to the Source rail of Q1.  This is IMPOSSIBLE. "

Poynt99 has performed detailed circuit simulations and published those simulations here that show exactly the source of the oscillation.  TinselKoala has posted videos that reproduce the oscillations.  Phase 2 test measurements during the August 11 demonstration show unequivocally that the function generator contributes 250mW - 400mW power to the oscillations, which is in-line with Poynt99's previously published simulations.  The circuit theory that explains both the oscillations, and the function generator's role in the oscillations has been explained by Poynt99, and TinselKoala multiple times.  In short, when the function generator outputs a negative voltage on its red lead relative to its black lead, it biases the Q2 MOSFETs into a source follower configuration.  This is a linear mode of operation, the MOSFETs have high transconductance gains, and the circuit construction has high parasitic inductance.  Together these conditions cause the Q2 MOSFETs to oscillate.  A small fraction: about 2% of the ~15W that circulates through the circuit is supplied by the function generator.  The remainder comes from the battery as shown during Phase 3 of the test.  What Ms. Ainslie declares is "IMPOSSIBLE" and unexplained is: ordinary, fully explained, simulated, and replicated.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: profitis on January 13, 2014, 01:45:50 PM
heya @tinselkoala.i got an experiment for us to try if your interested.do you have any mim-type diodes lying around perhaps?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 01:50:36 PM
Ms. Ainslie further regresses with claims that the August 11 demonstrations showed over unity:

"What I managed thereafter was a detailed explanation for that path of current flow that then REQUIRED that measure of over unity. Which is here defined as more energy being returned to the ELEMENT RESISTOR than was initially supplied by the battery.  " 

Again as seen in the video and noted in Ms. Ainslie's retraction:  The battery supplied ~15W, and the heating resistor evolved ~3W.

Ms. Ainslie insists against her own June 29, and August 11 observations:

"The implications of Test 3 paper 1 are LOUDLY denied by Little TK PRECISELY because we prove that we can SET the signal from the function generator to obviate ALL current flow during that ON period.  We have demonstrated this repeatedly and publicly.  It makes no difference to their DENIALS.  Effectively we are stating that notwithstanding the measured evidence of a current flow during the 'on' period that duty cycle - there is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH THE CIRCUIT NOR THE ELEMENT RESISTOR - NOR ANYWHERE ON THAT CIRCUIT - DURING THIS 'ON' PERIOD.  "

The June 29 demonstrations failed multiple times to reproduce Paper 1 Figure 3.  Waveforms similar to Figure 3 were reproduced when the oscilloscope probe that was supposed to measure the voltage across the current sense resistors was shorted out.  When the probe was connected properly, the oscilloscope showed current flow whenever the Q1 gate drive signal was greater than the threshold value of 4V. This can all be seen in the last forty minutes of the demonstration when Mr. Weir assisted Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.   Ms. Ainslie is declaring observations her videos directly contradict.

I cannot venture a guess how much longer or how much further Ms. Ainslie's protests will continue in direct contradiction to the incontrovertible evidence present in her own demonstrations of June 29, and August 11, 2013.  I invite Ms. Ainslie to point to the portions of her demonstrations that she believes support her assertions.




Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 13, 2014, 03:40:45 PM
Quote
And Guys - just to state all that more plainly - here's the thing.  With the Q-Array circuit - it is theoretically possible to apply a continual negative signal to the Gate of Q1.
Yes, we know. I advised you of this quite some time ago.

Quote
It is also theoretically possible to apply that signal from the same battery supply source in series with the element resistor.  This will result in a continual oscillation where the only measure of energy discharged from the battery supply will then, theoretically, also replenish those batteries.  This will result in a zero loss of energy from that supply source - while it is, nonetheless, driving a load.
Not quite. If the measurement is performed properly, and noting the implications of the indicated polarity of net power measured, it will be obvious that some power is being used from the source (batteries).
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 04:26:24 PM
Ms. Ainslie expresses great upset at my comments.  My comments are completely and thoroughly backed by the demonstrations Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators performed June 29, and August 11.  The videos of those demonstrations are available on YouTube.  Ms. Ainslie now insists, even swears on: her life, her children's lives, and those of her grandchildren what the videos contradict and Ms. Ainslie herself concedes in the June 29 video.

I urge Ms. Ainslie to refresh her memory by reviewing the videos of her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations.
The June 29 demonstration failed to reproduce Figure 3 under the conditions set forth in the paper.  Figure 3 was reproduced by shorting the oscilloscope Channel 1 probe in an RF loop.
During the June 29 demonstration nearing the very end of the video Ms. Ainslie concedes measurement error fouled Figure 6, which corresponds to the "Test 3" that she now swears was valid.

Ms. Ainslie continues to insist that the August 11 demonstration showed zero current flow during the Q2 oscillation / Q1 off phase.  Again the video record shows otherwise.

No amount of declaration can change established fact.  Ms. Ainslie's stated recollection of the demonstration results is simply and terribly wrong.

Ms. Ainslie's hypotheses concerning operation of her circuits are flat out wrong.  Ms. Ainslie's declared interpretations of the detailed circuit operation explained to her by fully competent working professionals does not reflect what those professionals have explained to her numerous times.

If Ms. Ainslie really believes that either the June 29, or August 11 demonstration reproduced any:  Figure 3, Figure 6, or Figure 7 from Paper 1 following the circuit configuration of Figure 1 from that same paper, even allowing for the relocated connection of the function generator black lead, then I invite her to point out where that may be seen on either video.  I again point out that in the last forty minutes of the June 29 video that the controversy over the apparent zero current oscilloscope readings during the Q1 on phase in each of those three figures was fully resolved, and that it was resolved that those figures appear as they do because they were the result of measurement error by Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.  Specifically, they made the erroneous measurements by placing the Channel 1 probe tip on the wrong side of the CSRs.  It is all on the June 29 video.  There is no reason for debate.

Ms. Ainslie continues to declare that battery current does not move through the function generator during the Q2 oscillation phase.  Again, the August 11 video proved that battery current does move through the function generator and it also proved that the function generator contributes a minor percentage of the overall power dissipated by the breadboard circuitry.

It is terribly unfortunate that Ms. Ainslie has regressed in her positions and is contradicting the hard evidence presented in her own recent demonstrations.  Ms. Ainslie implores that she is calling for additional investigation.  Again, I suggest Ms. Ainslie review the videos of her own demonstrations.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: markdansie on January 13, 2014, 04:43:51 PM
I think if everyone just totally ignored and no longer commented then apart from the ignorant true believers nobody would give a toss what Rosemary does. While there is commentary she has a stage and an audience. This will be my last post. You have a better chance of turning a fundamentalist Muslim rebel into a Texas baptist or visa versa.
Mark
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2014, 04:52:07 PM
Yes, we know. I who advised you of this quite some time ago.
Not quite. If the measurement is performed properly, and noting the implications of the indicated polarity of net power measured, it will be obvious that some power is being used from the source (batteries).

Since Ainslie chooses to remain ignorant of the work of others, while at the same time seeking to misrepresent what they (meaning you and I, mostly) have done... it is no surprise that she utters statements like this, which only make her look more and more foolish. As you say, you told her about this long ago, as did Stefan Hartmann, and I demonstrated it several different ways, also long ago. More recently I've posted a series of videos that fully explain, in terms a bright eighth-grader might understand, just how the Q2s are made to oscillate using the negative bias and how it relates to what the FG is doing in the circuit, as well as how to make continuous Q2 oscillations using an external power source other than the FG.  How does one overcome the willfull ignorance of an Ainslie, though? She is so arrogant that she will not be taught, instead preferring to remain in some fantasy, spouting claims long refuted, and claiming things that she has never demonstrated.... but that we have already done, long ago.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V

I think that the negative bias voltage must be _more negative_ than the main batteries that are powering the load. I doubt seriously whether Ainslie can in fact provide this negative bias using only the main batteries, unless a charge pump inverter is also used -- as I demonstrated well over a year ago.

Further, Ainslie has never demonstrated that she understands the linear mode of mosfet operation. She has always modelled the mosfet as a simple switch. (Recall Donny explaining to her that the mosfet will begin to conduct at a Vgs of 4 volts or even less. Recall her bewilderment as they tried to make the Figure 3 scopeshot and saw the Q1 current rise as its Vgs approached 4 volts.)  Hence, she fails to grasp the fact that the Q2 mosfets are indeed turning partly on and passing current from the battery during the oscillations as their Vgs fluctuates around the threshold value. She doesn't understand that this is why the Q2 mosfets heat a bit during the oscillation phase. It is no wonder that her mental model of the mosfet causes her to believe that Q2 is "disconnected" and that no current can pass, since she doesn't understand the linear operation mode. All of this, once again, is due to her willfully ignoring information and demonstrations that explain and illustrate the issue in simple terms that even a bright child could grasp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pnnNR85XcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbAGWkWFmxM



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: The Boss on January 13, 2014, 05:16:10 PM
I think if everyone just totally ignored and no longer commented then apart from the ignorant true believers nobody would give a toss what Rosemary does. While there is commentary she has a stage and an audience. This will be my last post. You have a better chance of turning a fundamentalist Muslim rebel into a Texas baptist or visa versa.
Mark


It continues to amaze me that this freak of mother nature, unable to connect to reality still garners attention.
You're dealing with a psychologically diseased person here, unable to connect to reality,
whose delusions will continue for as long as she is still breathing.

Not unlike a raving pyjama-clad lunatic standing on a street corner babbling at anyone who happens to pass by, this always was, and will continue to be about nothing more than an insane, unstable, severely disturbed old woman seeking attention.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2014, 05:26:11 PM
I think if everyone just totally ignored and no longer commented then apart from the ignorant true believers nobody would give a toss what Rosemary does. While there is commentary she has a stage and an audience. This will be my last post. You have a better chance of turning a fundamentalist Muslim rebel into a Texas baptist or visa versa.
Mark

Mark, I don't think any of us expects to "convert" Rosemary Ainslie. Of course this is impossible; in fact, I predicted that her "retraction" was lip service only and would not "stick", on the day she made it. We are far beyond the electrical engineering issues, the issues concerning the proper way to do science, the editorial issues. We are way into the psychological realm now. Nobody believes her claims. Ainslie has set herself up as a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect; it is her choice to remain in the public eye and in fact she has once again announced her intention to seek the monetary prizes that are offered by several forums for a reliable OU demonstration. Since her claims are based on invalid, even fabricated data, trying to get money for them would seem to obligate us once again to put her claims up for the strongest criticism and most intense scrutiny. Her reactions and responses to this scrutiny and criticism are true psychological theatre. One observes denial, distortion of reality, failure to discriminate fantasy from reality, paranoia, pressure of speech, projection, and more.

In other words... man, we are in it for the lulz.
 ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2014, 10:49:13 PM
I agree with Mark Dansie in that I do not see value in an endless battle of:  "Yes it is."  "No it isn't." 

For my part, I am comfortable that I have thoroughly addressed the direct contradictions that I assert Ms. Ainslie is presently declaring against her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations.  I think that anyone who is interested in the debate can view those videos and find that that those videos show what I contend that they do.  I think that anyone who is interested in the operational details of the fixtures can view TinselKoala's and Poynt99's excellent videos, and/or Poynt99's analysis paper complete with circuit simulations, and/or any of the many explanatory posts here offered by TinselKoala, Poynt99, and others.  In summary:  I believe that the physical record indisputably holds against Ms. Ainslie's assertions.

I again invite Ms. Ainslie, or anyone who wishes to defend Ms. Ainslie's recent declarations to rebut any of my assertions by pointing to appropriate times in the demonstration videos where we may see her apparatus performing as she presently claims that she has shown.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 01:14:57 AM
Ainslie has never engaged in the kind of back-and-forth discussion involving actual points, evidence pro and con. She simply asserts. The notable exceptions being the past two demonstrations, where the Ainslie team was (just barely) responsive to suggestions that they perform particular manipulations of the apparatus and instrumentation. And we know what happened then!

Meanwhile, since she is emitting another of her trademark Blue Rants, shouting her false claims and ridiculous assertions once again, I thought I might provide a slight gloss for my playlist.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V

#1 Shows how the mosfet can be biased ON by applying a negative voltage to the _Source_ pin while the Gate remains at zero voltage. Also illustrates linear operation: the mosfet behaves perfectly normally, just as it should, even though the Gate is pinned to the negative rail and grounded.

#2 Shows how the Function Generator exactly replaces the biasing battery in the simple circuit. Note that the _Source_ pin of the mosfet is COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED PHYSICALLY from everything except the Function Generator and the scope probe. This is the condition Ainslie refers to as "floating". She believes that there is no current path in this condition so it is impossible, in her mind, for the load to be receiving power from the battery. However.... we know, and this video shows UNEQUIVOCALLY, that the FG completes the current path for the main circuit and the load is energized completely normally, just as before, when the _Source_ of the mosfet is lowered to at least 4 volts _below_ the zero voltage level at the negative pole of the battery.

#3 Demonstrates the previous but using the IRFPG50 mosfet with longer wires and some additional inductance in the battery supply jumpers. Then I demonstrate the effects of the FG's Amplitude and Offset knobs on scope traces and circuit behaviour. The result may surprise you... Depending on the settings of the two knobs, scope traces that appear identical can produce different or even _exactly opposite_ circuit behaviour. This is one reason why the open-circuit voltages that the FG is producing, must be known for any particular data point, if the circuit's settings are to be replicated. This information is totally  missing in all of Ainslie's reportage. Nobody has any idea how Ainslie's FG was set, since the Amplitude and Offset settings interact and she never measured the open-circuit voltages. At the end of the video a little low-amplitude parasitic oscillation can be seen on the traces.

#4 Here I remove the non-linear light bulb load and put in a 10 ohm wirewound resistive load, along with a Current Viewing Resistor. Now we have the Q2 portion of the Ainslie circuit complete. Note that around 4:00 in the video I reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot's essential features: Substantial gate drive at or near 12 volts, with no current in the "Q1 ON" portions (since there is no Q1!) and plentiful high amplitude oscillations in the Q1 OFF portions of the duty cycle. All the while, the _Source_ of the mosfet is "floating" according to Ainslie: the only current path to complete the circuit is through the Function Generator. The Function Generator is acting like a battery in series with the negative side of the main battery. Further, I demonstrate determining the frequency of the oscillation, quickly and easily, using the analog scope, and I demonstrate yet again that the common English word "Per" indicates a mathematical division operation.

#4a&b Here I once again remove the FG and substitute a battery and a light bulb in series. (In all these demonstrations the Source of the mosfet is "floating" according to Ainslie, since it is disconnected from everything except the Function Generator.) This arrangement produces constant "Q2" oscillations, and the fact that the light bulb glows, proves unequivocally that current flows in this part of the circuit. The relationship to Ainslie's circuit should be abundantly clear since I use portions of the "standard" Ainslie schematic to show the exact arrangement I am using. Again, at around 3:45 I demonstrate the Figure 3 critical features... easy to do, since there is no Q1 to turn on, it is possible to get the full +12 volts Gate drive without allowing any current to flow. The edges of the oscillation bursts are examined at high resolution on the scope to show that they appear just exactly like the scope traces that Ainslie has provided at similar resolution. Then I once again show the FG removed and the bias battery inserted instead, with a bulb showing current flow.

#4c Here I demonstrate that the circuit, when oscillating, radiates significant power in the RF, contrary to Ainslie's claim. This radiation can interfere with the proper operation of sensitive equipment like digital thermometers. At the end of the video I switch the FG to produce a triangle ramp waveform to drive the mosfet... and we see scope traces very like some of the "weird" ones Ainslie didn't put in the daft manuscripts, but which can be viewed in the archive.

#5 Finally in this part I reassemble the complete circuit (but with a single Q2 instead of 4.) The current flows in the entire circuit are illustrated using DMMs and the oscilloscope. Now, with an operating Q1 in place and the instruments correctly connected, it is no longer possible to obtain something that looks like Figure 3: the current rises in Q1 as the gate voltage increases past +4 volts during the Q1 ON portions of the cycle.



Do I expect Ainslie to watch, think about, and discuss these videos coherently, considering the points they make and their implications for her claims and her "thesis"? Of course I do not. I present them merely to show, once again, just how comprehensively and thoroughly she has been refuted in her claims, and how ridiculous her protestations and her misrepresentations of my work are.






Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 03:00:32 AM
TinselKoala those are all great and pertinent demonstrations.  If there is anything that could be added, it would be a video that reproduces Figure 3 by connecting the current sense channel oscilloscope tip to the battery negative side of the current sense resistor as was done late in the June 29 video.  Another principle that could be demonstrated is AC current passing from the drain through the gate of a power MOSFET, since that occurs through both Q1 and Q2 during the Q2 oscillations.

I have second thoughts about this suggestion, because he might kill me for making it, but I will put it out there anyway:  Someone could ask Steve Weir to offer his assessment of Ms. Ainslie's current claims versus what he saw during the demonstrations.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 05:17:18 AM
Thank you... we aim to please.

Posted on July 9, 2013:
What does the CSR channel actually measure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w)

Posted on July 30, 2012:
Mosfets: How Do They Work, Part 9:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUcx3haZbA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUcx3haZbA)



Actually the two capacitor videos, from July 4 2012,  are probably a prerequisite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_-5UPbSrv8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 14, 2014, 05:23:15 AM
Thank you... we aim to please.

Posted on July 9, 2013:
What does the CSR channel actually measure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w)

Posted on July 30, 2012:
Mosfets: How Do They Work, Part 9:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUcx3haZbA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUcx3haZbA)

TK:

Didn't you mean MOSFETS?  I am sure this was just an oversight on your part....ha ha.  I'm sorry, I could not help myself.  Yet something else Rose was attempting to redefine.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2014, 05:41:49 AM
Hi Mark,

I just wanted to say we are grateful to have your presence here and a belated welcome.  I burnt out on the Ainslie drama a long time ago but I was once a protagonist (antagonist?)  It's an exercise in spinning wheels in mud from my perspective.

Anyway I hope that you have some fun around here.  Beware of compressed magnetic potential energy balls, wear goggles!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 05:45:32 AM
Thank you... we aim to please.

Posted on July 9, 2013:
What does the CSR channel actually measure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w)

Posted on July 30, 2012:
Mosfets: How Do They Work, Part 9:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUcx3haZbA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUcx3haZbA)
TinselKoala, thanks.  Those are both great demonstrations. 

If you are willing it would be great if you could shoot a video similar to the first video but where you actually connect the scope probe to the current sense resistor so that we have a direct reproduction of the latter part of the June.

Even if you do not shoot an additional video, you've already demonstrated the electronic principles involved that account for effects seen in the June 29, and August 11 demonstration videos. 

Thanks again.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 05:48:07 AM
TK:

Didn't you mean MOSFETS?  I am sure this was just an oversight on your part....ha ha.  I'm sorry, I could not help myself.  Yet something else Rose was attempting to redefine.

Bill

I think it's absolutely hilarious that she objects to my non-capitalization of the acronym. I always respond by telling her there is no such thing as a MOSFET.... the device is a Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor and if she doesn't write it out IN FULL every time, she is a dirty, dirty, dirty sinner.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 05:50:17 AM
Hi Mark,

I just wanted to say we are grateful to have your presence here and a belated welcome.  I burnt out on the Ainslie drama a long time ago but I was once a protagonist (antagonist?)  It's an exercise in spinning wheels in mud from my perspective.

Anyway I hope that you have some fun around here.  Beware of compressed magnetic potential energy balls, wear goggles!

MileHigh
I do hope that Ms. Ainslie takes good safety precautions while working with the high energy magnets she has purchased.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 05:59:44 AM
TinselKoala, thanks.  Those are both great demonstrations. 

If you are willing it would be great if you could shoot a video similar to the first video but where you actually connect the scope probe to the current sense resistor so that we have a direct reproduction of the latter part of the June.

Even if you do not shoot an additional video, you've already demonstrated the electronic principles involved that account for effects seen in the June 29, and August 11 demonstration videos. 

Thanks again.

Oh, sorry. I meant to put this one in too. Posted June 27, 2013:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdZAPZG6Fyo
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 06:13:18 AM
Oh, sorry. I meant to put this one in too. Posted June 27, 2013:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdZAPZG6Fyo
TinsekKoala, thanks again.  That video shows exactly the issues that were shown two days later during Ms. Ainslie's June 29 demonstration.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 06:39:27 AM
You are welcome, again.

Note that I use an insulated load cell, with the load resistor element immersed in 250 ml of mineral oil (specific heat 0.84), and the thermometer measures the temperature of the oil, not some unknown combination of oil and element temperature. Readings are generally taken after agitation. Thus, a measured temperature rise of the oil allows one to calculate fairly accurately the actual input of energy to the load cell. Further, by looking at the time it takes for the load cell to return to ambient after being warmed, I know the "leak rate" of the cell, so that I can refine the energy calculation even more.

Ainslie's temperature data, I believe, is seriously flawed due to her naive methodology. She has her load element dangling in mid-air with the temperature thermocouple attached directly to the metal housing, or perhaps only suspended near it at times, since she repeatedly talks about temperature "over" the load resistor. I don't trust the DC temperature calibration data for this reason. We haven't discussed the thermometry much up to this point, but this is another area where the experimental technique and data interpretation of the Ainslie team is seriously flawed.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 07:45:28 AM
TinselKoala you have done really great work showing the mechanics and the truth of Ms. Ainslie's apparatus.  You have applied great skill and care in your efforts.  I am sure that many people have learned about both circuits and good experiment techniques because of your efforts.

I believe that I have said before that I do not wish to berate anyone for making mistakes.   I credit Ms. Ainslie for conducting the demonstrations in June and August.  I see in those efforts an interest in getting to the truth.  I credit her for acknowledging the observed facts back in June and August and issuing her retraction in the face of those facts.  It's unfortunate that she has now done an about face on the facts.  The facts are in plain enough view, again thanks in no small part to efforts of people like you and Poynt99, but also due to Ms. Ainslee's own demonstrations, that Ms. Ainslie's present erroneous exclamations just aren't significant.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 09:26:35 AM
Do you see? I told you that she would not be responsive to a reasoned discussion of actual points. She persists in maintaining those fictions which her own data disprove. I will wager that she has not even watched the recordings of her farcical demonstrations.... and I will point out that the screenshots which Steve Weir guided them to make have never been posted publicly as they agreed to do... in fact Ainslie has never even mentioned them again.



There are "innocent" mistakes, and then there are deliberate falsifications. You may think that innocence deserves gentler treatment, and perhaps it does, but I reserve my right to berate people for the deliberate falsifications and cover-ups. And when "mistakes" persist for years after they have been pointed out and paths to correction defined.... then those who commit them become highly beratable, in my book.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Turbo on January 14, 2014, 09:59:44 AM
if you know all this, tell me then why keep wasting your time on this?
is it because you feel you need to prove something to somebody?
don't you see its a waste of time?
Just publishing the your test results would be sufficiënt.
you can use that precious time to work on real things.
but then again, what is real? how would you define real? it seems that real is simply electrical signals interpeted by the brain.
and then again, you would not recognize overunity if it bit you in the arse..

nope too busy making screenshots in stead of scopeshots, too busy running ancient and out dated routines...
it takes practice to break the habbits.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 11:03:50 AM
if you know all this, tell me then why keep wasting your time on this?
is it because you feel you need to prove something to somebody?
don't you see its a waste of time?
Just publishing the your test results would be sufficiënt.
you can use that precious time to work on real things.
but then again, what is real? how would you define real? it seems that real is simply electrical signals interpeted by the brain.
and then again, you would not recognize overunity if it bit you in the arse..

nope too busy making screenshots in stead of scopeshots, too busy running ancient and out dated routines...
it takes practice to break the habbits.

Why don't you tell me, newbie Turbo, just what you think "overunity" looks like, and why I might not recognize it if it bit me in the arse. Please be sure to include lots of references to your own work, and some demonstrations of "overunity", so I'll know what to look out for.

Also, you should check with the person who is forcing you to look at this thread, and ask him why he's not leaving you alone so you can work on your own "routines".
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Turbo on January 14, 2014, 11:22:08 AM

Why don't you


I already did but you never got back to me.
You were too busy.
The demonstrations are there for those to find.
Clearly, You are not one of them, and i am not going to spoonfeed you.

I just point out to you that you do not notice overunity, nor do you notice working overunity devices, you do not notice overunity concepts, ways of doing things, or what else.
It is a signal from me to you that you are missing something and that you might want to decide to stop wasting your time and start to look around a bit better.

I have not adressed to many people.
Only to you, Tinselkoala, who never got back to me when we met the first time.
And to Poynt, Who never got back to me.
Also to MarkDansie in fact more then once, who also does not get back to me.

See only 3 people and i get the same responce a big fuck off, luckily i know that there are people who do find it.

You imediatly get defensive, start telling me what to do, and so on, i´m just saying put it aside.
As for newbie, you do not have a clue about what i .
Why do people attach status to number of posts? is it related to how smart one is?
No it's not.....it can't be.

So,
Why don't you

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 11:27:09 AM
Do you see? I told you that she would not be responsive to a reasoned discussion of actual points. She persists in maintaining those fictions which her own data disprove. I will wager that she has not even watched the recordings of her farcical demonstrations.... and I will point out that the screenshots which Steve Weir guided them to make have never been posted publicly as they agreed to do... in fact Ainslie has never even mentioned them again.



There are "innocent" mistakes, and then there are deliberate falsifications. You may think that innocence deserves gentler treatment, and perhaps it does, but I reserve my right to berate people for the deliberate falsifications and cover-ups. And when "mistakes" persist for years after they have been pointed out and paths to correction defined.... then those who commit them become highly beratable, in my book.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLqM7FRMeZ4)
TinselKoala, all that you say about Ms. Ainslie may well be true.  Even if it is, what would it really matter?  To all rational people familiar with her claims and the evidence, the matter is settled.  To any rational people who might later come along, thanks to people like you and Poynt99, the evidence is irrefutable and they will not be fooled.  All that leaves is the personal stuff. I encourage you to just let the personal stuff go.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 01:49:25 PM
TinselKoala, all that you say about Ms. Ainslie may well be true.  Even if it is, what would it really matter?  To all rational people familiar with her claims and the evidence, the matter is settled.  To any rational people who might later come along, thanks to people like you and Poynt99, the evidence is irrefutable and they will not be fooled.  All that leaves is the personal stuff. I encourage you to just let the personal stuff go.

If my responses to Ainslie's personal attacks on me are bothering you, you can always put me on your "ignore" list and then you won't have to see my comments at all.

I would remind you that it was Ainslie who chose to resurrect this topic, and she did it with continuing personal attacks, insults, false accusations of criminality, and even threats against my person and reputation. She has been engaging in email and telephone campaigns seeking to identify me and she has been making false allegations against me to others. Where is anyone seeking to restrain her? This forum thread is my only avenue of response and defence against her calumnies.  She chose to make this argument personal, in the nastiest possible manner, long ago. I have responded with facts, checkable outside references and completely documented demonstrations which anyone can repeat... and you see how she replies: with more insults, false accusations and misrepresentations of my work and my words. There is one sure way to get me to stop doing what I'm doing, and that is for Ainslie to put an end to her perpetual lies and insults and start behaving like an honest researcher who wants to learn the truth. Since this will never happen.... here I am, and I will continue to reply to her insults and disrespect with all the contempt they deserve.

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

I find this video incredibly offensive. Can you imagine the outrage that would be directed toward me, had I published anything like this with Ainslie as subject? Where is the outrage directed toward Ainslie?

Why does Ainslie need all these YouTube accounts, anyway?

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAbOZ4AUgzJBbit6Yu_ee-g/videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont/videos
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl_CaI0BzcLgmW7aFWM29WQ/videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising/videos
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 02:13:37 PM
If my responses to Ainslie's personal attacks on me are bothering you, you can always put me on your "ignore" list and then you won't have to see my comments at all.

I would remind you that it was Ainslie who chose to resurrect this topic, and she did it with continuing personal attacks, insults, false accusations of criminality, and even threats against my person and reputation. She has been engaging in email and telephone campaigns seeking to identify me and she has been making false allegations against me to others. Where is anyone seeking to restrain her? This forum thread is my only avenue of response and defence against her calumnies.  She chose to make this argument personal, in the nastiest possible manner, long ago. I have responded with facts, checkable outside references and completely documented demonstrations which anyone can repeat... and you see how she replies: with more insults, false accusations and misrepresentations of my work and my words. There is one sure way to get me to stop doing what I'm doing, and that is for Ainslie to put an end to her perpetual lies and insults and start behaving like an honest researcher who wants to learn the truth. Since this will never happen.... here I am, and I will continue to reply to her insults and disrespect with all the contempt they deserve.
TinselKoala, I can see what she's done and what she is doing.  My suggestion, and it is only a suggestion, was intended for your benefit as you are someone I value.  If my suggestion doesn't suit you, that's fine.  I will not belabor it.

ETA:  Yes, that first video is very off color.  I think that reflects badly on her for making it and posting it.  I have no idea why she has more than one You Tube channel.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2014, 03:34:32 PM
I appreciate your kind words and your concern. Thank you. I'm sorry that I can't seem to achieve your detachment. I've been bearing the brunt of Ainslie's rank insults and disrespect ever since I first elucidated the duty cycle problem with the Quantum magazine circuit back in 2009.


Meanwhile, I watched again the video of the August 11 demonstration. In about an hour and eleven minutes, I see about ten minutes of actual data presentation. Once again it seems to me like the presenters don't really grasp what is expected of them or what is being presented, or why. Without Steve Weir's patient guidance, it's clear that this would have been another complete farce, an utter waste of time. At least Steve managed to herd them down the right path for a few minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY3mHLJ2DzU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY3mHLJ2DzU)

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2014, 05:08:28 PM
TinselKoala, you are welcome.

The August 11 demonstration offers a lot of information to anyone who is willing to take the time to watch closely.  I find it unfortunate that Ms. Ainslie is making declarations that are directly contradicted by what the demonstration unequivocally shows. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 16, 2014, 06:43:30 AM
Indeed so. I wonder what SWeir might have to say about the recent developments, and how he would interpret your comments and my efforts to Ainslie.

Ainslie continues to demonstrate that she is impervious to reason and that she is incapable of learning from my simple demonstrations. Clearly I have pitched them at too high a level -- I was trying to make them understandable by a bright eighth-grader.... but then, around here they do teach algebra to bright students of that age. In the future I will have to "dumb down" even further if I expect persons of Ainslie's educational level and reasoning ability to grasp my demonstrations.

I also think it is hilarious when Ainslie chooses to denigrate my equipment or my technique.... when nobody in her crew even knows how to operate their equipment and can't tell normal functioning from a malfunction, causing them to waste hours of useless effort. Ainslie herself has no idea just what the FG offset control does. Just about every statement she makes is contradicted by her own data and the evidence from her own demonstrations! She doesn't even have the skill--or courage-- to operate the equipment herself for her demonstrations, she has to get someone else to do it for her.... and can't even find anyone competent to do so.... yet she makes her silly comments about my demonstrations.


Posted on April 6, 2012:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoYFxq4bm2w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoYFxq4bm2w)

Also posted on April 6, 2012:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXAqEinb8YU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXAqEinb8YU)
(Note the monitoring of the mosfet DRAIN voltage to show what is really going on)


But I think that this one might be pitched at a level more appropriate for Ainslie's understanding:
(July 14, 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA)

(I'm pretty irate for this one all right, and I'm talking so fast I made a few errors in the patter but I've corrected those by text annotations on the video. Believe it or not... this demonstration was a response to people -- including Ainslie's main sycophants at the time -- who believed that the Drain voltage being HIGH meant that the mosfet Drain-Source channel is ON. This is part of the "duty cycle" issue. The little test circuit was suggested out by Aaron, who believed it would behave exactly opposite than it actually does, as a challenge to me during the initial "debate" over the duty cycle produced by the "precise circuit" given in the Quantum article. This is also why you do not see Drain voltage traces on Ainslie's scopeshots: she does not understand what the Drain signal is showing.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2014, 10:13:02 AM
TinselKoala, the videos are very good:  They state the principles that they intend to demonstrate and then proceed to do that clearly and concisely.

The observable facts are that mention of Ms. Ainslie got quiet, and Ms. Ainslie published her comments.  That should tell most people what they need to know.  For the record:  Yes, Ms. Ainslie is correct, I misused 'dispersion' five days ago.  I am at a loss to find anything else in that posting or her other subsequent postings that deserves comment. 

I do not speak for Steve.  If anyone wants to coax comments from him then I think they will need to contact him directly.









Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 17, 2014, 05:10:17 PM
Yawn.

Ainslie, in her ignorance, still confuses "libel" with "slander", even while committing it .... just as she doesn't know the difference between "equinox" and "solstice". Or "Joule" and "Watt". Or many other fine distinctions she ignores .... such as "Truth" and "Falsehood".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPOap8nwQ2A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIB-_dL-unA



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2014, 07:10:26 PM
TinselKoala, the videos do tell a story.  The story has been repeated many times.  The circuit that Ms. Ainslie once thought and continues to profess "breaks the unity barriers" in reality, and as proven by her own August 11 demonstration, is massively inefficient compared to simple wires.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 17, 2014, 08:40:38 PM
I'd like to see a lot less chatter from the Ainslie camp, and a lot more testing. The proof is in the pudding, and all I've seen is promises of pudding for several months now.

When is the Ainslie camp going to get off their keisters and whip up some of that pudding they keep teasing us about? Talk is cheap, and it simply doesn't cut it when outrageous claims are involved.

Maybe they just need a little cheering-on; all together now:

"Go go Ainslie camp
Get to testing
Save the rant"

 :P
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 17, 2014, 09:32:22 PM
There is no testing to talk about!

Remember the June and August demonstrations? They went into those, cold. But for the "private" session before the more public August demo, there weren't even any rehearsals! Remember how, in the June 29 demo, they didn't seem to understand what the problem was, and how they were surprised by the Q1 oscillations, to the point of suspecting their FG of malfing? None of them had operated that apparatus for a long, -long- time, and they certainly didn't understand the problem space.

And of course, for over a year prior to that, Ainslie claimed testing was happening, that the Figure 3 scopeshot was trivial to make, and all the rest of it. For how long has she been promising battery draw-down data? Since 2009, at least. Yet they were caught completely by surprise on June 29, and again on August 10.

Now she is making her claims without producing any supporting data at all. She has apparently learned one lesson from her farcical performances: if you don't give out any data or details, you cannot be solidly refuted.

Where are the scopeshots that Steve Weir had them save to the USB stick, and that _AINSLIE AGREED TO PUBLISH_ ? Nobody has seen them, and Ainslie has given several lame excuses, like "Donny has them and Ainslie doesn't want to bother him"..... right.  The TRUTH is that those scopeshots, along with the conditions under which they were made, are powerful coffin nails, that demonstrate to those with the wits to understand them, that Ainslie's claims are utterly false. And Ainslie knows this! This is why she will not publish them, not some lame excuse involving Donovan Martin's busy schedule.

The entire history of the Ainslie affair demonstrates that getting data from Ainslie is like pulling teeth.... from an old woman, who has lost all her _real_ teeth long ago.  Where are the alleged reports from all those engineers and companies? She cannot provide them because they don't exist.




Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2014, 10:52:58 PM
TinselKoala, awhile back I asked Steve if he knew anything about the flash drive captures from the June 29 demo.  He said that they were not available.  He did not elaborate.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 18, 2014, 06:20:18 PM
Mark E., that's right, they are "not available" ... from the Ainslie camp.

Several possible reasons we can imagine. On the one hand we have several different kinds of incompetence: They lost the flash drive, the dog ate it, the scope wasn't set properly to make the recording, etc. etc. On the other hand we have several different kinds of duplicity: They don't want to publish them because they realize what they show, they are in Donny's hands and Ainslie doesn't want to bother him, etc. etc. Can anyone think of other kinds of reasons why we don't have those shots? The fact remains that they were to be published, by the agreement made and discussed ... and they have not been published.

By the Ainslie mob, that is. I went through the video and made screenshots of the scope screens at the times of the USB saves. The descriptions of the conditions of each shot can be easily heard in the video -- as can be Steve Weir's words telling them to publish the shots, and their words agreeing to do so.

