Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[TinselKoala]

That's what you think. Ainslie has shown over and over that she is willing to go far beyond any logical stopping point.

In the final analysis - as has been pointed out - IF there was any genuine and scientific interest in our claim - then FRANKLY - even a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy.

She claims to be talking to her "team"..... and now the idea of a blown mosfet has entered her claims. Just wait.... in a couple of days, she'll be claiming that they've discovered that having a blown mosfet at Q1 will be _necessary_ for the magic to occur.

Notice how she still claims "incontrovertible proof" of her bogosity. The "incontrovertible proof" she claims to have is the bogus calculation that we have shown here many times !! And she claims that she has qualified engineers on her team. Engineers that can't even tell her how HUGE a unit a Farad is.

(At least she finally figured out that "intact" is one word in English. But how is she going to do this miraculous feat? She has no clue.)

Is a "trillionth" the same thing as "two thousand six hundred trillionths"? If you put four mosfets in parallel you wind up with 10,400 trillionths of a Farad. Is that the same as a "trillionth"? Or is it actually ten point four nanoFarads? And what does the capacity of a capacitor have to do with how much power it can transfer anyway? Nothing at all. Look at my videos showing 200 and 400 trillionths of a Farad passing the power from a flyback transformer. Look at my videos showing a 10,000 pF capacitor... chosen why?..... passing the signal and power from my Function Generator at 1.5 MHz like the cap was a straight piece of wire.
But she won't. Claim after claim of hers I've refuted in my videos, which she has promised to refute point by point but CANNOT. HEY AINSLIE ENGINEERS: you really should take a look at my videos which refute Ainslie's absurd and ignorant claims, and educate yourselves as to the true issues.

[picowatt]

Meanwhile - here's the consensus.  Our evidence is that we can generate EXTRAORDINARY gains from harvesting back, or counter electromotive force.  This advantage has been grossly overlooked.  And the evidence that we measure is absolutely NOT permissible under the strange and varied reasons that have been put forward by them.  From what was discussed - and I'm open to correction - but I believe that the capacitance in those MOSFETs is measured in the picofarad range.  Which is MINUTE.  One trillionth of a farad?  Is that right?  It's something like that.  Way too small to account for that rather robust oscillation - no matter WHAT is assumed to be amplification - and no matter how this is proposed to take place.  In the final analysis - as has been pointed out - IF there was any genuine and scientific interest in our claim - then FRANKLY - even a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy.  It should not be DISMISSED as reasons to also dismiss the claim.  And our claims PERSIST.  Especially as it relates to our claims detailed in Figure 3 PAPER 1.  We have the incontrovertible and repeated proof that there is MORE energy being returned to the battery supply than was EVER delivered.  AND - more to the point - we will show that our MOSFETs are INTACT after than demonstration.  And IF as is now being intimated - we are falsifying that data - then there are an AWFUL LOT OF US involved in this fraud.   That would be reckless INDEED.

The amount of capacitance in the IRFPG50 is not at all an insignificant amount.  This was discussed long ago.  Most high voltage MOSFET's have inherently large capacitances.  And though typically measured in picofarads, with regard to the IRFPG50 they are in the _thousands_ of picofarads.

The 4 Q2 MOSFETs in parallel have a combined Ciss that varies from 10,000pF to 28,000pF as the drain to source voltage varies.  That represents a very significant reactance at frequencies between 1 and 3MHz for current to flow thru.  This is why the bulk of the AC currents during the Q2 oscillations flow thru the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances, as the reactance of the MOSFET capacitances is typically much lower than the 50 ohms of the function generator at the oscillation frequency.  For example, at 1.5MHz, the reactance of the lower 10,000pF value is only 10.6 ohms. As well, the Ciss of Q1 is also in parallel with and must be added to the Q2 capacitances.  As the voltage at the drains of the MOSFET's approaches zero during the Q2 oscillations, the value of the combined MOSFET capacitances rapidly increases and can readily approach 30,000pF or more, which is no small amount.

