Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[TinselKoala]

In Fig 3 Paper 1 we show that we can we have a zero discharge of current from the battery during the ON period of each switching cycle.

Yes, that is right.... when there is no functioning mosfet in the Q1 position or when the positive Gate drive voltage is under 3 volts. Big deal. The Martin-Ainslie claim is that you can produce high heat in this situation, but you cannot. The claim is also that the Figure 3 scopeshot represents this situation. But it does not, and you cannot reproduce it.

Not only that, but also your measurements "showing" your "zero discharge of current" are erroneous and misrepresented by you.

  Where we 'errored' is in the DISPLAYED voltage across the GATE of Q1 in that same paper.  What we SHOW is that there is an applied 12 volts to that GATE.  This DISPLAY is INCORRECT.  The error is due to having the probe reference of CHANNEL 3 - at the WRONG POINT. 

That is COMPLETELY FALSE. The "incorrect" display in Figure 3 does NOT RESULT FROM AN IMPROPER POSITIONING OF THE PROBE REFERENCE. It is a result either of placing the PROBE TIP ITSELF on the "wrong" side of the CVR, or a blown or missing or miswired mosfet. The probe REFERENCE in that shot is not and has never been in question. You CANNOT reproduce Fig. 3 by moving the probe REFERENCE.

It does not SHARE the common probe reference points.  THEREFORE is the voltage reading across that GATE of Q1 INCORRECT.  It SHOULD read PLUS 4 volts.  At PLUS 4 volts the CLAIM PERSISTS.

Wrongo again. Here she is claiming that she can set the Gate to +4 volts, then move the Probe REFERENCE to some other location and thus reproduce the Figure 3 shot that shows +12 volts at the Gate.

And I say she cannot.

In addition, as my video above amply shows, at +4 volts to its Gate the IRFPG50 INDEED CONDUCTS, as it is biased into its linear conduction region of operation. When there are oscillations in Q2 during the Gate LO period and +4 volts to the gate of Q1 during the Gate HI period, there is indeed "discharge of current from the battery" and this is easily measured and indeed is already amply shown in Ainslie's own data.

Once again she misrepresents the true state of affairs and what someone else has told her, and then proceeds to attack her own misrepresentations, while displaying her abysmal ignorance of her own chosen topic and the circuit with which she claims to have been working all this time.

And she still cannot support any of her claims with demonstrations, as we have seen. I can hardly wait for the next comedy of errors from Donovan Martin and Rosemary Ainslie.

[MileHigh]

TK:

I am getting the feeling that the "team of EXPERTS" is just Donovan and Rosemary and has always been just Donovan and Rosemary.  From the glimpses I had of Donovan in action, sleep deprived or not, I didn't get the impression that he "had it" in terms of bench experience, expertise in operating the DSO, and technical acumen.

So you can predict a future demo that will be rehearsed, but still very uncertain without the feeling that they are in control or acting as two people on the same page.

It's like the serialized Saturday morning never-ending series of cliffhangers!  lol  Note that was part of the inspiration for The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

MileHigh

[markdansie]

@Profitis,
you have never supported you hypotheses fro overunity. Where is you published report or paper, peer review and supporting data. More importantly where is a practical application.
Mile High and many others have earned their stripes. Your the one who could have got involved with the latest tests from Rosemary but his sulking because she hurt her your feelings in a forum some time back.
Most I have ever seen from you is speculation, no testing, no scope shots, no yourtube, no peer reviewed paper just speculation.
There is nothing wrong with that and I really encourage the thought processes you undertake. But do not make claims you have proven overunity. To date no one has.
If you liek I will put you in touch with the GBEM people you can be their headline act demonstrating overunity at their next international conference. And I do mean demonstrating not just gas bagging.
So good sir, time to put up or you to will become the next Mylow
Mark

[TinselKoala]

Donovan Martin's name pops up on Jean-Louis Naudin's site back in 2001:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mdvlift3.htm

[TinselKoala]

We're talking about the position of the signal generator's terminal reference - whatever it's called.  Weir showed us that this was positioned INCORRECTLY.  It's correct position is when it shares the same COMMON REFERENCE WITH THE SCOPE PROBES.

EVEN THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Putting the BLACK function generator output lead at the common reference with the scope probes IS JUST EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID DO AT THE DEMO, what they have always done, and is WRONG in the sense that it allows the current through the FG itself to bypass the current viewing resistor. The position of the FG lead as shown in the PAPER is WRONG, in that it does not represent the actual hookup Ainslie used to generate the data. However the position in the paper is RIGHT in terms of taking account of all the current flowing in the system. One needs to use a ground-isolated FG... which I possess... in order to do this properly, as well as being aware of the groundloops caused by connecting BNC cable shields (probe references) together with other functional elements of the circuitry.

This woman needs to be taken by the hand, sat down and made to watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY
where she is told in no uncertain terms by S.Weir himself that the schematic in the paper does not reflect her actual hookup, that the actual hookup bypasses the CVR, and that she needs to publish the CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTUAL HOOKUP USED, not some lie like is in the papers.