Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[picowatt]

My task is to prove Fig 3 Paper 1 - which picowaT claims is IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS the transistor Q1 is BLOWN.  Or unless, of course, that his allegations of FRAUD and TRICKERY are supported by the evidence in that video.  Can't wait to show him.

Note once again she refuses to quote me correctly.  She again states that I claim that Q1 must be "BLOWN" in FIG3.

What I have actually stated over and over is that in FIG3, Q1 must be defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.

While it is possible that she may attempt something as simple as AC coupling a scope channel to produce a waveform display that only "appears" similar to FIG3, from her continued refusal to mention "disconnected" or "not connected as per the schematic" in quoting me, one might consider this to be an important clue as to how she might be planning to commit an act of deception in the upcoming live demo.

For example, it would be quite easy to swap the gate and source connections of Q1, as they run under the perfboard.  This would place that MOSFET in parallel with all the other Q2 MOSFET's, effectively removing Q1 from the circuit.  Alternately, one could sereptitiously leave Q1 disconnected by not stripping its connecting wires prior to their insertion into a crimp terminal or in some other hidden fashion.

Either way, Q1 would be "disconnected" or "not connected as per the schematic", and FIG3 could be readily duplicated and Q1 tested as not being "blown" afterwards.  Possibly, to her, it might only be a game of semantics, but to all others, it would be considered an outright act of deception.
 
As she has in the past demonstrated that she would rather be known as having committed an act of deceit than admit to an error, it is well within the realm of the possible that she would consider doing so in the upcoming live broadcast.

Were it not for her posting her March demo video to YouTube, .99 would not have been able to analyze still frames from that video and arrive at the correct schematic used during that demo.  When presented with the discoverd errors in her schematic, rather than admit to making an error, she preferred, instead, to admit that it was all an intentional act of deception.

Is it possible that her insistence on performing only a live broadcast is moreso related to .99's analysis of still frames from her March YouTube video than from her excuse that TK can somehow modify a YT video?

One can also appreciate why TK insists that she demonstrate the "high heat" mode, which requires Q1 to actually function as expected per the schematic and her FIG5, and why she refuses to show anything but replication of FIG3 in this upcomimg demo.  Having to demonstrate that Q1 both DOES and DOES NOT turn on when +12volts is applied to its gate would both complicate an attempt at deception and be proof thereof.  She cannot have it both ways, and most everyone but her would agree that +12volts applied to the gate of Q1 in her schematic should turn Q1 on as in FIG5.   

In short, duplicating FIG3 while claiming that Q1 is connected as per the schematic is quite easy, if one is moreso willing to commit fraud than admit to an error.

PW

[TinselKoala]

She is well known for distorting and taking out of context and even outright fabricating the words of others.

The points you raise emphasize why I insist that all the claims in the papers concerning the trial which produced the Figure 3 scopeshot be supported by evidence.
The shot must be produced as claimed in the papers! Not only with the circuit claimed and with a known and provably functioning mosfet, but also with the settings and parameters as shown on the shot: the long period, the six batteries in series, Q1 sitting on the small heatsink visible in the photographs of the apparatus at that time, and also _most importantly_ doing the things she claims it does: heating 700 mL of water to 104 degrees C. Add in the "no measurable current flow from the battery" or however she puts it, as a bonus.

After all, she continues to claim that her evidence is "proof incontrovertible" and reliable and repeatable. Let her, or anyone else, repeat the main item of her "incontrovertible" evidence, then.

She cannot.

Therefore is the proof incontrovertible, based as it is on experimental evidence and carefully measured results.  It has been widely replicated on open source.  And it is certainly repeatable and demonstrably so.  .....   Therefore we ask you, yet again, to engage in evaluating the evidence that is detailed in the attached papers.  And thereafter we would be very glad to give you a demonstration of this that you can evaluate the evidence itself.  We trust to the integrity of yourselves and the scientific principles that you uphold to merit this evaluation.  The more so as you yourselves have taught us that science can ONLY be progressed by experimental evidence.  We have that evidence.

So, you see that she claims that the evidence as detailed in the papers is incontrovertible, repeatable, and demonstrably so.

And I claim that it is not, it is a fabrication compounded by error, and she cannot even do it herself. She cannot reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot, with a functioning, wired-as-schematic, fully present and accounted for Q1 mosfet, while heating 700 mL of water to 104 degrees C as claimed in the papers.

As far as video analysis goes.... does she believe, perhaps, that recordings of her "live" webcast will not be made and gone over with a fine tooth comb?
I, for one, certainly hope someone records it, because I am not going to beg for an "invitation" to her open-source webcast, nor will I disrupt my schedule to match hers. Especially since I doubt strongly that anything will be shown at all anyway, or will be of any significance even if it is.

