New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[powercat]

Rosemary is an honorable woman

If that was the case she would immediately retract the paper and her claim of OU, as time goes by it is looking more like she is a deceitful woman and not at all honorable.

[TinselKoala]

If that was the case she would immediately retract the paper and her claim of OU, as time goes by it is looking more like she is a deceitful woman and not at all honorable.

That is correct. Yet, today, the papers are STILL UP, no retraction or errata report has been issued.... and she has announced her intention to try to reproduce the Quantum Magazine claims!

That is right: She intends to try to reproduce the Quantum Magazine article, that had the 555 timer circuit that CANNOT POSSIBLY produce the duty cycle that Ainslie claimed to use, but rather produces the EXACT INVERSE DUTY CYCLE, which means that she was using a 96 percent ON duty cycle instead of the 4 percent (or 3.7 or whatever short) ON duty cycle.

So once again we are in the SAME SITUATION as the "figure 3". The published circuit CANNOT produce the claimed performance, so either her thermal data is made with a different circuit than what is claimed, or it IS made with the published circuit. Either way, the paper is another compendium of lies and errors.

This fact has been known DEFINITELY since at least 2009. Yet Ainslie has never withdrawn or posted any corrections to this "paper". The argument over the 555 timer circuit in this "paper" is where I came into this story.... when I built the circuit and found, JUST AS GMEAST DID RECENTLY, that it "did not work" or rather worked very differently than claimed. (At that time she was still claiming she "had a patent", when really it was just a lapsed WIPO application, something that anyone can "have" and which is meaningless.) Again... this is NOT A SIMPLE ERROR. The timer circuit is specifically designed to make the duty cycle it makes, and no transposition of parts or miswiring can produce the _exact inverse_ of the desired cycle. 

Ainslie's confusion comes from the fact that she did not, and perhaps still does not, understand that the voltage at the DRAIN of her mosfet will be HIGH when the power to the load is OFF (mosfet off). So she sees a 4 percent HI signal at the mosfet Drain and thinks that means she has a 4 percent ON duty cycle at the load.

Her 2009-2010 "replicators" Aaron and Ashtweth at Energetic Forum made the same conceptual mistake, and so I had to make a few very elementary videos illustrating their error.

This argument went on far longer than it might have with _cooperative claimants_ and even resulted in Aaron suggesting I try a specific circuit .... but of course he had not tried it himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA
I was banned from EF shortly after that, for my insistence on FACT and TRUTH. It wasn't too much later that Aaron and Ashtweth found out that I was actually right all along, and they wound up turning against Ainslie too and banning HER !!

So, just as I predicted: It is not over. Ainslie persists in her madness, her distortions, and her lies. The Quantum Magazine article is a lie! Anyone who builds the published circuit can see this for themselves.

And if she eliminates the 555, uses a FG or a negative bias supply.....  then she simply has the same circuit as the NERD 5-mosfet circuit but without the magic "Q-array" !! Just a "q1".  It is to laugh.  Will Donovan Martin again allow his name to be used? Her former Quantum Magazine co-author BC Buckley is unavailable-- let Ainslie tell us why.

(Don't forget, Ainslie.... there is a fourth "paper" that you must also withdraw, IF YOU ARE HONORABLE.....  the "EIT" paper.)

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie and Martin both claimed, several times, that the original apparatus used in the Quantum magazine report was "sent off" and was never returned, it was lost. But now, just a few days ago, she announced that she still has the apparatus after all, and has had it all this time.

How convenient! When it was important to see and test this apparatus, back in 2009, it was "lost" according to Ainslie and Martin. But now it's found! Amazing Grace!

Great ! Then she will have no problem at all illustrating that the 555 Timer circuit she used is _different_ from that published, and that the circuit she DID use does make the duty cycle she claimed to use.

You know I -- OR ANYONE COMPETENT -- could, AND WOULD, immediately demonstrate this in a five minute video. But then, I'm not making OU claims.

[TinselKoala]

So just where is the magic going to come from in Ainslie's planned return to the Quantum magazine circuit? The 555 timer?

I submit two schematics below. Compare, contrast, discuss.

[poynt99]

On the basis of empirically acquired understanding.

It is essential that the inductance be as near perfect
as is practicable and that the switching mechanism
to steer flyback pulses to the heating element be as
near lossless as is possible.  The switching controllers
used in state of the art switching supplies will simplify
the process.  Some have external inputs to vary
frequency, pulse width and dead time.

Why not show us your empirical results?