Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[TinselKoala]

Now she's putting words into PicoWatt's mouth again. Another favourite tactic of the mendacious and willfully ignorant Ainslie: she doesn't understand a given explanation, so she makes up something that she thinks someone else said, then proceeds to twist and tangle and err along, sticking her feet further and further down her throat.

With every single post she makes, she reveals her abysmal ignorance. She does not understand the linear operation of mosfets. She thinks they are either fully ON or fully OFF and she doesn't understand that a gate signal that fluctuates around 4 volts or so will cause some conduction and will support oscillations in an amplifier that is feeding back. She does not understand how the Q2s are biased into the linear operation region or even that voltages are _relative_. Her only mental model of a mosfet is that it is a simple switch. In spite of demonstration after demonstration, explanation after explanation, she still fails to understand this simple fact. And she still believes that she can attain heat in the load without measurable current flow, even though her own data show otherwise.

How will Ainslie prove that her mosfets are "in tact" before and after the demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot, coming up in four days on June 22, live streaming over the net? She doesn't even understand _how_ they work, so how will she show that they do?

Why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? It is a vital part of the demonstration. After all, I've shown unequivocally how easy it is to make the Figure 3 scopeshot with a missing mosfet.... suppose I heat up some water, then allow the mosfet to overheat and fail. Then I show the oil temperature of my load, and show the cool (failed) mosfet and the scopeshot.... and stop there. What then? Should I write a paper? Or do I still need to demonstrate to you that my mosfet is still "in tact"? We know that I can demonstrate this in 30 seconds.... because I've shown how to do it in a video. Several times. But how is Ainslie going to do it? She doesn't know how! How can she demonstrate something she doesn't even believe in or understand ?

[poynt99]

.99,

When do you expect to have your replication of her circuit up and runnig?

It would be interesting to see if there is any observed difference in the clamping of the waveform at the CSR when Q1 is/is not in the circuit as in TK's video.  That may offer an additional clue as to whether Q1 is installed properly in her upcoming attempt to duplicate FIG3.

PW

I hope to have it running by Friday, if not sooner.

[picowatt]

Now she's putting words into PicoWatt's mouth again. Another favourite tactic of the mendacious and willfully ignorant Ainslie: she doesn't understand a given explanation, so she makes up something that she thinks someone else said, then proceeds to twist and tangle and err along, sticking her feet further and further down her throat.

With every single post she makes, she reveals her abysmal ignorance. She does not understand the linear operation of mosfets. She thinks they are either fully ON or fully OFF and she doesn't understand that a gate signal that fluctuates around 4 volts or so will cause some conduction and will support oscillations in an amplifier that is feeding back. She does not understand how the Q2s are biased into the linear operation region or even that voltages are _relative_. Her only mental model of a mosfet is that it is a simple switch. In spite of demonstration after demonstration, explanation after explanation, she still fails to understand this simple fact. And she still believes that she can attain heat in the load without measurable current flow, even though her own data show otherwise.

How will Ainslie prove that her mosfets are "in tact" before and after the demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot, coming up in four days on June 22, live streaming over the net? She doesn't even understand _how_ they work, so how will she show that they do?

Why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? It is a vital part of the demonstration. After all, I've shown unequivocally how easy it is to make the Figure 3 scopeshot with a missing mosfet.... suppose I heat up some water, then allow the mosfet to overheat and fail. Then I show the oil temperature of my load, and show the cool (failed) mosfet and the scopeshot.... and stop there. What then? Should I write a paper? Or do I still need to demonstrate to you that my mosfet is still "in tact"? We know that I can demonstrate this in 30 seconds.... because I've shown how to do it in a video. Several times. But how is Ainslie going to do it? She doesn't know how! How can she demonstrate something she doesn't even believe in or understand ?

TK,

I see she has bumped her demo to the 29th.

If any of the engineers she claims will be present at her upcoming demo read my response to her and then her interpretation of it, they will likely come up with an excuse to bow out.  I did not bother to read her entire response, but as far as I read the nonsense she was spewing, it is more than obvious that she has issues.  It is no wonder she cannot produce even one supporter willing to discuss her circuit intelligently.  Although she will cling to paranoid theories involving suppression or conspiracy, deep down inside, she must realize that everyone who was ever willing to look at her technology over the years has walked away, and that the only common denominator throughout was herself.

