Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

The BLUE trace is the mosfet DRAIN trace. As we all know by now, in the high-side load configuration Ainslie used, the DRAIN voltage will be at Battery Voltage when the mosfet is OFF, and the DRAIN voltage falls to near zero volts when the mosfet (Rdss 2.0 ohms minimum) is ON.

Right?

I have annotated the FTC trace to indicate the Vbatt level on the DRAIN trace. Only when the mosfet DRAIN voltage is at or near this red line, is it OFF and not conducting.

[TinselKoala]

Can you see everything you need to see in this shot below? The amplitude of the DRAIN spike is fully controllable by adding or subtracting inductance between the Load and the mosfet Drain pin. I don't have a 100x attenuating probe, or I could show 600 volt peaks here by adding a bit more inductance.

Any questions? The DC ammeter shows about 1.45 amps and the load resistor is heating like gangbusters.... as it should, since the mosfet is almost totally ON, even with the "50 percent" duty cycle sent from the FG.

That's right, I'm using the F43 to make this trace and its Duty Cycle is set to about 50 percent. The mosfet, due to its slow response time, is staying on most of the time, though, as can be clearly seen in the DRAIN trace.

The Blue cursor is at Vbatt of 24 volts wrt the Drain trace. The Green cursor is at 12 volts wrt the purple Gate Signal trace.

[TinselKoala]

She is still at it! Outrageous!

Guys - after all these years it seems that TK, Poynty and just about everyone engaged in refuting those Quantum paper tests had actually CONCEDED that there was a variable duty cycle - but that we could NOT have managed a 3% ON.  Who would have thought?

After all these years we've CONCEDED? What an outrageous liar you are, Ainslie. My video of June 2009 "refers". I demonstrate the variable duty cycle and the variable frequency of the schematic you published, and that it produces the INVERSE of what you claimed. Once again, your willfull ignorance has trapped you with your foot far down your throat, caught YET AGAIN in an outrageous lying misrepresentation of the facts.

I've asked Poynty to actually link me to those posts where he's claimed this.  TK you can forget.  He's written all over the place that we were applying a 90% ON.  And TYPICALLY he now denies this. 

Where's the link, Ainslie? You cannot provide it because I NEVER SAID THAT.

He stormed onto Energetic forum in 2009 or thereby with PRECISELY this complaint. 

Then it should be easy for you to provide some support for your claim. But you cannot. As usual you make claims without providing any support or checkable outside reference.

And 'Joit' - I think it was - actually wrote that he had built our 555 driver.  Interestingly Joit is Polish - I think.  His English was a bit compromised and I first read that he'd NOT managed it.  I immediately apologised to all and sundry - and was then ASSURED by Joit that INDEED he had found that our circuit config certainly COULD  manage the 3% that we claimed. 

And later, even Joit conceded that YOU, and HE, were wrong and I am right. It's an EASY CIRCUIT TO BUILD, Ainslie, and everyone who has built and tested it agrees, once they get over their mistakes.

EVEN AARON AGREES. See the image of his post below. If you are able to, that is.

We've now taken some photos of that 555 circuit.  Hopefully you can see all the components.  I'll be asking Steve Weir to do an analysis of that to determine whether the circuit was tweaked beyond the schematic in the paper.  I'm also sending those same pictures to an expert in electronics for a second opinion.  This because that expert is in Cape Town.  I can take the entire apparatus to him - as required - if the photos are not enough.  But I'm hoping that between Poynty and Steve - we'll get some informed opinion.

If the circuit is as diagrammed in the Quantum paper, then it cannot produce the duty cycle you claimed to use, and the article lies. If the circuit is different from the schematic in the Quantum paper.... then the article lies! It doesn't matter what your apparatus has on it NOW or what your duty cycle actually was, for the purposes of this single point.  The article gives a schematic that either was on the board THEN or it does not. Either way, the article lies, because the given schematic cannot produce the duty cycle claimed.

What angers me is this.  Jandrell insisted that the 555 driver was included in the paper - when according to many other advices - it should NOT have been included.  You will note that the claim is NOT related to that driver.  It is related to the applied duty cycle.  And in that paper we go to some lengths to advise all and sundry that the applied duty cycle will vary depending on the inductance of the circuit components.  We specifically state that this needs to be adjusted to each circuit in order to induce that oscillation.  NO duty cycle recommended for purposes of replication.  YET - Mark Euthanasius has written to advise me that no professional will EVER test that claim UNLESS they PRECISELY replicate our 3% ON.  WHY?  That effectively contradicts our own advices on this.  It's RIDICULOUS. 

