Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[TinselKoala]

Note that in the video above, Donovan Martin himself is trying to explain to Ainslie the same thing: the mosfet is not fully on until 10 volts or so on the gate.  Ainslie is protesting that 8 volts is surely enough to turn the mosfet on, and yet she thinks that there isn't any current at that level, and so she believes she's shown what is necessary.

But she's got it backwards. She is taking a mosfet and seeing how much gate voltage she can apply without it turning on appreciably. But what she actually at this moment in time actually needs to show is that 12 volts at the gate does NOT turn on the mosfet at all!

Because that is what Figure 3 is showing. She has it completely backwards. She is looking at the Current and turning the Gate to some value based on the Current she sees, when she should be turning the Gate to directly to 12 volts -- because that is what is shown on Figure 3 -- and then looking at the Current that results.

Backwards, like much of her thinking on this merry mosfet matter. Confusing the Independent and Dependent variables in an experiment.

[TinselKoala]

Whoever was able to ask questions at the stealth after-party conversation might not have asked some good questions, and I think that we should be preparing a list in advance of questions for the Donovan Martin team's next demonstration. I'll put them down as they occur to me and I would appreciate help and comments.

1. What is the explanation for the removal of the small heatsink used on Q1 in the March 2011 demo, and replacing it with the larger heatsink presently used? Who thought of changing it, and why? Who did the physical work of changing it?

1a. Why were only four batteries used in the second part of the March 2011 demonstration instead of six? Did the Donovan Martin team know at that time that the Q1 transistor would oscillate if driven at 75 volts D-S with a decent gate signal?

2. Is there any documentation or other evidence of the vettings that Ainslie, and Donovan Martin, have spoken of so many times? The previous "BP" controlled and supervised testing, the "bursary award" offer that "was declined" somehow... Is there any documentation or evidence for these things? At all? Where is this documentation, if any, and why have we never seen it presented?

3. What is the Donovan Martin team's explanation for the anomalous features of the Figure 3 scopeshot? By which I mean the obvious application of 12 volts to the gate of Q1, and the obvious indication of zero current in the shunt. I don't care about the timebase setting, just as .99 explained, that is another story, or even the load heat. I am just talking about the Current and Gate traces, the Vbatt of 72 volts or more and a gate drive that is just as definitely +12 volts as the one shown in Figure 3. What is the Donovan Martin team's explanation for the Figure 3 scopeshot... NOT in Ainslie-speak "thesis" terms, but in ordinary everyday EE circuit-analysis terms that real people could hope to understand.

3a. What is their explanation for their utter and abject failure to reproduce these scopeshot features in spite of Ainslie's insulting claim that it was easy, trivial, a throwaway matter?

[TinselKoala]

An Open Letter to DONOVAN MARTIN:

Mr. Martin:

You recently participated (Saturday June 29 2013) as the "presenter" and primary operator of the controls for a demonstration of Rosemary Ainslie's so-called "NERD" circuit, which is described in two papers that bear your name as second author.

The primary stated goal of this particular demonstration was the reproduction of the oscilloscope trace set referred to as Figure 3, Paper 1. The problematic feature of this data set is the plainly evident Gate signal that reaches +12 Volts, but which does NOT result in a "turn-on" or corresponding flow of current in the transistor's Drain-Source channel. The significance of the Figure 3 as presented in the paper is that it is used as "evidence" for a set of claims involving heating of the load without corresponding current drain from the battery. If the Figure upon which those claims are made is itself made from an apparatus that is malfunctioning or miswired or probed incorrectly, then obviously that data is invalid and cannot be used to support any claims or conclusions.

In spite of Ainslie's repeated claims in various forums that it would be easy, even trivial to reproduce the Figure 3 scope traces, you found it impossible to do so. You also found it difficult or impossible to read a frequency from the LeCroy oscilloscope (in spite of the very bottom line of every LeCroy screen, where it is displayed for you) and you were utterly surprised and amazed when you stimulated oscillations in the Q1 mosfet at a particular Function Generator amplitude setting. In fact you delayed the demonstration for over an hour while you attempted to blame this surprise on some malfunction of the FG itself. Of course there is nothing wrong with the FG at all as you have by now realized, I hope, but rather with your circuit-theoretical understanding of the operation of the Device Under Test.

Since you were the "presenter" and you were the "sole manipulator of controls" at the demonstration, and you are Ainslie's co-author,  you bear considerable responsibility for the fiasco that was the June demonstration. Yet you are not supporting Ainslie in her defense of the demo, you are apparently unavailable or unwilling to engage with her -- or rather at this point YOUR-- critics and you are apparently content to "hang her out to dry" and to let her bear the brunt of criticism and ridicule, much of which rightly should be directed to you. Ainslie rather appears the unwitting if not entirely innocent dupe, and apparently you "set her up" and then, with your miserable performance at the demonstration, you let her down and now apparently you have abandoned her.

Sir, I see this as reprehensible. Come out and confront your critics directly, and stop using a poor ignorant old woman to do your fighting for you. Stop hiding behind Rosemary's skirts, DONOVAN MARTIN, and explain yourself properly.

As always, my real identity is protected, but I will gladly reveal it to principals who are willing to sign a strict NDA with a penalty clause. Should my personal identity be revealed to Ainslie, I fear that she might follow through with some of the threats she has made against me.

Until then I remain,
--TinselKoala

[markdansie]

Hi TK
for what it is worth I think Donavan assisted in good faith and should not be subjected to demand like these. I agree it would be good if he could express his opinion, however I think his willingness to help we should all be thankful for.
Mark

[powercat]

As somebody that has been following this saga since the beginning it seems only right that we get to the truth about the deception and lies, anyone that has supported these bogus claims should be made accountable.