[TinselKoala]

I would just like to point out here that I have made many video demonstrations of the various points I have talked about concerning Ainslie's circuit performance and other things she has said.

I am happy to answer questions, give complete experimental details, and even repeat the demonstrations with suggested modifications, or to perform new tests that I haven't yet covered, in response to input from interested viewers.

My demonstrations do not rely on expensive and sometimes confusing digital test equipment, with the rare exception of the occasional play-date with Tex the Tektronix DPSO or a frequency measurement against my Philips counter's calibrated standard. And they are deliberately pitched at an elementary level, as the primary target for them is not to the average experienced electronic hobbyist or professional EE, but rather to the lowest possible common denominator.

Since I use YouTube as my "lab notebook" of sorts, much of what I demonstrate and document is actually my "raw data" and many of my demonstrations are entirely unrehearsed except for setting up the equipment to make the measurements. All are "unscripted" and off the cuff as far as narration is concerned. You are not usually looking at some polished presentation with blemishes removed or covered up when you view one of my videos, you are looking at my lab notebook, with all its blotches and stains intact.

[TinselKoala]

@PW: concerning the issue of the possible AC-coupling of the Current trace: It's clear from the screenshots that the scope channel was set to DC-coupled. So for the trace to be an AC-coupled trace would require one of several possibilities.

1) The scope's internal relay is stuck and the scope thinks the connection is direct but it isn't, due to the internal coupling cap being in series. This is a scope malfunction, clearly. The scope has been sent out for repair/calibration since the trace was made and so this fault, if present then, should no longer be there.

2) The probe's voltage-divider is open and the connection to the circuit itself is being made through the probe's capacitance. Thus the probe is acting like a DC-decoupling cap and the resulting trace is AC-coupled in spite of the scope's internal setting being correctly set to direct. This is also unlikely in my opinion as it would result in waveform distortion elsewhere in the trace signal, not just baseline averaging.

3) Ainslie or someone handling her has inserted a capacitor, deliberately, in series with the probe connection to the circuit. This is unlikely for several reasons, not the least being that she herself is too ignorant, apparently, to understand how to do this. None of the photos show an obvious series capacitor, but of course we don't have a photograph of the apparatus as it is making the Fig 3 trace or anything similar. The "high heat" scopeshots that can be discerned in the 2011 demo video all show current flowing normally in Q1.... and they only use four batteries in series.

In addition, examination of known traces where Q1 is carrying current always show the current rising from the baseline level during the first part of the ON period. If a current-indicating trace were simply moved down by AC coupling, you would still see this rising edge, rather than the perfectly straight trace that results from an open circuit at the Q1 D-S position.

So I personally discount the AC-coupled hypothesis as an explanation for the Figure 3 scopeshot.

[TinselKoala]

Is there any truth at all in this?

It seems that the MarkE's and Tinsel Koala's of this mad aethernet world - are clamorously demanding that all further work on this project of ours STOP. 

Oh, really? What part of PROVE YOUR CLAIMS BY DEMONSTRATING THEIR VALIDITY is a clamorous demand that all further work STOP? Only when Ainslie fails miserably to do that, in public, for all to see, should all further work stop. Except for her cleaning up after her mess, that is, by retracting the papers and apologizing for the years of insults and wasted time.

Then it appears that MarkE is writing on behalf of all the academics at the University of Cape Town when he advises us that they have NO INTEREST in this project because they have studied Tinsel Koala's presentations.  And - from all that hard work - from what is written they're now ENTIRELY satisfied that we have no basis for a claim.  My question is WHERE is that written mandate from those esteemed and revered - that authorises MarkE to speak on their behalf?  Unless he can produce this he is culpable of a fraudulent misrepresentation that is FAR more alarming than even his claims of our own 'trickery' and 'fraud'.

My question is from WHERE does she get this fraudulent misrepresentation of what Mark E has said? It comes out of her own mad mind. WHERE is the written mandate that allows Ains-lie to put words into people's mouths, then attack the words that she has put there? Unless she can produce that, she is culpable of an entire trainload of utter and fraudulent BS... as usual.

And regarding Tinsel Koala's youtube work - if such it is - I no longer visit his site.  I gave up after he posted a video where he showed his penguin hand puppet copulating with a MOSFET.  Somewhat distasteful.  But there again, there is no-one can accuse him of being a person of high principle.  Or indeed, of having any principles at all.

There is no such video on my channel and there never has been. Once again, Ains-lie sees what she wants to see and believes whatever she likes, without regard for truth or evidence. My own principles, or lack of them, have nothing at all to do with the constant string of distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies that proceed from Ains-lie with every utterance she makes, and even less to do with the fact that SHE CANNOT REPRODUCE HER OWN CLAIMED EXPERIMENTAL DATA.