Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[markdansie]

Hi TK
I have received an open letter she has asked us to Publish. To be honest I do not know if I should or should not. If I do there will be no censorship on the comments box (unlike free energy news)
I am between a rock and hard place. We intend to report many things but not declaring anything to be real or true unless backed by credible data.  A bit like Smartscarecrow "Let the audience make up their own damn minds"
On the otehr hand we want to maintatin credability.
Mark

[picowatt]

Hi TK
I have received an open letter she has asked us to Publish. To be honest I do not know if I should or should not. If I do there will be no censorship on the comments box (unlike free energy news)
I am between a rock and hard place. We intend to report many things but not declaring anything to be real or true unless backed by credible data.  A bit like Smartscarecrow "Let the audience make up their own damn minds"
On the otehr hand we want to maintatin credability.
Mark

Mark,

She has stated that she will be making a video on the 22nd that will prove that the waveform in FIG3 can be duplicated with a functional Q1 connected as per the schematic.

The issue with Q1 in FIG3 is simply that the light blue scope trace is indicating that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 during the portion of the cycle when the function generator (FG) output is a positive voltage.  +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 should turn Q1 fully on and the subsequent current flow should be indicated by a positive voltage at the current sensing resistor (CSR), as would be indicated by the dark yellow CSR trace.

However, there is no current flow indicated, as the CSR trace remains at or very close to zero volts during the time +12 volts is being applied to Q1, indicating that Q1 is not turning on.

The only possible explanations for Q1 not turning on in as it should in FIG3 are that Q1 was either non-functional (damaged), disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic during the FIG3 capture.

Looking at FIG5, one can see an example of a scope capture wherein Q1 is functioning properly and its subsequent current flow is indicated by a positive voltage on the dark yellow CSR trace during the portion of the cycle when the light blue FG output trace is a positive voltage.

It is very likely that during the FIG3 tests, she did not realize that Q1 was damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.  When originally asked about this, all she had to do was acknowledge that there was an error, repeat her tests to generate a new FIG 3 with a properly functioning or connected Q1, and correct or replace her data with the data from these new tests.

Instead, she denies that the scope indicates +12 volts is being appied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, or erroneously claims that the scope needs to be AC coupled.  She has accused those that ask about Q1 in FIG3 of not knowing how to read a scope, how to read schematics, attacked them as being unqualified sufficiently in electronics to discuss Q1, or threatened legal action.

In any event, her continual refusal to admit that there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 has only blown this issue into the large proportion it has become, and she herself has now referred to this issue as a "litmus test".  In many ways, it is indeed a litmus test, but not of her technology and theories, but of her integrity and believability.

She claims she will be creating a video this coming weekend (22nd) that will prove that there is nothing wrong with Q1 or its connections in FIG3 by duplicating the waveforms as indicated by FIG3.

Anyone that understands electronics to even the smallest degree, can see from looking at her schematic that there is no way the FG output, which is connected to the gate of Q1, can output +12 volts without Q1 turning on and current flow subsequently being indicated by the CSR.

One would have to attempt deception, to some degree, to intentionally reproduce the FIG3 waveform using her schematic, such as disconnect Q1, connect Q1 differently from the schematic, or use a damaged MOSFET for Q1.  Alternately, one could attempt to AC couple the scope, or a probe point, and adjust the waveforms so that they appear similar to FIG3, even though they would not be (as would be indicated by properly using DC coupling throughout).

My advice to you regarding your "rock and a hard place" decision would be to wait and see how and what she does in her upcoming video to reproduce the FIG3 scope shot.

As she says, it is a litmus test...

PW   

[markdansie]

Profitas
Can you read a scope and know how to hook one up?
Mark

[picowatt]

Profitas
Can you read a scope and know how to hook one up?
Mark

Mark,

Was this question actually directed at "Profitas" or was it meant to be in response to my (picowatt's) previous post?

PW

[TinselKoala]

@PW: I believe that profitas is local, thus he might actually be able to visit Ainslie in person.


Let's not forget that an important part of the "proof" of Figure 3 is to show that all mosfets are "in tact" and functional, both before and after the scopeshot is reproduced. How does Ainslie intend to do this?

As far as I am aware, I am the only individual ever to show a quick and easy way to test these mosfets for shorts, opens and ability to operate in the linear conductance region in response to a changing gate charge. This requires construction of a simple fixture consisting of a potentiometer, a light bulb, and a socket for the mosfet, and a 12-volt battery or power supply. It takes about 30 seconds to test a mosfet on this fixture.

How would other readers here suggest that she perform this vital part of her Fig.3 demonstration.... since she clearly won't go near anything I suggest or demonstrate?