As for testing Q1 before and after, the only way she can duplicate FIG3, that is, apply the +12 volts she has now acknowledged as "fact" in FIG3 to the gate of Q1 and show that no current flows thru Q1 via the CSR, is to commit a Mylow.  Recall how he was willing to commit an outright fraud in an attempt to save his reputation or stay in the lime light.

She has painted herself into a corner regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3.  Had she actually listened to and learned from all the people that discussed her circuits with her over so many years, she would not be in the position she now finds herself.

Possibly .99 will have better luck getting thru, but I have my doubts.

PW

     



     

[TinselKoala]

Ah.... somehow I missed her announcement of her latest postponement. Remember, I predicted this.

Ok Guys,  We're getting there.  The broadcast links and whatever is required will be published on Wednesday - 17th June - here on this thread.  Sadly the test 'presenter' cannot make it for the afternoon of Saturday 22nd.  But he's firmed up on the date for Saturday 29th June.  We need to keep it to our afternoon - our time 4.pm which equates to 10 am East coast time... I think?  If this is wrong PLEASE get back to me.  My advices are that America East coast is running 6 hours behind us. 

Really? Wednesday, the 17th of June?

We will be showing Fig 3 from paper 1.  It should be a short 1 hour demo.  We will have at least 3 qualified engineers/physicists at that meeting - who are NOT related to our team.  Which means that there should be not less than 6 qualified engineers there.

Let's hope so. It will be interesting to see what they all have to say. Since Ainslie is so adamant about identities, of course they will be telling us their identities and academic/industrial affiliations. Otherwise, if they don't reveal their true identities, according to Ainslie, their opinions are worthless.

After that test we will then show that the transistors are still in tact.

HOW WILL THIS BE DONE? I have asked this question over and over and NOBODY seems to be able to tell me. It will take some time for Ainslie to remove her transistors for testing, before and after the Figure 1 scopeshot is attempted. Will this be included in the hour allotted for the demonstration?

Typically - because our 'trolls' are largely bereft of  principle - they are now demanding that we show them EVERY claim in our paper.  That is NOT going to happen because we intend doing those long tests under the supervision of a FAR more principled audience - being our academics.  For final proof we need to run those battery comparative analyses under their adjudication and guidance. 

That's a baldfaced lie. We are asking for the conditions claimed for the Figure 3 scopeshot to be reproduced. We already know that the rest of the claims, like batteries not discharging, are bogus!

The claims in the paper RELATING TO THE FIGURE 3 SCOPESHOT are as follows:
Six batteries supplying over 72 volts.
Small heatsink on Q1, as shown in all her photos of that apparatus.
A 160 second period with a 10 percent ON duty cycle, with the gate drive voltages as shown in the scopeshot. No fiddling! You set the apparatus and leave it alone until:
it brings  700-800 mL "water to boil".

And of course, demonstrating.... somehow.....  all "in tact" mosfets, before and after the scopeshot is made.

These are the conditions claimed in the paper for the Figure 3 scopeshot. Any deviation from these conditions will indicate Ainslie's failure and/or attempts to deceive.


But really, all this is moot, because there won't be any demonstration on the 29th of June either.

[TinselKoala]

Sadly the test 'presenter' cannot make it for the afternoon of Saturday 22nd.  But he's firmed up on the date for Saturday 29th June.

Can't Ainslie present her own work? Apparently not, since she doesn't understand basic electronics terminology or even how to operate her apparatus.

Will the test 'presenter' be the same person who 'presented' the last demonstration, from March of 2011? Where he lies to his audience over and over, twice during the first thirty seconds alone? (Gestures towards a diagram with a single mosfet and no "black" FG lead shown saying that this is the schematic, then claims that all five mosfets are in parallel....)

Ainslie has attempted to remove this lying video from the internet, to cover up the mendacity and ignorance it shows, along with the smoking gun of the use of only 4 batteries in the "high heat" second part of the demonstration..... a feature which has _never been explained_ by Ainslie, but which is clearly being done to avoid overheating and blowing the Q1 mosfet. In other words, Yet Another Lie is contained in the demo video and is perpetrated by its 'presenter'.
Ainslie has attempted to remove and suppress this mendacious video from the internet. But she has failed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k