Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[poynt99]

There are a few psychos on this forum (including one posting in this thread mentioning and with OCD), but TK is certainly not one of them.

[TinselKoala]

Thanks for chiming in, Mark E.

The "groundloop" problem is this.

The Negative pole of the battery is used as the common ground reference point for all oscilloscope probes. The primary scope used by Ainslie, the LeCroy WaveJet 324, has all of the probe reference leads connected to the chassis ground, which is connected to the mains ground through the ground pin of the power cord. All scope probe "grounds" or references are connected to chassis and mains ground.
See pages 10 and 11 in the 300 series manual.

http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/manuals/wj300a-gsm_reva.pdf

However, the "ground" or Black output lead from the Function Generator should NOT be connected at this point because doing so allows the FG to bypass the circuit's Current Sense Resistor (CSR or CVR). To allow the CSR to see all the important currents in the circuit the FG Black output lead must be connected on the transistor side of the CSR, not the battery side.

BUT.... on many Function Generators, the Black (BNC shield) output lead is also connected to the chassis ground and the mains ground! This means that a groundloop is formed: the Black FG lead is connected to the scope grounds, back through the Mains ground connection. So, in the claimed Ainslie circuit given in the two daft manuscripts, the scope grounds are on one side of the CSR and the FG ground is on the other side of the CSR, effectively shorting it out. Therefore the CSR will not give reliable readings of the currents in the circuit.

The Function Generator used by Ainslie was the IsoTech GFG 8216a. I can't tell explicitly in the manual whether the chassis ground is permanently connected to the Black (BNC shield) output, but going by the "ground" symbols on each of the BNC connectors I believe it is.

http://www.artisantg.com/info/PDF__496E7374656B5F4746475F38323535415F4D616E75616C.pdf

IF the GFG8216a FG does indeed have its Black output lead connected permanently to chassis and mains ground... then the only way that one may get valid readings from the CSR when connected as shown in the two manuscripts would be to use a ground lift adapter on one or the other of the instruments, to avoid shorting the CSR by the groundloop. No mention of this problem, or the use of a ground lift adapter, is made in the manuscripts. But we know already that the Ainslie team never actually used this connection! They always used the FG Black output lead connected at the common circuit ground, the battery Negative pole.

Tl;dr: All the current data from the scope used in the Ainslie reports is invalid. It was either obtained with an effectively shorted CSR (If they actually used the schematic in the reports) OR it allowed the current path through the FG to bypass the CSR altogether (if they used the same connection they always used in all available photos and demonstrations.) The only way around this difficulty would be for the Ainslie team somehow to show that, for the manuscripts, they did indeed use the connection in the schematics given, AND used either a ground-lift adapter or an isolated FG. Otherwise, all the current data is invalid.

[MarkE]

Thanks for chiming in, Mark E.

The "groundloop" problem is this. ...

TinselKoala, you are welcome.  During the June 29 demonstration Donovan Martin confirmed what you note:  The Instek function generator black lead connects to the mains earth.  The function generator was connected to the battery instead of the transistors as they documented in their papers.  The function generator debacle is one of the discrepancies between what Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators said they had done and what they actually did that you and others have exposed. 

Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators should be grateful that skilled persons such as yourself and poynt99 have taken so much time to figure out her actual circuits and test configurations.  She should be grateful that you have determined major error sources.  Were Ms. Ainslie to have actually made a discovery, knowing the actual conditions needed to reproduce that discovery would be important to all concerned.

Over these many years Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators have shown that they have not made the discoveries that they have claimed.  Diligent efforts by replicators such as poynt99 and yourself, as well as Ms. Ainslie's own June and August demonstrations have established without any doubt that the thermal energy gains that they thought they had were all illusions.  Those demonstrations probably would never have happened had it not been for you and poynt99.  Whether they acknowledge it or not, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators are deeply in your collective debt.

[gmeast]

GMEAST Whatever else TK may or may not be, he has proven himself an excellent experimental scientist.  He uses sound methods to investigate the subjects he is interested in, is willing to be surprised by what what he observes, and shares his methods and results in clear and comprehensive presentations.

We are now more than eleven years past the publication of Ms. Ainslie's magazine article.  In all of that time there has not been a single replication of the heat output energy gain over input electrical energy that she and her collaborators reported.  In all of that time neither Ms. Ainslie nor any of her collaborators have reconciled the absolute proven fact that the  "precise circuit" depicted in that article is incapable of producing the timing also specified in that article as producing the alleged energy gain.  Many experimenters have attempted variations of the circuit and timing and none have obtained her reported gains.  However, TK has reliably demonstrated that the gains reported in the magazine article could easily be the result of Ms. Ainslie misunderstanding the operation of her own test apparatus.  Rather than honestly explore TK explanation to determine if it is the truth, she has engaged in very personal public squabbles.

TK and many others have spent many hours attempting to find out from Ms. Ainslie exactly what circuit was used to obtain the observations that led her and her collaborators to their extraordinary conclusions.  I have myself fully investigated and reported on the timing portion of the apparatus reported in that article.  To this day, no one knows for certain what circuit was used or what measurements were observed.  That fault lies with Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators, not with the replicators, including TK.  In fact of late Ms. Ainslie expresses the view that the "precise circuit" does not matter.  Yet, neither she nor any of her collaborators have shown any configuration that yields the results claimed in that magazine article.

It is now several years since Ms. Ainslie first presented her "Q-Array" circuit, and composed with her collaborators the two papers:  "Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity
Measured on Switched Circuit Apparatus", and "Proposed variation to Faradays Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure".  Ms. Ainslie to her credit publicly reproduced her private tests of August 10, 2013 on August 11, 2013 showing that the energy gains that she thought she had obtained with the "Q-Array" fixture were in fact illusions caused by measurement errors.  She showed that the actual heat output from the heating element using the "Q-Array" circuit was only 20% of the energy drawn from the battery.  Also to her credit, she then withdrew the two papers.

Now, with absolutely no new evidence, Ms. Ainslie attempts to reinstate her claims.  These are claims that she and her collaborators proved false in August 2013.  Coincident with that incredible decision, Ms. Ainslie has elected to throw barb after barb against persons who have not only consistently shown their work, but shown their work to be correct.

If as your posts suggest, you believe Ms. Ainslie's claims then I suggest you attempt to replicate her experiments and claimed results, and stop taking cheap shots at people who already have.

Someone may or may not be 'an excellent experimental scientist' (as you put it), but when that person obsesses over 'needing' to crush or destroy someone else, as he does, any admirable qualities are overshadowed by this serious character flaw ... it is tantamount to pouting and stomping his feet in an uncontrolled fit. And to call someone "EVIL" is a little bit over the top ... very immature.


As for if I believe Rosemary Ainslie's claims, and if so why don't I replicate the experiment? I have been familiar with some of the observations made of Inductive Resistor Heater experiments performed by researchers over the course of the past 20 years. Upon learning of Rosiemary Ainslie's work I decided to finally build a variant of here experiment. My YouTube channel has a video slide show of my experiment and the results. I am convinced that there is something to what she claims. Of course TK considers any support for Rosemary Ainslie's claims to be scientific haressy, and so I have become just as Evil (I guess) and guilty by association. That sort of reasoning is childish ... again, very immature.     


Later,


Greg

[TinselKoala]

LOL....

No, not by association, but rather, guilty in your own right.