(Of course as we all know this is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that we have been promised raw data by Ainslie ... and she has failed to provide it. Where, for example, are the spreadsheets that she promised to Stefan and the rest of us, years ago? Of course those are moot since it has been amply shown that the data from all those early experiments cannot be trusted at all.)



Now.... we really should be asking a bit more pointedly, I think.... WHY have the Ainslie mob not released their clear versions of these scopeshots, since we have the screen grabs of them already and we can tell, with sufficient detail, just what they do show because of MY work?

(The compendium of most of Ainslie's posted and "published" scopeshots, no thanks to Ainslie:
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/
And below I've posted an image of what she had to say about that compendium. Every one of the shots was indeed posted to the internet, publicly, by Ainslie herself, as anyone (except, apparently Ainslie) can verify for themselves. )
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 18, 2014, 06:41:09 PM
By the way.... I have told Ainslie, long ago, that I can indeed provide the source (her posting) of each and every one of those shots, and I've asked for her to specify any one that she challenges. She has never responded to that, instead choosing to continue to emit statements like that above: paranoid, delusional accusations that are simply impossible in fact, and which are easily refuted by simply entering into "google" the filename or SCRN sequence number of the shots.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on January 18, 2014, 07:17:25 PM
Hey!  I found a nugget of high comedy:

Quote
NOTA BENE.  The current flow measured directly at the negative terminal of the battery shows NO discharge during the 'OFF' period.  Therefore?

 :-*
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2014, 08:02:57 PM
Hey!  I found a nugget of high comedy:

 :-*
I know the quote sounds obvious and foolish.  Had Ms. Ainslie's quote been true it would have been very significant.  It would have meant that the battery was not supplying power during the intervals when the breadboard circuit was going through its big oscillations.  During the August 11 demonstrations those were the only times that the heating element was powered. 

Ms. Ainslie's quote refers to the function generator negative voltage interval, AKA the Q1 "OFF" intervals.  She has things backwards:  During the August 11th demonstration, current only flowed during the function generator negative voltage intervals, AKA Q1 "OFF" intervals of her papers and June 29 demonstration.  The current flow during the Q1 "OFF" interval is is the oscillatory current measured both at the white breadboard fixture and at the batteries that results from linear operation of the Q2 MOSFETs.   During those oscillations some small amounts of current passed through the drain to gate, drain to source, and gate to source parasitic capacitance of Q1.

For all tests conducted during the August 11, demonstration, the function generator's maximum positive excursion was ~2V which was insufficient to bias Q1 on.  Ms. Ainslie has consistently referred to the periods of function generator positive swing as the Q1 "ON" periods.  And they would be were the positive excursion set well above the IRFPG50's Vgs of 4V.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 19, 2014, 03:56:27 PM
We should also explicitly note that the oscillations of Q2s are partially turning those transistors on, biasing them into their linear operation region. They aren't turning on fully, and so their drain-source resistance is even higher than the nominal Rdss of 2.0 ohms each (4 in parallel would have an aggregate resistance of 0.5 ohms when fully ON). This means that the power dissipation in these transistors is relatively high during the oscillations. We can recall that the August 11 demonstration showed around 13 to 15 Watts of power coming from the battery stack in the Q2-oscillation, no Q1 current, configuration, and that this produced a temperature rise of about 21 degrees C in the load resistance. Ainslie declined to complete the Phase 4 DC control test, so reference was made to the temperature calibrations in "Paper 1".... which showed that a DC power of around 2 or 3 Watts was sufficient to produce a 20 degree temperature rise in the load. The exact values can be heard toward the end of the video clip below. The "missing power" is heating up the mosfets, mostly, although according to my measurements a significant amount is also being radiated as RF at the oscillation frequency. That's right.... there is actually more power being dissipated by the internal resistance of the partially-on mosfets during oscillation, than there is in the load resistor. A comprehensive examination of power in this circuit should have the entire circuit, mosfets and everything, immersed in a known quantity of oil, and the temperature measurements should be made on the oil. In this way the total power dissipation of the entire circuit could be compared to the power drawn from the battery. If there is any hope for experimental support for Ainslie's conjectures, the _total_ power dissipation of the entire circuit must be compared to the battery (plus FG) power contributed to the circuit.

What's the "TL;DR" ?

Since this is the last bit of data we have from Ainslie, we completely reject her current set of claims made without evidence. In the video clip, we can hear her waffling about: But but... when you weren't watching us, we got completely different results from the same settings. That gets a ROFL, for sure ! All of Ainslie's OU results happen when there is no one watching, no record is made and nobody knows just how settings were set. When people are watching and parameters carefully measured and recorded, HER OWN DATA indicate that there is only normal circuit behaviour happening, in a _grossly inefficient_ heater circuit, if heat at the load is the only consideration. However, the total power dissipation of the circuit was not monitored in these or any other sets of Ainslie experiments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w


Ainslie's current claim seems to be that the batteries, when used with her circuit at her operating parameters, will outlast their amp-hour ratings compared to the same batteries, making the same heat at the same load, using DC alone. How exactly is this test to be arranged? How do you use the same batteries and the same load to provide DC current to make the same heat as the Ainslie circuit makes? Do you limit the current with an inline rheostat (dissipating power there)? Do you use PWM or some other chopping scheme? Do you use a _different load resistor_?

Note once again in the posts imaged below, how Ainslie makes false allegations against me, without being able to provide any references at all to support her ridiculous claims. Where did I EVER say that a FG could not be tuned to a negative offset? Nowhere, that's where. Ainslie simply lies. Since I've demonstrated the offset function time and time again, her foot is once again seen to be stuck firmly down her throat. To what does she refer when she says I  ENTIRLY omitted 'time' in my analysis of power? We have seen Time and Time Again that Ainslie cannot tell the difference between Power and Energy and does not understand the difference between a Quantity (Joule) and a Rate (Watt). Ainslie is over her head in any discussion of Power and Energy, because she does not understand the relationship between the two and does not have any math beyond simple arithmetic.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 04:52:41 PM
TinselKoala the short summary is that Ms. Ainslie's best and most recent demonstrations completely refute her claims.   Nothing can change that but new data that supports her claims.  There is no sign of such data from any source.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on January 19, 2014, 05:46:22 PM
There is a lot of drama in flux, it's just like the good old days.  The issue of battery discharge rates and how much energy you can extract from a battery was covered by PicoWatt but I don't think it was ever acknowledged.  Rosemary is proposing swapping the batteries, so she should get symmetrical results.  THEN? lol

As long as she gets a pair of brand new batteries then let her rip Rosie!  Let's hope she can find someone to run the tests for her.  There is the technical challenge of setting up the right load resistor for the control experiment.  It would be a fun challenge to do a really good thermal setup and plan the execution of the test.  You could take a trip to a big-box hardware store and whip up something quite easily.  Get some styrofoam and some plastic pails and some insulation.  How many pails of water should my battery energy heat up?  How will I agitate it?  What should I use for a delta-t?  Should I measure the the thermal time constant of my insulated water vessel to make sure it is not likely to affect my results?  How do you check the batteries?

There is enough drama right there to fill a full season of episodes.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 19, 2014, 06:13:38 PM
MH:

But what happens when she heats that water to 104 degrees C?  I mean, she claims to have done that before.  This tells me that her temperature measurement skills are no better than her electronics skills.  Therefore, I would doubt any results she obtained from the experiments you, and others, have suggested.

I also do not see the need for such large batteries, and so many of them.  It would take a very long time to run down the control set.  A charged supercap should be used instead making it a matter of hours for the control to be performed, not days, weeks or months.

Of course, then she will claim that part of the "magic" in her circuit is in the batteries themselves and removing them would change the results.  I think we should not expect her to perform any tests or experiments of a scientific nature, or we will be waiting a loooong time.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on January 19, 2014, 06:23:29 PM
Bill:

Quote
But what happens when she heats that water to 104 degrees C?  I mean, she claims to have done that before.

It's due to the high pressure atmosphere around Rosie.  Enough to make your ears pop.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 09:22:47 PM
There is a lot of drama in flux, it's just like the good old days.  The issue of battery discharge rates and how much energy you can extract from a battery was covered by PicoWatt but I don't think it was ever acknowledged.  Rosemary is proposing swapping the batteries, so she should get symmetrical results.  THEN? lol

As long as she gets a pair of brand new batteries then let her rip Rosie!  Let's hope she can find someone to run the tests for her.  There is the technical challenge of setting up the right load resistor for the control experiment.  It would be a fun challenge to do a really good thermal setup and plan the execution of the test.  You could take a trip to a big-box hardware store and whip up something quite easily.  Get some styrofoam and some plastic pails and some insulation.  How many pails of water should my battery energy heat up?  How will I agitate it?  What should I use for a delta-t?  Should I measure the the thermal time constant of my insulated water vessel to make sure it is not likely to affect my results?  How do you check the batteries?

There is enough drama right there to fill a full season of episodes.
The test procedures that Ms. Ainslie has proposed are woefully inadequate.  They are also out of left field.  Until she improves her efficiency by about 5X she is outperformed by wires.  In order to show unambiguous gain she needs to improve by about 10X and get ~30W instead of ~3W when drawing ~15W from her batteries.  If she should ever get to the point that it looks like she is getting much more out of the heater than she draws from the batteries then she can try run down test following some reliable protocol.  If she jumps the gun then there are more or less two possibilities:  She and her collaborators will make gross mistakes and generate worthless data, or they will find that they don't get improved battery performance delivering the same heat as an appropriately selected resistor and wires while drawing the same amount of power from the batteries as does her current circuit.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 03:58:34 AM
Quote
Can someone here please help me with a simple self-oscillation circuit using my Inductive Resistor Heater Element as one of the circuit components and a minimum of other components like the MOSFET. It must also operate in a pulse width mode ... IOW with a well defined 'ON' period and a well defined 'OFF' period. I envision a tank circuit of some sort that 'clips' itself somehow. If it's not possible to use the element in the circuit that controls the MOSFET, that's OK. I just need a generic sort of design that can be adjusted. I'm trying to eliminate any parasitic loads that waste energy so my next slate of tests stand a chance of success.  I just haven't been able to get a 555 to properly control my driver chip ... it always fall short on the "crispness" end. If I could eliminate the driver chip, that would be great, but properly controlling a Power MOSFET at 500K+ Hz and 5% to 20% duty cycle usually requires one.

Thanks in advance,

Greg

That is not hard to arrange.  Do you want the non-oscillating period to saturate the switch conducting or not conducting, or do you need all three states:  oscillating, conducting, and off?  Since many MOSFET drivers accept logic inputs you can sharpen your 555 by using a logic gate such as a 74alvc1g14 with a resistor and diode to clip the input or by running the 555 from the same supply as the logic gate.  An inverting gate such as the xxx14 will make things easier on you anyway because 555's configured as astable multivibrators like to make long on duty-cycles.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 03:18:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIANNRpl6FA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIANNRpl6FA)

(posted on July 13, 2012)

The same technique can be applied to the much higher-frequency circuit that is currently in Ainslie's "box". Inverter gates can be daisy-chained with little propagation delay, so one can have both inverted and noninverted outputs simultaneously depending on how many inverter gates you use. For higher speed and low power use one might choose a different inverter than the 4049.


Driving a power mosfet (IRFP460) at about 4 MHz using a self-triggering Class E amplifier circuit:
(no chips, mosfet gate is driven directly from a biased pickup loop under the main coil)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDcjEnVnGMM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDcjEnVnGMM)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 03:39:14 PM
MH:

But what happens when she heats that water to 104 degrees C?  I mean, she claims to have done that before.  This tells me that her temperature measurement skills are no better than her electronics skills.  Therefore, I would doubt any results she obtained from the experiments you, and others, have suggested.

I also do not see the need for such large batteries, and so many of them.  It would take a very long time to run down the control set.  A charged supercap should be used instead making it a matter of hours for the control to be performed, not days, weeks or months.

Of course, then she will claim that part of the "magic" in her circuit is in the batteries themselves and removing them would change the results.  I think we should not expect her to perform any tests or experiments of a scientific nature, or we will be waiting a loooong time.

Bill

Several points, Bill. By Ainslie's own admission, in forum and blog posts that I have displayed before....

Actually, Ainslie and her mob never actually measured the actual water temperature. Actually. What they "actually" measured was some combination of element and water temperature, since the thermocouple is attached directly to the element housing metal.

Furthermore, the 700 or 800 milliliters of water (her accounts vary)  wasn't actually boiling , at any time in Ainslie's trials, even at the cited temperature of 104 degrees. "There were small bubbles" at the hot element where she immersed it.

Note that the blog report, made on or about the day of the actual trial, uses very different language than is used in the "paper 1" description of the same trial. "Wasn't actually boiling" becomes "takes water to boil". "We never measured the temperature of the water" becomes "the water temperature was...."  and so on.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: minnie on January 20, 2014, 03:52:16 PM
Hi,
   trouble is these folk won't do a simple test because they can't. Instead of using a huge
amount of stored energy in the form of a bank of massive lead batteries why not use
something like 2ah. cells. If they're not draining the batteries the small cells should last
for days. I'll bet they wouldn't though!
                             John.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 03:52:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIANNRpl6FA

(posted on July 13, 2012)

The same technique can be applied to the much higher-frequency circuit that is currently in Ainslie's "box". Inverter gates can be daisy-chained with little propagation delay, so one can have both inverted and noninverted outputs simultaneously depending on how many inverter gates you use. For higher speed and low power use one might choose a different inverter than the 4049.
The CD4049 works fine for that with the only limitations the asymmetric drive strength and limit to about 5V operation.  What a lot of people don't realize is that another 555 can be used to make an inverter that has the same high drive strength and wide supply voltage range that make the 555 a very useful part.  I've shown an example here that can produce the stated Quantum Magazine timing very precisely. 

The second 555 acts like an inverter with input hysteresis of Vcc/3.   When the input voltage exceeds the pin 6 threshold value of Vcc * 2/3, the 555's internal latch clears, and the output goes low.  The discharge pin also conducts which can be useful in some cases.  When the input signal falls below the pin 2 trigger value of Vcc * 1/3, the 555's internal latch sets, and the output goes high.  CMOS 555's have propagation delays of about 100ns, and rise and fall times of about 150ns.  With the addition of two resistors, this circuit can be used to take a logic level input.  Just connect a voltage divider of R/2R resistors from the logic power supply to the pin 5, control voltage input.  For example with a CMOS 555 use  5K to the logic supply and 10K to ground.  The switching thresholds will be 2/3 of the logic supply for high to low, and 1/3 of the logic supply for low to high.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 04:02:42 PM
Sure.

There is an even easier way to "fix" the duty cycle issue in the exact Quantum 17 circuit, though. You will note that in the original circuit the 555 clock is powered by its own battery. This makes the duty cycle invertible by the use of the Secret of DPDT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVePUJJVAlc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVePUJJVAlc)   (September 7, 2013)



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 04:07:29 PM
Hi,
   trouble is these folk won't do a simple test because they can't. Instead of using a huge
amount of stored energy in the form of a bank of massive lead batteries why not use
something like 2ah. cells. If they're not draining the batteries the small cells should last
for days. I'll bet they wouldn't though!
                             John.
John lead acid batteries are low rate devices.  They will wear out quickly if you charge or discharge them in less than 10 hours.  Going to smaller batteries would just restrict them to lower powers or expose the batteries to damage.

Other cells like NiCd, NiMH, or most Li-Ion can handle charging and discharging in an hour without degradation.  I don't recall seeing anything her theory that Ms. Ainslie says is so important that depends on a lead acid cell.  An additional advantage of going from lead acid to Li-Ion would be that the charging efficiency of Li-Ion is much better than lead acid.  Decent Li-Ion batteries can be purchased for $1.00/W or less.  A 20Wh - 40Wh battery would be plenty for the sorts of experiments they were doing.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 04:09:54 PM
Sure.

There is an even easier way to "fix" the duty cycle issue in the exact Quantum 17 circuit, though. You will note that in the original circuit the 555 clock is powered by its own battery. This makes the duty cycle invertible by the use of the Secret of DPDT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVePUJJVAlc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVePUJJVAlc)   (September 17, 2013)
That's a clever arrangement provided you have separate supplies.  Bad things will happen if you try and use it with a common supply.  Why are DPDT switches a secret?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 20, 2014, 04:18:36 PM
Mark,

Do you mean Ah vs. Wh?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 04:29:07 PM
Poynt99 I meant Wh.  there is no reason that I can see for the huge battery banks.  If they were ever to find something with a gain that should be detectable in less than a minute.  Honestly, a good bench power supply would do.

The August 11 demonstration drew ~15W from the batteries.  If they think they need to turn Q1 on part of the time the power will jump by approximately 450W * Q1 duty cycle.  All the power gain they originally reported but the demonstrations showed was mismeasurement is supposed to be from the oscillations.  When Q1 is on it is just a surrogate switch.  So if they do need Q1 on part of the time it should only need to be for a very short time and small duty-cycle.  A 20Wh - 40Wh pack should be plenty.  At 72V they may have trouble finding a Li-ion pack smaller than 100Wh.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 04:30:28 PM
That's a clever arrangement provided you have separate supplies.  Bad things will happen if you try and use it with a common supply.  Why are DPDT switches a secret?

The Secret of DPDT is a poke at Steorn. During their famous Waterways demonstration of their core-effect eOrbo pulse motors, they wanted to demonstrate that the rotation of the motor did not depend on the polarity of the DC pulses provided to the drive coils. This resulted in five minutes or so of screwdriver re-wiring work on their otherwise well-laid-out giant breadboard, and then another interval while the original connections were re-established. Apparently the Secret of DPDT was not yet known by the Lads in Dublin. I have also noted several other occasions when people who might have been expected to know better, were either fooled by a DPDT switch or failed to use one in an obvious application.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 04:54:27 PM
Poynt99 I meant Wh.  there is no reason that I can see for the huge battery banks.  If they were ever to find something with a gain that should be detectable in less than a minute.  Honestly, a good bench power supply would do.

The August 11 demonstration drew ~15W from the batteries.  If they think they need to turn Q1 on part of the time the power will jump by approximately 450W * Q1 duty cycle.  All the power gain they originally reported but the demonstrations showed was mismeasurement is supposed to be from the oscillations.  When Q1 is on it is just a surrogate switch.  So if they do need Q1 on part of the time it should only need to be for a very short time and small duty-cycle.  A 20Wh - 40Wh pack should be plenty.  At 72V they may have trouble finding a Li-ion pack smaller than 100Wh.

The reason for the huge battery banks is obfuscation! According to the Ainslie team, a 12 volt LA or SCLA battery is "fully charged" whenever its open-circuit terminal voltage is 12 volts or more. I know this is hard to believe but I have substantiated it with references many times before. So with a bank of 4 to six nominal "12 volt" silver-calcium LAs with 60 amp-hours rated capacity (as were used for the trials reported in the daft manuscripts), one can run her circuit at high heat values for many trials before seeing depletion in charge using their definitions and instrumentation methodology. Which is just what happened.

Why not use a large capacitor bank? Because it does not obfuscate. Even though the "negative power product" is produced just as with batteries -- in fact, the waveforms are identical -- a capacitor bank discharges at the normally expected rate. Ainslie has used this result to claim that batteries are necessary. Of course.

You may note in the photo below, published by Ainslie in PESN just before the last set of demonstrations.... there is an extra set of red and black cables, terminated by large alligator clips, leading up to behind the oscilloscope, where something is concealed underneath a wadded-up textile, in Ainslie's neat-as-a-pin "laboratory". This "something" is evidently a power supply or battery charger. Odd, isn't it?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 20, 2014, 04:55:15 PM
Mark.

I've only seen batteries rated/specified in "Amp-hours", not "Watt-hours".
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 05:09:13 PM
The Secret of DPDT is a poke at Steorn. During their famous Waterways demonstration of their core-effect eOrbo pulse motors, they wanted to demonstrate that the rotation of the motor did not depend on the polarity of the DC pulses provided to the drive coils. This resulted in five minutes or so of screwdriver re-wiring work on their otherwise well-laid-out giant breadboard, and then another interval while the original connections were re-established. Apparently the Secret of DPDT was not yet known by the Lads in Dublin. I have also noted several other occasions when people who might have been expected to know better, were either fooled by a DPDT switch or failed to use one in an obvious application.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo
Do the DHS or NSA know about this DPDT secret?  It seems so powerful that it might be dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands.  A shudder to think what a determined cheese maker might be able to do with something that powerful.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 05:10:25 PM
Mark.

I've only seen batteries rated/specified in "Amp-hours", not "Watt-hours".
Poynt99, cells are usually rated in Ah.  There are many batteries that are rated in Wh particularly in the rechargeable battery space.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 05:28:11 PM
Do the DHS or NSA know about this DPDT secret?  It seems so powerful that it might be dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands.  A shudder to think what a determined cheese maker might be able to do with something that powerful.

Unfortunately... I ran out of that fine mouldy cheese, had to use all my remaining stash on a pasta emergency. And now I can no longer find any cheeses that will work in the Cheese Power demonstration.    :-[ :-\ ::) 8)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 05:31:44 PM
Have you considered the possibility that the DHS, or NSA quickly moved in and neutered available cheese so that what you showed would no longer be possible?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 05:33:49 PM
The reason for the huge battery banks is obfuscation! According to the Ainslie team, a 12 volt LA or SCLA battery is "fully charged" whenever its open-circuit terminal voltage is 12 volts or more. I know this is hard to believe but I have substantiated it with references many times before. So with a bank of 4 to six nominal "12 volt" silver-calcium LAs with 60 amp-hours rated capacity (as were used for the trials reported in the daft manuscripts), one can run her circuit at high heat values for many trials before seeing depletion in charge using their definitions and instrumentation methodology. Which is just what happened.

Why not use a large capacitor bank? Because it does not obfuscate. Even though the "negative power product" is produced just as with batteries -- in fact, the waveforms are identical -- a capacitor bank discharges at the normally expected rate. Ainslie has used this result to claim that batteries are necessary. Of course.

You may note in the photo below, published by Ainslie in PESN just before the last set of demonstrations.... there is an extra set of red and black cables, terminated by large alligator clips, leading up to behind the oscilloscope, where something is concealed underneath a wadded-up textile, in Ainslie's neat-as-a-pin "laboratory". This "something" is evidently a power supply or battery charger. Odd, isn't it?
The results could be very different if one accidentally left a charger connected and running.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 20, 2014, 05:41:57 PM
Poynt99, cells are usually rated in Ah.  There are many batteries that are rated in Wh particularly in the rechargeable battery space.
Oki. Did not know that.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2014, 06:02:10 PM
Have you considered the possibility that the DHS, or NSA quickly moved in and neutered available cheese so that what you showed would no longer be possible?
I knew it had to be rats, of one sort or another.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: poynt99 on January 20, 2014, 10:22:41 PM
I've updated my Burst Oscillator Circuit to get rid of the 5V bias supply, and to simplify the design somewhat.

Many MOSFETs could be used, especially if a high Fo was desired. The PG50 is certainly no the best choice, but I designed around it for the sake of you know who. An IRF840 works just fine, in fact the peak voltage is about double the PG50.

I've posted this over at Rose's forum for Greg if he should be interested in trying it.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2014, 10:50:50 PM
That's a simple enough solution.

Since he is chasing an energy gain idea I think he should concern himself with either using a switching amplifier, or figuring out how to measure the oscillator's losses fairly accurately.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 06:53:55 AM
Why, Poynty.... have you been holding out on us? Ainslie says that you have a "faithful" copy of her device! Different in some significant way from my Tar Baby, is it? And you've been doing draw-down tests for three months!!

And she used, in "early days"... an IGBT !!  All these years and this is the first we've ever heard about it. What was that circuit, I wonder? What was its operating frequency and duty cycle? What a hoot this Ainslie is!

I have repeatedly offered to have Tar Baby tested side-by-side with Ainslie's apparatus, or any other "replication" of Ainslie's apparatus, to see if there are any differences in waveforms, heating or battery performance. Tar Baby is ready to go, to any qualified third party who can conduct the tests. Tar Baby uses the same components as Ainslie has claimed to use, can be quickly configured to _any_ of the many different schematics Ainslie has claimed to use, and gives the same waveforms for the same input settings as Ainslie has demonstrated. Ainslie has always avoided any kind of direct comparison like this because she KNOWS that my work with Tar Baby has comprehensively demolished each and every claim she has made about "her" circuit. The challenge to prove that her circuit performs any differently from Tar Baby has been made for several years now. She has even mistaken my Tek DSO scopeshots from Tar Baby experiments as being her own!

Now Ainslie claims to have used an IGBT, in the "early days". This is laughable in the extreme. Early days, 12 or 14 years ago? Used an IGBT? Right.

And they've noticed that the Quantum single mosfet circuit, or some unspecified variation of it, does not oscillate the way that the 5-mosfet circuit does. Surprise surprise!


(Can't run at an output of 30 watts without NUKING her transistors??? That's absurd, and is definitely disproved by her own published data.)


Where are these suggestions that Ainslie claims were made by Mark E? 30 Watts, capacitors.... ???
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 07:05:29 AM
TinselKoala the only statement of any value in Ms. Ainslie's post is that they are conducting some new tests.  The rest is noise.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 07:33:25 AM
TinselKoala the only statement of any value in Ms. Ainslie's post is that they are conducting some new tests.  The rest is noise.

"They" being the same crew, unsupervised, that cannot read a frequency from a digital oscilloscope, the crew that made the Figure 3 scopeshot "error" and persisted with it for years, the crew that has demonstrated over and over their incompetence in making and interpreting simple measurements, the crew that doesn't know the difference between a Watt and a Joule?

I can hardly wait for her "complete report" of this new testing.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 09:11:29 AM
TinselKoala, their prior demonstrations showed that outside guidance made a huge difference.  I doubt they have such help for this go round as evidenced by the procedures Ms. Ainslie has published that  are IMO very poor.  I think that the best they can hope for is that if they report some really extraordinary results that someone will then test using reliable methods and a similar test device. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 11:05:11 AM
TinselKoala, their prior demonstrations showed that outside guidance made a huge difference.  I doubt they have such help for this go round as evidenced by the procedures Ms. Ainslie has published that  are IMO very poor.  I think that the best they can hope for is that if they report some really extraordinary results that someone will then test using reliable methods and a similar test device.

You mean like Deja Vu all over again?

Several years ago she did just that. She reported some really extraordinary results. Someone.... many people, actually, like Aaron, Ashtweth, DrStiffler, Glen Lettenmeier, Poynt99, and many others, including " Little TK " .... tested them using reliable methods and similar test devices. And we all demonstrated -- eventually -- that her claims were false, unsupported by what verifiable data she herself emitted, and full explanations for each and every feature of her apparatus and its performance were given, long ago.

You are right, the procedures she has proposed are naive, very poor.  You will never see data from proper control experiments from the Ainslie crew.  She whines and complains, asserts that my Tar Baby is somehow different from her kludge.... yet she cannot specify how or why she claims this. Tar Baby does everything her version does (how could it not, it's the same circuit!), and in fact I've used it to demonstrate many things she cannot even grasp, like the Q1 oscillations that caused her crew to believe that their FG was malfunctioning!   Her silly protests that I or others have not reproduced her circuit and its behaviour are just that: silly, naive, and mendacious.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 01:42:11 PM
TinselKoala, this time around they at least have experience with using better experiment and measurement methods.  Whether they do better than before or fall back into bad practices: only time will tell.   From the procedures they say they intend to use the likelihood that they will produce reliable data is pretty poor.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 03:58:15 PM
Mark E. as a relative newcomer to the Ainslie farce, perhaps you aren't aware that Ainslie actually sent, or so she claims, her entire actual apparatus off to a laboratory, allegedly in the USA, for testing and evaluation, a year or two ago. Unfortunately for Ainslie, this laboratory did NOT lose the apparatus, nor was anyone fired for testing it. They returned it to her intact, with extras. This laboratory failed to confirm her claims wrt excess heat, battery charging, battery longevity, and etc. They did see, as have we all seen, the "negative power product" and they explained it to her as instrument artifact caused by the same reasons we have explained: her poor procedures, bad choice of components and ignorant interpretations of instrument indications. When the apparatus was returned to her, they actually told her how to improve her testing, and suggested tests for her to perform. They even included, according to Ainslie, some "special resistors" for her to try. I think, had she followed through with their suggestions, the demonstrations of last June and August would have gone very differently, had they proceeded at all.  Since Ainslie has been uncooperative and uncommunicative about this testing, we still don't know the part numbers of these special resistors or whether they were to be used as non-inductive current-viewing shunts, or perhaps alternate loads. Nor have we ever seen any information as to the identity of this laboratory, who the principals are, and we haven't seen their official report.... and we never will.
She was able to use the excuse of having sent off the apparatus, to "explain" why she didn't do any testing at all for a long time, contrary to her earlier promises and claims.

Ainslie has a long and documented history of not reporting data that does not, in her mind, support her claims.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 04:28:05 PM
TinselKoala, that's an interesting story.  I don't expect much of any value to come from Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.  If however they do produce interesting data, I am willing to evaluate it.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2014, 04:40:03 PM
TinselKoala, that's an interesting story.  I don't expect much of any value to come from Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.  If however they do produce interesting data, I am willing to evaluate it.

Even though you know, or might believe based on previous track records, that the data will be heavily cherry-picked, selected carefully and heavily edited?

Do you know: the first "edits" of her daft manuscripts that appeared on her vanity honey-pot forum actually had some of the channel baseline markers deliberately edited out from some of the scopeshots, so that observers would not be able to read the traces themselves? When we noticed and commented on this, the excuse was made that this was a result of "compression" or other file transfer artefacts. Curious compression artefacts that deleted ONLY this critical info, and only from scopeshots where it was indeed significant......

Of course once these discrepancies failed to get past her audience, the unedited original images which included the baseline markers were restored.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: One cannot trust ANY data from the Ainslie mob unless it can be replicated at home by oneself.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 04:52:19 PM
TinselKoala, unreliable garbage does not interest me.  It's true that a person's track record is a reasonable barometer of what to expect from them.  It is not a 100% predictor.  We will see if they publish anything and if they do what it looks like. 

BTW: Steve hasn't said anything to me about having any involvement with what they are doing.  If they are getting guidance from anyone it is probably not from Steve.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 22, 2014, 06:20:22 PM
Well, you have to wonder.... how long _does_ it take to heat up 800 grams of water with a static level of 24 volts over an hour?

 :o

Perhaps she seeks to generate some kind of data plot like this one, from data I collected back in 2009 on the single-mosfet circuit with a particular oil-immersion load cell. This plot demonstrates that the Q-17 circuit, operated close to the duty cycle and frequency range specified in the Quantum article, is less efficient than straight "static level" DC from a regulated power supply, conveyed to the _same_ load cell, not a different one, using direct wire connection.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2014, 07:09:59 PM
TinselKoala that is yet another of your excellent experiments.  By the looks of things whoever is performing tests for Ms. Ainslie, it looks like they are performing calibration runs.  That would be a good thing to do and if that is what is happening, it suggests that they really do want to generate valid data.

If one were to use the Q-Array as demonstrated August 11, then the curves would have been radically different, reflective of the 5:1 advantage of a simple resistance heater with no other circuitry, over the resistance heater with the Q-Array circuit operating in its oscillating mode.  If anyone cares to perform the tests they will find that efficiency of the Q-Array gets better and better the greater the Q1 on duty-cycle is.  The best efficiency is with a 100% Q1 on duty cycle.  And due to the choice of the IRFPG50 MOSFET, as you have already noted, the efficiency still stands substantial improvement by replacing Q1 with a wire from drain to source.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 23, 2014, 03:54:59 PM
That's right, and I've used the IRF830 mosfet in the "Q-array" circuit without difficulty throughout its range of operating parameters. This mosfet is much cheaper than the IRFPG50 and has a slightly lower Rdss of 1.5 Ohms. If one wants to leave Q1 on continuously.... then you don't even need any mosfets, and you can just plug a straight wire between the Q1 S and D connection locations. This will provide the most efficient heating of the load, of course. To put it another way, this will provide the _same heating_ in the _same load_ as the fully-populated mosfet version, but at a lower applied voltage from the power supply or battery.

We are at the point now where the Ainslie crew is struggling to find a testable hypothesis.

She has previously claimed that continuous Q2 oscillations were her goal: she expressed ecstasy when long blocks of oscillations occur, and it was her goal to make the longest possible periods of Q2 oscillations when the Figure 3 scopeshot was produced. (The FG is set to its very slowest frequency, the longest possible period of Q2 oscillation that her equipment could produce at that time. She has never demonstrated continuous Q2 oscillations, although her detractors have done so easily, by using the external negative bias supply. Since she does not grasp how this could be, she has never been able to reproduce it.)

Good luck on the "taking water to boil 800 mL" using Q2 oscillations only.

But the Quantum 17 circuit does not oscillate in the same manner. In fact the waveforms that she endorsed, coming from Glen Lettenmeier and that were replicated by Ainslie's team using the 555 timer circuit that was installed sometime AFTER 2007.... those waveforms do not indicate any oscillations, they are simply showing the signal from the timer circuit and the mosfet's response at the high frequency of the drive circuit (over a hundred times higher than the original Quantum magazine circuit can produce). And they show a PG50 mosfet that is being turned ON most of the time, due to its slow response to the high-frequency drive signal, despite the drive signal itself being set to a shorter ON duty cycle. Again.... there are better mosfets to use IF one is concerned about faithfully responding to the drive signal. But IF NOT..... well, we see what happens.

The cartoon drawing below, showing Q2s wired in Strict Parallel, but not acting in parallel, shows how garbled her "understanding" is and how she still cannot state a coherent, testable hypothesis containing operationalized constructs. "A circuit configured thus and so, operating at this specified duty cycle and frequency, will produce effects A and B, which are different from ordinary electronic effects, and which produce excess energy which manifests as C. " Or something like that. We know some of her desired effects. We do not know the circuit, or the operating details, nor do we know upon just what parameters her claims depend. Why don't we know these things? I know why we don't.

(The figure is Figure 9 from "Paper 2". It was drawn when Ainslie believed all 5 of her mosfets were indeed in parallel.... and she has never changed it. She has emitted some silly rationalizations for it, though. Note that the Source of Q1 is shown connected to the Source of Q2, the Gates are connected together, the Drains are connected together. )

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2014, 05:37:14 PM
On August 11, with a 72V battery they were getting about 3W into their heater during the Q2 oscillations.  To take 800ml from 20C to 100C she will need 267kJ which with zero thermal leakage she can get in a brief 90,000 seconds, or just over a day.  To actually boil any water into dry vapor, she will then have to add another 2260 Joules for each gram, which will take about 12.5 minutes per gram.  Heating up a to coffee temperature of 60C will be a bit easier, that will only take 134kJ, or just over 12 hours with zero thermal leakage.

Yes, it is true that she does not know how body diodes apply, or don't apply to her circuit, whichever version that might be.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 06:43:39 PM
For anyone considering the promised February tests, here is some food for thought.  Take the simplest of circuits: A resistor divider with two resistors:  R1 and R2.  No matter what source drives the two resistors, the current through each of the resistors is the same due to Kirchhoff's Current Law.  That means that the power dissipated by each resistor is: 

P(R1) = R1*Iloop2
P(R2) = R2*Iloop2
P(R1)/PTOTAL = R1/(R1 + R2)

Why does this matter?  It matters because no matter what the power source in the circuit, including energy stored in any hypothetical environmental source, the proportion of that energy dissipated by each of the two resistors in the circuit depends on how big the respective device's resistance is relative to the total circuit resistance.  So, in the Ainslie circuit where one of the resistors is a heater element that outputs desired heat, that resistance should be big compared to the sum of all other resistances in the circuit.  If it is small compared to the other resistances, then it will only dissipate a small portion of the total energy used by the circuit.  In other words it will inefficiently use power from any and all sources:  the battery that supplies the circuit, and the intrinsic energy generator that Ms. Ainslie hypothesizes is part of R1 itself. 

