Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[TinselKoala]

All of those things are good and proper to do.

As far as the thermal output is concerned, the proper way to do that is to measure the temperature of an oil bath in an insulated container. There is no "hanging in air" arrangement that I personally would accept as quantitatively valid, but a draft chimney certainly would be better than what they have been using.

Having the thermocouple probe directly in contact with the metal of the "element resistor" is a no-no and definitely must be avoided and prevented. Close proximity is fine, with complete immersion in the known quantity of heat-transfer oil. Ordinary mineral oil USP from the drugstore, sold as a laxative, is perfect, as it is pure and has a known specific heat of 0.84 and a high boiling point. The lower specific heat of the mineral oil means that a given energy input will cause a greater temperature change in the oil than in water, improving resolution precision, and the insulated bath with proper mounting of the element and the thermocouple will improve accuracy greatly over the current Ainslie arrangement.

But as far as the input power is concerned.... there are two objectives.

One would be to take the trouble to collect precise and accurate quantitative data to assure that power calculations are valid and reflect the true power input to the circuit from the batteries. This kind of careful effort must be undertaken for any future experiments or papers coming from the Donovan Martin - Rosemary Ainslie collaboration.

A different but related objective would be simply to show that the existing input power measurements are not valid, and so any claims...and papers.... based on them must be withdrawn, corrected and apologized for. This is the kind of testing that can be easily performed within the time and testing constraints of a "demonstration" taking an hour or two and streamed live on the internet. 

Inserting a proper CVR at the negative pole of the battery, while making no other circuit changes, would allow a very simple test.

The "shunt" on the Ainslie test board, and this second resistor right at the battery negative terminal, are plainly carrying the same true current and should, therefore, give the same readings on a test instrument IF there are no other factors influencing the readings.

On the other hand, if the readings are different..... then there must be some other factor that is making one or the other or even both of the readings incorrect.

So one simply moves the CVR probe and reference, from the Ainslie position on the board, to this new resistor at the negative battery pole, minimizing the probe's loop length, without making ANY other changes to the circuit, settings, or instruments.(The Vbatt probe should also be moved directly to the batteries and the two probes should share the common reference point at the battery negative pole itself.)

Does the CVR trace change _AT ALL_ on the oscilloscope? If it does --- then it's all over but the mopping up, because you have just PROVEN that the scope readings taken in the Ainslie manner are unreliable and cannot be used for power calculations or inferential conclusions.

In short, if the Current Sense trace gives different results depending on whether the resistor is measured directly at the battery negative pole, or is measured at the usual location on the Ainslie board, then all the Current data in the Ainslie papers is invalid and the papers are NOT REPAIRABLE, they must be completely withdrawn.

[MileHigh]

TK:

Of course we already saw Poynt do the full video clip where he makes the three measurements with the last measurement being done using the CVR right next to the battery terminal.  That clip basically blew Rosemary's proposition out of the water and showed where she made her serious mistakes and how to correct for them.

Rose's response was something like, "Thanks Poynty."  Now I am not sure how to interpret that.  One possibility is that she is so dense that the whole test flew over her head, she understood nothing, and she just parroted out "thanks."  Another possibility is that the did understand what transpired in that clip but she still refuses to acknowledge it.  Another possibility is that she just put the whole thing on "ignore" just like she ignored my comments about her ridiculous soccer ball business.

I note that we have seen this pattern before.  When something significant is presented to her that is not in alignment with her proposition she simply ignores it or gives a characterless, soulless, "thanks" as a response.  That's in marked contrast to all of the colourful language and description that she is normally capable off.

No matter how you look at it, she is just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.  Thanks to Tesla for the wireless!

For the load resistor profiling, I have nothing in principle against your oil/integration method except for the fact that it's unwieldy and complicated, not something that Rose is good at at all.  It's not something that can be easily done in a live demo.  Perhaps just the bare resistor is the solution, forget about the chimney suggestion.

Let's hope that finally the fat lady is singing.  If she does the test properly with Weir's guidance, and assuming that the measurements are done like the battery power measurements are done in the third part of Poynt's clip, then she should see the battery + signal generator power are equal to her load resistor thermal profiling power within +/- 10%.

Hurray!!!  The Zipon witch is dead and the free energy munchkins can move onto other things

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Submitted in advance for your consideration: the schematic I will be using to compare the signals seen at two different Current Viewing Resistor locations. I'll compare the setup used in the June 29 demo (aka "old") with the setup that is considered proper (aka "correct") which uses a second CVR attached directly to the battery negative, a minimum-loop probe connection across this new resistor, and a floated Function Generator ground.

I'll be doing this comparison with the new-to-me Link Instruments DSO 2102 M pc-based digital oscilloscope. It is a 15 or so year old PC-based 2-channel 100 MHz oscilloscope, with basic math and data readouts. Unfortunately it does not do trace multiplication, but I have a way around that that I may wind up using. It interfaces with a ThinkPad 600e laptop thru the parallel port. It is normally isolated from the mains ground but the channel references are connected together. This instrument was kindly donated to TKLabs by the Petaluma Irradiated Chicken Heads Corporation.

When I change the CVR probe from the "normal" to the "correct" position resistor, I will also attach the probe with a special very short ground clip system that minimizes the size of the loop formed by the probe tip and reference lead.

Stay tuned, it will take me the rest of the day to do this and post the vid, probably.

Here's a quiz to ponder in the meantime: If I have the system connected to the "correct" CVR, turned on and powered up and oscillating, I can get reasonable oscillations with zero current indicated on the inline mA meter. If I now open the Switch at the battery positive..... what happens to the reading on the inline meter?

[TinselKoala]

@MH: I believe that Ainslie intends to do another demonstration pretty soon. Or rather she will have Donovan Martin do it while she chatters in the background. I think they intend to clear up some of the difficulties they had before, and there is a chance that the demonstration might be directed again by someone who is able to stay organized and present a coherent discussion.

We all know that Ainslie will never accept results that are obtained on someone else's apparatus, even that of .99, nor on her own apparatus under independent control (the lab in the States, from last year). So for her to even have a chance of acceptance, the measurements must actually be done on her apparatus, with her test equipment, by her team members, according to a pre-agreed set of protocols and conditions put down in writing. I think that they are preparing for this at the moment.

Meanwhile I'll be doing what I do.

[TinselKoala]

Oh I am so going to enjoy watching this troll queen get her final come-uppance. The last time, which already utterly devastated her claims and her entire team's credibility, apparently wasn't enough. She just cannot leave it alone though: the lies and misrepresentations and stupid idiotic insults and false claims continue. That woman is sick. But it is ALL ON RECORD.

Anyone can refer to the Tar Baby thread and note well that I say MANY TIMES that CHARGE IS FUNDAMENTAL and conserved, and that electrons are the carriers of the UNIT NEGATIVE CHARGE. And this FACT is at the foundation of Quantum Electrodynamics, which is by far the most precise and accurate physical model of reality that humankind has ever come up with. Ainslie is an ignorant fool, and once again is insulting, making stuff up, and attacking her own fantasies. Let her! It is entirely amusing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA