Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Each of us choose the tone in which we offer our arguments.  My view is that by staying focused on data, and avoiding personal issues discussions stay on track, and the important messages: the ones that concern the data, are the ones that are heard by most of the audience. 

It is obvious that Ms. Ainslie made gross errors concerning the concepts and measurement units for work and power.  It is also apparent from very recent comments on her blog that she may well still be struggling with those concepts.    I suggest to you that all are best served by simply pointing out what is wrong and what the correct facts are.   That may seem trying when someone engages in personal attacks.  I find that under most circumstances people who make personal attacks only get as much power as we give them.

Don't you find it at all ironic, or significant, that most of what is _actually_ known about these circuits and their behaviour comes from Ainslie's detractors? The data that we can trust doesn't come from Ainslie at all, it comes from others who have examined her output and who have simulated and built her various claimed circuits.

Her critics and detractors have determined the following, from the trustable data:
The Quantum published schematic cannot do what Ainslie claimed.
The circuit, minus the timer, which Ainslie attempted to patent (claiming it as her own), is in fact the simple unclamped inductive test circuit given in every power mosfet data sheet.
The "5 mosfet in parallel" circuit, claimed by Ainslie in the 2011 video, blog and forum posts, is no such thing.
The Figure 3 scopeshot and others like it are bogus, making Ainslie's claims that depend upon them also bogus.
The batteries used in these circuits do indeed discharge, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
No water was actually boiled by Ainslie in the experiments described in the manuscripts, contrary to Ainslie's deliberately misleading language.
The "box" contains a vastly different circuit than was claimed in the Quantum article and operates at a vastly different frequency, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
The "box" contains a chip manufactured in May of 2007, whereas Ainslie claims it hasn't been touched since 2003.

And on and on. Most of what we know is _in spite_ of Ainslie's mendacity and incompetence, rather than being due to her honest reportage and cooperative discussion.

[MarkE]

Don't you find it at all ironic, or significant, that most of what is _actually_ known about these circuits and their behaviour comes from Ainslie's detractors? The data that we can trust doesn't come from Ainslie at all, it comes from others who have examined her output and who have simulated and built her various claimed circuits.

Her critics and detractors have determined the following, from the trustable data:
The Quantum published schematic cannot do what Ainslie claimed.
The circuit, minus the timer, which Ainslie attempted to patent (claiming it as her own), is in fact the simple unclamped inductive test circuit given in every power mosfet data sheet.
The "5 mosfet in parallel" circuit, claimed by Ainslie in the 2011 video, blog and forum posts, is no such thing.
The Figure 3 scopeshot and others like it are bogus, making Ainslie's claims that depend upon them also bogus.
The batteries used in these circuits do indeed discharge, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
No water was actually boiled by Ainslie in the experiments described in the manuscripts, contrary to Ainslie's deliberately misleading language.
The "box" contains a vastly different circuit than was claimed in the Quantum article and operates at a vastly different frequency, contrary to Ainslie's claims.
The "box" contains a chip manufactured in May of 2007, whereas Ainslie claims it hasn't been touched since 2003.

And on and on. Most of what we know is _in spite_ of Ainslie's mendacity and incompetence, rather than being due to her honest reportage and cooperative discussion.

Oh, no I do not find this surprising at all.  This sort of thing happens a lot with people amateurs who think they have discovered a new big thing.  Whether they choose to acknowledge it or not: Ms. Ainslie, her collaborators, and basically anyone interested in her claims owe skeptics such as yourself and poynt99 who have applied their time and skills dissecting the claims and the purported tests a great debt for all the verifiable facts that you have collectively revealed.

With the possible exception of ever boiling water, and with only tiny doubt about the device date code yes you undoubtedly are correct on all the remaining points.

Whether Ms. Ainslie boiled water or not is less certain to me.  A 72V supply such as they had could apply nearly 500W to an 11 Ohm heating element such as they had.  To go from 25C to 100C and 100C liquid to vapor requires ~2600J/gm, or conversely they could boil about 12gm/minute.  So depending on duty cycle, water volume, and run time, boiling was possible with her fixture.

For all of her mistakes, reversals, contradictions of proven fact, and untoward behavior, nothing forces rude behavior or ridicule in return.  I suggest things work out best by leaving personal squabbles behind as insignificant noise.  The way things are, Ms. Ainslie or someone who thinks her ideas have merit are on the line to show that they do.  It does not seem that either Ms. Ainslie or anyone else is going to take any effort in that direction.  Thanks to the efforts of people like you and poynt99 her claims have for all effect been put to rest.

