Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[picowatt]

@PW:
I hope you didn't miss my post about the heating element and the possibility that it might contain an overtemp thermal fuse. It's just barely possible that an RV water heater element might be designed with a bimetal thermo-fuse that will trip open when the max temp is exceeded and close again after things cool off. (Many kinds of equipment have such fuses, like microwave ovens and even my old Tek RM503 scope has one mounted to its chassis.A RV water heater element might be a very logical place to have one.)

Obviously, we need some assurance that the heater element does not have any kind of temperature-sensitive switch built into it -- or formed inadvertently somehow -- that could open its circuit when it gets really hot.

TK,

I doubt that there would be a resettable thermal fuse in the element.  If that were so, the hysteresis in its response time would surely have shown up in the captures.

But, if Rload was actually being turned on and off by a thermal fuse, Q1 would not be connected "as per the schematic" anyway.

PW

[TinselKoala]

"If she has her circuit all set up and ready to run, why doesn't she just admit there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and repeat her tests? Doing so would at least allow her to retain some degree of dignity and honor. "

The reason, of course, is that the claims about Fig 3 are fundamental to her "thesis" and all the rest of both papers. We've already demolished her bogus mathematics that caused her to claim that the circuit provided vastly more energy to the load than the batteries contained. The other fundamental claim is that she can produce high heat in the load without measurable current from the battery-- and the evidence for that is the Figure 3 shot and a couple more like it (that I've posted earlier but aren't in the papers.) So if the Fig 3 shot falls, so does her entire house of cards. She will have to retract both papers, and since we know she can't support any of her claims with real, proper experiments.... that will be that, for a while anyway, until she finds a new group of hopeful experimenters who haven't yet heard all her lies.

She has no dignity, no honor to retain. Just read her threads, you'll see that she has none of either. 

[TinselKoala]

TK,

I doubt that there would be a resettable thermal fuse in the element.  If that were so, the hysteresis in its response time would surely have shown up in the captures.

But, if Rload was actually being turned on and off by a thermal fuse, Q1 would not be connected "as per the schematic" anyway.

PW

Agreed, and also I confirmed by experiment that the Q2 oscillations don't happen if the load circuit is open, at least not in my TarBaby.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

The reason I have not responded with regard to a method for testing Q1 is that if she duplicates FIG3, it will immediately reveal that she has resorted to deception.  She no longer argues that the FIG3 scope capture is being read incorrectly and agrees that +12volts is indeed being applied to the gate of Q1.

She knows that she cannot apply +12volts to the gate of a functioning Q1 connected as per her schematic without Q1 turning on and passing current.  To show otherwise would require an act of deception.  So why would some test of Q1 after the fact not be part of that deception as well?

Right.... but if she does perform a blatant deception with the production and then the testing, and if she has other "qualified engineers" there with her...... the implications of that are rather staggering. I know and agree that the Fig3 scopeshot is "impossible" under the conditions stated, but I'm willing to accept that there is a tiny chance that I'm missing something somehow or that there is some peculiarity of the equipment, or whatever. Thus I want to see the full Monty, as she has promised and as any real scientific demonstration demands: test to confirm integrity before the duplication run, and also immediately after the duplication run. And this testing should be something quick and unequivocal. Therefore, it would be "nice" to know and understand, and possibly critique, the intended method beforehand. Of course now we have another whole week to think something up, due to the most recent "postponement".

I agree with your prediction that the FIG3 demo will never happen.

If she has her circuit all set up and ready to run, why doesn't she just admit there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and repeat her tests? Doing so would at least allow her to retain some degree of dignity and honor.   

PW

She finally did manage to pull off the demo of March 2011, so it's not impossible that she might do it again. But just like that demo, which contained obvious lies and deceptions, if she does do another one it won't be properly done and it won't resolve the issues.

[picowatt]

I know and agree that the Fig3 scopeshot is "impossible" under the conditions stated, but I'm willing to accept that there is a tiny chance that I'm missing something somehow or that there is some peculiarity of the equipment, or whatever.

But then, of course, one would have to ask why Q1 was operating just as it should the month prior in FIG5. 

She knows that applying +12 volts to the gate of a functioning Q1, connected as per her schematic, must turn on Q1.  "Even a child could understand that", as she would say.

And she has never debated that point.  That mode of MOSFET operation is the only one that she somewhat understands.  She has always instead argued that we are not reading the FIG3 capture correctly and that it does not show +12volts being applied to the gate of Q1.  Even to the point that I finally contacted LeCroy to confirm I was indeed reading the capture correctly, and suggested that she contact LeCroy as well.

Now that she agrees as "fact", that there is indeed +12volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, there is no place left to go but admit to the error in FIG3 regarding Q1 not turning on as it should.

PW