New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[SeaMonkey]

Gyulasun,

The modern switching supplies have incredible
efficiency in spite of the high frequencies of
operation.  The higher frequencies are used
nowadays in order to make the circuitry very
compact yet still able to deliver high current
levels to the loads.

MOSFETs, the preferred switching devices, require
significantly more drive power at the higher
frequencies than at low frequencies.

Find the optimum low frequency with the best
ratio of inductance to load resistance.

Certain carbon heating elements have unique
properties.

Application Notes are an excellent source of
technical information which will not be found
anywhere else.  Read them carefully looking for
the gems of knowledge.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie's intention to return to the Quantum magazine's claimed COP>17 circuit is welcomed by me. The first thing we can determine, once and for all, is the issue of the timer duty cycle.  Or rather we WOULD be able to determine this if Ainslie wasn't such an uncooperative and mendacious person.

It is incontrovertible that the published schematic cannot produce the duty cycle that is claimed in the article. This FACT has been confirmed over and over, even by her former collaborators like Aaron and Ashtweth, FuzzyTomCat, and others. The only question remains: did the apparatus itself conform to the published schematic? Either it DID.... in which case all the data in the article is, as usual, bogus and the article and the claims it makes are lies.... or it DID NOT, in which case.... all the data was produced with some other circuit than claimed, at who knows what duty cycle and other parameters.... making the article bogus, and the claims it makes are lies.

As I have shown above, Ainslie has acknowledged that the schematic is erroneous in 2009 ... but she has never posted a correction, she never mentions the "error" when she refers to the article (as GMEAST found out! I really LOLed over that one!) and therefore, her references to the uncorrected Quantum article are, once again, blatant and easily-provable Ains-lies.

There are many person-years of work in various archives concerning the Quantum magazine article and its claims. The Energetic Forum has been exploring this circuit more or less continuously since 2009, even after falling out with Ainslie and banning her. FuzzyTomCat has done mountains of work on this circuit and she has attacked him most viciously.... and he has made his archive public.

It is also important to remember that for YEARS, Ainslie and Martin have claimed that this original apparatus was "sent off" somewhere for testing and never made it back home. Martin can be heard to claim this himself in the recent recordings. Yet... miracle of miracles.... just as the NERD apparatus reveals its flaws publicly.... Ainslie reports that the Quantum device has been in her possession all along. It isn't lost after all, it either wasn't sent off as they claimed or it made it home without problems.

You would think, wouldn't you, that the inventors might keep better track of a device that made seventeen times more energy than you put into it. Wouldn't you?

So BRING IT ON, Ainslie. Your Quantum article is even less defensible than your bogus "Q-array" daft manuscripts, and there has already been done a veritable MOUNTAIN of work proving you wrong, and not a single report supporting your claims with properly performed measurements.

[SeaMonkey]

TK,

One must wonder whether Rosemary set out
on a campaign to deceive by intentionally
creating erroneous data; or did she simply
mis-interpret what she found due to lack of
technical training and experience?

Many researchers in various fields of science
have, feeling pressure to make a name for
themselves or to deliver a product, grossly
falsified data relating to studies and trials.
We are constantly being lied to by representatives
of the pharmaceutical industry and the agricultural
industry.

The lies which emanate from governments are
staggering and they, unfortunately for us, are
intended to deceive and are intentional.

We are awash in a sea of lies from virtually every
front;  it has become the new American Way of Life!

There are liars and there are damn liars.

Rosemary is presently feeling the pain of being
wrong and may be quite bewildered.  In time
she will no doubt find it in her heart to make
things right.  In the interim defensive measures
kick in which are hormonally driven.  Remember
how hormones make women crazy during pregnancy?

I do believe that this story will have an honorable
conclusion.  But, don't hold your breath;  it may
take a while to get there...

[TinselKoala]

TK,

One must wonder whether Rosemary set out
on a campaign to deceive by intentionally
creating erroneous data; or did she simply
mis-interpret what she found due to lack of
technical training and experience?

I have documented too many "errors" of this kind for it to be anything other than intentional. You can see for yourself in the "Donny Blooper Reel" that an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER is gesturing to a simple, open, circuit that he has been operating for some time, and that he totally misrepresents the true nature of the circuit. You can also see for yourself, in the old thread discussing the demo, that she ADMITS to this deception and wishes that Poynt99 hadn't revealed it. This is NOT an error!
Further, the Figure 3 scopeshot cannot be made by any simple error, and it is impossible under the conditions claimed, and anyone familiar with mosfets, like YOU, maybe, can tell that this is true. It is a deliberate fabrication. No, I am not saying they cleverly and sinisterly set the apparatus to make that data deliberately although this is certainly possible. I am saying that the garbage shot, made with something wrong, so definitely appeared to support her claims that she and Martin put it in the paper _even though_ they, or at least Martin, had to know it was bogus. No simple "misplaced probes" can result in those scope traces. If it was made by an error in wiring or a melted-off soldered wire or a blown mosfet, any of these mistakes would have had to be repaired for the apparatus to work again -- making the data collected before the repair immediately suspect. Yet in all these years they never even once, before June 29 2013, even tried to repeat that shot. Why? I know why: because they could not do it, and even the attempt to do so would surely reveal their ruse.
So why did Ainslie agree to do it this time? Simply because she finally ran out of any plausible excuse not to do it, and she could no longer fight off the criticisms, and ... yes.... her psychopathology prevents her from believing she could be wrong, so she even has come to believe her own lies. So she believed that she would be putting me, picowatt, .99 and others "in our places" by reproducing her fantasy scopeshot, but of course she could not.
An early posting of the "papers" actually contained a scopeshot where the Zero baseline markers for the critical Math and Gate channels had been deliberately edited out of the image!

The situation is the same with the Quantum 555-clocked circuit. Her arrogance prevents her from acknowledging fully and honestly the error in the schematic, and her mendacity has prevented her from showing the original apparatus, and her sheer trollness makes her start insulting people about it, yet again.

[gyulasun]

Gyulasun,  The modern switching supplies have incredible efficiency in spite of the high frequencies of operation.  The higher frequencies are used nowadays in order to make the circuitry very compact yet still able to deliver high current levels to the loads.
MOSFETs, the preferred switching devices, require significantly more drive power at the higher frequencies than at low frequencies. Find the optimum low frequency with the best ratio of inductance to load resistance. Certain carbon heating elements have unique properties. Application Notes are an excellent source of technical information which will not be found anywhere else.  Read them carefully looking for the gems of knowledge.

SeaMonkey:

You answered 'oranges' again when the topic is still 'apples' so thanks for completely ignoring the real meaning of my last answer to you.

Just keep it up, bravo!