Is that really what Mark E said? I don't think so. But that is really  immaterial. The point is that your Quantum article contains FALSE INFORMATION bearing your name. That doesn't disturb you in the least, does it.

What Poynty is NOW saying is that according to our schematic we could NOT have managed that 3% ON.  I neither know nor care.  What I intend showing is the actual switch that most CERTAINLY could manage a 3% ON.  I KNOW this because we specifically designed it to do this - as we saw that we could improve on results if we could also shorten that 'on' time. 

You don't care that the article bearing your name has false information in it. And you are PROUD of the fact that you don't care !

But here's the actual cause of my anger.  I'm angry that TK IMPLIED that we had inverted the duty cycle in his efforts to negate the claim.  I'm angry that he now denies this.

Are you going to hold your breath, jump up and down and turn blue? Stomp your feet, have a hissy fit? Your statement is so convoluted I'm having trouble parsing it. Yes, the schematic you published cannot make the duty cycle you claim and in fact makes the inverse duty cycle, and since you don't understand why the mosfet DRAIN voltage is HIGH when the mosfet is OFF, you don't understand why the "exact inverse" duty cycle is significant and CANNOT BE A COINCIDENCE. Plus, the high heat results you claim cannot be made with a true 3.7 percent ON duty cycle but are quite easy to make with the INVERSE 96.7 percent ON duty cycle. So be angry or don't be angry, I don't care BUT GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT, whatever you do, and stop lying about what people have said to you.

I'm angry that he denies that anyone has successfully replicated that waveform when there are multiple internet samples available and he's well aware of these.

And I'm angry that you claim that I have said that! You can't provide a reference, as usual. You've even claimed that I HAVEN"T REPLICATED YOUR WAVEFORMS, but of course I have. And I just a few minutes ago duplicated some more waveforms.

I'm angry that Jandrell insisted that we take out those 2 x 17 hour comparative draw down tests - which would  have ENTIRELY proved the numbers that we were measuring.

Let's hear from Professor Jandrell about that, shall we? Your statements are not credible when you describe something that happened LAST WEEK much less eleven years ago.

I'm angry that Mark Euthanasius denies that we got accreditation that we published in our Quantum paper.   

You have never provided any evidence at all, so why should anyone believe you? You don't even get DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS right! Unless you provide evidence the default value is that you are simply wrong.

I'm heartily sick of them all.  There is ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT in terms of PUBLICATION to go beyond the facts that are presented.  And in presenting any such paper the standard is that the test is replicated - and IF the claim is found wanting then that paper is duly published that the claim can be investigated.  This NONSENSE - based on whether or not the facts in the paper may be slightly out or not?  It's ABSURD.  AGAIN and AGAIN, and again.  It does NOT need an applied 3% ON. And these modifications - these retractions that they call for?  It's SO FAR from standard procedure as to make their arguments and their demands COMICAL. That is NOT how published papers are assessed.  They're assessed under experimental conditions ONLY.

Again you are saying that it doesn't matter that your article contains false information. You are astounding!

IF anyone actually takes the trouble to test that circuit - then - REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF INDUCTANCE ON THEIR RESISTOR  - they WILL of a certainty - get it into that oscillation - that 'flop mode' - call it what you will - at just about any applied duty cycle - provided only that the frequency is ALSO adjusted.  You do NOT need a 'feed back' diode.  You only need to use a MOSFET as this has it's own intrinsic body diode.   And when you get it into that operation mode - that oscillation - you will see for yourselves what we are talking about.  There is a measurable over unity result - and that result is further PROVABLE under operating conditions where a battery WILL outperform it's watt hour rating.

Sorry for the rant
Kindest regards
Rosie

Just like it did on August 10 and 11. Right. You are making false claims that you cannot support with real, properly performed measurements in a well conducted experiment and you have already proven that, beyond any doubt.

[TinselKoala]

Well well well.

According to Ainslie's "Debunking Troll 'Spin' as it applies to Science" thread, she has posted the promised photos of the original, formerly "lost", Quantum magazine apparatus.

Of course, one needs to be a logged-in member of that honeypot forum in order to see them.