Low efficiency due to R1 being a small portion of the overall average circuit resistance is in fact exactly what we saw in the August 11 demonstration.  If we suppose that Ms. Ainslie's hypothesis is correct, that a resistor has internal energy that it can be coaxed into releasing by applying pulses, or alternatively that the ambient environment will deliver energy to a resistor with the right amount of inductance when pulsed appropriately, then the best chance for detecting that energy occurs when the other circuit resistances are low.  This presents a problem for the Q-Array configuration, because the Q-Array configuration during the Q1 "OFF" times only conducts through the Q2 MOSFETs which only ever partially turn-on and almost all power passes through the internal 50 Ohm impedance of the function generator.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 09:03:11 PM
That's right, and that's why I've suggested before that the entire circuit, including the mosfets and the load element, should be immersed in oil and the temperature of the entire system should be monitored. Knowing the quantity of the oil and its specific heat (0.84 for mineral oil USP) , and having a container with a known measured thermal leak rate, will allow the honest researcher to compare the input _energy_ from the battery or DC power supply to the _total energy_ dissipated by the entire circuit over a reasonable time period. A simple negative bias supply to produce 100 percent oscillations, or an adjustable 555 clock, can be included in the oil-immersed circuit, thus removing the power dissipation within the FG that occurs in the present test setup.

This procedure will avoid any assumptions about where any extra energy could be coming from in the system, and would reveal it if it did occur. What if Ainslie's excess thermal energy is created in the load element but dissipated in the mosfet(s)?  (We already know it isn't dissipated in the load element, from the previous demonstrations.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Magluvin on January 25, 2014, 09:59:12 PM
That's right, and that's why I've suggested before that the entire circuit, including the mosfets and the load element, should be immersed in oil and the temperature of the entire system should be monitored. Knowing the quantity of the oil and its specific heat (0.84 for mineral oil USP) , and having a container with a known measured thermal leak rate, will allow the honest researcher to compare the input _energy_ from the battery or DC power supply to the _total energy_ dissipated by the entire circuit over a reasonable time period. A simple negative bias supply to produce 100 percent oscillations, or an adjustable 555 clock, can be included in the oil-immersed circuit, thus removing the power dissipation within the FG that occurs in the present test setup.

This procedure will avoid any assumptions about where any extra energy could be coming from in the system, and would reveal it if it did occur. What if Ainslie's excess thermal energy is created in the load element but dissipated in the mosfet(s)?  (We already know it isn't dissipated in the load element, from the previous demonstrations.)

Hey T

How about 2 separate immersion tanks. 1 for the load and 1 for the other circuitry. This way being that the load is most likely the hottest, its heat wont affect the other components adversely, as it shouldnt in a well designed product.

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Magluvin on January 25, 2014, 10:01:56 PM
being that the load is most likely the hottest,



Well, it should be. ;) In 2 containers the difference would be found.

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 10:02:09 PM
TinselKoala, the situation does raise a number of considerations.  Your proposal would establish a much better overall balance measurement and is far more favorable to Ms. Ainslie.  If her thesis that the heater resistor operates as a power generator were correct then her past set-ups were poorly disposed to demonstrate as such.  August 11, the measured power drain was ~15W.  The heating element temperature rose by an amount equivalent to ~3W.  If the heating element was net less than 1/5th the effective resistance of the current paths it connected to, then there could have been an anomalous behavior that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators did not see because it would have appeared as more power dissipated in the other elements:  The function generator and the MOSFETs that they did not measure.

This raises challenges for Ms. Ainslie, because it presents more or less three divergent test paths all with their own pitfalls.

Option 1) Attempt to measure all the circuit power.
A. Replace the function generator with a voltage source but do not use a 50 Ohm resistor.  One of the lead acid batteries could be used to provide low impedance power for this purpose.
B. Replace the function generator with a voltage source.  Use a 50 Ohm resistor located in the oil bath to serve as the source ballast resistance previously provided by the function generator.

Option 2) Attempt to reduce the external resistances to a minimum.
Replace the function generator with a voltage source but do not use a 50 Ohm resistor.  One of the lead acid batteries could be used to provide low impedance power for this purpose.

A. Leave Q2 operating in its linear region as it does now.
B. Suppress linear operation of Q2.
i. Replace sustained oscillations with only leading edge / trailing edge ringing.
ii. Configure a the heater resistor into a tank circuit so that Q2 can operate Class C or D with minimal losses.

All Option 2) require reconfiguring the power source, as does Option 1) A.  The closest option to doing exactly what they have in the past is Option 1) B.  I think that it may be beyond them to implement any of these options.  They are things that Greg (GMEAST) should think about as he works his way towards conducting new experiments of his own.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2014, 10:05:46 PM
Hey T

How about 2 separate immersion tanks. 1 for the load and 1 for the other circuitry. This way being that the load is most likely the hottest, its heat wont affect the other components adversely, as it shouldnt in a well designed product.

Mags
The way that the circuit has been configured, during Q2 (Q1 "OFF") operation that is hypothesized to provide the "benefit", very little of the circuit power comes out as heat from the heating element.  Almost all of it is lost inside the function generator and in the MOSFETs.  If Q1 is biased on deep into the constant resistance region of the MOSFET, then during those times, most of the circuit power evolves as heat from the heating element.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 25, 2014, 11:33:35 PM
Hey T

How about 2 separate immersion tanks. 1 for the load and 1 for the other circuitry. This way being that the load is most likely the hottest, its heat wont affect the other components adversely, as it shouldnt in a well designed product.

Mags

It complicates the measurement process. However, IF the total energy output in the single tank experiment is found to be greater than the input, it would be worthwhile to do your suggestion as a second experiment. If the single tank experiment doesn't show an excess... why bother with the more complicated version?

Also, you'd be surprised at how hot those mosfets can get. The reason they changed from the single mosfet version on its little heatsink to the 5 mosfet version with larger heatsinks was an attempt at making the circuit able to handle higher currents without overheating the transistor. It would have worked that way too if they hadn't made their wiring mistake, and then locked themselves into it.

Interestingly, if you reverse the Q1 and Q2s connection to the circuit, leaving one Q2 and having 4 Q1s in parallel, the circuit handles high current much better and still can oscillate just fine in the negative bias condition. Furthermore, this is just the configuration given as the "wrong" version, which still can be viewed here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Proposed%20variation%20to%20Faraday%20s%20Lines%20of%20Force.pdf

Note the subtle but highly significant difference between the schematic in that paper, which Ainslie still counts as the "official publication", and the current (claimed) one here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Experimental%20Evidence%20of%20a%20Breach%20of%20Unity.pdf
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 26, 2014, 07:49:59 PM
No comment about the schematics?
These two posts of the daft manuscripts on Rossi's JNP are the only "official publications" of any of Ainslie's documents, other than the Quantum magazine article from 2002.

Yet these two "official publications" contain two different schematics purporting to describe the same experiment. And NEITHER of them actually represents the true circuit they used.... the Ainslie team has _always_ used the Black FG lead (marked " - " on the schematics) connected at the common circuit ground at the negative battery pole. The only time they may have done otherwise was the August 11 demo.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2014, 08:28:07 PM
Both links throw 403 and 404 errors. 

If you watch the August 11 video they did set up with the FG black lead connected to the Q1 source side of the CSRs as in the papers.  They were able to do that because they followed Poynt99's suggestion of isolating the green mains safety lead at the end of the function generator power cord.  At the point in the video where Donovan Martin made the function generator black lead connection to the correct side of the CSRs Ms. Ainslie can be heard protesting.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 26, 2014, 08:41:08 PM

I received this message also.

Bill

"Forbidden You don't have permission to access /files/Proposed variation to Faraday s Lines of Force.pdf on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
 
 Apache Server at www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com) Port 80"
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 26, 2014, 09:27:00 PM
My fault, I apologize. Apparently one cannot link directly to the .pdf stored on Rossi's server.

Please try these links to Rossi's JNP pages which host the files, then select "read the whole article" or "download the ZIP file" .

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645  (part one)

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679  (part two)

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2014, 11:25:23 PM
My fault, I apologize. Apparently one cannot link directly to the .pdf stored on Rossi's server.

Please try these links to Rossi's JNP pages which host the files, then select "read the whole article" or "download the ZIP file" .

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645  (part one)

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679  (part two)
Here is a side by side comparison of the three circuits:
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 26, 2014, 11:33:24 PM
Thanks for doing that, it makes the differences very clear.

When the "Q-array" circuit made its debut, they claimed that it had all 5 mosfets in parallel, and the schematic presented (in the famous First Demonstration video, which Ainslie claimed "she did not post") was the one below.

The accompanying narration by Donovan Martin tells us that there are "5 mosfets in parallel" while he gestures to this diagram and to the circuit on the white breadboard.

Note that the Black or " - " FG lead isn't even shown. However, the video itself is clear enough so that one may see that the Black FG lead is connected in the usual place: at the common battery negative, rather than on the transistor side of the CSR as it should be.

People tried to replicate Ainslie's reported results using this schematic for about a month, before Poynt99 analyzed the video and determined the "Q-array" Q2 antiparallel configuration was _in fact_ what was used, contrary to Ainslie's deliberate deception. Yes.... deliberate deception, not a mistake, according to Ainslie herself. She even expressed her regret... not that she deceived us, but that Poynt99 caught her out so soon !!! She actually wanted to continue the deception longer.

It's because of things like these that one simply cannot trust reports of _anything_ from Ainslie. Only raw data and perhaps photographs can be trusted. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2014, 11:49:22 PM
TinselKoala, OK here are all four circuits on one drawing:

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 27, 2014, 12:03:10 AM
And of course the verbal "five mosfets in parallel" could be drawn as well (please don't bother) .... it is significantly different from just a single mosfet in that the aggregate ON state resistance is 1/5 of the single mosfet's 2 ohms value, hence as you point out the load heating will be more efficient in the ON state, with significantly less power wasted in heating the mosfets.

So that makes 5 significantly different circuits Ainslie has presented, purporting to describe the same experiment. The fully correct circuit was not used until August 10-11, 2013; the circuits in the two daft manuscripts were _never_ used, and the 2011 demo's single mosfet and 5 parallel mosfet circuits were simply lies.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 12:38:04 AM
And of course the verbal "five mosfets in parallel" could be drawn as well (please don't bother) .... it is significantly different from just a single mosfet in that the aggregate ON state resistance is 1/5 of the single mosfet's 2 ohms value, hence as you point out the load heating will be more efficient in the ON state, with significantly less power wasted in heating the mosfets.

So that makes 5 significantly different circuits Ainslie has presented, purporting to describe the same experiment. The fully correct circuit was not used until August 10-11, 2013; the circuits in the two daft manuscripts were _never_ used, and the 2011 demo's single mosfet and 5 parallel mosfet circuits were simply lies.
Circuit D. has an annotation that the narration describes Q1 as five MOSFETs in parallel.  Since that drawing is one they presented, I did not want to alter it. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 27, 2014, 03:21:23 PM
It's hilarious, isn't it? Ainslie seems to think that she isn't responsible for materials that carry her name as author and that she posted herself. If they contain "errors" or are caught in outright lies, she isn't responsible! She claims that Rossi's JNP posting consists of "publication", then she disavows them and refers to other, more recent edits that appear elsewhere. When some objection to her daft manuscript becomes overwhelming, she simply makes another edit. This has happened many times.
-when it was pointed out that the actual circuit showed the FG current bypass, the new edit appeared that showed the correct, but never used, FG hookup.
-when it was pointed out that the claim of dissipating 5.9 megaJoules was completely implausible under any circumstances... it vanished from a new edit.
-when it was discovered that the channel baseline markers were deliberately edited away from images, a new edit appeared that had them restored.

Yet the old versions still exist. For example, compare the text under Paper 1, Figure 7 in the "official publication" on Rossi's JNP

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645 (http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645)

with the same text in more recent edits of that manuscript, shown in the image below.

Ainslie accuses me again without any evidence. She claims that I've mocked her diagrams because they are hand-drawn. Contrariwise, I have never done this. I mock them because they are _silly_ and _wrong_.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 05:58:06 PM
TinselKoala I looked at the two Figure 7's and associated texts.  I did not spot any differences.  Can you tell me what I should find?

Ms. Ainslie now claims that at least the battery voltage and current measurements taken at the battery during the August 11, 2013 demonstration are wrong.  She does so without showing any new measurements that she alleges are now correct.  What was proven wrong during that demonstration was the current measurements during the oscillations as measured on the white breadboard. 

In the schematic published by Ms. Ainslie for the demonstration, we can see that the current sense resistors on the breadboard are in the same DC loop as the current sense resistor added at the battery.  Yet the two gave very different results.  The disparate results were predicted by Poynt99 and others.  They result from the huge stray inductance of the wiring between the battery and the breadboard.  The measurements taken directly at the battery do not suffer the distortion those long lead wires impose on measurements taken at the fixture.  The errant measurements are at the white breadboard.  Those effects can of course be nulled should someone bypass the high frequency currents around the lead wires.  I realize that various people have suggested such things to Ms. Ainslie in the past and she was not receptive to those ideas.  If Ms. Ainslie is interested in the truth she could apply a good bypass network across the battery connections at the white breadboard and then compare the battery voltage and current measurements that result at the white breadboard versus those taken at the battery.

Ms. Ainslie has gone on to now deny what she and her collaborators eventually demonstrated June 29, 2013 as well:  That Figure 3 in Paper 1 was the result of measurement error.  Ms. Ainslie currently protests in effect that what is plainly visible in her own demonstrations should be rejected as false.  She does so neglecting to provide any evidence contrary to those demonstrations.

Ms. Ainslie is further unhappy that you have pointed out discrepancies in her schematics.  She offers this protest:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg5323/topicseen.html#msg5323

Quote
The paper has NOTHING to do with the schematic.  It has everything to do with the paths available for the flow of current through the transistors.

I don't know how Ms. Ainslie expects to convey the "paths available for the flow of current through the transistors" if she does not provide an accurate circuit schematic that depicts how those transistors were connected.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 27, 2014, 07:36:45 PM
The text below Figure 7 in the "official publication" version on Rossi's JNP:
Quote
Steam was evident at all times when the temperature exceeded 62°C,
which points to a secondary exploitable potential.
At no stage  in  this  test  was  any  energy  depleted  by  the  batteries as
measured   in   the   math   trace   and   spreadsheet   analysis.
Therefore it is evident that it is possible to bring water to boil
without any depletion of potential difference from the supply.
Given 4.1 joules required to heat 1 gram of water by 1°C then
over  the  entire 1.6  hour  test  period  about  5  904 000  joules
were dissipated.  The batteries’ rated capacity is

...and the text stops there, and then continues on to major heading VII.

The same passage in the version on Ainslie's forum reads:
Quote
Steam was evident at all times when the temperature exceeded 62°C,
which points to a secondary exploitable potential.
[/size][/font]At no stage in this test was any energy depleted by the batteries
as measured in the math trace and spreadsheet analysis.
 Therefore it is evident that it is possible to bring water to boil
without any depletion of potential difference from the supply.
... and then goes on to major heading VII. The absurd claim of dissipating 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours is gone, as is the dangling sentence fragment that emphasizes the fact that they never disclosed the actual battery capacity.

It's clear from the accompanying scope traces and battery voltage measurements that indeed there _was_ depletion of potential difference from the supply. And again... the water wasn't actually boiling, according to Ainslie herself. They never measured the temperature of the water, just some combination of water and heating element temperature.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2014, 10:58:12 PM
TinselKoala, I see so she removed 5.9MJ claim from the forum version.  4.18J/gm/C * 850gm * (104C - 82C) comes out 78kJ on my calculator.  What inspired Ms. Ainslie to get a 75X higher figure is a bit of a mystery.  The report said that temperature rise took about 10 minutes, so making the inaccurate assumption that the water heated uniformly to 104C (assume poorly calibrated TCs) then the input power less leakage would have been about 130W.  For an 11 Ohm heater, that would have been an RMS voltage of 37.8V, which certainly could have been realized with a 72V battery stack and Q1 on about 25% of the time.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 02:26:02 AM
From what I can tell, Ms. Ainslie is not content with Kirchhoff's current law.  She writes and though she presently believes that the current that flows through the negative terminal of a battery can be different than the current that flows at the same time through the positive terminal of the same battery.  Where this excess or deficit charge goes off to or comes from she is not saying.  She has at least committed herself to performing a test to measure the current flow to/from the positive battery terminal.

My guess as to what is going on is that Ms. Ainslie trusts the battery measurements taken at the white breadboard that give her values that she would like, and distrusts measurements that she reads at the battery that give her values that she does not like.  I suggest that if Ms. Ainslie is intent on measuring current at both the positive and negative terminal of the battery that she rent appropriate non-contact current sense probes.  That will eliminate the common mode issues that she will otherwise have to address.  LeCroy CP030 probes should be compatible with her LeCroy oscilloscope.  If she were to twist the lead wires between the battery and the white peg board together for at least one foot, and the pass that twisted pair through the CP030 such that the CP030 is midway along the twisted section, then she would find essentially no net current sensed.  That would prove that the current into or out of the negative terminal is identical to the simultaneous current out of or into the positive terminal, because according to Kirchhoff's Current Law, it is the same current.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 28, 2014, 08:18:50 AM
Ainslie is crippled by her mental models of electricity and current flow. As Donovan Martin said in the June 29 demo, "it is all about her Thesis". Ainslie has her non-physical set of delusions involving "zipons" and "truants" and other things and has no conception of the realities of electromagnetism or Quantum Electrodynamics. All her "experimental" work has been designed, constructed and performed in an effort to _prove her thesis_. She states this overtly many times in her various emissions. She has no idea of the true nature of the Scientific Method. She is convinced from the outset that her jumbled set of incoherent delusional fantasies about "zipons" and the rest is the Absolute Truth. She thinks her "thesis" is superior to and should replace QED! I am not kidding, her hubris and arrogant ignorance actually extend that far.

Her blinders therefore prevent her from seeing experimental evidence and reasoning logically about what she has seen. Further, she has no idea of the complexities of instrumental measurements of electrical parameters, nor is she able to deal with the simple mathematics involved, as we have seen many times in her botched arithmetic. Her idea of math is to multiply together everything in sight, and if a calculator says it, it must be right. Several times she has emitted statements that would seem to indicate that she believes "positive current" and "negative current" are different things and travel differently in circuit elements. Her cartoons in the second daft manuscript, for example, illustrate some of her misconceptions with respect to current flow. I am afraid there is no way that Ainslie will educate herself or allow herself to be educated, as she already "knows" the Truth.

MarkE, you are right about her data selection and cherry-picking. I have previously illustrated how she does this, and I've even posted her admission of ignoring and not reporting data that she didn't like or "understand". She will also attempt to "reinterpret" data in ways that are plainly incorrect and contradicted by the data themselves, such as her bogus Figure 3 scopeshot, where she insists it is giving a correct representation of the current in the circuit, when it plainly isn't and her own demonstrations proved it isn't. There is no hope that Ainslie herself will ever change. She will continue being an object of ridicule, putting forth her insults, false claims and stupid assertions, for as long as she has access to the internet.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 10:06:58 AM
Ainslie is crippled by her mental models of electricity and current flow. As Donovan Martin said in the June 29 demo, "it is all about her Thesis". Ainslie has her non-physical set of delusions involving "zipons" and "truants" and other things and has no conception of the realities of electromagnetism or Quantum Electrodynamics. All her "experimental" work has been designed, constructed and performed in an effort to _prove her thesis_. She states this overtly many times in her various emissions. She has no idea of the true nature of the Scientific Method. She is convinced from the outset that her jumbled set of incoherent delusional fantasies about "zipons" and the rest is the Absolute Truth. She thinks her "thesis" is superior to and should replace QED! I am not kidding, her hubris and arrogant ignorance actually extend that far.

Her blinders therefore prevent her from seeing experimental evidence and reasoning logically about what she has seen. Further, she has no idea of the complexities of instrumental measurements of electrical parameters, nor is she able to deal with the simple mathematics involved, as we have seen many times in her botched arithmetic. Her idea of math is to multiply together everything in sight, and if a calculator says it, it must be right. Several times she has emitted statements that would seem to indicate that she believes "positive current" and "negative current" are different things and travel differently in circuit elements. Her cartoons in the second daft manuscript, for example, illustrate some of her misconceptions with respect to current flow. I am afraid there is no way that Ainslie will educate herself or allow herself to be educated, as she already "knows" the Truth.

MarkE, you are right about her data selection and cherry-picking. I have previously illustrated how she does this, and I've even posted her admission of ignoring and not reporting data that she didn't like or "understand". She will also attempt to "reinterpret" data in ways that are plainly incorrect and contradicted by the data themselves, such as her bogus Figure 3 scopeshot, where she insists it is giving a correct representation of the current in the circuit, when it plainly isn't and her own demonstrations proved it isn't. There is no hope that Ainslie herself will ever change. She will continue being an object of ridicule, putting forth her insults, false claims and stupid assertions, for as long as she has access to the internet.
It is an interesting position that she has put herself into.  She obviously wants qualified people to take her unique ideas seriously.  That simply can't happen the way that she seems to be going about things.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 28, 2014, 03:23:20 PM
That's right. The only way she can get any attention is to misrepresent, exaggerate, and lie about what she has or has not done. If she told the truth she would have faded away long ago.

Look at what she has to say about QED! She cannot even attempt to understand what it means for a theory to make accurate predictions of many different quantities, accurate and precise to many decimal places. She pretends QED is some little set of inconsequential postulates, her being utterly incapable of comprehending what it actually is.

Consulting the Wiki:

Quote
In particle physics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where FULL AGREEMENT between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved. QED mathematically describes ALL PHENOMENA involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a COMPLETE ACCOUNT of matter and light interaction.
In technical terms, QED can be described as a perturbation theory of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum. Richard Feynman called it "the jewel of physics" for its EXTREMELY ACCURATE PREDICTIONS of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.[1]
(emphasis mine)

To tell Ainslie that QED makes predictions that are precise to thirteen significant digits is a waste of breath .... she has no clue what is meant by accuracy, precision, significant digits, or theoretical predictions. Nor does she realize that any "thesis" that pretends to be better than QED has to make all the same correct predictions, and more, to greater accuracy and precision. Her utter arrogance and hubris prevent her from thinking, at all, about these issues. She has not the prerequisites for understanding!

Not only that, but she has also failed utterly in connecting her "experiments" with her "thesis". Her "predictions" are nothing more than flails. She cannot even state a testable hypothesis properly... and we know she cannot test hypotheses experimentally, due to her utter incompetence and lack of education. The best she can do is to try to demonstrate some phenomenon which she believes supports her "thesis".... and when the demonstrations are properly done, without misdirection, fidgeting, fabricated data or lies.... her own demonstrations soundly falsify her claims.

And.... where in my statements above does one find me referring to Ainslie's delusions as a "THEORY"? Ainslie's deluded conjectures do not rise to the level of Theory and never have. Ainslie has no clue as to what a scientific THEORY really is. Her reading comprehension is as usual: she responds not to what people actually SAY but rather to her own distortions and mendacities. I doubt if I have ever referred to her delusional "thesis" as a "theory" just as I refuse to refer to her daft manuscripts as "papers".  Where are the testable predictions, the formal hypotheses, the experimental confirmations, in any of Ainslie's emissions? Nowhere. Her own demonstrations show that she cannot support her conjectures with actual data. Yet QED provides a precise predictive framework that allows scientists and engineers to do things like design and build high-density large scale integrated circuits that behave just as QED -- NOT Ainslie's "zipon" nonsense -- predict they will. She types her words on a computer that could not exist without the understanding of nature and predictive ability of QED!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 07:49:45 PM
In the August 11 demonstration she learned all too well that a function generator most definitely passes current.  Whether she has retained that lesson, I cannot say.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 28, 2014, 08:51:05 PM
And she could have learned it much before that, simply by trying for herself the simple demonstrations I have provided. But that's not really the important point of the quote. Here is the part that is much more significant:

Quote
Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else. So NO. I spare me your "lessons".
(sic)

Ainslie is unteachable. She already knows everything there is to know, and she knows that everything she knows is right.
It's just too bad she is utterly wrong, over and over again.

There is more in that post that illustrates her overweening arrogance and utter unwillingness to learn from _professionals_ who are more educated than she, by far,  and who actually work for a living in the electronics industry. She is talking to picowatt! 

The last line is another hoot:

Quote
And now you are compounding the felony of slander to include allegations of 'lunacy'.

She doesn't even know the difference between libel and slander. Yet she accuses picowatt of "felony", which is of course a libellous statement. It is to laugh out loud !!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 28, 2014, 11:38:04 PM
From the looks of things she does not know what it is that she doesn't know.  She  probably really does believe that she's found a way to make free energy.  She acts as though she thinks that she has proven her claims when most recognize how thoroughly her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations refuted them.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 31, 2014, 12:42:32 PM
It gets more hilarious by the day. Now Ainslie and her "team" are in the position of having to replicate my work and the work of people like DrStiffler and Glen Lettenmeier who actually did make proper measurements of thermal output -- years ago.

But.... CASTROL GTX !! That's the brand of MOTOR OIL that I use in my car !! It's not "mineral oil", it has lots of additives. MOTOR OIL !!


Silly beans..... USE MINERAL OIL USP. GET IT AT THE PHARMACY. IT IS PURE, IT IS CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT, IT COSTS LESS THAN MOTOR OIL, DOESN'T SMELL BAD WHEN IT GETS HOT AND IT HAS SPECIFIC HEAT 0.84.



(ALL CAPS SO THAT AINSLIE MIGHT BE ABLE TO READ IT)

I am laughing out loud.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on January 31, 2014, 06:48:30 PM
Give her credit for improving her methods.   You know that she reads what you post here.  I expect that they will switch from motor oil to mineral oil.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on January 31, 2014, 08:11:25 PM
Contrariwise... once she realizes that I've been using Mineral Oil USP for years, with its known specific heat, in a container with a known thermal leak rate ... so that I can calculate the actual _energy_ that is applied to the load cell (are you paying attention, GMeast?) ... she is almost certain NOT to do it herself.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 01, 2014, 04:35:15 AM
Contrariwise... once she realizes that I've been using Mineral Oil USP for years, with its known specific heat, in a container with a known thermal leak rate ... so that I can calculate the actual _energy_ that is applied to the load cell (are you paying attention, GMeast?) ... she is almost certain NOT to do it herself.
That is not something that I can know.  I like to think that if she thinks it will make her experiment easier to do, and easier to make the point she's convinced that it will, then I think that she will switch to the mineral oil as she should despite that meaning that she is copying you.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on February 01, 2014, 05:33:31 AM
No, Rose will use something else like white oil, liquid paraffin,, pariffinum liquidum, and liquid petroleum or Baby oil so as to not replicate TK's work.  However, all of the above are other names for mineral oil but, let's not let the facts enter into this.  She never has before.  She will claim that she discovered this new liquid that is easy to measure temperature rise.  Just watch.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 01, 2014, 05:13:55 PM
I hope she does use Castrol GTX. May I suggest 20W-50?

Quote
Castrol GTX motor oil consists of two main ingredients. There's base oil (85-90%) and performance additives (10-15%).  Pay attention now because you never know when a buddy with a dirty, clogged-up engine might ask.  The base oil is derived from crude oil.

http://www.castrol.com/castrol/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9014502&contentId=7017078

http://datasheets.bp.com/ussds/amersdsf.nsf/0/740CD019AA22FD6A80257B5800527847/$file/197834Castrol%20GTX%20High%20Mileage%2020W-50.pdf

How much energy does it take to raise the temperature of one gram of Castrol GTX by one degree C?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 01, 2014, 08:46:55 PM
No, Rose will use something else like white oil, liquid paraffin,, pariffinum liquidum, and liquid petroleum or Baby oil so as to not replicate TK's work.  However, all of the above are other names for mineral oil but, let's not let the facts enter into this.  She never has before.  She will claim that she discovered this new liquid that is easy to measure temperature rise.  Just watch.

Bill
Bill if she uses any fluid that is clear and insulating, that has sufficient dielectric strength for the voltages she applies and  that does not have such a high dielectric constant or dielectric loss so as to cause problems then she will be able to show her unit operating and she will be able to measure the heat evolved from everything that she submerges in the fluid from the fluid temperature rise.  Since they don't know anything about the electrical properties of materials they would be wise to use a material that is well understood and has been used by others such as mineral oil poured into a clean dry vessel.   My guess is that they thought about using motor oil because they were unfamiliar with mineral oil. 

To Ms. Ainslie and her supporters:  There are hobbyists who submerge entire PC motherboards in mineral oil "aquariums" and circulate the mineral oil for cooling.  Mineral oil is one homogenous electrically well understood material.  It is readily available, and will meet your needs far better than a non-homogenous material such as motor oil. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on February 01, 2014, 10:56:15 PM
Bill if she uses any fluid that is clear and insulating, that has sufficient dielectric strength for the voltages she applies and  that does not have such a high dielectric constant or dielectric loss so as to cause problems then she will be able to show her unit operating and she will be able to measure the heat evolved from everything that she submerges in the fluid from the fluid temperature rise.  Since they don't know anything about the electrical properties of materials they would be wise to use a material that is well understood and has been used by others such as mineral oil poured into a clean dry vessel.   My guess is that they thought about using motor oil because they were unfamiliar with mineral oil. 

To Ms. Ainslie and her supporters:  There are hobbyists who submerge entire PC motherboards in mineral oil "aquariums" and circulate the mineral oil for cooling.  Mineral oil is one homogenous electrically well understood material.  It is readily available, and will meet your needs far better than a non-homogenous material such as motor oil.

Mark:

As always, I am still learning.  Before I made the above post I looked up mineral oil and found all of the other names it goes by.  (I had no idea) I was amazed to find that baby oil is just mineral oil with a scent added.  My bet is that Rose will use mineral oil, which has proven thermal properties, which is good.  I was just speculating that she would call it something else so as to not appear be taking TK's suggestion.  I was also guessing that she might not know all of those other names for the same oil.  A good test with good scientific practices is always welcome, and I do hope that she does this.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 01, 2014, 11:22:00 PM
Bill, the one thing that I disagree with TinselKoala on is Ms. Ainslie's faith in her claims.  I think that she really believes them.  That leads me to believe that she really does expect some experiment to vindicate her ideas.  I believe that she is motivated to try as she can to conduct legitimate experiments. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 02, 2014, 01:14:21 AM
I'm sorry that I gave the impression that I might not think Ainslie _believes_ in her claims.

Of course she believes them! She believes in her "thesis" so strongly that she is willing to distort experimental results so that they fit her ideas; she routinely ignores data that falsifies her conjectures due to the opacity of her belief system. She distorts descriptions of events, gets all kinds of details wrong, refuses to correct her obvious errors, and still clings to the conclusions she drew from the horrible computations that I have illustrated, even though she knows that the calculations are wrong. (She can't produce the correct calculations from the data, though, since she still confounds the Joule with the Watt, and simply multiplies everything in sight until she gets an adequately large number.)

If she is now willing to perform adequate experiments and measurements, this is something that is new to her psyche; for the last 5 years at least, people have been giving her advice as to how to do it properly and, until her association with Steve Weir, she has always either flatly refused, stalled indefinitely, or completely botched the process, as when she went out and bought a big expensive motor-start capacitor when Poynt99 was trying to get her to filter her battery supply measurements with appropriate capacitors -- in spite of his providing exact specs and even part numbers for her to order. The idea of doing a literature search, to see how other people do simple calorimetry with precision and accuracy, is completely foreign to her.

I'm all for her using proper experimental technique. That's what I've been trying to demonstrate for years in my videos concerning Ainslie's claims. But she refuses even to believe that my approach or my demonstrations are scientific! Just look at the insults she levies against me, without even knowing what my videos contain. It's laughable in the extreme! She has no clue what the Scientific Method actually means.

One thing is certain: it will be hard for them to top the high comedies of the June 29 and August 11 demonstrations. But I'm eagerly awaiting their next chapter. Here's my prediction: we will see stalling, and delayed reports if any at all, because if they _do_ manage to do some proper work, they'll find _YET AGAIN_ that there is no OU, no unusual behaviour, nothing, nichego, zip, zilch. Nothing but Ainslie's fantasy. Not even this will deter her, though.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 02, 2014, 03:41:16 AM
Ms. Ainslie says that she is going to seek Steve's blessing on whatever test set-up that she decides to use.  When I saw him at DesignCon last week, Steve did not mention anything about this.  He told me that the last time he had heard from Ms. Ainslie was around Thanksgiving. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 05, 2014, 04:22:10 PM
Ainslie continues to emit statements that reveal her willfull ignorance and her overweening arrogance.

As anyone _except Ainslie_ knows, I've been using mineral oil for proper thermometric testing of her claims for YEARS, and demonstrating the same on YouTube videos.

Her continuing attacks upon me, her false claims and libels concerning me, have attained such proportions that not even her erotic fascinations with my pickle or my GRE scores can keep up with them. She continues to make a total laughingstock of herself with these absurd pronouncements and restatements of her own ignorance.

Just for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMthOsvbVU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LMthOsvbVU)  (April 12, 2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xs_ZsGhK9o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xs_ZsGhK9o)  (May 20, 2012)


And of course the graph below, which I have reproduced here several times, is from data obtained from the single-mosfet circuit in 2009.

All throughout this project, from the beginning of my involvement in 2009, I have produced more accurate, more relevant, and procedurally correct temperature data than Ainslie has _EVER_ shown.... since all of her reported temperature data comes from the incredibly naive direct attachment of her thermocouple to the metal housing of the resistor element, dangling in mid-air or perhaps inserted, _after already heating up_ , into a plastic jug of water. By her own admission, Ainslie NEVER actually measured the temperature of the water, in spite of the direct, and false, claims in the daft manuscripts concerning water temperature.

Once again, Ainslie simply lies arrogantly when she misrepresents my work, just as she has done many times before ... or continues to emit her silly statements out of pure willfull ignorance. Or both.





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 05, 2014, 05:48:20 PM
On record. Yes, indeed... the record shows who is right and who is wrong, and about what.

Ainslie is utterly wrong, and has never been able to refute a single fact that I illustrate in my videos. How could she--- she doesn't even know what they contain, and probably couldn't understand them if she _ever did_ watch them, even though a bright eighth grader probably could.

Ainslie has YET AGAIN made statements that are easily demonstrated to be utterly WRONG. She has emitted so many such statements that it is impossible to count them all. Practically with every post she makes she makes YET ANOTHER lie, YET ANOTHER misrepresentation, YET ANOTHER simply WRONG statement. Many times, as at present, she piles them up until practically every _sentence_ of her posts contain these silly and idiotic "mistakes".

Ainslie has no basis for objecting to any of the work of her critics, because she simply has not the educational background or the practical experience necessary to do so. She cannot even follow the simple math, nor understand explanations of common terminology of her chosen topic as given in textbooks or even on Wikipedia. We've demonstrated this utter ignorance of hers many times, using her own words. "No such animal as inductive reactance!" "A Joule is a Watt, the terms are interchangeable!"  "Castrol GTX !" If I listed them all in one place it would take pages.

Her only real contribution to the research concerning her claims is the comedy value. Literally _everything_ we actually know and trust about the Quantum single mosfet circuit, the later circuit that appears in the Box today, and the 5 mosfet circuit is _in spite_ of Ainslie herself, and actually comes from her strongest critics. Ainslie has contributed literally nothing to the understanding, except lots of LOLs.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 05, 2014, 06:53:18 PM
TinselKoala it is plain as day that in your various videos you state that you use mineral oil in your heater vessels.  I guess you could have used a: ladle or honey dipper to visibly demonstrate the viscosity of the oil.

The good news is that Ms. Ainslie says that she is going to use mineral oil.  The not so good news is her declaration that she does not intend to perform rigorous tests.  I think that she should reconsider.  She is already going to take considerable time and expense to do her new tests.  It is not particularly more difficult to perform rigorous tests that would be accurate to a few percent than it is to conduct sloppy tests that suffer very poor accuracy.  She can use your videos as a guide on how to perform good quality tests at low expense and moderate effort.

She is talking about using a liter vessel.  That will hold one of her heater elements, but will not hold the existing circuit board.  The perforated paperboard material if immersed will also absorb quite a bit of oil.  So I think the plan is to just immerse the heater element of the existing circuit and compare that to an immersed control experiment resistor.  In that case, she is going to find out rather quickly that the results replicate the ~20% power efficiency measured August 11.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 05, 2014, 08:01:46 PM
Here's an example of how Ainslie's belief system causes her to emit silly claim after ridiculous claim. Do check out the videos she has linked in the posts imaged below:

http://www.overunity.com/14071/simple-overunity-electricity/msg378493/#msg378493 (http://www.overunity.com/14071/simple-overunity-electricity/msg378493/#msg378493)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP7yOFIHJPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uP7yOFIHJPA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3qF9E_fWCQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3qF9E_fWCQ)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She also claims that they will be able to produce the continuous oscillations using the main batteries alone:

Quote
THEN.  We'll be redoing our Q-array tests with ESPECIAL emphasis on Test 3 paper 1.  But this time we propose to apply a continual negative signal to Q1 - to induce a perpetual oscillation.  We'll be driving the switch from the same battery supply that powers the resistor.  Here we predict a CONSIDERABLE gain to standard application.  But we'll need to rethink our heat measurements as the applied wattage will be minimal.  That will be the final VINDICATION.