As far as her now seeming to say that her circuit shows merit regardless of whether Q1 was functioning or not in FIG3, I attempted long ago to suggest that as an out.  I specifically stated that having Q1 not functioning in FIG3 might, in the end, prove serendipitous (and then she bit my head off for suggesting that, and all the love was lost...).  Had she repeated her tests back then, with and without Q1 installed, she would have known by now whether this was true or not.

Because Q1 was not functioning properly during the tests related to FIG3, retractions and/or corrections are in order.  If she truly believes in her technology, she would admit the error, repeat her tests, and collect new data.   

With regard to her negative power measurement, I am sure .99's upcoming replication will enlighten us even further than he already has on that subject.

PW   

 

[TinselKoala]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo
A video I posted nearly a year ago.

Note how many of Ainslie's claims and misconceptions are debunked in this video.

The function generator acts as a power source. She has claimed that is impossible.
The function generator can be placed in series with a battery and "pass current from its terminal to its probe from an external battery to a load." Again, impossible according to Ainslie.
The 10000 trillionths of a Farad capacitor... chosen because it approximates the value of some paralleled IRFPG50s.... passes current with only a small attenuation at 1.5 MHz. Ainslie calls this impossible.

And further: The functioning of the AC vs. DC coupling feature of oscilloscopes is explained and illustrated.

[TinselKoala]

PW said,

With regard to her negative power measurement, I am sure .99's upcoming replication will enlighten us even further than he already has on the subject.

I'm looking forward to hearing about .99's testing too, but I'm wondering why this measurement is still even an issue. Tar Baby reproduced it well over a year ago, the Altoid pocket demonstrator was specifically designed by .99 to reproduce it and it does so on demand, and both of them reproduce it when running solely on capacitors. (Which, by the way, demolishes Yet Another absurd assertion of Ainslie's: that there is something special about batteries that capacitors don't share. She hasn't explained why capacitors can make the IDENTICAL negative power measurement, but still not "work". Because when she's confronted by inconsistencies like that she just insults someone and repeats the same silly claims only louder.)

And if Ainslie tested her circuit using an appropriately sized capacitor bank she will find the identical negative power waveforms she's getting now, until the caps run down. The ONLY difference between capacitors and batteries in her circuit is that you cannot reasonably make a cap bank big enough to run for more than a few minutes. In the Ainslie circuit, caps run down, and batteries do too, and they do it at the same _current_, that is, charge per time.  There is no other difference, and I can prove it (and have already done so, in another video that she won't watch.) Ainslie claims there is a difference.... but can prove nothing.

[MileHigh]

I have to jump in to point this out.

Guess who:

Guys, I've spent an exhausting afternoon/evening in discussion with the team.  It is a source of continual comfort that I have them 'at my back' so to speak.  And more to the point - that I can count on their input when and as required.  For the record - we have a policy in place.  They do not engage in these forums.  They're professionals and - to a man - rely on their skills to earn their living.  It would be suicidal to those interests for any of them to come forward on these forums and enter into a discussion with the likes of picowat et al.  Their aggression is too untrammeled - too unprofessional and WAY TOO UNSCIENTIFIC to merit the risk of engagement.  They'd be 'sullied' by association.

Oh my God the sleaze factor is so gross.  How things can get so topsy-turvy in the creepy little world of Rosie Posie is beyond me.  I have seen her trash good skilled people over and over again.  It's simply disgusting.

Then we have a kind of concession juxtaposed with Club Wackadoo oozing more woo:

even a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy.

And this woman claims that she has a "team" behind her backing her up, "They're professionals and - to a man - rely on their skills to earn their living."

Well, I hope that they are reading here.  I hope over the next few weeks this nonsense gets swatted like a bug and never comes back.  I am so sick of it.

MileHigh

Quoting Genesis (the musical group):

There's something solid forming in the air,
The wall of death is lowered in Times Square.
No-one seems to care,
They carry on as if nothing was there.
The wind is blowing harder now,
Blowing dust into my eyes.
The dust settles on my skin,
Making a crust I cannot move in
And I'm hovering like a fly............. waiting for the windshield on the freeway.