I wonder what they will show. According to Ainslie they will show that the circuit IS the one posted in the Quantum article and they will show that it DOES make a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle as claimed in the article. Right? It's hard for me to wade through all her insults to determine just how those photos will refute me, but she claims they will.

A nice clear shot of both sides of the 555 board, as requested by .99, so that we can confirm the wiring. I can hardly wait to see it.

But... what will be the verdict if the photos show some other circuit than what was claimed? What then? What if it even has wildly different components in it than are shown in the Quantum published schematic? Is it possible that Ainslie would carry out, YET AGAIN, another conscious deception as to the actual schematic in use, the way she did back in March/April of 2011? Surely not..... she is "honorable" isn't she?

[TinselKoala]

Well well well. It appears that the Ainslie troll has LIED TO US AGAIN.

Remember when she said this:

What I know is that we've got the equipment so will, at least, be able to present the ACTUAL 555 circuit for analysis.  And we will be doing so within the week.  And it is THAT circuit that we used in support of our results.  It's a 555 with a variable resistor to allow for multiple duty cycle settings.

And this:

Rose,
Having a closeup look of your 555 circuit is a great idea. Please take some high-res photos of both the top and bottom of the board, thanks.

Poynty - Not only will I show this but will show where the 555 timer is attached to the apparatus where we actually ADJUST the duty cycle as required. 

Guys - if you need any kind of a guide as to just how deep in a pickle is our little pickle just pay attention to his volume.  The rule is this.  'The deeper - the louder'.  And RIGHT now he's at full volume.   Most amusing.

Yes, most amusing, I am laughing out loud!

And this:

And within the next 48 hours I should be able to put up those shots of the test apparatus that we used for our demonstration of that first Quantum paper.  I'll be relying on Steve's genius to analyse the switch as I've been advised NOT to dismantle this.  Which means that the evidence will be confined to photographs.  But between him and Poynty - I'm satisfied that we'll get a fair report.

And THIS:

I intend retrieving this later on this morning and will then photograph it and will show the duty cycle switch where we adjusted for both frequency and duty cycle - AND -  the details of that circuit.  Poynty and Steve are well able to determine if it is designed to apply a variable duty cycle.  If it DOES show this - then TK - aka Tinsel Koala - commonly referred to  as Little TK or 'ickle pickle' WILL BE CALLED ON TO RETRACT HIS OBJECTIONS IN WHOLE AND IN PART.  As will MARK EUTHANASIUS.  THEN.  Under those circumstances our claims on this subject STAND.  And in the interest of impartial investigation into matters of science - as is widely claimed by both Sterling Allen and Mark Dansie - I INSIST that those retractions be made public.  That - after all - is only fair.

And if it DOES NOT show what you claim here? Who will be making a public retraction THEN, I wonder.

And this:

I intend retrieving this later on this morning and will then photograph it and will show the duty cycle switch where we adjusted for both frequency and duty cycle - AND -  the details of that circuit.[/color]

I'm done with this - short of posting those photos.  That should be completed later today.

I shall post those photographs tomorrow. 

We've now taken some photos of that 555 circuit.  Hopefully you can see all the components.  I'll be asking Steve Weir to do an analysis of that to determine whether the circuit was tweaked beyond the schematic in the paper.  I'm also sending those same pictures to an expert in electronics for a second opinion.  This because that expert is in Cape Town.  I can take the entire apparatus to him - as required - if the photos are not enough.  But I'm hoping that between Poynty and Steve - we'll get some informed opinion.

BUT NOW... we have this:

Rose,
May I repost these over at OU?

Absolutely NOT Poynty.  I would consider that a complete breach of the trust between us.  This is NOT intended for those trolls.

Rosie

I am laughing in my coffee. Ainslie does not DARE show the photographs, because they simply do not support her claims! Even though she promised, over and over, to do so!

And they especially do not refute ME in the slightest.

The published schematic in the Quantum magazine article is NOT the circuit of the apparatus that Ainslie has just "found". But she dare not show it because she knows it will subject her to even more ridicule than before. If that's possible, even.

Of course, anyone who is a member of her forum can download them. If they then leak to the public ... whose fault will it be, who can she blame? Certainly not Little Old Me. After all she promised to share them publicly, after all.

All the Ainslie quotes can be found on the last two pages of her "Trolling" thread. But where can the promised photos be found, I wonder?