Perhaps she means Q2, but who really knows. If she's talking about "perpetual", that is, continuous Q2 oscillations... once again she will be attempting to replicate work that I did, in 2012 and 2013.  The negative bias supply must come from a source that is _more negative_ than the "same battery supply that powers the resistor". Of course, since Ainslie cannot fathom how a mosfet could be turned on by _lowering source voltage_ while the Gate is pinned to Zero volts, she can't see the difficulties in her proposed operation.

Here's the playlist, AGAIN, where I explain the configuration, how the Q2 mosfets are turned on by lowering the source voltage (that is, applying a "negative signal to Q1 - to induce a perpetual oscillation." The playlist takes the viewer through the entire sequence, breaking it down into the simplest component parts, illustrating each tiny step, in terms even our bright eighth-grader would have no difficulty understanding.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V)

And here's the single video from that playlist that pulls it all together, showing how the continuous "perpetual oscillations" are produced... and why a separate current source is needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV2ePEbJ76I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV2ePEbJ76I)

(In other videos I demonstrate a simple 555-based Charge Pump Inverter that _does_ allow the main batteries to provide the necessary negative bias current. It will indeed be interesting to see how Ainslie's mob solves this little problem.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 05, 2014, 11:10:41 PM
When Ms. Ainslie says that she will be applying a negative voltage to the gate of Q1 I expect that she means that she will still be using a function generator for that purpose as she has before.  The external power that the function generator supplies as seen August 11 was around 300mW.  It's non-zero but not very significant compared to the ~15W drawn from the batteries, the ~3W dissipated by her heater resistor, or the ~12W shortfall in between.  In order make up the ~12W deficit the impedance of the negative bias source has to come way down.  It is beyond the capability of any off the shelf function generator.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 05, 2014, 11:42:01 PM
When Ms. Ainslie says that she will be applying a negative voltage to the gate of Q1 I expect that she means that she will still be using a function generator for that purpose as she has before.  The external power that the function generator supplies as seen August 11 was around 300mW.  It's non-zero but not very significant compared to the ~15W drawn from the batteries, the ~3W dissipated by her heater resistor, or the ~12W shortfall in between.  In order make up the ~12W deficit the impedance of the negative bias source has to come way down.  It is beyond the capability of any off the shelf function generator.

In the manuscripts and the blog posts she indicated that the period set in the Figure 3 scopeshot was the longest "on" , i. e. the slowest frequency or longest period, with longest duty cycle proportions, that their IsoTech/Instek GFG-8216 FG could attain. Of course we cannot take Ainslie's word for this.... at one time she called in experts to "repair" her FG when in fact all she needed to do was to pull out the offset knob to engage its function. I don't see any capability for straight DC output from this FG, from looking at the FG manual. (My Interstate F43 does have a straight DC output setting, as well as being able to deliver 40 V p-p, with 50 ohm output impedance.)

So if they indeed want continuous oscillations, they are going to have to use some other source for the negative bias current than their present FG. How would they run the FG from the same batteries that are "powering the resistor" though? Stick an inverter in there to supply the line voltage to the FG?  Actually I doubt if any of the "more knowledgeable" members of Ainslie's mob have even confronted the issue, just as they were caught completely by surprise when they were tasked to reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot with the wiring as claimed in the daft manuscripts.

(By the way... it is another abject lie of Ainslie, when she claims that Glen Lettenmeier has "withdrawn" his data. It is all still posted publicly, with full explanations and many many scopeshots, as Glen (FuzzyTomCat) has explained many times. He "withdrew" his permission for Ainslie to use the data in her attempts at submission for publication of manuscripts that make false claims.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 02:34:43 AM
I don't think that they will have any problem getting the oscillations going continuously.  I think that all they need to do is pick a waveform type (any will do) such as the square wave they have been using, set their amplitude to zero, and set the offset to maximum negative. The GFG-82xx generators can drive -5V offset into 50 Ohms.  That implies that the open circuit offset range is -10V which as you know from your own demonstrations is more than enough bias voltage to get the oscillations going.  Here is a link to the basic specifications for their function generator.

http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=5&mid=73&id=99

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 06, 2014, 03:13:37 AM
I don't think that they will have any problem getting the oscillations going continuously.  I think that all they need to do is pick a waveform type (any will do) such as the square wave they have been using, set their amplitude to zero, and set the offset to maximum negative. The GFG-82xx generators can drive -5V offset into 50 Ohms.  That implies that the open circuit offset range is -10V which as you know from your own demonstrations is more than enough bias voltage to get the oscillations going.  Here is a link to the basic specifications for their function generator.

http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=5&mid=73&id=99 (http://www.gwinstek.com/en/product/productdetail.aspx?pid=5&mid=73&id=99)

I attached the complete manual for the FG in the post up above.

Of course there is no difficulty making continuous oscillations once one has some kind of continuous DC bias source. Your suggestion might work with the Instek FG... but if so, one wonders why she had such difficulty doing so. She has spoken of wanting continuous oscillations for a long time, but the FG seemed unable to deliver them. Perhaps it's just because she didn't experiment enough with the settings available.

The trick, of course, is to get the continuous oscillations _without_ the FG. It's easy to do by using some other DC bias source. Ainslie thinks they can do it with the same batteries that are powering the element resistor. This is what I am interested in seeing.

And of course, without some Q1 fully ON time, there will be no high heat in the load.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 03:24:32 AM
This would do:
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on February 06, 2014, 03:54:30 AM
I just took a peek and saw that Rosie believes that the YouTube prankster Deirones is real.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 04:54:27 AM
I just took a peek and saw that Rosie believes that the YouTube prankster Deirones is real.
Yes well this may be why extension cords are never plugged into themselves in the store.  One flick of a lighter and the whole store might go up in a shower of electrical arcs.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 06, 2014, 05:36:30 AM
This would do:

Of course. Adding a battery like that was first proposed years ago. Poynt99, Stefan our host, and others provided various schematics, and I demonstrated using a power supply and using a battery just as you have diagrammed, even measuring the current contribution of the battery. One such demonstration can be seen in the playlist I linked above, but I first demonstrated it in 2012 sometime.

But that is an _extra_ battery. This is not Ainslie's claim. She says she will be using the same batteries that power the load resistor.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on February 06, 2014, 05:38:12 AM
Yes well this may be why extension cords are never plugged into themselves in the store.  One flick of a lighter and the whole store might go up in a shower of electrical arcs.

So, if we sent Sterling an extension cord and he plugged it into itself, could he run his house from it?

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 06:12:12 AM
Of course. Adding a battery like that was first proposed years ago. Poynt99, Stefan our host, and others provided various schematics, and I demonstrated using a power supply and using a battery just as you have diagrammed, even measuring the current contribution of the battery. One such demonstration can be seen in the playlist I linked above, but I first demonstrated it in 2012 sometime.

But that is an _extra_ battery. This is not Ainslie's claim. She says she will be using the same batteries that power the load resistor.
All the batteries and the function generator or a battery acting as its surrogate do power the load resistor.  The function generator just drops most of its power contribution across its internal 50 Ohm impedance.  A lead acid battery limited by the wiring resistance will move the stress to the Q2 MOSFETs and the heater resistor. 

If she rearranges her six batteries as five plus one, then it still works just as you have shown with other combinations.  I think that it can be a fast trip down the rabbit hole to try and second guess Ms. Ainslie when there are already many discrepancies between what she has said, what she has diagrammed, and what she has demonstrated.  We do know from your excellent demonstrations that if they want to drive the oscillation cycles continuously that they can.  We also know that you have the facilities to pretty much replicate any idea that they might come up with and more.  Wouldn't it be interesting for example if TK labs were to replicate whatever it is Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators do next and on top of that switch the oscillations on and off on demand without touching the gate drive or interrupting the heater resistor current?  If you don't already know how to do that, I do.

If they do use a low resistance battery for gate drive then in order to start and maintain the oscillations they will need enough stray inductance in series with the source.  Something between 10uH and 100uH will be needed.  In that case the voltages will be something to watch out for.  They could get 800V or more on the MOSFET drains during start-up.

If they don't have enough inductance in the source leg, then with low ESR like a battery they won't get oscillations.  They will just have the battery stack across the series combination of:  the heater resistor, the Q2 MOSFETs fully enhanced, the current sense resistors, the wiring and the series battery ESR.  With 72V of battery the heater resistor will get plenty hot.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 06:14:43 AM
So, if we sent Sterling an extension cord and he plugged it into itself, could he run his house from it?

Bill
It could do no less than any of the free energy generators he has been told would run his house in the past.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on February 06, 2014, 06:41:08 AM
It could do no less than any of the free energy generators he has been told would run his house in the past.

Touche.

Bill 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: picowatt on February 06, 2014, 08:41:29 AM
This would do:

MarkE,

Your schematic does not bias Q2 into a linear region of operation.

The open circuit voltage of the FG and the 50R internal to the FG, in concert with the Vth of Q2, sets the bias current for Q2 and allows Q2 to function as a common gate configured amplifier.

As you say in later posts (and as proven by .99's sims and TK's breadboards), a fair amount of inductance is required as well for Q2 to oscillate as it does.  However, I do not believe turning Q2 fully on, as would happen if a low impedance V source (battery) in excess of Vth were connected directly to Q2's source, will allow Q2 to oscillate.

She has never attempted to hard switch Q2 as she does Q1, but rather biases Q2 into a linear region and relies on the Q2 oscillations to produce her "effect".


On another note, as she has retracted her retraction, does she now endorse FIG3 of paper 1 as being consistent with what one would expect from the schematic provided in that paper?

If so, she would indeed be better off experimenting with socket strips and piezo ignitors... 

PW 

 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 09:08:05 AM
MarkE,

Your schematic does not bias Q2 into a linear region of operation.

The open circuit voltage of the FG and the 50R internal to the FG, in concert with the Vth of Q2, sets the bias current for Q2 and allows Q2 to function as a common gate configured amplifier.

As you say in later posts (and as proven by .99's sims and TK's breadboards), a fair amount of inductance is required as well for Q2 to oscillate as it does.  However, I do not believe turning Q2 fully on, as would happen if a low impedance V source (battery) in excess of Vth were connected directly to Q2's source, will allow Q2 to oscillate.

She has never attempted to hard switch Q2 as she does Q1, but rather bias Q2 into a linear region and relies on the Q2 oscillations to produce her "effect".


On another note, as she has retracted her retraction, does she now endorse FIG3 of paper 1 as being consistent with what one would expect from the schematic provided in that paper?

If so, she would indeed be better off experimenting with socket strips and piezo ignitors... 

PW 

 
PW that is true in the DC case and if they used short wires without the inductance that I mentioned then the resulting common source configuration does not oscillate.  That holds to 10uH.  At 100uH  the circuit oscillates immediately.  During start-up, peak drain voltages of 800V are present, settling to somewhat more pedestrian peak voltages of 600V at about 600kHz.   At 600kHz, 100uH is about 377 Ohms. 

Ms. Ainslie has never understood the operation of the function generator and its internal resistance as it pertains to gate bias as well a DC current path for Q2 MOSFET current.  They got their oscillations, made bad measurements, drew incorrect conclusions and were happy until under supervision they made half way decent measurements and found out that their over unity measurements were all the illusions that Poynt99, and TinselKoala had been telling them they were.

My understanding is that despite showing June 29 that Figure 3, Figure 6, and Figure 7 of Paper 1 were all the result of probing errors, Ms. Ainslie has withdrawn her retraction because she has some new strange ideas about how current can accumulate or deplete on a node in violation of KCL.  She already endorses those silly self-powered socket strip videos.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: picowatt on February 06, 2014, 09:27:24 AM
PW that is true in the DC case and if they used short wires without the inductance that I mentioned then the resulting common source configuration does not oscillate.  That holds to 10uH.  At 100uH  the circuit oscillates immediately.  During start-up, peak drain voltages of 800V are present, settling to somewhat more pedestrian peak voltages of 600V at about 600kHz.   At 600kHz, 100uH is about 377 Ohms. 

Ms. Ainslie has never understood the operation of the function generator and its internal resistance as it pertains to gate bias as well a DC current path for Q2 MOSFET current.  They got their oscillations, made bad measurements, drew incorrect conclusions and were happy until under supervision they made half way decent measurements and found out that their over unity measurements were all the illusions that Poynt99, and TinselKoala had been telling them they were.

My understanding is that despite showing June 29 that Figure 3, Figure 6, and Figure 7 of Paper 1 were all the result of probing errors, Ms. Ainslie has withdrawn her retraction because she has some new strange ideas about how current can accumulate or deplete on a node in violation of KCL.  She already endorses those silly self-powered socket strip videos.

MarkE,

Are you discussing a scenario based on sim work?

This subject has been so beat to death, I am amazed anyone still bothers.

Even with a lot of inductance, if Q2 is switched on hard at DC, her load will see more current than her linearly biased Q2 oscillations ever produced (and more efficiently I might add).

I have always considered Q2 to be configured as common gate, do I understand that you consider Q2 to be configured as common source?

PW
 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 09:49:31 AM
MarkE,

Are you discussing a scenario based on sim work?

This subject has been so beat to death, I am amazed anyone still bothers.

Even with a lot of inductance, if Q2 is switched on hard at DC, her load will see more current than her linearly biased Q2 oscillations ever produced (and more efficiently I might add).

I have always considered Q2 to be configured as common gate, do I understand that you consider Q2 to be configured as common source?

PW
PW yes I simulated to confirm that the circuit oscillates stably with 100uH and 20mOhm in series with the composite Q2 source.  I got an extensive configurable SPICE model of the circuit from Steve.

If the Q2 MOSFETs don't oscillate then four fully enhanced IRFPG50s have one fourth the series resistance of one and a tiny fraction of the average resistance seen when they oscillate.  In the low impedance battery configuration, the required inductance for oscillation is many times greater than with a 50 Ohm resistance as provided by the function generator.

The Q2 configuration used with the function generator is a common gate, because the gate is connected to a low impedance whereas the source and drain are not.  Replacing the function generator with something that has a low impedance like another lead acid battery arguably changes the circuit such that it behaves as either a common gate or common source configuration since both terminals are from an AC standpoint grounded.  Inserting sufficient inductance that the source is again decoupled by an impedance much higher than the gate puts us back in a common gate configuration at frequencies high enough for the inductive reactance to matter.  The simple diagram above does not show any impedance inserted between the source terminal and the Vee supply, so as drawn it works as either common gate or common source.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: picowatt on February 06, 2014, 10:00:21 AM
PW yes I simulated to confirm that the circuit oscillates stably with 100uH and 20mOhm in series with the composite Q2 source.  I got an extensive configurable SPICE model of the circuit from Steve.

If the Q2 MOSFETs don't oscillate then four fully enhanced IRFPG50s have one fourth the series resistance of one and a tiny fraction of the average resistance seen when they oscillate.  In the low impedance battery configuration, the required inductance for oscillation is many times greater than with a 50 Ohm resistance as provided by the function generator.

The Q2 configuration used with the function generator is a common gate, because the gate is connected to a low impedance whereas the source and drain are not.  Replacing the function generator with something that has a low impedance like another lead acid battery arguably changes the circuit such that it behaves as either a common gate or common source configuration since both terminals are from an AC standpoint grounded.  Inserting sufficient inductance that the source is again decoupled by an impedance much higher than the gate puts us back in a common gate configuration at frequencies high enough for the inductive reactance to matter.  The simple diagram above does not show any impedance inserted between the source terminal and the Vee supply, so as drawn it works as either common gate or common source.

Yes, after rereading your previous post, I realized you were referring to the case where the Q2 source had a low impedance path as being common source.

As you say, the configuration type can at times become a bit gray, but when in doubt, I choose the least dynamic terminal as the "common".

I read your write up over at Mark D's website.  It was a very well written and concise summation of this whole affair.  In concert with what Mark D posted (and her earlier retraction), I would have thought all of this would have been put to bed by now.

PW
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 10:13:18 AM
Yes, after rereading your previous post, I realized you were referring to the case where the Q2 source had a low impedance path as being common source.

As you say, the configuration type can at times become a bit gray, but when in doubt, I choose the least dynamic terminal as the "common".

I read your write up over at Mark D's website.  It was a very well written and concise summation of this whole affair.  In concert with what Mark D posted (and her earlier retraction), I would have thought all of this would have been put to bed by now.

PW
I am a big fan of common gate / common base circuits.  A bit of trivia that you probably know is that the first transistor circuits were common base configurations. 

I wrote a detailed report on the Quantum Magazine article focusing entirely on the discrepancies of the signal generator portion of the circuit.  That is the report that is on Revolution-Green.  Ms. Ainslie objected strongly to my comments but never addressed any of the issues that I raised.

The demonstrations in June and August of last year should have put the Paper 1 and Paper 2 completely to rest.  Ms. Ainslie honorably withdrew both papers in light of those demonstrations and then rather inexplicably without new experiment data decided to "reinstate" them.  She came up with some wild ideas that there was actually far more power being circulated in the breadboard circuit heater than indicated by her own temperature rise measurements. 

She now states that she intends to reproduce the experiments from the Quantum Magazine article as well as the Paper 1 and Paper 2 experiments.  I think that is fine.  As much as I know what I expect from those experiments, I think it is good for people who have ideas to put those ideas to the test.  If Ms. Ainslie and her team do not make gross mistakes then they should observe physically reasonable results.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 06, 2014, 12:54:37 PM
I'm sorry, but some of the above discussion from sims doesn't seem to jive completely with my results in the hardware. I know watching my demonstration videos gets old, but could you please watch again, and comment specifically upon, this video here, particularly "part 4b", the latter part of the video. Schematics are shown at the front of the video but also see the 4b schematic below.
The series resistance of 100 ohms with the bias battery is a carbon resistor. The CSR is a one-ohm wirewound power resistor.
So what I'm getting from the discussion above and from my testing is that the output impedance of the bias source is rather critical. If it's too low, as when I hooked the circuit up without the 100R briefly near the end of the video, it doesn't oscillate, but with a bit higher impedance (through the 100R and the bulb) it does. At 7:09 in the video I touch the bulb to the positive battery terminal bypassing the 100R, the bulb lights up brightly and the tpA trace shows -4 volts but with no oscillation. By fiddling with the connection I briefly get a pulse of oscillation, then I place the 100R in series and obtain the continuous oscillation and a dim bulb.
I presume the bulb lights up in the no-oscillation case because the mosfet's body Zener is reverse-biased enough to conduct, and that the two batteries are now in series and the scope trace from tpA is indicating the voltage drop across the body diode and the load resistance. Is that right?
In any case, due to the action of the body diode, the voltage at tpA never seems able to go below -4 volts or so, oscillating or not, regardless of the bias source impedance. Of course when the oscillations are happening this -4 V is the mean of the oscillations. Also, during oscillations there should be some current flowing across the source-gate capacitance as well, right?
I'm still trying to understand fully the behaviour of the circuit myself, so I'm happy for any and all guidance, and if I'm completely missing something please let me know!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV2ePEbJ76I

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 06, 2014, 01:42:46 PM
I'm sorry, but some of the above discussion from sims doesn't seem to jive completely with my results in the hardware. I know watching my demonstration videos gets old, but could you please watch again, and comment specifically upon, this video here, particularly "part 4b", the latter part of the video. Schematics are shown at the front of the video but also see the 4b schematic below.
The series resistance of 100 ohms with the bias battery is a carbon resistor. The CSR is a one-ohm wirewound power resistor.
So what I'm getting from the discussion above and from my testing is that the output impedance of the bias source is rather critical. If it's too low, as when I hooked the circuit up without the 100R briefly near the end of the video, it doesn't oscillate, but with a bit higher impedance (through the 100R and the bulb) it does. At 7:09 in the video I touch the bulb to the positive battery terminal bypassing the 100R, the bulb lights up brightly and the tpA trace shows -4 volts but with no oscillation. By fiddling with the connection I briefly get a pulse of oscillation, then I place the 100R in series and obtain the continuous oscillation and a dim bulb.
I presume the bulb lights up in the no-oscillation case because the mosfet's body Zener is reverse-biased enough to conduct, and that the two batteries are now in series and the scope trace from tpA is indicating the voltage drop across the body diode and the load resistance. Is that right?
In any case, due to the action of the body diode, the voltage at tpA never seems able to go below -4 volts or so, oscillating or not, regardless of the bias source impedance. Of course when the oscillations are happening this -4 V is the mean of the oscillations. Also, during oscillations there should be some current flowing across the source-gate capacitance as well, right?
I'm still trying to understand fully the behaviour of the circuit myself, so I'm happy for any and all guidance, and if I'm completely missing something please let me know!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV2ePEbJ76I
The videos do not contradict the discussion above.  What the simulations show is that if you connect a battery without a ballast resistor that you will not get the oscillations.  That should make intuitive sense:  That configuration looks like the drawing I posted.  One can look at the circuit as either common gate, or common source.  A common source circuit with 0V / 12V drive acts like a switch that is off with 0V and on with 12V drive.  Now if you insert 100uH between the battery and the MOSFET source then according to the simulation you'll get big time oscillations.  100uH is the equivalent of about 400 feet of lead wire.  If you insert only 10uH which would be about 40 feet of wire then the simulations do not show any oscillations.  The critical inductance to start and sustain oscillations for 20mOhms with four IRFPG50's appears to be right about 80uH.

In order to get oscillations we need two things:  180 degrees phase shift and gain greater than 1.  The discussion that PW and I were having had to do with getting a gain > 1.  For that, the MOSFET has to operate in its linear region.  When set-up as a switch it doesn't have a lot of opportunity to do that as it slews through its linear region pretty quickly.  However, when we insert enough inductance in the source leg, that impedes rapid on/off off/on switching, multiplying the time that the MOSFET takes to slew through its linear region, and in the process also introducing more phase shift.  It's just a matter of inserting enough unbypassed inductance and the circuit will take off if subjected to a strong transient such as power on.  The impact of a 50 Ohm or 100 Ohm degeneration resistor in series with the source is that linear operation extends to DC.  You should be able to do a quick test where you get the oscillations with the 100 Ohm resistor, but kill them by bypassing the resistor with a 1uF or larger capacitor.

During the oscillations there is current through all three parasitic capacitances:  D-G, D-S, and G-S.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: mrsean2k on February 07, 2014, 01:34:25 AM
A formally attired Rosemary guides her team's build while typing up the thesis:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBBvXth-O_g
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 07, 2014, 02:38:29 PM
MrSean2k.... I am afraid Ainslie doesn't need you to make a laughingstock of her... she is perfectly capable of doing that all by herself.

Quote
Sorry.  I omitted mention of preliminary tests done on efforts at replicating Deirone's test.  What has been managed is to 'briefly' turn the switch on.  The ground pin used is copper.  I've got an idea that it may be preferred to use aluminium.  But there's still some way to go.  Frankly - I'm AMAZED that even this was achieved.  It certainly defies standard assumption - or what I've learned about the standard model.  Frankly, it's looking promising - more so than I dared to hope.

Yes, that's right... the Deirones who plugs an extension cord into itself, then uses the piezo sparker from a cigarette lighter to "start" the thing up. Ainslie thinks she has managed "briefly" to turn the switch on... while splitting infinitives left and right. Now we know ... Ainslie actively hallucinates.


(Perhaps someone should inform Ainslie that the lower specific heat of Mineral Oil, 1.67 Joules per gram per degree C, and its lower density of about 0.83 or 0.84 grams per ml, means that a given amount of _energy_, measured in Joules, applied to the oil, will result in a _greater_ temperature change (measured in degrees C)  than the same amount of _energy_ applied to the same volume of water. This actually makes the oil bath system _more sensitive_ to applied energy than the water bath.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 07, 2014, 03:03:46 PM
The idea that anyone takes Deirones farce seriously, much less claims to replicate pegs the absurdity meter.  Such a claim is either a big joke or the person making the claim is very, very confused.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Tseak on February 08, 2014, 09:00:31 AM
I'm delighted that Rose has proven this technology. My commissioning teams roll up extension cables and plug them into themselves to prevent them becoming knotted. All I have to do now is give the guys some lighters then they don't need to bother with carrying generators. How easy is that? However they'll have to unplug them during transport or the leads may cause a fire. In the meantime I'll get some aluminium  earth pins made up.   ;D
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 08, 2014, 09:35:17 AM
I'm delighted that Rose has proven this technology. My commissioning teams roll up extension cables and plug them into themselves to prevent them becoming knotted. All I have to do now is give the guys some lighters then they don't need to bother with carrying generators. How easy is that? However they'll have to unplug them during transport or the leads may cause a fire. In the meantime I'll get some aluminium  earth pins made up.   ;D
When you heartlessly drive the generator manufacturers out of business I hope that you will send some of your savings to the Generator Manufacturer's Widows and Orphans Fund.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on February 08, 2014, 10:00:20 AM
Yes, but,,, the extension cord folks are going to see more business than they can handle.  I would stock up on them now while they are still affordable.

Bill
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 08, 2014, 10:17:26 AM
Yes, but,,, the extension cord folks are going to see more business than they can handle.  I would stock up on them now while they are still affordable.

Bill
I believe that the Koch brothers have already cornered the market.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 09, 2014, 05:39:36 AM
It just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Ainslie is now enamored with a video, uploaded on December 8, 2013, that shows some interesting things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rpFZqrzBok

But is there trouble in Paradise?
Quote
Not even the guys who are doing our replications - are convinced by these videos.  To a man they claim that its fraud.  So.  It's left to me to see what I can do to replicate.

It's too bad that she missed my videos on the same topic, that I made and uploaded back in September, November and December of 2012.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3Olkd_5EI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saa39OCuBy0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9BifULAgfA
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 09, 2014, 07:15:53 AM
Who would fake free energy on YouTube?  The only reason that the real free energy motors are not at Walmart is because they still have to be safety certified.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: alan on February 09, 2014, 10:21:37 PM
still no answers about this circuit?
guess it's another hoax
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 10, 2014, 02:37:33 AM
still no answers about this circuit?
guess it's another hoax
Ms. Ainslie has recently spoken out defending several hoaxes.  Is there one in particular that interests you?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 10, 2014, 06:41:29 PM
I've just received a PM from a new poster called AlaskaStar. I don't quite know what he's talking about, but perhaps he's the person referred to on this page of Ainslie's honeypot forum.

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?topic=2313.235;wap2 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?topic=2313.235;wap2)

Quote
Rosemary Ainslie says:
 Guys - Here's a new one for the books.  A new reach into 'spin'.    You'll recall that 'the boss' was the poster who promised me 'unusual methods' to discredit me.  What actually happened, within a week of threatening this - was my computer was STOLEN during an attack on my premises - a robbery that took place - WHILE I WAS RIGHT HERE.  From under my nose... so to speak.  I believe the attack would have extended to me as well but for the brave intervention of my beautiful dog - LOKI.  Plenty of blood was left as evidence AFTER that attack - and the most of it on my duvet.  It has taught me to pay heed when 'the boss' makes a post.  So.  With this in mind - here's the thing...  In this link...
http://www.overunity.com/13593/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-june-29-2013-video-segments/msg364941/#m (http://www.overunity.com/13593/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-june-29-2013-video-segments/msg364941/#m)

he now says this...
For the record, Chris Hunter was daily battling publicly with Ainslie and her circuit claims well over 10 years ago long before anyone here ever heard of her. He was the very first to call her to account, is well aware of her of her fraudulent claims and her mental instability. The guy is a legend as far as Ainslie is concerned and she still bears the scars of those battles. You will no longer find him posting on forums. We stay in touch a couple times a year and his private personal story is remarkable. One of the few people in these forums to run with his original ideas and innovations and bring them to market. Technically, he is as astute as both TinselKoala and Poynt99. ..just a remarkable young man who has no time for this kind of stuff.


Bear in mind that Chris Hunter wrote in Mark Dansie's forum Revolution Green.com wrote to Mark in defense of both my work and Rossi's.  On record - BEFORE that article I have NEVER even heard of Chris Hunter.  I put it to you all - under oath - that ten years ago and to date - I have NEVER spoken nor written to Chris.  And far from saying that he's a 'remarkable young man who has no time for this kind of stuff'... ON THE CONTRARY - clearly he does. 

What is alarming is that 'the boss' claims that 'He was the very first to call her to account, is well aware of her of her fraudulent claims and her mental instability.'  This is COMPLETE HOGWASH.  IF it's true then 'the boss' needs to show proof - FROM CHRIS HIMSELF.  WHERE HAVE WE ENGAGED?  WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HOLDS THIS OPINION?

It is STAGGERING that this level of 'spin' - calumny - lies - can be perpetrated - WITHOUT QUESTION.  And it is BEWILDERING to try and understand how it is that our technology is SO DANGEROUS - that it needs to be NEGATED - and my own skills along with it?  I put it to you that we most CERTAINLY have something that these HORRORS are desperately trying to DENY.  I am the FIRST to claim that our 'proof' is small - our contributions 'negligible' compared to those of Rossi's et al.  But NOW?  NOT SO MUCH.  I am beginning to realise that our technology REALLY REALLY matters.  Why else would they need to lie?  And to lie in every single post that they make?  And to work SO HARD at those lies? It beggars belief.

Kindest regards
Rosie

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:ArcticTek:Chris_Hunter_%28Alaska_Star%29%27s_Axial_Flux_Motor (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:ArcticTek:Chris_Hunter_%28Alaska_Star%29%27s_Axial_Flux_Motor)

Please feel free, AlaskaStar, to join in this public discussion. I'd really like to know the history of you and Ainslie, since "The Boss" has said that you were the first one to "call her to account" many years ago -- yet Ainslie absolutely denies this. It would not be the first time that Ainslie has categorically denied doing something that she clearly has actually done.

As Ainslie quoted above, The Boss said:
Quote
For the record, Chris Hunter was daily battling publicly with Ainslie and her circuit claims well over 10 years ago long before anyone here ever heard of her. He was the very first to call her to account, is well aware of her of her fraudulent claims and her mental instability. The guy is a legend as far as Ainslie is concerned and she still bears the scars of those battles. You will no longer find him posting on forums. We stay in touch a couple times a year and his private personal story is remarkable. One of the few people in these forums to run with his original ideas and innovations and bring them to market. Technically, he is as astute as both TinselKoala and Poynt99. ..just a remarkable young man who has no time for this kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 11, 2014, 04:03:00 PM
TinselKoala:  Ms. Ainslie is trying to stir the pot again this morning.  Apparently she does not understand your video:  'Electric OU: Tar Baby Cooks Some Turnip Stew: High Heat with "NO CURRENT FLOW"'  Ms. Ainslie speaks as though she is confident that new tests will vindicate her ideas.  Whether Ms. Ainslie believes it or not, I personally encourage her to experiment to her heart's content.  I encourage her to improve her test methods and documentation so that her results are both crisp and certain.  It is through such a process that she may yet learn something about physics and electronics.

Ms. Ainslie is unhappy that you used a DMM to obtain average readings.  She has latched onto information that is only partially correct in order to try and score points on you.  What Ms. Ainslie and a lot of people don't know is how a DMM works, and where it can and cannot reliably extract the DC average of a signal.  What she does know is that a DMM samples.  She assumes that beyond the sample frequency that the DMM cannot obtain reliably extract the average DC voltage.  She is wrong. 

What happens to any sampled system where input energy with content above half the device's sample frequency is that energy aliases.  Aliasing causes problems under certain circumstances.  The circumstances where it causes problems for a modern DMM are narrow.  Signals that are between about half the meter's conversion rate and about 10X the conversion rate result in unstable DC readings.  When the signal changes slowly enough for the meter to track it, the readings will appear chaotic to the human reading the meter.  A typical handheld DMM samples between 2 and 10 times per second.  Signals that are 100X or more the DMM sample rate average well due to the quad slope conversion architecture of DMM A/D converters.  Fluke handheld DMMs that I have tested are perfectly stable reading 50Hz signals.  I believe Poynt99's work inspired Steve to do some tests where Steve went as high as 500MHz.  Steve has some really nice equipment that is good for that.  I have only gone up to a few MHz with my gear.

There are two caveats:  One is that is that the common mode rejection of a DMM front end has an inverse saddle shape.  Somewhere in the mid 100kHz region, the common mode rejection ratio may fall down into the 40dB range, which means the DC signal will bounce around by up to 1%.  At lower frequencies and higher frequencies the rejection is better.  This effect can be more pronounced with cheapy meters.  The other is that meters present pretty substantial capacitive loads.  At frequencies above a few MHz the loading can be significant and a series resistor should be used between the signal source and the DMM.  1K Ohm is usually a good choice.

A fun experiment that anyone with a DMM, a function generator, and an oscilloscope can do is:

Put a BNC T on the function generator.
Connect one BNC patch cable from the T to an oscilloscope channel 1 to monitor the signal output.  Set vertical gain to 500mV/division.  Set 0V to center.  Trigger on channel 1.  Set horizontal sweep to 2ms / div.
Connect another BNC patch cable with a dual banana plug adapter into the DMM.
Set the DMM to read DC volts, 20V scale.
Set the function generator amplitude to zero.
Dial up an offset voltage until the DMM reads 1.000V.
Set the function generator to sine wave output.
Set the function generator amplitude to about 2Vpp
Adjust the function generator frequency to 100Hz.
If the oscilloscope has measurement capability, read average voltage.
Make step adjustments to the function generator operating frequency in 1-2-5 steps, IE 100Hz, 200Hz, 500Hz, 1kHz, 2kHz... 
Adjust the oscilloscope horizontal sweep to keep from 2 to 5 cycles on the screen at each step.
At each step frequency read and record the DMM voltage.  Typically, a decent DMM will remain stable to within a couple of mV until the mid 100kHz range, such as 500kHz.
If the oscilloscope has measurement capability read and record the average voltage reading at each step.
Repeat the process with the offset voltage set to -1.000V.
Repeat the process using a triangle waveform.
Repeat the process using a square waveform.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 11, 2014, 09:01:05 PM
Ainslie and her "team" will never perform that simple series of DMM tests for themselves, or if they do they will never report the results. Ainslie has a long history of avoiding any tests that have the potential to falsify her claims, and simply failing to report results that don't support her claims, like the results from the laboratory in the USA to which she sent her entire apparatus, a year or so ago.

Not only that, but Ainslie and her "team" have been aware of Poynt99's excellent testing and documentation of DMM accuracy ever since he produced it.

Furthermore, note that in that old video from May of 2012, I clearly am using a MINERAL OIL BATH and I clearly am taking, recording and reporting THERMOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS, properly obtained, of the oil bath system.... and yet the lying, willfully ignorant, mendacious and deluded Ainslie has stated just a few days ago that I have never shown either of those things.

Also note that on the blowup photos that she herself posted to PESN back before the most recent demonstrations.... her FG is set to produce a TRIANGLE or ramp waveform, just as I showed in this video.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 11, 2014, 09:04:13 PM
AlaskaStar has indicated, for the record, that he is NOT the person to whom The Boss refers in his statements that I quoted above. The Boss must have been thinking of someone else. So at least Ainslie got something right.... she apparently hasn't been engaged by AlaskaStar before now, according to him.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 11, 2014, 09:08:59 PM
One could easily get the idea that she says a number of things just to try and rile you up.  For someone who says that she doesn't watch your videos she sure likes to link and critique them.

Something that is in that blowup is interesting:  Notice the earth ground symbol that is printed next to each of the BNC connectors.  That should have given them a clue about what they needed to do in order to hook up the function generator as documented instead of the way that they actually did for all but the August 11 tests.  They owe Poynt99  big for suggesting to them that they disconnect the mains earth ground on their function generator.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 11, 2014, 10:50:22 PM
Ainslie's insulting and mendacious comments about my videos hardly rise to the level of "critiques". She does not even try to refute specific points with outside checkable references, facts, or proper demonstrations of her own. She repeats over and over silly things that have long been known to be false, or which are easily demonstrated to be false simply by looking and paying attention to the content of my videos. Further, it has been clear for a long time that even the "tenth-grade" level of pitch is too much for her. She does not have the academic prerequisites, the intellectual capacity, or the proper mental models necessary to grasp or understand what is happening in my videos, even though they are as simple as I could possibly make them.

