Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[TinselKoala]

And yet in her mind she thinks she has done it, as she keeps telling us. The events of Saturday two weeks ago have changed, altered in her mind to fit her "thesis" and her claims.

Fortunately there exists a record, and one that is not under her control the way the Weir-directed scope captures are.

[poynt99]

TK,

Here is a diagram that illustrates the problem when wanting to connect the FG ref to the correct point in the circuit as shown.

If the FG ref is connected to the battery common gnd point as Rose and I both have it at present (and you too I believe), then during the OFF phase when oscillation is occurring, the current through the FG will not register on the CSR because the FG ref bypasses the CSR. During this OFF phase, the FG is in series with the battery. Because Q2 is both ON and oscillating during this phase, the FG is contributing energy to the circuit, but we can not measure that energy contribution because the current through the FG bypasses the CSR.

I know you know this, just illustrating it for the record.

[MileHigh]

Poynt:

You are great, excellent point.  However, your "composite" drawing and your description is _very_ confusing.  For example, you state "CSR is essentially "shorted out" through common earth if FG ref placed correctly as shown."  i.e.; "shorted out" (bad) vs. "correctly" (good.)

May I suggest a redo?  I hate to task you with anything but Rosemary may have a near-meltdown trying to understand your valid point.

Another thing.  Let's assume that you use an isolation transformer for the function generator and the reference terminal for the function generator output will be on the "high" side of the CSR as per your drawing.  The scope reference connections remain at the "low" side of the CSR (i.e.; same node as the true battery post ground.)  That will allow you to see all of the oscillation current through the CSR when you are in the OFF phase of the function generator output.  But how do you measure the "battery voltage" now that the "battery" is the real battery in series with the FG OFF output?  And of course the load resistor and Q2 D-S and the 50-ohm resistor are in between these two separate voltage sources.

Is the FG's own AC loop through the Q2 G-S also something that you also want to account for?

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

Some FGs... like my Interstate F43... have "ground isolation" switches. Mine was on the back panel but I found it so useful that I "hacked" the unit and installed a front-panel switch for its ground isolation.
The BNC FG output cable has its Black clip connected to the BNC connector outside shell and the cable's shield conductor, and the Red clip connected to the inner wire of the cable and the "tip" or inner connector of the BNC connector. The FG's chassis (grounded back through the mains cord) is connected to these "grounds" or "negative" as well, unless the "isolated" setting is selected on the switch.

When the FG is "isolated" by this method it is still possible to "screw up" and wind up with the Black FG lead truly grounded, by connecting a scope probe ground reference or some other instrument reference that is grounded back through its own power cord.

But one can still compare the difference in the current viewing shunt's indications, by not monitoring the FG's output directly during the test. Isolate the FG by the switch, hook the "Black" lead to the correct, non-bypass position as given in the Paper 1 schematic but not used by Ainslie,ever, but don't try to monitor the FG's output on any scope, so its Black lead remains isolated and you don't short the CVR with the groundloop.
Then you can read the CVR correctly, and then you can (or I can, at least)  also "un isolate" the FG and see what the effect of the groundloop does to the reading in the CVR.

I have also shown, by the way, that the signal in the CVR is completely spurious anyhow, during the oscillations. You will get essentially the same signal in the CVR during oscillations even if the probe isn't actually connected to the circuit at all but rather is monitoring a simple 220R resistor that is only placed near the circuit, not even connected to it. See my video on the topic. And of course you can replicate Figure 3 at will in this manner.

Note well that Ainslie garbles and misrepresents the case here:

What Weir showed ME is that if we apply the terminal of the function probe AWAY from a COMMON point on the circuit - is that our numbers then change.  Now.  Here's a bit of history related to all these tests.  ALL our previous tests were done with the scope and function generator probes TAKEN FROM A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE BATTERY NEGATIVE AND THE SHUNT... like this...
Bat  + > BAT - > Signal generator's terminal & scope 1,2 & 3 probe references ALL ON A SINGLE POINT - in fact on a single BOLT - in series.  THIS was the correct system.  It was EXCLUSIVELY applied by our academics and it was EXCLUSIVELY applied by our team.  Under THESE circumstances we ALWAYS measured a NEGATIVE wattage.

