Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[TinselKoala]

Mark, I've just finished reading your report of that Ainslie show. Very nice, polite and well-stated... and restrained. I could not have been so gentle.

I would like to emphasize one point though. Towards the end you speculate about whether some noted improvement in battery capacity might be due to chemical effects like desulphation, etc.

It is very important to note here that Ainslie has _never_ actually performed any valid State-of Charge tests of her batteries. There is no evidence for the "benefit" that she keeps on claiming. None.

She has been shown how to do "dim bulb" rundown comparison testing, which is very simple to do, and she herself even describes the basic procedure when she talks about the "BP" or the other alphabet agencies she claims tested and supervised testing those long years ago. She has never produced a single scrap of evidence, not even an email, to confirm that those tests, "bursary awards" etc. happened in the way she describes, or even at all.

After seeing how she garbles and distorts information about things that happened three days ago and are recorded for reference.... how much less likely is it for her to be reporting accurately these events from many years ago and for which no record, at all, apparently exists?

In short, when she starts protesting that comparisons have been done...."screenshot or it didn't happen" is the by-word. She cannot produce any valid battery state-of-charge data (I can though). Hence any speculation about chemistry or nuclear reactions or purple unicorns is irrelevant and moot, because there is _no evidence that any gain has occurred_ by the use of Ainslie's devices.

Good job overall and I'm glad you don't just drop these things into the Limbo bucket the way PESN does. I hope you are back in the pink of health again quickly.

[markdansie]

Thanks TK
I find it emotionally taxing to write stories like these. However the stories are more of a prompt for others to come forward and continue the debate who may have felt intimidated to do so in the past. I already see some very good comments from people like Simon who make some great points.

I agree with what you said regards the batteries, I was speculating based on past observations.
I have never seen a control experiment to compare battery data with including lifespan
I remember one place I visited the battery effect was so evident that a new battery had about a 3 week life span. (then the overunity disappears).
People are often shocked how polite I am in person despite being the skeptic and Darth Dansie, but I can be the biggest pain in the ass cranky AH as well.
I think we should not criticize anyone for trying, however how they handle criticism and other peoples opinion will be how they will be ultimately be judged. i have some very close friends around the world where we are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to agreeing on the validity of their technology, that does not mean we can not have respect for each other or enjoy each others company.
I also realize the value I have in cases like this is limited by my own expertise apart from applying logic and my experience.
I need to get back to bed not quiet recovered.
Ulimately the truth will always prevail. Without the truth we have no foundation to move on with.
Mark

[MileHigh]

If you worked on a bench a lot and knew what you were doing you would check both sides of the CVR as common practice.  In a related fashion and as a generic comment you would use your scope probe to check along your circuit ground connection, not to check for inductive effects, but just to see how well your ground connection is handling the return current stream and to make sure there is very little voltage bumping going on.  It's a common check to see if you need to "fatten" your ground return.  And of course any bench experimenter worth his or her salt would do the same thing for their power rails, to make sure that you are satisfied with the power feed.

So it's arguable that both sides of the CVR should have been checked when someone with experience in South Africa first laid eyes on the circuit.

I seem to recall that way back in 2009 Poynt advised Rosemary to solder her CVR right to the negative battery post and measure the current from there and only there.  This was not friendly for Rosemary's setup and the advice was ignored.  Then Poynt ran simulations with small inductors in series to model the long wire lengths, etc, etc.

TK's basic check on both sides of the CVR and the equivalent oscillations indicating corrupted current measurement is a big blow to Rosemary's proposition.  (I am just repeating what others have already posted.)  This is a simple observation that can't be refuted that should make sense to most people, even casual observers.

In fact this is a death blow, but we know what the dynamics are like, and for Rosemary this will be something that she will argue against.  More drama to come.  Poynt's testing may seal the deal.

It's sort of like what I have been told about World of Warcraft.  Sometimes 100 people will have an epic battle lasting hours with some kind of giant creature or robot.  You have to inflict enough damage points on that big sucker and slowly bring him down.  It's a war of attrition just like we are in one now!  lol

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Another moment of high comedy from Rosemary:

Just a point of order.  Ignore Mark E's comments.  They're ENTIRELY unfounded.

MarkE has been active on PESN for many months now and the man is truly brilliant and multidisciplinary.  About a month ago he made a posting about doing proper bench measurements and it was abundantly clear that he is also brilliant and an expert on the bench.

[picowatt]

From her:

All are avoiding the central issue.  It is this.  We are able to generate a robust oscillation while the battery is apparently disconnected and unable to deliver any energy during the 'on' period of a switching cycle.

As she mentioned the oscillations, I assume she actually meant to say "off" period, or moreso correct, the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a negative voltage.

It took months to convince her that an FG can pass current, over a year to convince her that there was an issue with Q1 in FIG3, and now, even after many people have explained it to her over and over, she remains clueless as to how the Q2 portion of her circuit operates. 

She continues to believe that during the portion of the cycle when Q2 is biased on and oscillating, that her batteries are "disconnected".  To her, the operation of Q2 must appear as magic, but to most others, its operation is well understood and nothing unexpected is observed. 

No one is "avoiding" the battery being "disconnected" simply because this is not true, the battery is not "disconnected".  Q2 is turned on, passing current, and oscillating.  Both the DC and AC current paths and quiescent conditions have been discussed and explained in great detail. 

I have never before seen anyone so unable or unwilling to learn.

'Tis a shame... 

PW