Just ask her what the mosfet Drain voltage should be in "her" circuit when the mosfet is ON and conducting, and see what she says.

Yes, her cheap, basic Chinese Function Generator always has the chassis, and the BNC shields, connected to the line cord's Ground wire. The only way to isolate the "black" output lead from the chassis and line ground is to cut off the ground pin in the cord, or use a line ground-lift adapter. However, my F43 Function Generator, a superior bit of test equipment made in the USA, has, in addition to its 40 V p-p output, also a built in Chassis Isolation switch and all its BNC connectors are insulated from its chassis. Simply by flicking this switch, I can isolate the F43's "black" output lead from the chassis and line-cord ground. Of course, using a BNC patch cord to connect the FG to another, grounded instrument re-establishes the ground connection. All of this is waaaaaay over the head of Ainslie and her crew, though. Since my instrument does not have "numbers in boxes".... she believes that it is somehow inferior to hers, when in fact the truth is the exact opposite.

(Image shows the F43's rear panel chassis isolation switch; I have since moved this function to the front panel for convenience.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 12, 2014, 01:45:41 AM
A neophyte can buy a half million dollar oscilloscope and still mess up ordinary measurements.  A craftsman who understands both circuits and the test instrument can make good measurements using equipment that goes for pocket change on eBay.  The measure of a craft person's skill is not the equipment that they have or must have, but what they can do with the equipment that they do have.

I would have to investigate, but I am pretty sure that safety regulations now prohibit interrupting an earth safety ground connection with anything that can open the circuit, such as a switch.  Safety regulators are more concerned with keeping people alive than making measurements convenient.  In a modern environment, the ground loop would have to be isolated by floating the oscilloscope probe or probes.  It's kind of a burden for people working on stuff out of their own pockets.  But if you think about it, even a few thousand for a good non-contact current probe is a small insurance cost to a company lab if that prevents personal injury or death.

Even with safety regulations as they are, I know people down the street who floated 220VAC line equipment for test convenience.  If they had any kind of insurance aware safety compliance people then that invitation to electrocution would not have happened.  Insurers and employers are even more adverse to paying personal injury or wrongful death claims as they are missing Bob at the company picnic.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 12, 2014, 02:15:57 AM
Yes, it can be dangerous to interrupt an instrument's chassis ground. The isolation switch on the F43 does not isolate the instrument's chassis/power supply section from the line cord ground, it only isolates the "signal ground" from the chassis (and so from the system's line cord ground.) It is very rare that this function is needed or desired, hence the original switch location on the rear panel of the instrument. My "rack" is so tightly stacked, though, that it is difficult for me to reach around behind the instrument, so I installed a switch in the front panel.

I believe Ainslie found out for herself just what a good groundloop can do, when she decided to take a reading "across the load" while she had all her other probes hooked up as normal. Recall that her early Quantum article work was done with a fully isolated Fluke 123 or 199 ScopeMeter, which allows 600 volts difference between the channel ground references, so one may connect this scope any which-a-way with relative impunity. Not so the LeCroy! All the probe references are connected together at the chassis and also back to the line cord. So she wound up hooking one probe's reference to the 72 volt battery negative, and another probe's reference to the battery positive, when she tried to scope "across the load". I believe this was the event that caused her to have to purchase the borrowed scope, and have it sent out for repair and calibration.
This is not the only "oops" that Ainslie has committed wrt her equipment, either.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 12, 2014, 02:46:23 AM
Usually when someone hooks up probes incorrectly, they fry only the probe and/or the probe cable.  It takes some really serious current to damage the BNC connector or anything past the internal frame.  Ms. Ainslie's unfortunate accident could have happened to anyone.  I have been in labs that had to be cleared for days after an ESD bench ground lead ended up doing double duty as a protective ground.  The fried insulation gave off toxic gas and tripped the fire protection system.  The lab was a mess.

20-20 hindsight is easy.  That said, a $700. differential isolation probe would have protected Ms. Ainslie against that accident.  Unfortunately a good DC - >1MHz non-contact current probe costs about as much as the oscilloscope.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 15, 2014, 04:47:34 PM
My, my how things change over the years.

Remember when Ainslie's claims were like "the batteries don't discharge at all, because energy is being created in the circuit elements and returned to the batteries, while boiling water with no measurable current drawn from the source" ?

Now it appears that Ainslie's claims have degenerated -- perhaps "decayed" is a better word -- to something more like "two batteries, powering two different loads with two different discharge schedules, will last different lengths of time before they reach some low terminal voltage."

Well, triple-whoopie-dingding!! Send in the clowns! What an earthshaking result that is! .......... NOT.

There is just one Little problem: The energy OUT from the batteries will never exceed the energy put INTO the batteries to charge them up in the first place, and the energy SUPPLIED TO EACH LOAD (in this case the complete circuit, whatever it might be) by the batteries, or DC control power supply, will never be less than the ENERGY DISSIPATED BY THOSE LOADS during the experimentation.

Wait.... isn't that two Little problems? Sorry....

Poynt99, I wouldn't be so worried if I were you. Ainslie's kludgewerk is so drastically _inefficient_ that proper testing will clearly show, just as it always has in the past, that maintaining any given temperature of her load, using her "oscillations", will always require more power input than a simple DC source and straight wires would require to maintain the same temperature in the same load. As you poynt out, simply comparing the battery "capacity" using Ainslie's naive methodology is not a valid test of an overunity claim, but even so, I'd still wager that testing using her own "protocols" would nevertheless fail to support her claims. Which is why we won't be seeing any real data from such tests, coming from her.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 15, 2014, 05:04:54 PM
Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators already established Aug. 11 that the battery to heating element power efficiency during the oscillations is only about 20%.  A conundrum that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators now face is how much wire should they put between their test set-up and the batteries?  Do longer wires enhance or hinder each:  power, power efficiency, and battery desulfanation?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 15, 2014, 07:50:02 PM
"Watts of energy". Again. Still. After all these years.

One awaits eagerly the next Little foot-in-mouth pronouncement from the amazing Ainslie.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 15, 2014, 08:42:51 PM
"Watts of energy". Again. Still. After all these years.

One awaits eagerly the next Little foot-in-mouth pronouncement from the amazing Ainslie.
Well yes confusing power and energy is a bad problem, but the argument that she is trying to make is not entirely off the mark.  It is clear to me that she is advancing the very simple idea that if one gets more energy (sustained power across some time interval) out than in, then something extraordinary is going on.  She is obviously convinced that this is the case despite last summer's demonstrations.

Where things can run awry quickly is if power and energy measurements get mixed-up.  Ms. Ainslie writes as though she has some technical professionals conducting her experiments, so there is hope that measurements and comparisons will be kept straight. 

The current debate seems to be over how to evaluate if a circuit offers a benefit to a battery.  Poynt99 has objected to comparing a battery loaded by a straight resistance versus a battery connected to a pulsating load.  A low pass decoupling filter between the battery and the test assembly would eliminate that distinction.  The question is whether Ms. Ainslie would accept insertion of such a low pass filter.  I would think that as long as it is placed at the battery and that she can observe that it has virtually no impact on the waveforms that she observes at her test assembly that she would accept such a filter.  Two copies of the filter could be built so that the test arrangements are identical between the DUT and the control, but for the DUT and the control heater resistor themselves.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 16, 2014, 04:11:19 PM
Ainslie continues to bleat, like a lost she-goat wandering through the maze of a city's downtown streets. She has no clue as to navigating the landscape so she does what she does best: she bleats. Again she complains about my work.... and as usual she cannot actually refute any single LITTLE thing I've done. She can't take any video of mine and point out the specific details she would like to dispute.... because she cannot dispute my FACTS at all.

Not only that..... but she is slowly lurching towards performing her testing in the manner that I have been using for years. Her "team" of incompetent blunderers must be paying attention, even though she herself is too ignorant and arrogant to understand. Neither has she ever withdrawn the utter lies that she has been telling about me and my work, even after her falsehoods are exposed for all to see in the images of her own posts. Bleat, bleat bleat, the poor lost she-goat wanders through a landscape she cannot possibly ever understand. It would be sad, if it weren't so utterly comical.

She mentions her Doctor Garret in a rather disparaging manner. Do we think that this is the same Doctor Garret who is now Chief Scientist in Queensland Australia? Hmmm.... I really wonder what he himself would have to say about the things Ainslie is attributing to him.

Quote
Prior  to joining CSIRO, Geoff led South Africa’s national science agency, the CSIR,  as President and Chief Executive from 1995, following five years as Executive  Vice President: Operations. He was named South Africa’s ‘Boss of the Year’ in  1998, and ‘Engineer of the Year’ by the South African Society of Professional  Engineers in 1999.

http://www.chiefscientist.qld.gov.au/about/bio.aspx

Phone: +61 7 3224 7630
 Email: info@chiefscientist.qld.gov.au
 Street address: Level 25, 111 George Street, Brisbane


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on February 16, 2014, 04:23:42 PM
I smell another crash and burn if she tries to do another round of public demos.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 16, 2014, 04:25:55 PM
Dear Professor Garrett

For some years now we have been examining the claims of one Rosemary Ainslie, who believes that she has discovered that a simple electronic circuit, found in the back of every power mosfet data sheet, can somehow produce more energy than is required to operate the circuit. She has mentioned you as being one of the early examiners of her claims and her experiments.

As you can see in the attached image of her blog post, made on Sunday, February 16, 2014, she mentions you rather disparagingly and makes certain definite claims as to your role in the affair. She goes as far as to accuse you of suppressing data. She says that your actions were "immoral" and that you were too "scared" to release her data: "Sadly he did NOT have the courage needed for faithful scientific evaluation to be duly reported and recorded." (sic)

These claims about you are rather remarkable, but are actually commonplace coming from Ainslie. Previous statements she has made have turned out to be utter misrepresentations of the facts. So we are hoping that you yourself can give us a description of your actual role in Ainslie's experimentation in those early days.

Please be aware that Ainslie has mentioned you frequently and indeed seems to be blaming you, at least in part, for the lack of acceptance of her claims in the mainstream scientific community. Some of her critics find these statements of hers to be literally incredible, such as the quote above maligning your scientific integrity.

We would really like to hear your side of the story, to put the matter to rest once and for all.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. We will be eagerly awaiting your reply.

Sincerely, I remain
(actual contact info redacted)

attachments: images of posts from Ainslie's forum mentioning Doctor Garrett
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 16, 2014, 04:30:54 PM
I would like to invite anyone who shares my concerns to join me as signatories for the above email, which I will be sending off in a day or two.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: The Boss on February 16, 2014, 10:12:30 PM
I would like to invite anyone who shares my concerns to join me as signatories for the above email, which I will be sending off in a day or two.


You have my personal contact information. Sign me on.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: fuzzytomcat on February 18, 2014, 01:43:00 AM
I would like to invite anyone who shares my concerns to join me as signatories for the above email, which I will be sending off in a day or two.

Howdy TK,

As always, anything possible I could do to help count me  "ALL IN"

FTC
 ;)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Magluvin on February 18, 2014, 01:54:32 AM
I havnt posted anything here in a while. But she is still throwing my name out there as if I have been. ::)

Where do I sign? ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 18, 2014, 02:07:09 AM
It looks like Ms. Ainslie would like to add her name to the letter:

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Laurie on February 18, 2014, 04:20:36 AM
Howdy TK,

As always, anything possible I could do to help count me  "ALL IN"

FTC
 ;)


Hey Fuzzy......wow! Have not seen you in a very long time.
I decided to take a "dip" in the never never land and just about drowned! Too much jockularity. Its been a couple of years.. Hope you are well.

Laurel J.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Farmhand on February 18, 2014, 07:45:44 AM
Any chance anyone could kindly link this "Thesis", or them if more than one version. My apologies for my ignorance in having not already read it. Seems like it would be a good read.

Cheers

P.S. O.K. Right there on the first page of this thread, http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf.

Is this the only one though ?

..
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 18, 2014, 11:00:49 AM
There are a couple of different versions of the "Paper 1" and "Paper 2" floating around.  The differences are in figures that show electrical connections supposedly used in various experiments.  I would hope that the versions maintained on Ms. Ainslie's personal website are the most faithful representations of what Ms. Ainslie thinks that she has done.  Paper 1 reports on Ms. Ainslie's "Q Array" experiments.  Ms. Ainslie conducted two public demonstrations last year, one on June 29, and the other on August 11, where she obtained results that completely undermined what she reports in Paper 1.  The August 11 demo ran for a little over one hour, and is here:

August 11 Demonstration Video:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper6

This demonstration was supposed to show that for N Watts of power drawn from a battery bank at least 5N Watts thermal power would be radiated from a resistive heating element when that element was connected to her:  "Q Array" circuit, and the circuit was operating in its oscillating state.  What the demonstration showed is that for N Watts in, the resister radiated only about 0.2 Watts out.  There is no exact figure because Ms. Ainslie terminated the demonstration early due to the vast disparity between the promised and actual results.

Paper 1:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=36e256c52f0306d2c156ee365894e63f&action=paper1

Paper 2 which espouses theory based on the now refuted Paper 1 experiment results:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=36e256c52f0306d2c156ee365894e63f&action=paper2

Paper 3, which is the Quantum Magazine article that you already found:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=36e256c52f0306d2c156ee365894e63f&action=paper3

The other versions of Paper 1 and Paper 2 are I believe on Andrea Rossi's JNP website.

Ms. Ainslie's basic idea is that if one switches an R-L circuit on and off just the right way that the stored energy in the magnetic field will somehow induce the resistor to release an extra internal energy.  The best that I can tell is that neither Ms. Ainslie nor her collaborators are very good at setting up and conducting experiments.  They have managed to connect circuits in ways other than they thought, and misinterpret the results.  There are plenty of examples of this in the four hours of video from the June 29th demonstration, including about 90 minutes of dead air that occurred as they tried to fix oscillations that occurred when they operated a MOSFET in it's linear region with lots of external inductance.  That operating region was not a subject of the demonstration.  Nevertheless, they spent more than two hours trying to deal with it before a viewer asked them what they were struggling with and straightened them out. 

Any analysis of Ms. Ainslie's "Q Array" will show that the only time that the heating resistor dissipates substantial power is when the Q1 MOSFET is on.  Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators claim in Paper 1 that with no measured current through Q1 that the resistor produces heat prodigiously.  This is in fact correct, because as became clear June 29, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators connected their test equipment so that it did not measure the Q1 current.  They had connected their ground clip and probe tip from their oscilloscope to the same DC side of their current sense resistors resulting in zero voltage sense for whatever current was running through the circuit.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 19, 2014, 07:23:42 AM
There is more to the story than that, though. Subsequently to the "incorrect" connection, as displayed in the Figure 3 scopeshot, more data was obtained with correct connections. This means that the "error" that resulted in the Figure 3 data must have been known and recognized _and corrected_  by the authors of the paper. The Figure 3 data was challenged practically as soon as the papers appeared and Ainslie always vigorously defended it as being true, correct, and indeed trivial to obtain. Yet this was shown to be wrong, as MarkE mentions above. Yet that figure and the conclusions drawn from it still remain in all versions of the papers. This constitutes fabrication of data: the data is known to be erroneous, not gathered under the claimed conditions, in fact it is completely invalid... and this is known and has been known for years... yet it remains in the papers nevertheless.

Furthermore, the papers contain schematic diagrams that were _never_ actually used by the Ainslie claimants until the August 11, 2013 demonstration. Even furthermore than that, the second paper which expounds her "thesis" contains an "explanation" that relies on cartoon drawings of the circuit that do not even correspond to the way the circuit is actually wired! It is like someone telling you how to find the Louvre--- with a London subway map.

The papers, both of them, are so error ridden, so filled with actual misrepresentations and false claims, that they do not even deserve to be called "papers" at all. No one who has actually written a scientific paper for publication would seriously call those things "papers". They do not contain any literature searches, they misrepresent the actual conditions of the experiments, the experiments themselves are amateurishly performed and ignorantly reported, and in the final end, there is actually no connection between the experiments and the claims of the "thesis". That is, there is no testable hypothesis made from the "thesis" that is then tested in an attempt to falsify it by experiment. The documents are excellent examples of pseudoscientific misconduct, in that they make false claims that are not supported by the "good" data presented, and the "bad" data is presented as supporting the claims, even after the data is known to be bad, fraudulently obtained.

There are indeed more discrepancies in the daft manuscripts that do not involve the false circuit diagrams, though. Some specifics: the papers refer in several places to the "temperature of the water". Yet we know, and Ainslie has herself admitted, that they never measured the temperature of the water. Their thermocouple has always been directly attached to the metal housing of the RV water heater element they employed as a load. Only after this element is completely hot was it lowered into a container of water. The paper misrepresents the true nature of the data when it refers to the water temperature. Furthermore: the papers talk about "bringing water to boil" when the water was _never actually boiling_. Again, Ainslie has admitted this much. In the papers at one time, bogus calculations appeared stating that the experiment dissipated 5.9 megaJoules in a period of about 90 minutes. This absurd claim has been removed from later edits of the manuscript, without any explanation whatsoever. Other absurd claims still remain, though.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: chessnyt on February 19, 2014, 07:41:18 AM
Any chance anyone could kindly link this "Thesis", or them if more than one version. My apologies for my ignorance in having not already read it. Seems like it would be a good read.

Cheers

P.S. O.K. Right there on the first page of this thread, http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf (http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf).

Is this the only one though ?

..
@Farmhand:
Here's the link to the thesis:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper5 (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper5)
 
Regards,
 
Chess
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 19, 2014, 03:53:42 PM
Once more down the rabbit hole with Ms. Ainslie.  Ms. Ainslie is apparently upset because I have linked to her failed demonstrations and her papers that her demonstrations refuted.  Ms. Ainslie contends that her failed experiments "does not directly relate to the thesis".  That's an odd way to talk about experiments that she designed in order to try and support her ideas.  They very much relate in that they failed to provide the support that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators predicted that they would provide.



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 19, 2014, 08:38:16 PM
And as usual.... and as I have pointed out many times before.... Ainslie has no clue whatsoever as to the nature of the Standard Model or Quantum Electrodynamics, which she pretends to criticise and in her ultimate hubris, to replace.

Just look at what she says in the post you imaged above:
Quote
The term 'Electric' was initiated and required to imply that the 'electron' is the 'cause' or 'carrier particle' of this, so called, ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE.

Not actually, Ainslie.

Ainslie really should try to get her "physics" from some real sources, instead of books like Zukov's "Dancing Wu Li Masters". The carrier particle of the electromagnetic force is the PHOTON. The electron is not a photon and does not carry the electromagnetic force. It carries the unit negative CHARGE.... something Ainslie apparently does not think exists.... and there is no magnetic field without MOVING CHARGES, and anyone can make the magnetic field associated with moving charges to DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY... simply by moving along with the charges. Ainslie parrots things like Faraday's Law of Induction without having the foggiest clue as to what it means, and when it comes to Maxwell's Equations... forget about it, she does not have the prerequisites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier)
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/modern/forces.html (http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/modern/forces.html)
http://sciencepark.etacude.com/particle/forces2.php (http://sciencepark.etacude.com/particle/forces2.php)
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/users/roberts/roberts_force_carriers.html (http://www.physics.fsu.edu/users/roberts/roberts_force_carriers.html)

Note that, as always, Ainslie cannot provide any support for her absurd contentions about the Standard Model, about QED, and just what the electron is and is not.

Furthermore, there exist many places in the record where Ainslie specifically states that the experiments were made in order to "prove" (sic) her "thesis". Now she says they do not directly relate to her "thesis". Of course not, since they fail to support it! As I have noted before, Ainslie's attitude is that anything that does not "prove" her "thesis" is wrong, even her own data, which she attempts to suppress once it is known unequivocally to be wrong.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 02:24:05 PM
Ms. Ainslie offered some explanation of what she thinks she is trying to do today.  She and her collaborators have ordered some unspecified data logging equipment for their new experiments.  With that Ms. Ainslie repeated her confusion as to what transpired as is clearly visible in the test script that she published and the video of her August 11th demonstration.  Ms. Ainslie now contends that the voltage and current measurements taken at the batteries did not reflect actual battery power drain.

Quote
What was measured was the evidence of a current flow and voltage from the battery during the 'on' period of the duty cycle - that exceeded the level of wattage dissipated at the resistor.

Quote
Notwithstanding the evidence of a current flow from the battery - there is NO corresponding evidence of that voltage over the element resistor during that 'on' period.

First:  During the August 11, demonstration, the function generator output voltage never rose above the 4V Vgs MOSFET gate threshold voltage necessary to start conduction through the Q1 MOSFET.  In the parlance of Ms. Ainslie's publications, there was no "On" period.  Neither measurements at the white breadboard nor at the battery indicated power drain from the battery, nor voltage applied across the heater resistor during the Q1 "On" periods.

Second:  During the demonstration oscillatory current flowed through the Q2 MOSFETs during the Q1 "Off" period.  Measurements at both the white breadboard and at the battery indicated power drain from the battery, oscillatory voltage applied across, and oscillatory current flow through the heater resistor during the Q1 "Off" period.

Third:  Real power of approximately 15W was shown drawn from the battery.

Fourth:  Thermal output of the heater resistor was shown to be about 3W based on Ms. Ainslie's prior calibration of heater resistor temperature rise over ambient versus DC power applied.

The circuit is quite simple:  Battery+ => heater resistor => "QArray" MOSFET's & function generator => breadboard current sense resistor => battery side current sense resistor => Battery-

Current through the heater resistor passed through the battery which the oscilloscope measurements showed.   So we have a very simple situation:  ~15W from the battery was dissipated by the other elements in the loop.  Of those only about 20%: ~3W was dissipated by the heater resistor, while the function generator actually contributed a small amount of additional net power:  < 0.4W.  The remaining ~12.4W was dissipated by the "QArray" MOSFETs, the wiring and the current sense resistors.

Ms. Ainslie claims an anomaly of battery drain during the Q1 "On" periods, when the oscilloscope readings show no such thing.

The captures below were taken from the video available on Ms. Ainslie's blog site.  The first capture was taken during Phase 1 of the test.  The channel 1 current sense is clearly flat lined during the periods when the channel 3 gate drive voltage is positive.  The gate drive positive voltage during this time is about +2V, which is not enough to cause Q1 to conduct, and it does not conduct.  However, when the gate drive voltage swings negative, oscillations occur.  The Q2 MOSFETs oscillate wildly, the battery voltage as seen on the white breadboard in channel 2 swings hundreds of volts, and the current sense voltage: channel 1 indicates many Amperes swing.  The second picture from test phase 3 shows a pattern of: zero current, zero voltage excursion followed by a burst of current oscillation an voltage oscillation that resembles the first capture in basic form. The periods of current flow at the breadboard measured in Phase 1 correspond to the periods of current flow at the battery measured in Phase 3.  Ms. Ainslie is confused as to what her own demonstration clearly shows.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 21, 2014, 07:19:41 PM
Ainslie's typical mental state may be described as "overconfident confusion". She is confused about many things, and doesn't know how to construct experiments that would resolve her confusion. Or rather... she avoids constructing and performing such experiments, since she likely knows full well what the results will be.

For example it is trivial to demonstrate that the Q1 "on" periods which only have a Gate drive of 2 volts or less contribute ZERO to the heating of the load resistor. Simply use the FG's duty cycle control to extend the "on" periods to their longest possible durations, which of course will reduce the Q2 oscillation periods to very short portions of the period. Or apply the +2 V gate signal using a continuous source like a power supply. Surprise surprise.... when the Q1 mosfet only gets a +2 volt gate signal it STAYS OFF and the load DOES NOT WARM UP unless the Q2s are oscillating. In this situation only the Q2 oscillations contribute to load heating through the partially ON Q2 mosfets.... if they are removed or prevented from oscillation, there will be no heating of the load, because the Q1 mosfet will not turn on at the +2 V gate level.

But after all.... Ainslie claims, in the Figure 3 scopeshot that has STILL NOT BEEN REMOVED OR CORRECTED, that the Q1 mosfet received 8 volts or more at its Gate without turning on and passing current. The fabricated, fraudulently obtained data still remains in her daft manuscripts and still makes up the major bit of "evidence" given in attempted support of her ridiculous, mendacious claims.

And furthermore, even after all this time and her own demonstrations and the instruction given by her own partner Donovan Martin, not to mention my own very clear and very basic demonstrations .... Ainslie still cannot comprehend the linear operation behaviour of a mosfet. She has always modelled the mosfet as a simple switch that is either ON with zero resistance or OFF with infinite resistance, and she has never given any indication that she comprehends this functioning at all. She has no clue what "Rdss = 2.0 Ohms" means, nor can she read or interpret any of the performance graphs that are given in the IRFPG50 power mosfet data sheet to note that the Drain-Source resistance increases drastically when the mosfet is not receiving a full Gate charge.

Really, it's futile to expect any kind of rational analysis from Ainslie, because as we have noted time and time again, her distortion of reality extends to the blatant contradiction of actual experimental results and data, even the results and data obtained by her own crew. She cannot even describe accurately events of last week, much less those from the summer of last year, and to expect her to give accurate descriptions of what happened  twelve or fourteen years ago is utterly futile. Look at the way she distorts, misrepresents and even lies about the demonstrations of June 29 and August 11, 2013. Nothing she says can be trusted, without objective proof.

I did a little research on inexpensive data logging. It turns out that a simple Arduino, with a tiny bit of peripheral circuitry and a little programming, can handle all the data logging requirements of this experimental paradigm. Comma-delimited text files containing data from 12 digital and 5 analog input lines can be written directly to the computer over the USB interface, and this data can be imported into the usual spreadsheets for analysis and display, or the program "processing" can be used to graph the Arduino data directly, and of course to control and automate the data logging parameters.  The addition of the Adafruit DataLogger Shield (20 dollars US) to the main Arduino Uno (30 dollars US) and a micro SD card enables the Arduino datalogging system to "stand alone" and operate without connection to a computer; the Adafruit shield contains a Real Time Clock and can take samples of the input variables at just about any sample interval desired. For under 100 dollars, a complete Arduino-based voltage, current, temperature, and time datalogging system can be constructed that will monitor all six or eight necessary parameters with sufficient accuracy to test all the experimental hypotheses (yet again) that arise. Do I think Ainslie will go this route? Of course not ... but it may be of use to some other researchers who might need to do long-term data logging on a budget. And when one is tired of chasing invisible talking rabbits across Ainslie's fairy-tale quagmire, one can use the Arduino for other interesting things.
http://learn.adafruit.com/adafruit-data-logger-shield/overview (http://learn.adafruit.com/adafruit-data-logger-shield/overview)

Or one could spend thousands of dollars for a LabView ADC-DAQ system and a current LabView program installation, and then hire a technician to spend hours and weeks learning how to program it.....  Whatever system the Ainslie mob decides to use it will result in long delays before any data is obtained.... or released. Recall that we STILL do not have the screenshots from June and August that they agreed, publicly, to release. And this is just the most recent bit of data that Ainslie has promised, and then not provided!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 07:59:21 PM
In the Figure 3 case,  I attribute the false statements to human error and not design.  I think that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators first learned that they generated Figure 3, Figure 6, and Figure 7 of paper 1 by connecting the Channel 1 scope probe tip to the low side of the current sense resistors on June 29, 2013 when they were guided through measurements by Steve.  Watching the video they were very frustrated and anxious when Poynt99 asked them to set the function generator amplitude and duty cycle as in Figure 3, but increase the frequency so that 27 minutes would not be required to capture a scope trace.  Ms. Ainslie attempted to negotiate a lower level than 12V on the gate:  first 8V and then a lower value, before diverting off into discussion of the excess heat generation that she claimed for the apparatus.  This suggests to me that they set-up shortly before going live and discovered they could not reproduce Figure 3.

There are all kinds of datalogging kit available at all price ranges.  I don't care how much they spend.  I care if they put together reasonable tests capable of answering the questions they pose.  I believe that they want to do that.  We won't know until they show what they set-up whether they can obtain reliable and meaningful results or not.  I am convinced that Ms. Ainslie believes her ideas are correct and that she believes that experiments will bear out her ideas.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 21, 2014, 09:04:53 PM
In the Figure 3 case,  I attribute the false statements to human error and not design.
I attribute the initial collection of the Figure 3 data to human error, not design. However, it is clear from the record that _subsequent_ scopeshots were obtained that did not include the error in connections and which produced valid data. This means that the initial error was recognized and corrected, things that do not happen unconsciously. The conclusion that Ainslie and her collaborators knowingly included the false Figure 3 and other scopeshots is inescapable, no matter how charitably one looks at the issue.
What's the first thing that any experimentalist does when data is obtained that violates all known precepts of the applicable theory? She _REPEATS_ the work, with careful error checking along the way, and submits it for external examination to double-check for errors. Ainslie herself may be so gushingly excited about such a result as to accept it at face value. Is Donovan Martin also so naive and self-serving?
If one wants to posit that the Figure 3 and other similar shots are not deliberately included in spite of conscious knowledge that they are invalid... then one must accept the alternative explanation that everyone whose names appear on those daft manuscripts are utterly incompetent, naive and credulous tinkerers without even the most fundamental grasp of how properly to use their own test equipment. Or, as present events have illustrated.... BOTH.
Quote
I think that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators first learned that they generated Figure 3, Figure 6, and Figure 7 of paper 1 by connecting the Channel 1 scope probe tip to the low side of the current sense resistors on June 29, 2013 when they were guided through measurements by Steve.
Again, subsequent scopeshots to the original Figure 3 and the others you mention did not include the wiring error, so it must have been noticed and corrected before those later shots were obtained, and this does not happen through the secret agency of menehune or other Little people in South Africa. Ainslie herself or some member of her team must have hooked things up more correctly _after_ the questionable shots were obtained.  I find it perfectly plausible that Donovan Martin didn't know -- because Ainslie may not have told him about the wiring error -- and I find it perfectly plausible that Ainslie didn't _understand_ the significance of the wiring error. However I find it implausible to the extreme that Ainslie didn't KNOW that the connections were as they were, and I find it a remarkable expression of incompetence that Martin did not CHECK but simply took Ainslie's word for it that this impossible result had been obtained.
Quote
Watching the video they were very frustrated and anxious when Poynt99 asked them to set the function generator amplitude and duty cycle as in Figure 3, but increase the frequency so that 27 minutes would not be required to capture a scope trace.  Ms. Ainslie attempted to negotiate a lower level than 12V on the gate:  first 8V and then a lower value, before diverting off into discussion of the excess heat generation that she claimed for the apparatus.  This suggests to me that they set-up shortly before going live and discovered they could not reproduce Figure 3.
I don't think they "knew" until the live demo itself. It's apparent to me that Martin didn't really even understand the issue until Steve made the point that it was the 8 volt or greater Gate drive, in combination with zero indicated current, that was the problem. Sure, zero current can be obtained easily enough, and more than 8 volts gate drive... but not both at once.

Quote
There are all kinds of datalogging kit available at all price ranges.  I don't care how much they spend.  I care if they put together reasonable tests capable of answering the questions they pose.  I believe that they want to do that.  We won't know until they show what they set-up whether they can obtain reliable and meaningful results or not.  I am convinced that Ms. Ainslie believes her ideas are correct and that she believes that experiments will bear out her ideas.

Indeed. The LeCroy 324 itself, being GPIB/TCP-IP/USB remotely controllable, can be used for long-term data logging of all its channels. This functionality requires knowledge and skill to use, though.
http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/manuals/wj300a-rcm-e.pdf (http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/manuals/wj300a-rcm-e.pdf)
As to the issue of what kinds of "reasonable" testing Ainslie wants to perform... she has had good advice about testing since 2009, at least. Nothing that has been proposed lately is new. Had she genuinely wanted to perform tests of real hypotheses concerning her "thesis", she would have done so long ago. In fact, she did send off her entire apparatus (perhaps not including the batteries!) for independent testing by a laboratory in the USA a couple of years ago, back when she was claiming that her batteries did not discharge. The most she has reported about these tests is that they did reproduce her claimed "negative power product"... which anyone can do, even using analog scopes, as I have shown... and that they found that her batteries DID discharge normally, and that they sent her some "special resistors" and gave her advice about running better tests of her own using these special resistors. And that is the last we've heard of it.
No, Ainslie has demonstrated amply, over and over, that she is not interested in performing tests that have the ability to falsify her claims by the collection of appropriate and valid data. If her attitude is suddenly different.... well, it occasionally does rain, in every desert, if one waits long enough, I suppose. But I'll believe it when I see it.
I am convinced that no amount of experimental data will shake Ainslie's belief in her claims and her silly "thesis". Data that doesn't support the claims is simply wrong. She may not be able to tell you coherently why or how it's wrong, but if it contradicts her.... it's wrong, because her "thesis" is right, QED.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 10:20:49 PM
I find it baffling that if they found the probe connection problem and recognized it for what it is before the June 29th test that they were:  1) willing to perform that demonstration, and 2) so befuddled when the day came.  What we do know without question is that as of June 29, they knew that Paper 1 was based on bogus tests.  August 11 only served to fully reinforce that fact.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 21, 2014, 10:56:17 PM
I think one big problem is that there are different "theys" operating here. The experimentation and primary data collection was done by Ainslie herself acting pretty much in isolation, once the experiment was set up and the basic knobs and buttons on the scope and FG were explained to her. Then there is the "they" composed of Ainslie and Martin, where she explains verbally what she thinks she sees and Martin attempts to translate that into some form of scientific English. Then there is the "they" composed of the completed team, with some members only doing things like clerical work and graphics, to produce the various editions of the daft manuscripts, to fetch and carry heavy batteries around, and so on. Some of the people whose names are on the manuscripts may never have actually done anything substantive at all; certainly they are unreachable for comment.

The various blog and forum posts that were made by Ainslie herself at and around the time of the data collection resulting in the Figure 3 and the other problematic scopeshots are very revealing. She betrays at least two incidents of mosfet failures, one suspected FG failure caused by her failing to pull out the offset knob, one "chip" failure during some other experimentation, the "fire dragon" incident that melted down her battery clipleads, some kind of incident that caused her to send the scope out for repair/calibration, and so on. There was known trouble with the apparatus, there was also imagined trouble caused by improper operation, and she had to bring in people to look it over and repair it. Why did Martin not question the data that was obtained at that time? Perhaps he was out of the country. We know Ainslie doesn't like to bother him with trivia, like requesting the scopeshots they promised from last summer's fiasco.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 11:01:46 PM
There have been many mistakes, there remain many misconceptions, and memory looks questionable.  These are not conducive to reliable research.  We will see what comes next.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 04:21:39 AM
We will see what comes next, all right. It will consist of more insults and disrespect from Ainslie, more prevarication and false claims without support, more "misrememberings" of the actual events of June 29 and August 10-11. What we won't see  is valid data that supports their claims.

In just the time we have been discussing data logging, for example.... a single dedicated researcher could be sitting at the apparatus, performing runs and recording manually the relevant data. I estimate four or five complete runs to thermal equilibrium could be accomplished per day, without strain, by a single person with a systematic approach and a pre-prepared spreadsheet to receive the data points. No fancy or expensive data logging equipment is really necessary. The LeCroy can save the appropriate screenshots and the rest of the data can be read off the instruments and entered manually into the spreadsheet.

Had Ainslie and her team really desired to produce valid thermometric data they could have done so long ago. They could be doing it now, without any further expense. But they will jiggle and swerve around the data logging issue and in the final end will wind up stalling for more months and years and probably will wind up not releasing any valid data at all. The only valid data they have released in years is that which Steve Weir coaxed out of them and which appears only in the videos of the demonstrations! And this is "released" in spite of them: they still haven't published the actual relevant scopescreen shots that they _claimed_ they saved to the USB stick during the demos. The best versions of the data are in the screenshots from the video that I and MarkE have saved and posted!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 22, 2014, 05:48:17 AM
I've asked Steve about those screen shots that were supposed to be on the USB stick.  Steve told me that they will not be released.  He did not say why.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 06:07:05 AM
Do you see? Ainslie continues in the same old errors, not having learned a single thing! She continues to claim that during the "off", oscillation period, there is no path for current to flow. She has no conception of the actual facts of mosfet behaviour.