This was not the CORRECT system at all, because it allows the bypass. Ainslie maintained for years that the FG could not act either as a power source, nor as a 50R impedance, passing current, and so its contribution has ALWAYS been neglected by the Ainslie-Martin team. The early schematics DO NOT EVEN SHOW the position of the Black FG output lead, and it is always described as "negative" whenever it is shown, which is clearly an incorrect way to refer to an AC output terminal. The Ainslie-Martin team always used this "wrong" hookup of the Black lead, in every photo and every video extant. The Paper 1 schematic is a lie because the data in the paper was taken just as usual: with the Black lead on the common negative rail.

THEN.  SADLY - I took that circuit to open source.  And you and MULTIPLE members of your team of DISCLAIMERS stated - CATEGORICALLY - that we now had the SIGNAL from the FUNCTION GENERATOR - SKEWING THE RESULTS, PRECISELY because it was adding energy to the circuit and this was not being properly measured by the CSR. 

That part is right, and that is exactly what S.Weir told Ainslie and Martin on Saturday 29th of June, and anyone can hear him telling them this very clearly in the video record.

This because that shunt was no longer in series with the battery negative terminal.  SO.  I changed it that the function generator's terminal was placed BEFORE that 'common' reference point.  It ALONE was moved.  The scope probe reference points STAYED WHERE THEY WERE.  So NOW we had this...

Bat  + > BAT - > scope 1,2 & 3 probe references ALL ON A SINGLE POINT - in fact on a single BOLT - in series > CSR > function generator's terminal.  The function generator's probe was placed directly on the Gate of Q1. 

The only place Ainslie ever did this was in the Paper's schematics. They never actually did this at all, at no time whatsoever. When Weir started conversing with Ainslie and Martin , he was looking at their PUBLISHED SCHEMATIC, and told them that was wrong, because it did not reflect what they actually were actually showing on their board, as DONOVAN MARTIN HIMSELF tells us in the demonstration, actually. It is wrong in the sense that it doesn't reflect what Ainslie and Martin actually used. It is NOT wrong in the sense of current sensing: the schematic in the papers, which they never actually used, is Right for current sensing, if one can isolate one's FG and make the measurement correctly. Weir wanted them to publish right away the "correct" schematic: correct in that it corresponded to what they actually used. But what they actually used is NOT correct because of the CVR not giving an accurate picture of the current flowing in the system.

THIS, according to Weir and to all our team was and is WRONG.  BUT NOR DOES THIS CHANGE THE MEASURED EVIDENCE.  WE STILL MEASURE A NEGATIVE WATTAGE.  The DIFFERENCE is this.  FIGURE 3 PAPER 1 shows 12 volts applied at the Gate of Q1 when, IN FACT, there is only 4 volts applied at the Gate of Q1. 

Hah. Prove it, Ainslie. You cannot. There is no possible change in position of the FG's Black lead that will cause an applied +4 volts to the gate of Q1 to indicate +12 volts on the scope as it does in your Figure 3, and for you to claim otherwise is an ignorant and feeble lie.

[poynt99]

However, your "composite" drawing and your description is _very_ confusing.  For example, you state "CSR is essentially "shorted out" through common earth if FG ref placed correctly as shown."  i.e.; "shorted out" (bad) vs. "correctly" (good.)

I'm not sure what you mean MH. The diagram depicts how the FG should be connected in order to capture all the currents through the CSR. It also illustrates the challenge in trying to connect the FG correctly. If we did so without regard to the common earth in both the FG and scope, the CSR will be part of a big ground loop and the measurements will be erroneous. Rosemary, myself, and TK are not connecting the FG the correct way though thus far. But at least in my own and TK's case, that is on purpose to be "on par" with Rose.

Another thing.  Let's assume that you use an isolation transformer for the function generator and the reference terminal for the function generator output will be on the "high" side of the CSR as per your drawing.  The scope reference connections remain at the "low" side of the CSR (i.e.; same node as the true battery post ground.)  That will allow you to see all of the oscillation current through the CSR when you are in the OFF phase of the function generator output.  But how do you measure the "battery voltage" now that the "battery" is the real battery in series with the FG OFF output?  And of course the load resistor and Q2 D-S and the 50-ohm resistor are in between the two separate voltage sources.

I think the best way to deal with this is to perform two separate measurements; one Pbat and one Pfg.

Is the FG's own AC loop through the Q2 G-S also something that you also want to account for?

I'm not sure I know what you mean, but I think I'm going to say "no".