New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[TinselKoala]

Waaait a minute.... The Quantum schematic was actually VERY DIFFERENT from the one she posted above and that I copied over to here. The Quantum schematic did not include the Diode across the load, and the Quantum schematic used the problematic 555 timer circuit, not the FG.

Below I attach the actual schematic published in the Quantum article, and my "re-draw" of it, clarifying the relationship to the discredited 5-mosfet circuit and the Unclamped Inductive Test circuit in the back of every power mosfet data sheet.

[TinselKoala]

So .... we are now in the position of waiting for Ainslie to show how the basic Inductive Clamp Test circuit, which she tried to patent with a 555 timer, is going to produce overunity performance that somehow has not been noticed by power supply designers and high-end audio amplifier designers.....

They are as children, playing with toys they do not understand, and who are either unwilling or simply incapable of doing the necessary homework in order to avoid making the silly errors they keep committing. And Ainslie is so arrogant that, instead of being ashamed of herself for attempting to patent a simple circuit from the Public Domain, in use for decades before she ever heard of MOSFETs..... she is bragging about it and believes she can demonstrate some "benefit" from the circuit.

Well, bring it on, Ainslie. Let's see your RAW DATA. We already know that some, if not all, of your Raw Data is fabricated, not collected under the stated conditions as you claim. Clearly your interpretations and crunched data cannot be trusted at all.

[Tseak]

Its a small world!
Viv Cronje is lecturing at Wits university. John Wilson was MD of Spescom Measuregraph, the instrumentation division. I'm not sure where he is now, probably in the same place. I don't know the others.

[TinselKoala]

The fact that there may or may not be a mix up in the design of the 555 switching circuit is IMMATERIAL.  I have questioned our academics on this...

Have you heard anything more absurd than this statement of Ainslie's?

A magazine article was actually Published -- her only real publication concerning these circuits -- and it contained claims about duty cycles used.
BUT--- the schematic diagram provided in the article and represented as the circuit tested CANNOT POSSIBLY PRODUCE the duty cycle claimed.

So one or both of two conditions exist: either the experiment was performed USING A DIFFERENT CIRCUIT than that which was presented..
And/Or the claims wrt the duty cycle used and performance of the apparatus are FALSE.

This is "immaterial"? A publication bearing the names of Rosemary Ainslie and BC Buckley... a real publication , not some posting on a vanity blog ... contains false information presented as factual. IT IS A LIE. That's not "immaterial" !! I'd love to see a statement from some "academics" that would say that including false information in a publication is "immaterial".

No matter how you slice it. If the experiment was performed using the duty cycle claimed, it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE with the schematic posted. If the schematic posted was used, THE EXPERIMENT COULD NOT HAVE USED the duty cycle claimed.

The "error" in the 555 timer duty cycle as published has been confirmed over and over by Ainslie's cooperators and her detractors... she waffles back and forth about apologizing... but she has NEVER corrected the schematic nor posted any proof that a correct timer duty cycle was in fact used.
THE QUANTUM PAPER IS BOGUS for this reason alone and must be retracted !!! The paper is wrong! This has already been proven, by every one from Gmeast back to .... guess who in 2009.

[TinselKoala]

Its a small world!
Viv Cronje is lecturing at Wits university. John Wilson was MD of Spescom Measuregraph, the instrumentation division. I'm not sure where he is now, probably in the same place. I don't know the others.

Hah.
Now.... watch Ainslie begin to freak out.



I realize "John" is, or used to be, a pretty common given name.... but out of eight males Ainslie names, three of them are named "John". I don't know whether this is more, or less, improbable than the "Tarnow" and the "Tarnowski" , an entire world apart ... but there it is.