Quote
I will try and post a link to that addendum.  What this shows is that for the battery to be delivering energy during that ON period it must first have a PATH to deliver that energy.  IF in fact, the battery cannot discharge energy BECAUSE THERE IS NO PATH for this delivery - then you CANNOT apply the standard vi/dt analysis.  I have argued those measurements as based on the certain evidence that the battery DOES NOT DISCHARGE any energy during OFF period of the duty cycle.  The measurements are the result of the applied voltage that is from counter electromotive force from the element resistor itself.  Those probes CANNOT distinguish the SOURCE of the measured voltage.  It can ONLY measure the ACTUAL voltage.  AGAIN.  Since the battery is NOT discharging energy - THEN ONE CANNOT APPLY vi/dt analysis to the battery.  What I've argued is, apparently,  a well known FACT.  Which is that resonance can 'swing' through a circuit thereby avoiding any passage through the energy supply source.  This argument has the added merit of COMPREHENSIVELY resolving ALL THOSE MEASUREMENTS UP TO AND INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF WATTAGE DISSIPATED AT THE ELEMENT RESISTOR - the ONLY work station on that circuit.


Ainslie remains utterly confused and continues to emit ridiculous statements that are contrary to actual FACTS that anyone can check for themselves. During what she calls the "OFF" portion of the duty cycle, the Q2 mosfets have their SOURCE voltage LOWERED below the voltage at their Gates. That is, the common connection between the Gate of Q1 and the Sources of the Q2s is receiving a _negative_ voltage which supplies the negative bias current necessary for the oscillations to occur. The Q2s are most certainly connected in a complete circuit with the battery and the load, the oscillations most definitely DO pass current from the battery to the load and the batteries most certainly DO discharge normally during this time. Ainslie is simply ignoring the truth AS USUAL, even after her own demonstrations showed it all to the world. And as if that weren't enough, I have completely dissected and explained the linear operation mode of the Q2 mosfets when their Source voltage is driven below the voltage at their Gate.  Of course the overweeningly arrogant and willfully ignorant Ainslie will not watch, learn and discuss these videos... but other people are doing so, and everyone who does, will recognize Ainslie's ridiculous, cherished ignorance in her statements like the present one.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V





Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 06:13:15 AM
I've asked Steve about those screen shots that were supposed to be on the USB stick.  Steve told me that they will not be released.  He did not say why.
Yes, it does seem rather ridiculous and petty, doesn't it? Especially since I have made my own screenshots of the scope display at the times that the Ainslie mob were _supposed_ to be capturing the scope screens. (I've posted these before; if anyone wants to see them again just let me know.)
The shots I made have sufficient resolution to show the important details, so the failure of the Ainslie mob to release their high-resolution images of the exact same things is once again highly revealing. They seek to obfuscate analysis by refusing to release data that shows definitively that they are wrong in their claims, and/or they are so incompetent that they couldn't actually save the shots at all or have lost or deleted them somehow.

I'd love to hear and discuss alternative explanations for this abject and utter failure of theirs to do something they agreed to do in public. Until something comes along that makes more sense, I'm sticking with what I said above: they are deliberately attempting to suppress negative data, and/or they are too incompetent to have made and kept the images in the first place.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 07:15:51 AM
And the nonsense from Ainslie  _continues_ !!

Look at how she garbles and misrepresents what people have told her and what they have explained and _demonstrated_ to her. Look at how she fails to grasp the simple explanations and demonstrations I have offered. Look at how she continues to make the absurd claims about function generators not being able to pass current from an external battery!

I don't know how many times I've posted the simple demonstrations that PROVE HER TO BE UTTERLY WRONG about this particular absurd and silly contention. But here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuBWVmRmUtc)

Of course it may be too much to ask for someone of Ainslie's intellectual abilities to be able to understand what is demonstrated in these videos.

Here's what is shown:

A function generator is a clocked, positive-negative power supply with an internal impedance of 50 ohms. You can add offsets to the FG's output, just as if it were a battery or power supply, simply by putting another power supply in series with the FG.
The total voltage is then the ALGEBRAIC SUM of the voltage from the FG and the voltage from the series battery or other fixed or even VARIABLE supply like another function generator at any given instant. The FG's internal impedance is usually 50 ohms as standard.

1) The FG is set to produce a slow sine wave of plus/minus six volts.

2) The LED and moving-coil ammeter are in series with the FG's output.

3) The LED is shown to light and the meter indicates CURRENT whenever the FG's sine wave output exceeds about 3 volts.

4) Then the FG's signal OFFSET control is used to offset the FG's signal so that it is entirely negative and the LED no longer lights and of course the meter shows no current.

5) Then... making no other changes and without harming any small animals or components... an ordinary Chinese 9 volt battery is hooked in STRICT SERIES with the system under test.

6) And the LED lights up and the meter shows current flowing just as before, even though the FG is still making only a negative output.

This demonstrates that the FG and the battery are acting in strict series, and the total output voltage is now sufficient at the top of the sinusoidal waveform to LIGHT UP THE LED and ... of course.... pass current from an external battery supply source via its terminal to its probe (sic).

Yet Little Miss Mosfet has proclaimed,
"What you are trying to do is to get me to believe that a function generator is able to pass current from a battery supply source via its terminal to its probe. Since I KNOW that is is impossible I'm afraid I'm not receptive to you trying to teach me or anyone else.  So NO.  I spare me your 'lessons'. " (sic)

OK, LMM, you can go home now, you don't need any more lessons.
You need medication.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 07:27:30 AM
Just as a Little reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w)

Notice that Steve Weir suggests proceeding on to Phase 4, that is the DC temperature calibration phase... but it is Ainslie and Martin who decide that this is not necessary. Skip ahead to 8 minutes to hear Ainslie say that "this actually represents the end of the demo, we don't need to do any more".
The temperature rise of the load resistor was STABLE. It was no longer increasing. Does Ainslie think that waiting longer would produce a different result? The holes in her thought processes are astounding, the degree of her misrepresentation of even her own work is astonishing.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 07:47:58 AM
.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 22, 2014, 06:33:41 PM
Just as a Little reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w)

Notice that Steve Weir suggests proceeding on to Phase 4, that is the DC temperature calibration phase... but it is Ainslie and Martin who decide that this is not necessary. Skip ahead to 8 minutes to hear Ainslie say that "this actually represents the end of the demo, we don't need to do any more".
The temperature rise of the load resistor was STABLE. It was no longer increasing. Does Ainslie think that waiting longer would produce a different result? The holes in her thought processes are astounding, the degree of her misrepresentation of even her own work is astonishing.
These latest missives from Ms. Ainslie are sad to observe.  Yes, it is clear to anyone who watched or watches the Aug. 11 demo replay that Steve sought to have them execute Phase 4 to obtain an exact match of DC power to generate the same temperature rise.  It was Ms. Ainslie who declined and ended the demonstration.  Steve explained that by skipping the Phase 4 test they would have to rely upon the Paper 1 calibration that showed between 2.4W and 3.4W for measurement points below and above that observed Aug. 11.  Ms. Ainslie declared that she was happy with that conclusion.  As you note the temperature rise was stable.  Now, Ms. Ainslie declares that she is no longer happy with her decisions.  Ms. Ainslie is free to repeat the tests and including the Phase 4, and Phase 5 tests that she skipped.

As far as Ms. Ainslie's misconceptions about if and how current flows during the "off" periods, that has also been explained many times, and demonstrated both in videos that you have published, in writing by you and Poynt99, and was demonstrated as Phase 2 of her August 11 demonstration.  Ms. Ainslie simply does not understand ordinary circuit theory or her own demonstrations.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 08:03:04 PM
Exactly. And various versions of schematics that show the same thing your diagram shows, have been submitted to Ainslie many times before. The diagram makes explicit the two utter misconceptions that prevent Ainslie from understanding how her circuit works.

First, she cannot fathom how the Q2 mosfets can be biased into the linear, partially conducting region by _lowering_ the voltage at the Source pins by providing a _negative_ signal from the FG. Hence she cannot understand how the oscillations are produced. She has never yet even demonstrated that she knows what a "linear region" of a mosfet's performance actually is, since she always has considered a mosfet as a switch, that can be either ON with zero resistance or OFF , an open circuit, and nothing in between. Further, the mystery of turning on a mosfet by lowering the Source voltage... doesn't fit in with her silly "thesis" at all, therefore it cannot be happening, according to her.

Second, she believes that the Function Generator is somehow opaque to currents and doesn't participate in completing the current path from the Q2 mosfets back to the battery. She believes that the Q2 mosfets are _disconnected_ from the battery supply, because she believes that there is no conduction path through the FG during the "off" or oscillation portion of the complete period.

Both of these ridiculous beliefs of Ainslie have been thoroughly demolished many times, both by detailed explanations and by simple and unambiguous demonstrations, and if she were an honest experimenter who genuinely doubted the FACTS of the matter, she could set up her own simple experiments to prove them to herself. But she isn't that honest experimenter, she is a deluded and willfully ignorant person with an axe to grind and she cares nothing about any FACTS that go against her holy "thesis". It is for that reason that she will not consider the explanations that we and others have given, she merely rejects them without any thought or rational, point-by-point analysis. And each time she does so, she makes herself look more and more pathetically idiotic.

Where is Donovan Martin in all of this? Why doesn't Ainslie consult with Martin about these issues? Does Martin _agree_ with Ainslie about these two points? Let's hear him say so, then, and let's hear him justify the position, against the arguments we have made. Does Martin NOT agree with Ainslie about these points? Perhaps he should let Ainslie know, then, that she is stuffing both feet down her own throat whenever she continues to emit these absurd "explanations" of her circuit.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 22, 2014, 09:12:19 PM
One of the more astounding things about Ms. Ainslie's latest protests is that  Phase 2 of the August 11 experiment measured the function generator current during the "off" phase. For Phase 2, they modified the circuit ever so slightly to put a current sense resistor in series with the function generator black lead.  That resistor clearly showed the current that Ms. Ainslie disputes flowing through the function generator during the "Off" times.  It showed the net power external power contribution of the function generator as well.  Then in Phase 3, they measured the same current flowing through the battery with a sense resistor there, as well they should since the resistor in Phase 3 was schematically simply on the other side of the big CSR resistors from the sense resistor used to measure the function generator current.   Ms. Ainslie either doesn't understand and/or doesn't recall her own demonstration.  She is now arguing against herself.

It is difficult to say whether Donovan Martin is still engaged with Ms. Ainlie's efforts.  If she performs another demonstration, or publishes new material I suppose we will find out.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 09:37:04 PM
Donovan Martin's name still appears on the daft manuscripts as second author. He has not issued any statement of retraction or withdrawal of his authorship, as far as I am aware, nor has he ever deigned to post a rebuttal or explanation or justification for the events that transpired during the demonstrations -- events which proved beyond any doubt that Ainslie's claims are false and much of the data completely invalid. In the ordinary course of scientific publication this lack of response would indicate that he still endorses the data and the conclusions found in those writings which bear his name.
He is saved from professional embarrassment only by the fact that the daft manuscripts have NOT been published in any peer-reviewed professional journal -- and never will be published.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 22, 2014, 11:00:49 PM
Donovan Martin's name still appears on the daft manuscripts as second author. He has not issued any statement of retraction or withdrawal of his authorship, as far as I am aware, nor has he ever deigned to post a rebuttal or explanation or justification for the events that transpired during the demonstrations -- events which proved beyond any doubt that Ainslie's claims are false and much of the data completely invalid. In the ordinary course of scientific publication this lack of response would indicate that he still endorses the data and the conclusions found in those writings which bear his name.
He is saved from professional embarrassment only by the fact that the daft manuscripts have NOT been published in any peer-reviewed professional journal -- and never will be published.
It could be any:  He believes in the ideas as published despite the demonstrations he participated in, and established science.  Or, He doesn't believe in those ideas and is unconcerned that he has put his name to them.  Or, He doesn't believe but has other pressures on him that keep him from withdrawing his name.  Suppose for example that he does not wish to embarrass or offend Ms. Ainslie.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 22, 2014, 11:22:52 PM
All of those explanations for Martin's silence are plausible, even probable. None of them are scientific, and none except the first are ethical.

Martin doesn't want to embarrass Ainslie, so he keeps his name on two manuscripts full of errors, inaccuracies, claims that have been soundly falsified over and over both by outside workers and the Ainslie team themselves, and an absurd "thesis" that has no connection with reality. Right.

How about this for an explanation for Martin's silence: Ainslie is known to be trouble around the house, since she is so deluded about the nature of Reality, so Martin and her other friends let her play on the internet to keep her out of trouble. Nobody in their right mind believes her, least of all those close to her like Donovan Martin. Most of her internet correspondence happens with people on the other side of the planet, who hardly exist as far as South Africa is concerned. Allowing her to play on the internet and to pretend to "publish" her fantasies and delusions keeps her busy and prevents her from distracting the maids, cook and gardeners in her walled compound. Any criticism she might receive from the internet is harmless, and gives her something to look forward to. She can insult and disrespect _us_ all she likes and nobody "important" has to suffer her at home. She can feel like she has allies against the evil Internet Troll Company, and no adverse local effects need occur. Just keep her bills paid and her batteries charged up and she'll stay out of the Real People's hair. The Northern Hemisphere of the Earth is irrelevant to South Africa, after all.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 01:09:40 AM
TinselKoala that's a possibility.  These latest missives could be explained by such a hypothesis.  You may not be feeling particularly merciful for reasons that are easy to understand.  But, if we are dealing with someone who is struggling with memory and cognitive issues, mercy may be the best course.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 02:56:14 AM
When Ainslie stops lying about me and misrepresenting my work, perhaps I'll agree that she deserves mercy. But as long as she continues to emit the amazing series of falsehoods as exemplified by her latest postings, she deserves only mockery and ridicule. Just look at her latest! Not only does she completely ignore what she is being shown and told, she has to lie about it as well !!

Of course I've replicated "her" circuits.... EVERY ONE OF THEM, even the ones she herself lied about using when she never did actually use them. I've demonstrated my replications and I've even offered, time and time again, for my Tar Baby replication to be tested ALONGSIDE HER APPARATUS by any competent third party, whose judgement I will gladly accept as to whether or not Tar Baby is an exact replication. This kind of direct challenge makes Ainslie turn pale and grow faint.

And of course the scopeshot in Test 4, Figure 8 is a lot of garbage, from someone who does not know how to use an oscilloscope to display data. And OF COURSE it is easy for anyone to replicate. What does she think, two circuits built with the same components according to the same schematic will perform differently in Texas than in South Africa? I laugh out loud at Ainslie's flailing about and her abject lies, and I absolutely GUFFAW at her claims about that scopeshot. The currents that pass through the Function Generator have been measured MANY TIMES by me, by Poynt99 and even by Ainslie herself, but Ainslie has apparently forgotten that most of the amplitude in her CSR oscillations is spurious.

Note that Ainslie cannot even describe accurately what the signals are and what they mean for that Figure 8 scopeshot. Note that she states that the FG is set to produce a 20  ms period, and that she claims to be showing the switching transitions. But the scope is set to 500 microseconds per division! The ENTIRE SCREEN only contains 5 ms of data.... it does NOT show the switching transitions at all, only aliased combs of a block of oscillations lasting much longer than the screen display. Further... these oscillations are happening because the FG is supplying a NEGATIVE voltage to the Q2 SOURCE/Q1 GATE, not what she claims in her post. The Q2 Gate signal voltage is never "positive" in her circuit, it is always connected to the battery negative through the CSR and so cannot vary more than a few milliVolts from the zero reference. The Q2s are turned on by LOWERING THE SOURCE voltage to a more negative value than the zero reference voltage at the Gate.

And furthermore... the Current Probe does not even need to be hooked up to ANYTHING for large oscillations to be indicated on that channel !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wy8w9MWJY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wy8w9MWJY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tReHHljgdjQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tReHHljgdjQ)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 03:12:46 AM
Quote
.   NO REFERENCE TO THE ADDENDUM THAT EXPLAINS THE REQUIRED PATH FOR THE FLOW OF CURRENT
No reference to Ainslie's silly counterfactual "addendum" to the rejected and completely falsified manuscript is necessary, as everyone knows where to find it.. .and where it rightfully belongs. Why should anyone reference an "explanation" that Ainslie continues to repeat every chance she gets, without it ever making any sense?
Quote
.   NO REFERENCE TO THE POST THAT YOU'RE CHALLENGED TO COPY IN FULL
FALSE. The entire post is imaged IN FULL, so that Ainslie cannot edit and change its meaning.
Quote
.   CONTINUED INSISTENCE THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE 3 WATTS DISSIPATED IN DEFIANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
The EVIDENCE is clear: no more than 3 Watts were dissipated, and it is Ainslie who is in continual DEFIANCE of the evidence... her OWN evidence, to boot.
Quote
.   NO COGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE PATH OF CURRENT FLOW DURING THE 'OFF' PERIOD OF THE DUTY CYCLE
Utterly and ridiculously FALSE !! The full explanation has been given MANY TIMES, dissected into its simplest components and demonstrated, step-by-step, in terms even a bright eighth-grader could understand. Of course.... the explanation has to be READ and WATCHED and FOLLOWED in order for it to be understood. Ainslie is in the position of denying that the Eiffel Tower exists, because she cannot see it from her back porch.
Quote
.   YOU STILL HIDE BEHIND A MONIKER BECAUSE YOU DARE NOT DISCLOSE YOUR IDENTITY IN THE FACE OF THAT UNSCIENTIFIC NONSENSE
The only nonsense here comes from Ainslie, and it's pseudoscientific misconduct and nonsense of the very worst kind, because she is impervious to facts and logical reasoning. If she wants to have her name and personal details spread all across the world for anyone to see... that is certainly her prerogative... and perhaps she has already reaped some of the fruits of her actions. Others may not be so willing to expose themselves to madwomen who lie and threaten instead of reason, who carry on email and telephone campaigns seeking to denigrate those who criticize her. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people who know exactly who I am and where I live... I'm supposed to be Bryan Little, aren't I, living in Tennessee somewhere, or being a senior student at UT somewhere. Right? GUFFAW.... Ainslie is such a comedian.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: orbut 3000 on February 23, 2014, 04:31:22 AM
TinselKoala that's a possibility.  These latest missives could be explained by such a hypothesis.  You may not be feeling particularly merciful for reasons that are easy to understand.  But, if we are dealing with someone who is struggling with memory and cognitive issues, mercy may be the best course.
++


(Even if she's only a very sadistic troll persona - this seems to be the most rational approach)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 05:01:04 AM
TinselKoala, the missives from Ms. Ainslie are very far out of touch with reality for all the reasons that you state.  Anyone can watch the videos, see the evidence and decide what it means.  Ms. Ainslie is proclaiming things that are at complete odds with what the videos obviously show including her own declarations recorded by those videos.  I think the reason that she rails against her own evidence is that she does not have the capacity to comprehend it.  I think she is quite oblivious to what she is doing to herself right now.  I think that the enemy you are battling is an empty shell.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 08:33:29 AM
Look at the latest from Ainslie. I am flabbergasted! How can ANYONE possibly be so utterly and amazingly IGNORANT as to make the statements she makes in this post? There has been no progress at all, after all these years. She has not learned ONE SINGLE THING.

She makes stupid statements, she lies, she refuses to accept what her OWN DEMONSTRATIONS have shown, she refuses utterly to avail herself of the analyses that have been carefully prepared for her, claiming that they don't even EXIST when we have all posted them many times. She makes absurd claims and even more absurd demands, when she herself cannot even understand the most basic fundamental FACTS about the circuit.

Every post she makes: she lies, misrepresents, insults, and makes false claims. She pretends that the operation of the circuit has not been clearly explained to her many times. Her delusions have taken over completely.

The part about the Q2 mosfets being "DISCONNECTED" is especially comical, and shows just what I've been telling you all along: She has absolutely no clue. She pretends to criticize my simple demonstrations without apparently having even bothered to WATCH THEM. But she can't even read a schematic diagram. This last insane post of hers really takes the cake, and I'm glad she's put all her delusions into a single post, because that makes my task so much easier. Any time ANYONE expresses interest in Ainslie, all I have to do is show them that single post, along with the videos of the demos, Poynt99's full explanation document, and the first four videos in my Negative Bias playlist .... and they will laugh Ainslie out of the room.

How many false statements and ridiculous claims can you find in her post? Count them!



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 08:50:46 AM
I will once again post the playlist that DEMONSTRATES, STEP BY STEP, how the Q2 mosfets are NOT DISCONNECTED but rather are connected THROUGH the FG, how they are turned on by LOWERING source voltage, how they operate in the LINEAR mode not as a switch, and upon what the oscillations depend.

AINSLIE, you really should watch these videos, SEVERAL TIMES, so that you might have some chance at saving face.  You have made so many false and ridiculous statements that you have betrayed the fact that you know nothing, you have learned nothing, and you IGNORE everything! Now is your chance, ONCE MORE, to catch up with reality, GROW UP, study, think, and LEARN something for a change. Your statements about mosfets are so off the mark, so utterly ridiculous, that you really are making a laughing-stock of yourself, and I actually feel sorry for you. YOU HAVE BEEN REFUTED, and you are so utterly dense you cannot even admit it. But everyone else sees it.

WATCH THE VIDEOS. Dissect them sentence-by-sentence if you like, I am happy to discuss FACTS with anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V)

ASK STEVE WEIR ABOUT THESE VIDEOS. ASK DONOVAN MARTIN. ASK ANYONE.  Or continue stuffing your foot down your throat by your ignorant statements-- I find it entirely amusing to see you claim things that have been long and soundly refuted. You are indeed the child who does not do her homework, yet expects to be able to discuss it... while everyone is laughing at your ignorance.

Poynt99's playlist of explanatory videos:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_5QWbelpO5Wp8MctLt5EdQ (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_5QWbelpO5Wp8MctLt5EdQ)

And I've attached AGAIN Poynt99's full analysis, from June of 2011 ..... not because I think you'll actually READ it, because I know you won't.... I'm just proving that you LIE when you claim nobody has given you an explanation.

Also I've attached MarkE's diagram.... the diagram of current flow through the FG that has been presented to you by .99, by me, and by other people in various forms for FOUR YEARS or more now. You seem to trust Steve Weir, so ASK HIM ABOUT THIS. I'd pay money to see you and Weir discuss this issue on YouTube. Of course I don't believe you will ever change your mind, Ainslie.... just as before, you would pretend to understand, then in a week or two you will be back at it, spewing your ignorant nonsense over and over again.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 09:28:50 AM
TinselKoala, it is looking more and more to me that we are witness to a decline.  I see a person suffering a lot of agitation and confusion struggling to recall and struggling to reason.  I have no desire to torment someone going through such difficulties.  She doesn't understand the electronics.  She is not going to understand the electronics.  Reminding her that she is mistaken just further upsets her.  Explaining the circuit's real operation just works her up.  Reminding her of what happened at her own demonstrations just drives her into a fury.  I don't see an educational path that will result in progress.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 09:44:53 AM
Ainslie can stop the "torment" instantly, at any time when it becomes too much for her. All she has to do is to stop posting her lies, insults, misrepresentations and idiocy.

But I think she thrives on it. She's a phenomenal troll queen, making post after post with the explicit intention of riling me up. I, on the other hand, am simply trying to hold my own, in the face of the reeking gale of insult and mendacity spewing from her keyboard.

I am perfectly willing to discuss facts rationally. Unfortunately, Ainslie has demonstrated many times, and not just to me, that she is incapable of doing so. She has been banned from forum after forum, for years now, for doing the same things that she is doing now. I don't think she is decompensating especially much now, as compared to two or four years ago. All discussions with Ainslie eventually come up against her arrogant ignorance and her insulting behaviour, her refusal to study and learn, her false claims and outright lies. This is nothing new, and it's nothing restricted to me. Ask Glen, ask Aaron, ask Ashtweth, Harvey, Picowatt, the posters at Naked Scientists... we have all encountered the same nonsense and the same attitude from Ainslie. That's why she's "confined to quarters" and isn't allowed on other forums. She has been banned from here at least twice, banned from Energetic Forum, banned from Naked Scientists.... on and on.

And I agree with you: there is no path toward educational progress for Ainslie. She will go to her grave not knowing how a mosfet works, but yelling at everyone that she does. Meanwhile... she provides endless amusement. There is no clearer example of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have ever encountered, and someday she will be famous. Not for her mosfet mistakes, but for her clinical syndrome !
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 10:43:49 AM
TinselKoala I don't know of any really good way to tell if you are correct or not that it is trolling versus dementia.  I have seen up close how scary life becomes for some people with dementia.  I knew a particularly wonderful lady who suffered through it for about four years before passing away.  Prior to the dementia onset she had been a very loving woman and very active in the community.  Near the end she thought her family were out to get her.  If something like that is going on here, then I would not want to create further agitation.  If it is really just trolling, then why feed it?  Anyone who made it through first year EE better know what a common gate amplifier looks like and how it behaves.  They ought to be able to interpret voltage drop across a resistor.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: profitis on February 23, 2014, 11:23:17 AM
i dont think thats a correct analysis doctor E.looking from the outside in i think ainslie intuitively knows that a kelvin breach is very very possible and that its just within her sights.i think both she and gmeast may nail it down sooner or later,if not already.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 04:23:09 PM
Profitis, I really don't think you have the background in the Ainslie phenomenon to be able to judge what she "has" and what she hasn't. I am not talking about "maybes" or probabilities, I am talking about the errors, lies, insults, disrespect, ignorance and mendacity that Ainslie has emitted over the years and continues to emit, undamped and undeterred by proven fact. The way she has been acting and her precious, seriously-defended ignorance shouted from the rooftops can only HURT whatever chances (identically zero as far as I am concerned) there may be for anything of real interest to come out of her rantings and blind tinkering.

MarkE, everybody dies, everybody is sick and everybody has personal tragedies. These things have no role in the advancement of Science, except by Max Planck's "one funeral at a time." If Ainslie is tragically ill, in a mental decline, where are her keepers? Why is she allowed to persist in this utter waste of her precious time, instead of participating in therapeutic activities? Never mind, these are rhetorical questions. If I told you about my own personal illnesses and mental problems, would this make any difference as to how a mosfet behaves? Of course not. Would it make your heart bleed for me in sympathy? Maybe, but that would be irrelevant to the evaluation of claims I might make along the way.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: profitis on February 23, 2014, 06:00:31 PM
Sure @tk. I may not be electrogenius enough to determine wether she does have something or not but im genius enough to know that she CAN have something.switching magnetic domains in an pulsed element can theoreticly give a window to intake extra heat from the environment than was shoved into the environment from the batteries(im willing to battle you on this issue if your up for it) so she may or may not cut into that window but i dont see how her 'shouting' or 'ranting' can hurt any final demo result any more than doctor E,s diagnosis can.as you say a mosfet stays a mosfet.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 06:22:48 PM
Profitis, Ms. Ainslie has refuted her own claims in public demonstrations she has conducted.  She has never claimed against the Second Law of Energy.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 06:32:24 PM
Sure @tk. I may not be electrogenius enough to determine wether she does have something or not but im genius enough to know that she CAN have something.switching magnetic domains in an pulsed element can theoreticly give a window to intake extra heat from the environment than was shoved into the environment from the batteries(im willing to battle you on this issue if your up for it) so she may or may not cut into that window but i dont see how her 'shouting' or 'ranting' can hurt any final demo result any more than doctor E,s diagnosis can.as you say a mosfet stays a mosfet.

Ainslie's problem personality has been _actively detrimental_ to the exploration of any postulated effects of the kind she, and you, are talking about. Her insistence on spouting her incorrect interpretations and her absolute abject ignorance of her topic both keep the conversation and the experimental work focussed on attempts to correct her errors, to gather valid data about her experimental paradigm, and to educate her out of her abysmal ignorance, rather than forging ahead in directions properly emerging from good research. To his credit, GMeast has mostly avoided falling into this trap. His initial contact with this work consisted of "replicating" her claims, but he wisely rejected the 5-mosfet design out of hand and when he started work on the single mosfet COP>17 work he quickly found out that there were enough problems with Ainslie's reporting that he quickly dropped any attempt to perform a "replication" of Ainslie's claims, and went on to explore the basic idea of pulsed mosfet switching to see if there really might be something there. To the extent that he has made progress, it is because he ignores the ridiculous rants and impossible claims and bogus circuit analyses coming from Ainslie. His finding that the Quantum article's schematic "does not work" is legendary.

Once again I will say it. What is known about the circuit Ainslie is working with is known because of the excellent experimentation and analysis by her detractors and FORMER collaborators. Ainslie herself has contributed nothing of substance, other than easy targets for debunking.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: profitis on February 23, 2014, 06:38:25 PM
she hasnt claimed a 2nd law breach as her angle of attack @mark E but she seems to be fully aware of it.ive discussed it with her live somewhere on this thread or other thread a few months back and she definitely knows about it judging from her many references to the weakspots of it on her website.i wouldve much prefered for her to take the 2nd law angle of attack as her predominant theme.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: profitis on February 23, 2014, 07:08:25 PM
perhaps @tk but she,s got the necessary hardened attitude plus determination to succeed.and she has access to the necessary tools of the trade so if she takes a thousand stabs with those tools and misses who knows where the next stab is going to land?maybe straight onto the bullseye.a woman,s styles may be better than a guys styles for this purpose in this instance (-:
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 09:03:00 PM
Ahhh.... no. Ainslie hasn't got a chance in Hell of discovering anything, and the reason is that she is blinded by her "thesis". Ainslie already KNOWS everything there is to know.

In addition to the psychological blinders, her utter incompetence at experimentation, operation of apparatus, record-keeping, reporting, and interpreting results make her the least likely person to contribute _anything_ of value to a technical discussion. She is far more likely to damage test equipment than to gather valid data with it... and this is proven by the record. Batteries, clipleads, the oscilloscope itself, a function generator -- I wouldn't let that woman anywhere near _real_ test equipment like the 30,000 dollar oscilloscope that I used for some of my testing. Her ignorance is such that she doesn't even bother to learn the standard terminology in use by millions of EEs and other electronics researchers and tinkerers around the world, and her flubbing of math and engineering units is literally comical -- half a day's study and practice and self-checking would have prevented many of those errors YET THEY PERSIST to this day.

Please don't forget that I have read every word Ainslie has posted publicly since early 2009. In addition I have a thick sheaf of "private" communications between her and some other people I know. There is literally nothing there, except the fascinating (to me) psychology of a sociopathic, narcissistic woman with delusions of grandeur and an internet connection.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 09:09:12 PM
In case the point isn't driven home firmly enough.....

OK, if you want to present some New Science that modifies or corrects or expands upon Old Science.... you are going to have to demonstrate your competency and understanding of the _Old Science_ first. If you are going to be basing your claims and conclusions on a mathematical computation like Ainslie does... by GOD you had better be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide without errors. And if your analysis depends on advanced concepts like integration and differentiation, but you've never been exposed to the Calculus and can't communicate using that common language .... then you can go piss up a rope, as far as I am concerned.

Go on, work through the calculations she presents below. Her conclusions are based primarily upon these two calculations and similar ones she has posted over the years.

Just ignore for the moment that she still cannot tell the difference between a Quantity (the Joule) and a RATE (the Watt)..... and DO THE MATH (tm Ainslie).

For example, say you have a stack of 6 ea. 12 volt, 60 A-H batteries. How much energy is IN FACT expected to be contained in those batteries?
Let us calculate together. We have 72 volts at 60 amp-hours. This is 72 volts at 60 amp-hours x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute, or 72 volts at 216000 amp-seconds, or 15,552,000 Watt-seconds (Joules).  Or to  string it all together Ainslie-style without including the units that might have saved her from error, we have 6 x 12 x 60 x 60 x 60 = 15552000. Right? This is the energy in the battery stack. Yet look at Ainslie's figure, and the conclusion she draws from it. Far from being overunity, the actual battery capacity could have run her experiment for several hundreds of hours, as she dissipated less than 2 megaJoules in 54 hours. 10 joules/second x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute x 54 hours = 1944000 Joules. See how the units work out correctly, as well as the numbers?

Joules/second x seconds/minute = Joules/minute.  Joules/minute x minutes/hour = Joules/hour.  Joules/hour x hours = Joules. This is simple algebra... another subject that Ainslie omitted from her schooling. But Ainslie doesn't even realize that "PER" indicates a division operation! So how could she possibly understand cancelling units algebraically. "Joules/second"... how do YOU read that out in English?

Do you see? Taking Ainslie's OWN DATA and analyzing it without making silly math errors yields the completely opposite conclusion from that which Ainslie has drawn, bragged about and tried to slip down your throat for five years or more.

Yet Ainslie has NEVER ONCE corrected any of the bogus math she has spouted. The closest to a correction is the "vanishment" of the original claim in the early versions of the daft manuscripts that she somehow dissipated 5.9 megaJoules in ninety minutes.... gone without a trace, that one is.

Read this page from the old thread:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/1125/

Note that there, she says that she will never correct the calculations, they are a "tad out" (sic) (reply 1136) and further on she states clearly that once water is boiling... it doesn't take any more Joules to keep it boiling. (reply 1138).


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: profitis on February 23, 2014, 10:02:55 PM
depends how one looks at it @tk. i can at least declare with totalitarian certainty that she,you,or anyone playing with electromagnetic circuitry is 1)going to have to violate kelvin rule to be successful and 2)going to have to violate kelvin rule via the cyclic flipping of magnetic domains somewhere in the circuit to be successful.thus i think i am expanding on the science,at least for overunity-hunters,by zooming in on what must happen for success.no fancy math required for this statement.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 10:10:41 PM
depends how one looks at it @tk. i can at least declare with totalitarian certainty that she,you,or anyone playing with electromagnetic circuitry is 1)going to have to violate kelvin rule to be successful and 2)going to have to violate kelvin rule via the cyclic flipping of magnetic domains somewhere in the circuit to be successful.thus i think i am expanding on the science,at least for overunity-hunters,by zooming in on what must happen for success.no fancy math required for this statement.

So you have a "theory" that you believe with "totalitarian certainty." Fine, let's see you provide some EVIDENCE that supports your theory. The rest of your statement is irrelevant to the issue of Ainslie's incompetency and lack of relevant knowledge.

As has been suggested to you SEVERAL TIMES, why don't YOU OPEN YOUR OWN THREAD and discuss your various theories there?
I know why....

And mathematics is not a matter of viewpoint. It is either correct, or it is not. Ainslie's math is incorrect far more often than it is correct, and her conclusions are based on the incorrect maths, as I have shown many times before. This is not a matter of attitude or opinion, it is FACT.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: profitis on February 23, 2014, 10:17:14 PM
precision math is definitely going to be required for power measurements i agree yes @tk
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 10:18:54 PM
Profitis Ms. Ainslie does not discuss the Second Law in any of her publications.  Ms. Ainslie's claims surround an idea of hers that when subjected to certain electromagnetic stimulus, ordinary devices such as resistors decompose releasing electromagnetic energy. 

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=14fcce9b0ebfb3a268a454e4d5f0deee&action=paper1
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper2
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper3
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper4
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper5
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper6
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 10:23:33 PM
precision math is definitely going to be required for power measurements i agree yes @tk

When Ainslie's "calculations" are more than an order of magnitude "out" as they usually are .... precision math is not needed. Just accurate math is enough. Ainslie's calculation errors have led her to the exact opposite conclusion from that which should be drawn from the data. This is not a matter of "precision", it is a matter of accuracy, error checking, and her utter ignorance of basic algebra.

When one's calculations are proven to be wrong, by many people, and one refuses thereafter to correct them, or the conclusions drawn from the incorrect results, and one continues to make the same kinds of errors over and over.... this is not an issue of "precision".
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on February 23, 2014, 10:23:42 PM
What Rosemary needs is a Disney-like cartoon animation that shows how the circuit works, step by step with a top view of little "current sheep" moving along pathways being stopped and permitted to go forward by farm gates and stuff like that.  When the little current sheep enter the "load resistor trough" their wool is sheared off by "load resistor Munchkins."  Then, like magic, when the sheepies enter the "battery corral" they are permitted to graze and grow their wool back.  Then the little sheepies start their movement along the pathways being stopped and permitted to go forward by the farm gates, and so on.

A nice 15-minute Disney animation with nice pleasant narration and little sheepies going around in circles growing wool, and having it sheared off, growing wool and having it sheared off.  Step by step and then a few minutes of watching the sheepies do the circuit might do the trick.

Rosie might then understand the circuit.  Her "window of understanding" will only last a few hours and after that you will be back to square one.

So, without Disney or Pixar you are SOL.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 10:26:20 PM
@MH: I have almost descended to that level with the Negative Bias playlist videos. If someone cannot understand those, they don't speak English or realize that a black line on a schematic indicates a wire connection.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on February 23, 2014, 10:38:50 PM
The function generator is a source of white fluffy bunnies with it's own bunny hutch where the bunnies also magically grow their fur back.  The poor white fluffy bunnies also get sheared when they hop hop hop along their path.  There are also bunny gates that stop or allow the bunny current to hop along.

Do the fluffy bunnies sometimes take the same path as the sheepies?  I can't remember because I haven't taken a serious look at the schematic in a very long time.

It would make for a cute animation.  Sheepies and fluffy bunnies going in circles and the shearing Munchkin meanies looking to collect wool and bunny fluff.  It's all so clear now.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: profitis on February 23, 2014, 10:56:16 PM
thats why i wouldve prefered her to take a thermodynamic angle @mark E however its not going to matter much IF she gets a 2nd law violation going and IF all calculations are done adequately.i always advise electromagnetic hunters that i encounter to understand the thermodynamics of their engines for 2 reasons: 1)to get a better understanding of what they,re infact trying to do and 2)to get a better attention from acedemics if need be and to be taken a little bit more seriously by them.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 11:03:00 PM
thats why i wouldve prefered her to take a thermodynamic angle @mark E however its not going to matter much IF she gets a 2nd law violation going and IF all calculations are done adequately.i always advise electromagnetic hunters that i encounter to understand the thermodynamics of their engines for 2 reasons: 1)to get a better understanding of what they,re infact trying to do and 2)to get a better attention from acedemics if need be and to be taken a little bit more seriously by them.
Sure you would.  By all means take any of Ms. Ainslie's verified experiments and have at them with a thermodynamic analysis.  Begin with how they do or do not fit a Kelvin interpretation of the Second Law of Energy.  Show your work.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 23, 2014, 11:19:39 PM
Ms. Ainslie would like a more thorough description of the operation of Q2 in her circuit.  Here is a reference she should read:

http://whites.sdsmt.edu/classes/ee320/notes/320Lecture34.pdf
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 23, 2014, 11:31:46 PM
Ms. Ainslie would like a more thorough description of the operation of Q2 in her circuit.  Here is a reference she should read:

http://whites.sdsmt.edu/classes/ee320/notes/320Lecture34.pdf (http://whites.sdsmt.edu/classes/ee320/notes/320Lecture34.pdf)

That's a great reference... for the "restofus". I've downloaded it and added it to the Ainslie database, in the .pdf section.
Unfortunately Ainslie does not have the prerequisites to understand more than the title of the document. By the middle of the first page her eyes have already started to water and glaze over. The rest of the document will wind up on the floor of her birdcage.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: profitis on February 23, 2014, 11:54:42 PM
i,l see what i can suss out @mark E.not going to be easy though.i wish electromagneto-hunters would use a small finite power source like a watch-battery attatched to a mini-pulse-heater and just drop the whole gamut into an oil bath and read the temperature vs a controll.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 24, 2014, 12:02:21 AM
That's a great reference... for the "restofus". I've downloaded it and added it to the Ainslie database, in the .pdf section.
Unfortunately Ainslie does not have the prerequisites to understand more than the title of the document. By the middle of the first page her eyes have already started to water and glaze over. The rest of the document will wind up on the floor of her birdcage.
It does not matter whether or not Ms. Ainslie can understand that document at this moment.  It only matters that the circuit configuration that she has set-up with Q2 is well understood and documented.  The general analysis included in that document has all the elements needed, including the negative bias voltage applied to the source terminal through an impedance, just as from the function generator's offset that Ms. Ainslie and crew dialed up through the internal 50 Ohm impedance of the instrument.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 24, 2014, 03:12:16 AM
A simple illustration:
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 24, 2014, 03:51:51 AM
LOL.... that's a good one!

It's particularly encouraging to see that she has reverted to uncritical naive acceptance of the large _artifactual_ amplitudes shown in the Figure 8 scopeshot. This makes shooting her down almost ridiculously easy. These large amplitudes have been shown unequivocally to be due to the large stray inductances caused by her battery wiring and her highly inductive current sense resistors that were used at that time. She used 4, 1 ohm, "concrete" wirewound power resistors in parallel for the CSR at that time.

I've just kluged together a test apparatus with a single Q2 and single Q1 mosfets, with 2, 0.51 ohm concrete wirewound power resistors in parallel for my CSR and overall a lot less stray inductances. I had to add some inductance to the battery interconnect wiring to make the Vbatt oscillations grow to a "reasonable" artifactual value. The results of my testing are in a video that will be ready in a couple of hours, but here are a few stills. I wasn't able to reach quite the extreme values that Ainslie gets in Figure 8, because I just didn't have enough inductances scattered about, but I think I have soundly refuted Ainslie's latest claims and I've met her bogus, cynical "challenge" adequately nevertheless.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 24, 2014, 04:19:53 AM
The video will be here when it's finished uploading.

http://youtu.be/ufEZW5iTv6Y (http://youtu.be/ufEZW5iTv6Y)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 24, 2014, 05:27:51 AM
The video is clear enough.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 24, 2014, 06:45:58 AM
The video is clear enough.

Clear enough for a bright child, certainly ... but perhaps not quite clear enough for Rosemary Ainslie. She is such a comedian! Time and time again I've shown her what she claims I cannot do, what she claims is impossible. Time and time again she has been proven soundly and completely WRONG by my video demonstrations. She must enjoy making herself look stupid, and her posts, as usual, are full of frantic flailings and even more frantic insults. What they do not contain, and never will contain, is any hint of understanding or any capability for performing her OWN demonstrations that actually test her vapid claims.

The video of course proves that my apparatus acts just like hers (surprise surprise) but of course it does not prove that the high-amplitude oscillations go through the FG. I don't know why she chose to post that silly cynical "challenge" anyway, since it proves nothing except that she lies when she says I haven't replicated "her" circuit and its artifactual performances. My "negative bias" playlist, the first four videos therein, however, do prove that the Q2 oscillations DO depend upon a current path through the FG or whatever is there to take its place, and they show that a bias current supply that is more negative than the negative pole of the run batteries is necessary to cause the oscillations. Together, this video and those provide the full explanation for the oscillations and the spurious amplitudes caused by the stray (or in my case deliberate) inductances in the circuit.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 24, 2014, 06:56:36 AM
Hey AINSLIE, why don't you SHUT UP and PAY ATTENTION for a change. You have been trumped, over and over again, and the more you whine and flail about stuff that you SHOULD know about, the sillier you look. It amuses me greatly.

Why aren't you calling me Bryan Little any more? Did you finally find out that you were WRONG, every time you did, for YEARS?

You are a laughingstock!

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 24, 2014, 09:17:21 AM
She is not doing herself any favors.  Her first paragraph is more or less correct:  The statement which is an observation of readily verified reality is that Q2 conducts current through the function generator during the "Q1 Off" intervals.  The fact that it does is beyond dispute as she herself demonstrated that current flow as Phase 2 of her August 11, demonstration.  What she seems to have absolutely zero capacity to comprehend are a couple of other points:

1) When the circuit oscillates, current also flows through the parasitic capacitances of the MOSFETs.
2) The Ainslie team connected their current sense voltage probe across wiring on their breadboard instead of across the special non-inductive current sense resistors they bought.

Both effects are at work in her circuits.  Poynt99 explained this, simulated it, and closely reproduced her reported results.  Both her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations showed the extent of distortion parasitic inductance has caused her.  It is the combination of 1) and 2) that generated large voltages read by her oscilloscope during the "Q1 Off" period oscillations even though the scope probe tip was connected to the same DC node as the probe ground clip on June 29.  The voltage read was di/dt read across the wiring inductance between the probe tip location and the ground clip location.  The source of the di/dt passing through her current sense resistors was parasitic capacitance in the MOSFETs.  Based on the facts both that this has been explained over and over again, and that Ms. Ainslie remains absolutely clueless about it, it is predictable that she will forever rail on about how there must be something extraordinary happening.  For whatever reason she doesn't process the plain facts in front of her. 

Paper 1 incorporates measurements that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators proved was completely invalid on June 29, 2013.  During further demonstration on August 11, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators completely refuted their own claims that the "Q Array" circuit produces an efficiency improvement over a direct DC connection.  They established that the circuit wastes ~80% of the input power supplied to it.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 24, 2014, 11:56:08 AM
Just for the record, here's her latest nocturnal emission.

Note how she insults and lies. Note how she has forgotten that her setup that was used for her Figure 8 did NOT include any non-inductive resistors. Note how long her interbattery and main supply wiring is for those old experiments. Note that she lies when she says that I have specifically criticized the Figure 8 shot before this. Note how she mocks the GRE without even knowing what it is, or having ever taken a standardized achievement test in her life. Note how she still falsely believes that the amplitudes of the oscillations represent actual currents, and note how she still ignores the proofs, published months and years ago, that she has been whining about lately. Note her flailing about, like a landed fish, gasping and choking in an atmosphere she cannot hope to breathe. Note her abject and total ignorance of facts and her total inability to comprehend simple explanations. Note her willfull ignorance of the fact that I have repeated her bad data all down the line, demonstrating how it is obtained, since 2009, complete with replications of every different scope trace, including amplitudes, that she has ever produced. Note her inability to process the fact that her own demonstrations have already demolished her silly "thesis", and no amount of her delusional ranting can affect the Steve Weir demonstrations and analyses-- even though she now seeks to obscure and hide the GOOD data that Steve had them produce.

Finally... note the fact that I hold her in utter contempt, since she is so dishonest that she cannot even admit to herself that she is utterly and totally wrong, her lies have been exposed for what they are,  and she has wasted all this time, all these years of her life chasing imaginary zipons, playing at her pseudoscientific misconduct.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 24, 2014, 04:47:26 PM
Ms. Ainslie routinely says things that are absolutely false.  How much of it she realizes and how much is delusion built on faulty memory and/or other possible cognitive limitations is not something that I cannot readily estimate.  The fantasies that she has concocted surrounding last year's demonstrations and her withdrawal of her retraction is a bit mind boggling.  This latest bit seems to imply that she doesn't realize the inductance that her long lead wires have or the resulting impacts on her fixture and measurements.  It doesn't matter because her demonstrations put those effects on display for all to see.  That she rails against what she herself showed isn't doing her any good.

I'll talk to Steve and see if I can get more details about what happened with the USB stick.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 24, 2014, 07:05:20 PM
The USB stick isn't important except as proof that they are trying to suppress data. I have made screenshots from the demo videos at the moments that Steve had them do their saves, and they are of sufficient resolution to see what is happening, even though the "numbers in boxes" cannot be read off the images. The trace amplitudes and waveforms are clear enough, and coupled with the narration in the demo recordings the facts of the matter are perfectly clear.

A much better use of the "Steve Weir" connection and Steve's valuable time, in my opinion, would be for Steve to give Ainslie a true and correct critique of the videos in my Negative Bias playlist. To have him go through those videos with Ainslie, totalling just over one hour (less than a fourth of the time of Ainslie's miserable demonstrations that we all watched carefully several times -- in fact less time than the DEAD AIR in Ainslie's demonstrations), just might... just barely might... cause Ainslie to step back and consider her position carefully.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V

But more likely it would turn her against Steve, just as sound criticism has always turned her against her critics. Her vitriol and her venomous petty disrespect and insults would be unleashed against him, too. I really wouldn't want that to happen.... but if it does it will be more than just a "final coffin nail"... it will be tossing another spadeful of earth over the stinking pile of decaying garbage that is her "thesis" and her "experiment".

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 24, 2014, 09:08:47 PM
I think that Steve has watched several of your videos and left comments, though maybe not on these particular ones.  Ms. Ainslie denies what is in plain sight, and that she previously acknowledged she saw in her own demonstrations.  Since she doesn't believe herself, I think it would be imposing on Steve to ask him to try and persuade her of the reality that she denies. 

On another note she doesn't like the new book series.  She calls it facile and infantile while complaining that she complains that it contains too many acronyms.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 24, 2014, 09:23:14 PM
Notice that the idiot Ainslie wants ME to do something that SHE has NEVER DONE, and in fact is irrelevant to the issues at hand. What part of "replication" does this woman fail to understand? Never mind, that's a rhetorical question, since it's clear that she understands nothing of the process, at all, and the more idiotic rants she emits, the clearer it is to the onlookers.

She dare not repeat for herself the demonstrations I have presented in the Negative Bias playlist. She doesn't have the skill or knowledge even to put together those simple demonstrations, so maybe she could get her minion Donny to do it for her. And maybe pigs with wings can fly, too.

Too many acronyms? Are we speaking in a language that Ainslie doesn't comprehend, again? The common language of electronics and mathematics? Yes, that is clearly over her head. One would think that the deluded old woman doesn't have a computer with the ability to query Google about something she doesn't understand. Well, we have noted this deficiency of hers before, like when she says Wiki says one thing, but the actual Wiki says the exact opposite.

Ainslie disgusts me. She's not deserving of sympathy or tolerance for her mounting dementia, since she cannot restrain herself from emitting the childish insults and lies that fill up her forum posts. Someone who has had their errors pointed out many times, by many different people, for many years, but who still refuses to pick up a book and learn her topic, is deserving of contempt and nothing more.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Thaelin on February 24, 2014, 10:06:59 PM
  This post is off topic so plz just ignore it really.

I want to thank all of you for the absolutely wonderful
hallarious ride this topic has given. Spelling is toast as
I have had one too many buddies today. I sometimes
go away with tears running down my face from laughter.

On a real note, I just hit one of the formalities of using
a probe in the wrong place. Once corrected, it makes more
sense.  So keep on keeping on

thay

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 24, 2014, 10:22:41 PM
Not off topic at all, thanks for posting! Yes, the main value of the Ainslie affair at this point is for the Lulz.

We've all (except Ainslie) learned a little something here and there from the exploration and the running down of effects and causes, but that is mostly in the past, since it has been going on for so many years. The only new things lately have been the two demonstrations last year, which were the first indications that Ainslie might actually be responsive in a constructive way to analysis and criticism by those who know far more than she.

But as you can see, after a few weeks have passed, it is as if those demos never happened, for Ainslie has reverted to a much more primitive level of lack of understanding. The gains made by Steve Weir in boosting Ainslie's understanding have vanished, like water rolling off a duck's back. So the amusement factor is all that there is left, really.

Well, there is the annoyance factor as well. I took apart two much more interesting and important experiments that I had set up in my lab in order to defeat Ainslie in her latest silly ridiculous cynical "challenge".

Anyhow... hoist one for me, while you are at it!

Cheers... and stay tuned, it is impossible to believe that Ainslie will ever stop her comedic output.
--TK

 :) ;) :D ;D 8) ;D ;) :)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 24, 2014, 10:38:32 PM
Due to popular demand the publishers have just announced another book in the series:
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 24, 2014, 10:54:32 PM
I see what you did there... you snuck in a dI/dt term. But our correspondent has never had any math beyond simple arithmetic. Her exposure to differential calculus is nil. The smallest infinitesimal time interval she can handle is the duration of one of her scope's samples.

To her credit she, or more probably Donny, has "invented" a numerical approximation of an integral, by computing the area of the rectangles representing the sample interval x indicated "instantaneous" current (or power), and then adding the areas all up. Kind of a bastardized Rectangle Rule for approximating an integral from discrete samples. Yet, years ago when I mentioned "integration" as the proper term for what she was trying to do... she thought I was talking about some anti-apartheid racial thing.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 24, 2014, 11:07:31 PM
I see what you did there... you snuck in a dI/dt term. But our correspondent has never had any math beyond simple arithmetic. Her exposure to differential calculus is nil. The smallest infinitesimal time interval she can handle is the duration of one of her scope's samples.

To her credit she, or more probably Donny, has "invented" a numerical approximation of an integral, by computing the area of the rectangles representing the sample interval x indicated "instantaneous" current (or power), and then adding the areas all up. Kind of a bastardized Rectangle Rule for approximating an integral from discrete samples. Yet, years ago when I mentioned "integration" as the proper term for what she was trying to do... she thought I was talking about some anti-apartheid racial thing.
If you are not nice, I will introduce Euler!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 01:57:40 AM
I see that Ainslie and Poynt99 are having trouble agreeing on the FACTS of the matter concerning the FG's role in completing the circuit for the Q2s during oscillation.

It is trivially easy to disprove Ainslie's ridiculous contention that the Q2s are "disconnected" during the "off" or oscillating portion of the waveform. All one needs to do is to do what I did in my videos: Build the circuit so that the SOURCES of the Q2s can be physically actually disconnected from the FG.

After all, if they are "disconnected" by the circuit operation, then surely actually CUTTING THE WIRE can't make any difference.  But it does. No oscillations are possible unless the Sources of the Q2s ARE CONNECTED to the FG, because the FG provides the necessary bias current AND the completed pathway to the battery negative.


Can you make oscillations now, silly ignorant Ainslie? Of course you CANNOT.  The only alteration in the circuit is that the Q2s are now ACTUALLY disconnected from the ACTUAL path through the FG.

So I'd just love to hear why the wire needs to be connected even though you claim in your utter ignorance that the transistors are disconnected. What is that wire doing, then, if not passing current THROUGH the FG?

Flail and whine, chatter and bloviate and flail, Ainslie ..... this simple test demolishes your crazy ideas YET AGAIN.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 02:45:45 AM
If you can bring yourself to sit through a portion of the August 11, demonstration from about 49:30 to 51:30, that's where Steve had them adjust the function generator offset voltage demonstrating as one of your videos did that the function generator offset changes the loop current and power contributed by the function generator.  Around 51:20, Ms. Ainslie declared her agreement with Steve's explanation.  Of course now, she insists that explanation is invalid.  Will she find the courage to disconnect the Q2 source wires as you suggest?????  What will happen to the function generator red lead voltage if she does?????  All she has to do is unclip the four Q2 source clips.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 04:41:11 AM
Yes, it's hilarious isn't it. Ainslie is not only a liar and a fool, but she is also a hypocrite.

If there was ever any doubt that there is something severely wrong with Ainslie's mind, here is the proof.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 05:14:12 AM
Ms. Ainslie is on quite a roll.  Has she completely forgotten that during the June 29 demonstration that they showed how they got Figures: 3, 6, and 7, by misconnecting the Channel 1 scope probe?  Their current sense was a 6" length of solid wire, not the four one Ohm current sense resistors.  She and her collaborators did not connect the Channel 1 scope probe across the resistors.  That's why the current sense trace was flat at zero in Figure 3.  Ms. Ainslie is insisting that she measured 14App during the oscillation phase.  What she measured was the AC current that passed through the MOSFET parasitic capacitance superimposed on the inductive impedance of the wiring.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 05:25:40 AM
If you can bring yourself to sit through a portion of the August 11, demonstration from about 49:30 to 51:30, that's where Steve had them adjust the function generator offset voltage demonstrating as one of your videos did that the function generator offset changes the loop current and power contributed by the function generator.  Around 51:20, Ms. Ainslie declared her agreement with Steve's explanation.  Of course now, she insists that explanation is invalid.  Will she find the courage to disconnect the Q2 source wires as you suggest? ??? ?  What will happen to the function generator red lead voltage if she does? ??? ?  All she has to do is unclip the four Q2 source clips.

Going through that miserable trainwreck again is literally painful. But I've excerpted the portion you have flagged. It's processing now and will be uploaded in a little while. This portion is amazing indeed. I do believe a couple of eighth-graders would have done a better job cooperating with Steve Weir in making their instrument settings, readings, and general videography. The part where Steve is trying to get them just to change the FG offset without fiddling with other things is like chewing on sand. To think that Ainslie is critical of MY videos... what a hoot! Without Steve's contribution and that of Poynt99, there would be nothing at all of value in that mess of knobtwisting and fiddling about. I will make the point again: All valid data on Ainslie's circuit and her outlandish claims comes NOT from Ainslie and her "team" but rather from her detractors and critics, who actually know what they are doing and how to interpret what they see on an oscilloscope. Ainslie cannot interpret a scope trace, and I doubt if Martin can either, since he spent well over five minutes trying to read a frequency of a sinusoidal waveform. If there aren't numbers in boxes for them to read, they are lost.

Will she do the simple experiment I posted above? No, of course she will not. She will not do anything that has the possibility of proving her wrong. She will emit excuses, like she doesn't have the apparatus set up any more, she doesn't want to bother Donovan, she can't tell whoever has the apparatus to do it, whatever. Even if she does, which I seriously doubt, she will engage in some hand-waving posthockery involving entities not in evidence, like zipons or truants or magnetic monopoles or something. Meanwhile she'll continue to shout and rave her strawman "challenge", trying to get me and Poynt99 to hook up a genuine 275 volt source to the outputs of our FGs.

I'll post the link to the excerpt once it's ready.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 05:40:22 AM
Going through that miserable trainwreck again is literally painful. But I've excerpted the portion you have flagged. It's processing now and will be uploaded in a little while. This portion is amazing indeed. I do believe a couple of eighth-graders would have done a better job cooperating with Steve Weir in making their instrument settings, readings, and general videography. The part where Steve is trying to get them just to change the FG offset without fiddling with other things is like chewing on sand. To think that Ainslie is critical of MY videos... what a hoot! Without Steve's contribution and that of Poynt99, there would be nothing at all of value in that mess of knobtwisting and fiddling about. I will make the point again: All valid data on Ainslie's circuit and her outlandish claims comes NOT from Ainslie and her "team" but rather from her detractors and critics, who actually know what they are doing and how to interpret what they see on an oscilloscope. Ainslie cannot interpret a scope trace, and I doubt if Martin can either, since he spent well over five minutes trying to read a frequency of a sinusoidal waveform. If there aren't numbers in boxes for them to read, they are lost.

Will she do the simple experiment I posted above? No, of course she will not. She will not do anything that has the possibility of proving her wrong. She will emit excuses, like she doesn't have the apparatus set up any more, she doesn't want to bother Donovan, she can't tell whoever has the apparatus to do it, whatever. Even if she does, which I seriously doubt, she will engage in some hand-waving posthockery involving entities not in evidence, like zipons or truants or magnetic monopoles or something. Meanwhile she'll continue to shout and rave her strawman "challenge", trying to get me and Poynt99 to hook up a genuine 275 volt source to the outputs of our FGs.

I'll post the link to the excerpt once it's ready.
A problem that I think I see here is that Ms. Ainslie seems unable or perhaps just unwilling to distinguish what she has observed from her assumptions and interpretations.  She says that she has seen your replications.  What she does not seem to grasp is the additional information that shows the faults in her incorrect assumptions and interpretations that she herself has proven wrong.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 05:51:50 AM
It's too bad that nobody has instructed Ainslie in the fine art of using two scope channels to make a differential voltage measurement. She has the equipment to measure properly and safely across the load, while simultaneously measuring Vbatt and Current on the two other channels... but she has not the wit to do it.  Furthermore, she has never shown a measurement "across the FET" since the March 2011 demo and has even denied doing it then. Measuring "across the FET" means of course measuring the Drain voltage with respect to the Source. The Drain signal is highly diagnostic in mosfet circuits, yet is conspicuously absent from Ainslie's datasets. Why? I know why.
I would love to see her measure and interpret the Drain signal. That will be a real hoot.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 06:07:21 AM
"Ainslie says" lots of things, not many of which are true and correct, as we have seen lately. I seriously doubt that she has actually watched the Negative Bias playlist videos with proper attention. If she has, and yet _still_ persists in her ignorant claims.... that's pretty sad indeed. It means that nothing, ever, will penetrate her delusional system.

Anyone who had a rational position to defend would take those videos and dissect them, just as we have dissected her video demonstrations, and point out just where they are "wrong" and how, and would produce refutations in the form of counter-demonstrations. But Ainslie has no rational position to defend, just a mass of delusions, coupled with the irrational assurance that she is _right no matter what_. It is this irrational assurance that causes her to "forget" or "ignore" or fail to expose herself to data and evidence that she is wrong.


The video segment from Ainslie's demo is here, or will be when it's done uploading.
 http://youtu.be/qc7iAGFceF4 (http://youtu.be/qc7iAGFceF4)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 07:07:08 AM
"Ainslie says" lots of things, not many of which are true and correct, as we have seen lately. I seriously doubt that she has actually watched the Negative Bias playlist videos with proper attention. If she has, and yet _still_ persists in her ignorant claims.... that's pretty sad indeed. It means that nothing, ever, will penetrate her delusional system.

Anyone who had a rational position to defend would take those videos and dissect them, just as we have dissected her video demonstrations, and point out just where they are "wrong" and how, and would produce refutations in the form of counter-demonstrations. But Ainslie has no rational position to defend, just a mass of delusions, coupled with the irrational assurance that she is _right no matter what_. It is this irrational assurance that causes her to "forget" or "ignore" or fail to expose herself to data and evidence that she is wrong.


The video segment from Ainslie's demo is here, or will be when it's done uploading.
 http://youtu.be/qc7iAGFceF4 (http://youtu.be/qc7iAGFceF4)
It is just amazing to watch that clip where Ms. Ainslie declares her agreement with Steve that adjusting the function generator offset  changed the current and power supplied to the circuit by the function generator, and see her flailing about over the past few days insisting that the function generator is not in the DC current path.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 07:22:30 AM
Falling a LITTLE behind, there, aren't you Ains-LIE.

Quote
Well Guys.  What a PLEASURE it is to see NO FURTHER SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT from our trolls.
Ainslie, you wouldn't know a scientific argument if it bit you... and it's biting you pretty hard these days.
Quote
I must admit though - it seems that they don't actually like me very much.  Who would have thought?  Thankfully these emotions have NOTHING to do with science. 
You finally got something right. I don't like you, Rosemary Ainslie, because you are a disrespectful and lying degenerate troll queen, full of insults and mendacity, and you aren't even polite enough to shut up and listen when someone like Steve Weir is talking to you. Your incompetence is only exceeded by your arrogance.
Quote
What's evident is that our Little TK CAN'T run plus/minus 14 amps through his function generator.
What is evident is that I have done exactly what you have done, every step of the way. I've shown the same currents "running through" my FG, and I've shown the REAL current running through it... and so have you. You just don't have the wit or honesty to see and admit it.
Quote
And this notwithstanding his GRE count and his idle boasts to have first discovered EVERYTHING to do with this circuit.
Here again you LIE like the wicked troll queen you are. You cannot show a reference ANYWHERE where I have made any such boast. And you have no clue what it means to take and score highly on a standardized graduate school admission examination, having never sat one in your life -- high school dropout that you are. Every time you mention the name Little, and the initials GRE, the whole world is laughing at you.
Quote
And Mark Euthanasius CAN'T explain away that hefty current flow as capacitance. 
A classic straw man. The "hefty" current flow that is artefactually contaminating your data has been explained over and over again, and DEMONSTRATED BY YOU, as well as by me, Poynt99 and others, to be due to INDUCTANCES, and it is not real.
Quote
And this notwithstanding his sad little exercise to IGNORE the evidence. 
Astounding! The prototypical ignoramus Ainslie accuses US of ignoring evidence... when we are using YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS, AINSLIE, the valid "evidence" therefrom, to illustrate your failures and mendacities. Meanwhile you IGNORE all real facts, all evidence that contradicts your pre-formed conclusions, and you don't even have the wit to see the rampant contradictions and errors in your own rationalizations for your failures.
Quote
And now they both face the added embarrassment that neither of them can DENY the fact that we've actually done that 'booster converter' number.

I can deny it quite well, and have demonstrated the denial many times, in demonstrations and experiments that anyone can do for themselves. Your claims are bogus and unsupported by YOUR OWN properly obtained data. The only thing that embarrasses me is my evident failure to get through to you, something I only expect to encounter in small children and subhuman primates.
Quote

Essentially this means that they do NOT have a valid explanation for the discharge of current during the OFF period of the duty cycle - or when there's a positive signal applied to the Gate of Q2.
Wail and flail all you like, lying Ainslie. The valid and true explanation has been given to you many times, and demonstrated, and dissected point-by-point in terms even a child could understand. A child that didn't already think she knows everything, that is.
Quote
And that means that our claim is now ENTIRELY vindicated.  Because that was their last HOPE.
You don't even realize how stupid and foolish you look now! ENTIRELY demolished, your claims are. You have nothing except demonstrations of utter incompetence, lack of understanding, silly delusions and lies, and it's ALL ON THE YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS!
Quote

It bodes well.  I DO indeed, have MUCH cause to thank our Little TK.  Had he not replicated our experiment then his public would have ASSUMED that we'd never managed that Test 4 Figure 8 number.  Because he's on record.  He DENIED that it was possible.
Another abject LIE from the lying troll queen Ainslie. I never DENIED it was possible to make the Figure 8 traces, and you cannot show any place that I did. Where's this "record", Ainslie? Nowhere but in your deluded imagination, just like all the other lying accusations you've made against me. And just up above, you say that it's evident that I CAN'T do what you did.... make up your miserable substitute for a mind, if you can.
Quote
It's all very amusing.

Indeed it is. Keep it up, Ainslie! How many more false and stupid claims will you try to defend? How do you think Donovan Martin feels now, to be associated with such a hypocrite, such an intellectual midget, such a DATA FABRICATOR as you?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 07:29:20 AM
Once again... here is a SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT: perform a simple experiment, report and interpret the results. Ainslie dares not do this simple LITTLE thing that would take five minutes to perform. Of course she is incompetent to do it herself, but one would think that Donovan Martin, who at least knows how to turn the scope on, would be interested enough to do a _real experiment that tests an hypothesis_ for a change.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 07:33:20 AM
It is just amazing to watch that clip where Ms. Ainslie declares her agreement with Steve that adjusting the function generator offset  changed the current and power supplied to the circuit by the function generator, and see her flailing about over the past few days insisting that the function generator is not in the DC current path.
Indeed. That, coupled with her retraction of her retraction of the daft and mendacious manuscripts, demonstrates her utter, self-serving hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 07:45:30 AM
If you are not nice, I will introduce Euler!

Heh.... Just as long as Runge and Kutta come along too ... we'll be fine.

But I'm afraid that Ainslie will have to stay behind. Here's a particularly interesting quote that she emitted during a conversation with Poynt99 back in 2012:

Quote
And Ponyty - with respect.  I'm an amateur.  I can easily understand your average equation PROVIDED ONLY that I also understand the terms.  HOW do they calculate PI? And WHY is it 2 x PI which, is 3.14 ? OF WHAT?

--- Quote from: poynt99 on August 10, 2012, 05:03:22 ---Capacitive reactance = XC = 1/(2PI x F x C)
Inductive reactance = XL = 2PI x F x L
where PI is 3.14, and F is frequency.
--- End quote ---
Here's how I read that equation. 
Capacitive reactance is represented by XC = ((1/(3.14 x 2)) x frequency x C)  It makes NO sense to me.    Why is PI 3.14?  How did they get to that number?  You see the problem Poynty Point?  I simply do NOT understand an explanation in terms of an equation.

HOWEVER - on the plus side - I now understand that Capacitance is the inverse of Impedance.  So I'm getting somewhere - hopefully?  Not sure if this has left you with a bigger headache than my own.  But I am really painfully restricted to conceptual understandings.  And that's not an acknowledgement of weakness Poynty Point.  There's nothing wrong with conceptual physics.  The more so if those concepts are clear. But I feel I owe it to you to try and understand those equations.  I'll give it my best shot if you can also just explain how they got to the 3.14 number.  I have no idea where this came from.

Kindest regards Poynty Point.  And PLEASE consider doing a sim on Greg's set up.  He's given a very clear schematic there.
Rosie

Edited
Deleted my reference to C=3.14.  I saw the error there.  But the balance of the question still stands.

Where does PI = 3.14 come from? I dunno... perhaps it has a different value in South African schools. Oh.. wait... it just wasn't covered in any of the basketweaving, poetry or sculpture classes Ainslie pretended to take when she was young. Or maybe PI just hadn't been discovered yet, that long ago.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 10:51:10 AM
Mmmmmm, pi.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Tseak on February 25, 2014, 12:31:40 PM
Mark, you have to realise that capacitance is the inverse of impedance. Only then you will understand. Perhaps this Pi issue has our lady going in circles.

By the way your dummies covers are excellent. Where on earth do you guys find the time to do this stuff?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 01:26:55 PM
Mark, you have to realise that capacitance is the inverse of impedance. Only then you will understand. Perhaps this Pi issue has our lady going in circles.

By the way your dummies covers are excellent. Where on earth do you guys find the time to do this stuff?
Wait until she hears about variable diractance.  Her swirvel bearings will never be the same.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MileHigh on February 25, 2014, 02:00:14 PM
Brainiac:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvNbW5ZoI_k

American Pi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BwKZEp2K_0
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 03:15:46 PM
Mark, you have to realise that capacitance is the inverse of impedance. Only then you will understand. Perhaps this Pi issue has our lady going in circles.

By the way your dummies covers are excellent. Where on earth do you guys find the time to do this stuff?

Heh.... Yes, I can hardly wait for the hard copy versions to appear at my favorite bookstore. I just might print up a bunch of them myself, to distribute as handouts along with the rest of my Ainslie database.

But really, it takes less time and effort to refute Ainslie these days, than it does to... bake a pi. Er, Pie. She is "low hanging fruit" and keeps hanging herself lower and lower with every post she makes. And she uses her own rope!


In all fairness, after Poynt99 gave Ainslie the link to WIKI's article on pi..... she claimed to have known it all along. It was the PI=3.14 part that threw her off, she says. Had it been written " pi = 3.14 " there would have been no problem, according to her. I am NOT JOKING!

You see, Ainslie's computer evidently cannot access Google.... because had she simply typed in " PI= " into the Search Window of her browser, Google would have replied " = 3.14159265 " . Simple, right?

But what are all those extra digits doing there, after the "3.14" part? Those aren't needed in South Africa, surely.


Right... off I go then, to do a LITTLE transcendental meditation.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 03:38:13 PM
Just for the sake of completeness in the cleanup, note that she has gotten the order of operations wrong.

Quote
--- Quote from: poynt99 on August 10, 2012, 05:03:22 ---Capacitive reactance = XC = 1/(2PI x F x C)
Inductive reactance = XL = 2PI x F x L
where PI is 3.14, and F is frequency.
--- End quote ---
Here's how I read that equation. 
Capacitive reactance is represented by XC = ((1/(3.14 x 2)) x frequency x C)  It makes NO sense to me.
(sic.. parentheses as in original)

The correct statement of the capacitive reactance relationship has been given by Poynt99 as
XC = 1 / (2piFC)
But even with that equation visible to her, she garbles the order of operations and by tossing in her parentheses apparently randomly, she comes up with
XC = FC / 2pi 

That's what happens when you drop out of school before they get around to teaching Algebra. How does this woman manage to balance her checkbook?

 

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Tseak on February 25, 2014, 04:04:57 PM

 It was the PI=3.14 part that threw her off, she says. Had it been written " pi = 3.14 " there would have been no problem, according to her. I am NOT JOKING!

And you should be fully aware that MOSFETS are devices that internally solder their own terminals together when they are switched on but mosfets don't exist. Or have I got that the wrong way around?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 10:02:19 PM
Heh... something like that, I think. Ainslie is definitely acronym-challenged.

Have you seen the latest stuff that she has emitted concerning Jandrell and Garrett? Take a look, you will be very amused.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 10:15:34 PM
Back to the Figure 8 scopeshot.

Notice, in the text, that the FG is set to produce a cycle with 20 millisecond period, so she claims. But the scope is set for 500 microseconds per division, meaning that the whole screen only shows 5 milliseconds (500 us x 10 divisions) of the Q2 oscillation portion of the signal. The scope's timebase setting is shown at the top left of the screen.

Once again, this constitutes data fabrication, because Ainslie claims that the high heat in the load is produced during the data displayed on the screen. But it is not-- the high heat in the load "cooking it" is produced by the Q1 ON times, where the overall resistance of the circuit is low and there are no oscillations. During the Q1 ON time, the total resistance of the circuit is about 14 ohms, the current path does not go through the FG, and with a 72 volt supply the current will be a bit over 5 amps, dissipating 250 Watts in the load! (And stressing the Q1 mosfet on its tiny heatsink as used in the original setup for the "papers".) The average power dissipated at the load is dominated by this high power during the ON portion--not shown in the scopeshot at all. Since we don't know the duty cycle used, we can't compute the average power at the load, but it is likely to be in the range of 100 Watts, mostly coming through the single Q1 mosfet.

This Q1 ON portion of the total signal is NOT SHOWN on the Figure 8 scopeshot, since it does not show a complete cycle. The scopeshot is a selective bit of data, falsely put up to misrepresent the true behaviour of the system.

Note that she admits that the transistors are stressed by this setting. How do you think she found that out... I don't wonder. But they are not stressed by the voltage... I have used 830s here with the same effect as with PG50s... but rather by the current, and the power dissipation in the mosfet itself that is caused by its carrying 5+ amps. The Rdss of the PG50 is 2 ohms, so at a current of 5 amps the mosfet itself is dissipating 50 Watts... which it won't do for long, on that miserable tiny heatsink. The solder will melt and the wires will come off the pins! (Electronic solder melts at 190C but the PG50 mosfet doesn't fail until well over 200 C.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 25, 2014, 10:19:06 PM
For those who want more from their AC than their DC:
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 10:46:05 PM
For those who want more from their AC than their DC:

uh-oh... straight lines in a log-log graph... I can already see the tears starting to flow....


As an aside, psychological research has actually shown that there is a large subset of the population that can't actually interpret graphically presented data. This appears not to be a matter of learning or experience, according to the researchers, but is actually some difference in the way visual information is processed. I find this last bit a little hard to believe, but the first bit is certainly true. We've certainly seen how hard it is for some people to interpret scope traces, without the numbers in boxes, and the few graphs of data in Ainslie's daft manuscripts are incorrectly presented, like Figure 2 in the first manuscript, which has the Dependent Variable (temperature over ambient) along the abscissa and the Independent Variable (supplied power) along the ordinate, backwards from conventional data graphing. Ainslie's display gives the viewer a completely different impression of the data than would a correctly presented graph.

Reference:
Tufte, ER (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Pretty much the whole book.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 12:13:57 AM
uh-oh... straight lines in a log-log graph... I can already see the tears starting to flow....


As an aside, psychological research has actually shown that there is a large subset of the population that can't actually interpret graphically presented data. This appears not to be a matter of learning or experience, according to the researchers, but is actually some difference in the way visual information is processed. I find this last bit a little hard to believe, but the first bit is certainly true. We've certainly seen how hard it is for some people to interpret scope traces, without the numbers in boxes, and the few graphs of data in Ainslie's daft manuscripts are incorrectly presented, like Figure 2 in the first manuscript, which has the Dependent Variable (temperature over ambient) along the abscissa and the Independent Variable (supplied power) along the ordinate, backwards from conventional data graphing. Ainslie's display gives the viewer a completely different impression of the data than would a correctly presented graph.

Reference:
Tufte, ER (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Pretty much the whole book.
One way to overcome intuitive interpretation is to use direct interpretation:  One can simply find dependent results for particular independent input values.  If for example one had a 0.2uH inductor, a known input voltage of 400Vac, and a measured voltage of 4Vac, one would see that ratio is 1/100.  One could then go to the Y axis and find 1/100 as an approximation and then see that low and behold that corresponds to w=R/100L.  Knowing that F is 2.4MHz, and that w=2piF ~15E6, one could estimate that R ~500 Ohms.  Could someone then further use this dark alchemy to estimate the true current?????  Could it be that the current would be a close approximation to:  Ipp = Vpp/jwL????  How much is 4V/5Ohms?????  Is it 14A as Ms. Ainslie insists?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 12:49:59 AM
Sure.... but that requires being able to read data from a graph, something that about 1/4 of the population just can't seem to do. Ainslie has never demonstrated any ability actually to read scope traces, which are of course simple plots of voltage (the DV on the ordinate axis) against time (the IV on the abscissa). Any guesses as to whether Ainslie falls in that 1/4, or in the other 3/4 that can?

Now, please don't berate me for mocking someone who is "disabled" in that manner. After all, nobody but her chose her to play in a field where reading graphical data was important. I don't do too much ballet dancing, myself, because I just can't do it. But if I tried to do a grand-plié anyway, and fell on my face in public, I'd think that mockery was pretty appropriate, wouldn't you?
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 01:13:59 AM
History indicates that it is very unlikely that Ms. Ainslie is going to come around to reality.  She is highly vested in her false beliefs.  She has made the mistake of making them a personal issue.  Admitting reality would mean eating all her attacks on the various professors and skeptics she has rabidly attacked.  She has made it so that a graceful exit would be extremely difficult to manage.  What would she say to any of the professors: 

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


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


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

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

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


(What's wrong with ignorance? Nothing, per se. I myself, believe it or not, am ignorant of many things. (Now watch the trolls latch onto that one.)
The difference between me and Ainslie, though, is that I recognize my ignorance and I do not engage in fields where I am ignorant, before I mitigate that ignorance with a Little study, if at all. You won't find me telling motherboard designers how to route their traces, for example, and I'm not about to tell NASA how to launch rockets. Ainslie, however, is not deterred by her ignorance: it is willfull and she does nothing to remedy it, except to play lip service to people like Poynt99 and SWeir who try to relieve it. She happily engages power supply designers and mosfet manufacturers to tell them their subject, even though she doesn't even know where PI comes from or why it equals 3.14 (approximately). It is here where ignorance, defended by ego, becomes an unforgivable failing.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 04:49:14 AM
I am getting SICK AND TIRED of your LIES about me, Ainslie, troll queen.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The rest of your stupid vapid post is not even worth addressing because it has already been debunked over and over, even by YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 05:37:54 AM
The current crop of Ms. Ainslie's misconceptions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) That the heating element temperature rise over ambient was not stable.
The August 11 video shows that the temperature readings were stable.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 06:02:47 AM
You've listed a lot of them but there are even more. But never mind, I'm completely disgusted with that baldfaced liar at this point. One cannot trust ANYTHING that comes from her unless it can be verified independently. Is the Figure 8 text "20 ms" really referring to the period of 20 milliseconds, or is it another of Ainslie's "typos" caused by her ignorance of common abbreviations, and did she really  "mean" to say 20 microseconds instead? Who knows? We weren't there to confirm the settings, so it is literally impossible to trust even the description of the scopeshot.

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

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

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

At the end of the Ainslie demo clips I have added a few of my own that treat some of the issues raised in the demonstration.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 06:38:26 AM
When someone has magical beliefs it can be very difficult to devise tests.  In the latest bit of pretzel logic, Ms. Ainslie objects to your proposal to disconnect the Q2 source pin as a way of testing whether current goes through the function generator during the "Q1 Off" times or not. 

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



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: SeaMonkey on February 26, 2014, 07:31:13 AM
This thread/discussion/rampage has become a
humorous near perpetual motion/emotion display
of the secrets of free energy. :o

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

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

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

 :)




Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: Pirate88179 on February 26, 2014, 07:33:50 AM
Her intellect is challenged alright.  Good word for it and it is her word from her own post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What utter NONSENSE her last post is!

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


Ainslie, child, you should be spanked hard and sent to your room without dinner, and you should be grounded for at least a month.
Take away your cellphone and internet until you GROW UP and learn to respect your betters.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 11:59:12 AM
GRE? Yes, I will take a moment to boast.

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

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

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

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 12:53:46 PM
My internet is glacially slow this morning, but in half an hour or so the new video should be viewable.
http://youtu.be/RTTA80T0BU4 (http://youtu.be/RTTA80T0BU4)

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

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 01:00:30 PM
Her intellect is challenged alright.  Good word for it and it is her word from her own post.

Bill

Intellect? That is a term that doesn't apply to Rosemary Ainslie. She has a big vocabulary, and a mass of delusions, and a vile evil disposition, but no intellect, no honesty, no education, no skills, nothing like that at all.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 01:22:40 PM
She just cannot stop being an idiot. Might as well expect a leopard to change its spots.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Do you want more? Find them yourself, then, Rosemary Idiot Ainslie. Or better yet... find a SINGLE VALID REFERENCE that agrees with YOU, for a change. You cannot -- because you are utterly, abjectly and transparently WRONG.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 01:36:55 PM
When someone has magical beliefs it can be very difficult to devise tests.  In the latest bit of pretzel logic, Ms. Ainslie objects to your proposal to disconnect the Q2 source pin as a way of testing whether current goes through the function generator during the "Q1 Off" times or not. 

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

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

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

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

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

I can't wait to see what nonsense and insults she'll spew after this. Tangled up in her own web of calumny, that troll queen is.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 04:49:02 PM
My internet is glacially slow this morning, but in half an hour or so the new video should be viewable.
http://youtu.be/RTTA80T0BU4 (http://youtu.be/RTTA80T0BU4)

I'm pretty irate during this video, I sound like I'm about to pop my clutch; I'm still seething at the idiocy of the insulting disrespectful troll queen liar Rosemary Ainslie. Donovan Martin, or somebody, needs to rein in that woman, explain things to her in terms she might be capable of understanding. What's a single syllable word for "oscilloscope" I wonder?
The technical aspects of the demonstration are very good:  Q1 is irrelevant to the oscillations.  IE Q1 is not in the oscillation current path.  Ms. Ainslie's hypothesis that Q2 must remain connected so that it can somehow "override" the gate signal on Q1 and Q1 carry the oscillating current is falsified by the first part of your demonstration.  The second part of the demonstration establishes that Q2 must be connected in order to get the oscillations. 

The one thing that was not included in the demonstration that would be useful is to show the relative AC currents:  Q2 source leg to the function generator red lead, function generator black lead to battery common, and the Q2 gate lead to the current sense resistor.  A crude current sense can be made by winding an air core coil.  Even better if you can shield the coil with a can or copper tape so long as you leave gaps so that you don't end up with a single turn short.  You would then need to use clip leads or do soldering for successive tests in order to thread the test lead that you are interested in through the coil.

The visible upset while understandable is a distraction.  Ms. Ainslie is unlikely to apologize.  She is far more likely to come up with some other magical thinking based rationale for why she will not accept your clear and convincing demonstration.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 07:16:22 PM
Let her come up with whatever she likes. Whatever it is, it won't be truthful, respectful or accurate. I'm not doing that stupid, recalcitrant, lying hypocritical senile child's homework any longer. She can take her delusional claims, her outrageous lies and her insane trolling insults and stuff them up her kitchen pantry. She's an insignificant internet troll and stalker, a bully of the first water who has been banned more times and from more websites than anyone else I know about, a miserable execrable excuse for a dried up old woman. Her inability to think rationally, her endlessly repeated lies, her ridiculous stupidity and lack of understanding, her boasting willfull ignorance, her child's hopelessly silly "arithmetic", her lying fabrications of data, her calumnies and slanders are evident for all to see. She has been demolished by her own petard of ignorance and idiocy, and the record which she ignores won't go away because of her ignorance of it. On the contrary.... her own videos of the lying March 2011 demonstration where she made Donovan Martin lie for her, and the two amateurish incompetent 2013 demonstrations are public knowledge, and Ainslie and Donovan Martin have ZERO credibility because of those utterly miserable, disrespectful presentations and her subsequent squawkings. Her chances of making any kind of impact or garnering any real interest are identically zero, not only because of my work but mostly because of her own hopelessly incompetent flailings and floppings, which I have preserved for the record. This latest bit of hypocritical contradictory waffling and ingorant deluded hand-waving was too easy to put down, like some poor demented sick puppy; it took far more time to process the video than it did to set it up and make it in the first place. Her delusions of grandeur, shouted from the depths of her intellectual poverty and her lies, are all the more ridiculous because of it. The vile and stinking mud she slings falls back upon her in the deep pit she has dug for herself. Let her rot in it. And rot she will.

The great team of Donovan Martin and Rosemary Ainslie cannot even read a frequency from a digital oscilloscope, even though it is PERMANENTLY DISPLAYED ON EVERY SCREEN FOR THEM. Why have I been wasting my time on that steaming and stinking pile of rotten red herring excrement that she tries to foist off as "experimentation"? Because it's slightly more entertaining than watching diseased rats drowning in a bucket of vinegar, I guess.

I do have a couple of actual current-sense transformers, but why should I bother to dig them out and set up Yet Another Little debunking experiment? Anyone who falls for Ainslie's lies and tries to repeat what she has kludged together in her and her "team's" incompetence will very quickly find out for themselves, just as GMeast did with the 555 timer of the Q17 circuit, that her claims are false and that she is unreliable, inaccurate, incompetent and insufferable. And it will serve them right for ignoring the information that is already extant. Let them waste their own time, I have better things to do.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 07:28:51 PM
I think there is a slight error in the illustration of the traces to be expected from the first schematic in the latest issue of the "for dummies" series. The trace doesn't show any elevation during the Q1 ON times, but does show sufficient gate signal to turn it on. Since the current sense probe in that sketch is connected, if not as they actually used it, at least across the CSR, there should be some current shown on the scopetrace during the Q1, load-heating, ON portion of the signal.
The fact that for the Figure 3 and other shots she published there was no current measured, was the clue that Ainslie's probe was placed as you show in the second schematic. (Some other explanations also could account for the improper measurement as well.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 07:57:44 PM
We will see what she tries to come up with.  Something that you didn't mention in the video narrative was the low level at the function generator output.  When you cut the source lead of Q2, Q2 no longer drove current through the function generator's output impedance, and the function generator output voltage dropped to ~-10V, and of course without any oscillation.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 08:51:07 PM
I think there is a slight error in the illustration of the traces to be expected from the first schematic in the latest issue of the "for dummies" series. The trace doesn't show any elevation during the Q1 ON times, but does show sufficient gate signal to turn it on. Since the current sense probe in that sketch is connected, if not as they actually used it, at least across the CSR, there should be some current shown on the scopetrace during the Q1, load-heating, ON portion of the signal.
The fact that for the Figure 3 and other shots she published there was no current measured, was the clue that Ainslie's probe was placed as you show in the second schematic. (Some other explanations also could account for the improper measurement as well.)
You are correct that the upper left hand figure shows physically unreasonable results.  Those are the physically unreasonable results Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators reported in Paper 1.  The adjoining figure shows the actual connections used as demonstrated June 29, 2013.  There it is obvious as to why they did not see measurable voltage on CH1 during the "Q1 On" times:  The voltage across their wiring was only about ~18mV.  Something that befuddles Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators is why they still saw the large voltage swings during the "Q1 Off" times.  During the June 29 video, Steve Weir asked them to intentionally connect the CH1 probe to the circuit common side of the current sense resistors.  Watch the comedy as Donovan Martin spent minutes connecting and disconnecting and fiddling with the oscilloscope controls.  He did not expect to see a signal that was essentially unchanged during the "Q1 Off" periods independent of which side of the current sense resistor he probed.  Team Ainslie may refer themselves to "High Pass Filters for Dummies" and "Current Measurement for Dummies" to understand why they saw what they did.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 09:39:26 PM
We will see what she tries to come up with.  Something that you didn't mention in the video narrative was the low level at the function generator output.  When you cut the source lead of Q2, Q2 no longer drove current through the function generator's output impedance, and the function generator output voltage dropped to ~-10V, and of course without any oscillation.
Yes, that's right. It is evident on the scope screen but I didn't specifically mention it in that video.

However I did explore that issue recently in one or more of the videos in the Negative Bias playlist, iirc, where I show the open circuit voltage output of the FG before connecting it to the circuit, and then the loaded output after connection.

I also demonstrated, as did Ainslie herself under Steve's guidance, that the negative voltage setting of the FG controls the amplitude of the oscillations by varying the current supplied by the FG itself, and that the _scope trace_ of the FG output in this condition never goes below about -4 V with "fuzz", no matter the settings of the FG offset and amplitude, when the Q2 is present.
This was also covered much earlier when I showed that a simple 9v battery, in lieu of the FG, is all that is needed to make high amplitude Q2 oscillations constantly, for as long as the battery lasts, without any necessity for any Q1 in the circuit at all.

Of course this does not produce high heat in the load; Ainslie knows that high load heat requires Q1 ON times in order to be present.

Quote
You are correct that the upper left hand figure shows physically unreasonable results.  Those are the physically unreasonable results Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators reported in Paper 1.
Yes, that's right, but there are also some legitimate, apparently valid shots in the daft manuscripts that do show substantial current in the Q1 ON  segments, and they were obtained with that Figure 1 schematic (although they always used the FG Black lead location shown in the second schematic on the Dummies cover.) The  Figure 3 shot and the others which show sufficient gate drive but no current in Q1 were likely obtained with the hookup in that second schematic, although there are other possible explanations as well, like simply not hooking up the probe at all, or the solder melting and allowing one or more of the wires to come off the Q1 pins. That Q1 gets _hot_ when it is fully ON for any appreciable length of time, as I have illustrated in the rather long "test to destruction" demonstration. I was surprised to see the mosfet temperature go to something like 220 degrees C before the thing failed; in my test I used my ordinary Molex socket, I didn't think to solder the leads instead (electronic solder melts at 190 C, roughly), so my test mosfet didn't become disconnected, but it is perfectly plausible that Ainslie's might have melted the solder before the mosfet actually failed, thus preserving the transistor but still making the circuit act like the mosfet was blown or missing. Of course this loose wire must have been reconnected (if this explanation is true)  for the subsequent tests which do appear to show valid data. The only way to discriminate between these explanations is to look at the heating of the load. Of course with the disconnected Q1 the load will not heat substantially, but with the simple probe misconnection it will. The scopetraces will be the same in both cases, but in the disconnect case, the battery will indeed not be discharging and the load not heating, whereas in the misplaced probe case, the battery will discharge normally and high heat in the load may be produced without any _indicated_ current. Unfortunately we cannot trust Ainslie's reports so I can't discriminate between the two conditions ... there is really no telling which fault is responsible for the traces, although I acknowledge that the misconnected probe is the most likely explanation for the data seen.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 26, 2014, 09:45:28 PM
Yes, that's right. It is evident on the scope screen but I didn't specifically mention it in that video.

However I did explore that issue recently in one or more of the videos in the Negative Bias playlist, iirc, where I show the open circuit voltage output of the FG before connecting it to the circuit, and then the loaded output after connection.

I also demonstrated, as did Ainslie herself under Steve's guidance, that the negative voltage setting of the FG controls the amplitude of the oscillations by varying the current supplied by the FG itself, and that the _scope trace_ of the FG output in this condition never goes below about -4 V with "fuzz", no matter the settings of the FG offset and amplitude, when the Q2 is present.
This was also covered much earlier when I showed that a simple 9v battery, in lieu of the FG, is all that is needed to make high amplitude Q2 oscillations constantly, for as long as the battery lasts, without any necessity for any Q1 in the circuit at all.

Of course this does not produce high heat in the load; Ainslie knows that high load heat requires Q1 ON times in order to be present.
I do not assume that because Ms. Ainslie has been shown something even if she acknowledges it that she then knows that something. 
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 09:57:17 PM
I do not assume that because Ms. Ainslie has been shown something even if she acknowledges it that she then knows that something.

Ah... touché.

LOL.....
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 26, 2014, 10:11:52 PM
I know at this point that Ainslie really doesn't know how to read the simplest schematics, but I'm putting this out anyway, just to emphasize the ridiculousness of her "explanation" that the oscillations cannot occur unless the source of Q2 is connected to the Gate of Q1.

(Hey Ainslie... so you are admitting you were utterly and foolishly WRONG when you said that the Q2s are DISCONNECTED during the oscillations, because now you are claiming that they need to be CONNECTED to the Q1 after all. But even that is WRONG.... as is usual for the things you say. Don't worry, nobody really expects your apology, we will just add this to the burgeoning database that shows you cannot back up your claims and you don't have the integrity to withdraw them. You are "afflicted with sad knowledge" all right -- "knowledge" that is utterly false and a result only of your ignorance, arrogance, and delusions.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 06:05:26 AM
Can't refute a demonstration that demolishes your ideas?  Don't fret.  Just claim that the circuit used in the demonstration is wired wrong.  Never mind that the videographer placed the circuit right on top of an enlarged schematic.  Never mind that the demonstrator color coded the wires.  Just pretend that you can't follow six color coded leads.  Then declare you can't be bothered to watch the video because of your incorrect claims that the circuit it demonstrates is wrong.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 06:26:14 AM
Thanks for catching that one.

And now it is clear why we take images of posts. She has evidently removed that bit of nonsense and insult and has substituted the post imaged below.

Yet even in that,  she is STILL WRONG.... because she has posted many many incorrect replies, not just one. In fact, as I have noted before, by FAR the majority of Ainslie's posts contain errors, lies, deliberate misrepresentations and insults, and this has been true for as long as I have been reading her posts and most certainly longer.


Note also the oft-repeated lie about Glen's (FuzzyTomCat's) data... every bit of which is preserved in his PUBLIC database which has been linked to many times. Note that in that database, the waveforms Glen produced and were endorsed by Ainslie are NOTHING LIKE what she could have produced with the Quantum apparatus... UNTIL they altered it sometime after 2007 to conform to GLEN's frequency and duty cycle range. Note that she didn't even watch the entire nine minute video -- demonstrating her lack of attention span. Note that she is still making false claims and is still revealing her arrogant willfull ignorance for all to see.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 07:08:10 AM
I sure wish Ainslie would post some kind of evidence, like links, for her claims about me. For example, I've been searching for this "humping a mosfet" video that she has mentioned several times as being the only one of my videos she has ever paid attention to. I do recall using some stuffed toys at times but they generally hump each other, not mosfets. It would be very amusing to see one "humping" her claims, indeed. That's about what they deserve, after all.

But while I was looking for that one, I came across this one, from the spring of 2012, when my understanding of the circuit operation was still rather primitive. However it may be relevant to the present...er... discussion, as I used optoisolators to prevent a current path through the FG while still allowing it to provide clock pulses to the circuit. The video is a Little long and it was made before I changed to a better video transcoder, so I apologise for the degraded image quality, but it is still very clear what is happening. The optoisolators prevent the current path _through the FG_ while still passing the signal itself to the circuit. The negative bias voltage is now provided by the 9V battery on the circuit side of the optos, but since there is _no_ current path back to the main battery negative through the FG, there are _no_ oscillations. This is way different from the case where the 9v battery is used, without the FG, and is placed in series with the negative pole of the main battery-- in that case there "is" a return path.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC4IZA_In68 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC4IZA_In68)

At the end of the video I express my puzzlement at what comes up but now I do understand: at the lowest offset setting both Q1 and Q2 mosfets are turning fully on, they are switching but when one goes off the other comes on so the current isn't interrupted at the switchpoints due to the turnoff delay inherent in the mosfets, so the common drain trace stays at the near-zero voltage level and the current to the load is quite high

(I made an error in the narration describing the load resistors; the correct description of them is in the Description of the video. They total to 60 W power handling capacity, but they are submerged in a mass of mineral oil so they will be able to handle quite a bit more than that.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 07:09:52 AM
She really put her foot in a bear trap with that post where she claimed that you miswired the circuit.  Now she gets to figure out what to do.  She should know by now or figure out fairly quickly that you wired the circuit exactly according to the schematic shown.  It is up to her to gather the stomach to watch the video decimate her recent claims.  She can rise to the occasion or be bowled over by it.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 07:33:13 AM
She really put her foot in a bear trap with that post where she claimed that you miswired the circuit.  Now she gets to figure out what to do.  She should know by now or figure out fairly quickly that you wired the circuit exactly according to the schematic shown.  It is up to her to gather the stomach to watch the video decimate her recent claims.  She can rise to the occasion or be bowled over by it.

If she had any sense, she'd watch the Negative Bias playlist videos, get her ten-year-old neighbor child to explain them to her, and then she'd slink off into the sunset with her tail tucked between her legs.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 07:42:10 AM
If she had any sense, she'd watch the Negative Bias playlist videos, get her ten-year-old neighbor child to explain them to her, and then she'd slink off into the sunset with her tail tucked between her legs.
One of several possibilities is that reality is beginning to sneak past her mental defenses.    My guess would be that long before she would ever even consider conceding a point to you she will seek the opinion of  someone she trusts.  I imagine Donovan Martin is one of those people.  She might also trust whoever else she might have working on her experiments.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 07:55:09 AM
That's something I've been urging her to do for a long time. A really long time. Unfortunately the only person she seems to trust, and who actually has the prerequisite knowledge, is Steve Weir, and I'm sure he has better things to do than to conduct remedial highschool physics and maths tutoring. She doesn't even respect Poynt99 enough to stop arguing with him and pay attention.
Donovan Martin... does not inspire confidence, but at least he seems capable of connected thought.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 01:22:18 PM
The more I think about it, the more I think that someone else must have already gotten to Ainslie and explained things to her, at least about the wiring in that last video. I just can't imagine her going back over something she has already pontificated upon, to check her work.

By this time of day she has usually made one of her breakfast-sherry rants.... but she's still silent, maybe she's run out. That won't last though; somebody is sure to bring her another bottle.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 04:41:52 PM
Look at her squirm and lie! The amazing output of the lying troll queen continues apace.

She accuses me of using a stored waveform.... ON AN ANALOG SCOPE. What an idiot she is.

(Actually... I do have that capability in my lab, since I have another "garage sale" bit of kit, the Epic Instruments WaveSaver, but I do not use it except very rarely, and of course I am not using it in the video demonstration, nor have I ever used it for any video demos. Ainslie simply cannot grasp that she is, and has been, and will continue to be, obliviously WRONG about the operation of the circuit.)

And notice the continued lie about where she had the Black lead of the FG. They NEVER NEVER placed the Black lead anywhere but at the COMMON GROUND POINT, the battery side of the "shunt" until the August 11 demonstration where they had to use a groundlift system to do so. What an abject liar and fool she is! As we have repeatedly shown, the schematics given in the daft manuscripts are lies, because until August 11, 2013, Ainslie's Black FG lead was ALWAYS placed at the common ground, the WRONG side of the CVR. Just as I emphasize in the video, this is not the correct location but it IS the location that Ainslie ALWAYS used until the August 11 demonstration.

What an abject liar and fool she is.


Keep it up, AINS-LIE. Continue to lie, and make your insulting trollings, you are just digging yourself a deeper pit in which to rot.

Or you could get up off your scrawny duff and try the simple experiment for yourself, before you start shooting off your lying mouth.

EVERY BIT OF MY WORK IS FULLY DOCUMENTED AND REPEATABLE BY ANYONE who has the equipment. Trying to reproduce your lying claims always fails, though.

She still hasn't watched the NEGATIVE BIAS PLAYLIST where it is FULLY EXPLAINED STEP BY TINY STEP how a mosfet is turned ON by LOWERING THE VOLTAGE SUPPLIED TO THE SOURCE PIN while the GATE IS GROUNDED, the common gate amplifier configuration. This has been explained to her over and over again, by at least four different people, and I've demonstrated it over and over again in many videos... but since it falsifies her "thesis" she cannot even grasp that it could be true.

I have never encountered such an idiotic claimant. It truly boggles the mind. She is totally and completely unreachable.  She simply lies to herself and to everybody else when she is confronted with information that falsifies her claims, and she cannot ever provide any support in favor of her claims. None of which deters her from stuffing her foot deeper and deeper down her own throat.

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 04:58:29 PM
Here, AINS-LIE, see if you can get your cook to explain THIS video to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rgB3WlXtU

Once you've managed to get that down your lying Little throat, you can go on to the other videos in that same playlist for the complete explanation of "YOUR" circuit's oscillation operation.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: synchro1 on February 27, 2014, 05:13:10 PM
Mercy!
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 05:29:54 PM
Mercy!

Mercy?

I give no quarter, nor do I ask for one.

Below see the schematic from one of the AINS-LIE mob's rejected submissions to an IEEE journal, and the block diagram from another. These are AINSLIE'S OWN DIAGRAMS. Note that in both of them, the FG Black lead or the "timer components" negative lead is connected to the BATTERY SIDE of the current-sense "shunt".

As I have said before, the schematics in the daft manuscripts, and Ainslie's claims re the Black FG lead in her present flailings,  are lies, because they ALWAYS used the hookups shown here and above, until the August 11, 2013 demonstration.

Ainslie's stupid references to the FG's outputs as "probe" and "terminal" are part of her confusion. There is a Black or shield/ground lead, and a Red or signal lead, and either of these can be positive or negative voltages; however in _most_ but not all FGs, the Black shield lead is connected to the chassis ground and back to the Earth ground by the line cord of the instrument, and of course to all other instrument grounds and chassis by the hookup to the common circuit probe ground point. This is why the Black lead and the FG itself must be _isolated_ if proper current measurements are to be made. When I reproduce Ainslie's errors, I also use the same hookups she used. When I try to find the ACTUAL currents, I place probes properly and I isolate the F43 FG... easy to do with a simple switch on that unit, no "groundlift adapter" or cutting of power cord pins is necessary with my "garage sale" equipment.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 05:42:05 PM
In the run-up to the first 2013 demonstration which finally happened on June 29, she sent some photos to Sterling at  PESN. Here is the shot that shows the Black FG lead connected.... to the Common Circuit Ground, the BATTERY SIDE of the current-sense "shunt".

Always, until the August 11 demo, they used this incorrect connection. IN EVERY PHOTO, EVERY SCHEMATIC, EVERY DIAGRAM _except_ the mendacious daft manuscripts, the Black FG lead is located as you see. And the "correct" location depicted in the daft manuscripts... did not appear until _after_ it was pointed out to her that the connection they actually used enables the FG current to bypass the current-sense "shunt". The schematics in the manuscripts are conscious fabrications, outright lies.



Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 06:00:45 PM
Well what's really funny is that during the August 11 demonstration, one can hear Ms. Ainslie objecting when Donovan Martin connected the function generator black lead to the Q1 source side of the current sense resistors.  During the June 29 demonstration when Steve was troubleshooting their problems, Donovan Martin disclosed, and it was visible in the video that the function generator black lead was connected to the circuit common and not the Q1 source side of the current sense resistors as in Paper 1, Fig. 1.  The August 11, video is inconveniently not accessible on her web site at the moment.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 06:02:27 PM
Here's a screenshot from the miserable June 29, 2013 demonstration, showing the Black FG lead.... at the common circuit ground, on the battery side of the current-sense "shunt".

So how many different proofs are there that the lying Ainslie ALWAYS used this connection? Count them.


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 06:12:32 PM
Well what's really funny is that during the August 11 demonstration, one can hear Ms. Ainslie objecting when Donovan Martin connected the function generator black lead to the Q1 source side of the current sense resistors.  During the June 29 demonstration when Steve was troubleshooting their problems, Donovan Martin disclosed, and it was visible in the video that the function generator black lead was connected to the circuit common and not the Q1 source side of the current sense resistors as in Paper 1, Fig. 1.  The August 11, video is inconveniently not accessible on her web site at the moment.
Yes, suppressing data is another Ainslie hallmark. You won't find her March 2011 video either, except on my channel. I've got the whole August demo video but it's not completely uploaded to my channel, just a couple of excerpts.

But by 23:24 in the August 11 video, the Black FG lead is connected correctly on the transistor side of the csr and Steve is heard to confirm this.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 06:14:35 PM
She's really going out of her way to make herself into a complete fool.  Obviously she does not realize it, but she's got herself so tangled up that she actually makes a number of your points for you.  She notes that I asked for the Q1 disconnection test.  And that test performed just as you and I both knew it would:  The oscillations persist unabated without Q1.  Ergo Ms. Ainslie's hypothesis that Q1 carries the oscillating load current during the "Q1 Off" times was falsified by that test.

Then she went on to howl about how this showed exactly what everyone has told her for years:  The current that flows through Q2's source terminal flows through the red lead of the function generator and then out the black lead of the generator.  She specifically measured that during the August 11 demonstration.  Is it a coincidence that in the ten hours it took her to formulate a new response, that the August 11 video became unavailable?

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on February 27, 2014, 08:52:27 PM
Yes, suppressing data is another Ainslie hallmark. You won't find her March 2011 video either, except on my channel. I've got the whole August demo video but it's not completely uploaded to my channel, just a couple of excerpts.

But by 23:24 in the August 11 video, the Black FG lead is connected correctly on the transistor side of the csr and Steve is heard to confirm this.
Steve wrote up a detailed test protocol.  You can see Donovan Martin holding a print copy of it as he worked his way through the demonstration.  Mr. Martin was at least trying.  near the beginning of the demonstration, Mr. Martin shows that they had disconnected the function generator green safety lead from the mains plug, so as to float the generator, thus making it possible to connect the function generator black lead on the Q1 source side of the CSRs while the oscilloscope black lead connections still connected to earth through the oscilloscope frame and green mains safety wire were connected to the circuit common without creating a ground loop.  BTW, I think that lifting the function generator green safety wire was Poynt99's suggestion.

It is pretty comical that Ms. Ainslie accuses you of misrepresentations even as she has now pulled both the June 29, and August 11 demonstration videos.  That makes three demonstrations, and three videos that Ms. Ainslie has pulled.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 27, 2014, 09:33:22 PM
Let her pull them, it makes no difference to the record. It just shows how LITTLE regard she has for the truth, yet again.

Here's the March 2011 demonstration in full:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k

Here's the June 29, 2013 demonstration, broken down into LITTLE excerpts, with most of the dead air cut out. See what happens, Ainslie, when you relinquish control?
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q

I'll upload the full August 11 demonstration a LITTLE later on, I've got something else in the pipeline at the moment.

See below, for the schematic of my next LITTLE demonstration:


Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 28, 2014, 12:11:19 AM
You know me... if I see something on YouTube or in a forum post that I don't believe is true, and if I have the tools and equipment and parts handy, I'll build it and test it myself to see if what is claimed is true, or in an attempt to find the claimant's errors so that I can help the claimant out.

What does the Great Scientist Ainslie do? She accuses me of cheating by displaying a stored waveform on a 40 year old analog oscilloscope, she accuses me of not making measurements then a paragraph later she accuses me of making accurate measurements of something other than what is clearly shown hardwired on top of her own schematic. When it would take an actual twelve-year-old child less than half an hour, borrowing Daddys' scope and mosfets, to set up and run the experiment for herself, to SEE FOR HERSELF if what is being presented is true and correct.

Of course that requires some skills, some intelligence and some ability to solve problems.... like which pin of a mosfet is which, and what color "Yellow" is.

Meanwhile, I see that it was a real Little mistake for me to believe that Ainslie could follow _her own schematic_, so I made a much simpler demonstration using the schematic posted above, to show just how the mosfet is actually turning on.  I have asked Ainslie to take a Little 3 question "pop quiz".... maybe the first one she has encountered in all her life...

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

Hey ROSEMARY AINSLIE:

POP QUIZ 1: WHAT MAKES THE LIGHTBULB LIGHT UP SO VERY BRIGHTLY?   Think about it, if you can.

Hint: The 9v battery and the 12v battery are placed in SERIES when the mosfet is ON. 

POP QUIZ 2: WHAT IS TURNING THE MOSFET ON?
Hint: what is the _difference_ in voltage between the Gate and the Source?

POP QUIZ 3: What happens when you REPLACE THE 9V BATTERY WITH A FUNCTION GENERATOR?
I know the answer. By this time, so should YOU.... but I'll bet you don't.

Bonus Question: What happens if you replace the 9v battery with a Function Generator, AND you replace the light bulb with your normal "element resistor"?

Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala on February 28, 2014, 01:26:41 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 (http://youtu.be/ld-LTPxmoQA)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE 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 (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."
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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 (http://youtu.be/kWpzpgNnzew)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE 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 (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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_gate)

Quote
In electronics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics), a common-gate amplifier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_amplifier) is one of three basic single-stage field-effect transistor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-effect_transistor) (FET) amplifier topologies, typically used as a current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current) buffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_amplifier) or voltage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage) amplifier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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 (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=ilT3LRF0hUA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWpzpgNnzew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWpzpgNnzew)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: MarkE on March 01, 2014, 03:14:01 AM
Wait just a minute:  Canon didn't make that camera in the 1970s.
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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.)
Title: Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
Post by: TinselKoala 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.