[TinselKoala]

In an effort to resolve your remaining doubts, I have attached below the STMicro Application Note that gives their date code marking schemes. I've already  posted the image of the chip, taken from Ainslie's photograph, up above. STMicroelectronics did not exist under that name in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics
Therefore the "7" in the date code must refer to 2007.

Next, I've attached the image of Ainslie's blog post describing the _single trial_ that is the basis for the report and "taken to boil" claim in the manuscript. (This is also the trial described by the "So. Do the math." bad mathematics in the post up above.) Why do you think she uses the convoluted language "taken to boil"?

Note that the scopeshot that accompanies that post is another of the problematic ones, where there is no current shown in the yellow CVR trace in spite of the ample gate drive during Q1 ON portions of the duty cycle.

Further, according to Ainslie's methodology, the thermocouple is attached directly to the heating element, and by Ainslie's own admission.... they _never measured_ the actual temperature of the water at any time. The claim of "taking water to boil" is completely bogus.

It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles...

We have NEVER measured the temperature of the water...

[MarkE]

SGS Thomson as it was known up to 1998 looks like they used the slanted ST logo prior to 1997.  I have been able to locate data sheets from as early as 1995 with the slanted ST logo.  I think you are right that the chip was made in 2007.  But I am not certain.  A picture of a 1997 chip would resolve this question.

In the additional quotes that you've posted, she stated that she did not evaporate the water, IE she did not actually boil it.  I concede your point.

I would be cautious about interpreting any current sense waveforms that she has ever posted prior to June 29 due to the errors shown during the June 29 demonstration.  Erroneous placement of the probe on the wrong side of the CSR was shown to generate Figure 3 like waveforms where no current appeared to flow during Q1 on time, when in reality multiple amps were flowing.  At the same time oscillation currents show up on their fixture during Q1 off times no matter which side of the CSR they used for their probe.  Which side does not affect the amplitude much, and the amplitude is an artifact of parasitic inductance in their wiring and their probe set-up.  Poynt99 demonstrated these latter issues.

[MarkE]

Ms. Ainslie continues to assert claims that her demonstration videos contradict.  At this time she claims that measurements taken August 11 at the battery show zero battery power draw during the Q1 off intervals.  These are the intervals when the circuit oscillates.

"the voltage waveform taken directly at the negative terminal of the battery - shows a current delivered during the 'ON' period of the duty cycle.  During the 'OFF' period the current defaults to zero.  This indicates that the current that is measured to flow through the circuit during this 'OFF' period is somehow generated from an energy supply that is NOT from that battery supply.  The indications therefore are that provided only that there is a continual negative signal applied to the Gate of Q1 (which represents the OFF period referred to) then that current flow can be perpetuated.  The implications of this are extraordinary."

The tests measurements taken at the battery can be seen in the video from about 1h 3min to 1h 5min.  The Q1 'OFF' period current oscillations are plainly evident as is the net battery power draw both graphically, and from the numerical measurements generated by the oscilloscope.  The battery power drain as computed by the oscilloscope is seen to be ~14W.  Shortly thereafter, the heater thermocouple reading was taken at 39.1C, and the ambient temperature thermocouple reading at 18.0C.  The heating power associated with that 21.1C temperature rise as measured by Ms. Ainslie's calibration reported in Paper 1 was between 2.4W and 3.4W.  The approximately 20% output over input power efficiency is not as Ms. Ainslie declares 'extraordinary'.  It is very poor.  Most of the power drawn from the battery is wasted in the four "Q2" power MOSFETs that are linearly biased during the oscillations.

Ms. Ainslie goes on to say:

"My early retraction was based on the irrefutable evidence that there was NO oscillation during the 'OFF' period that could be seen or measured at that battery negative terminal.  "

However, her now withdrawn retraction stated as the reason for the retraction was the far less than unity performance demonstrated.  The retraction makes no mention of missing Q2 oscillations.  And, as the video shows, the Q2 oscillations were in plain view.

"In June and August 2013 demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this
paper. The 2013 experiments were conducted under more stringent protocols than the originals. The experiments conducted: June 29
August 10, and August 11 failed to reproduce the results reported here.

The June 29 experiments were unable to bias Q1 as in Figure 3 without current flow also indicated in Figure 3.
The privately conducted August 10, and publicly conducted August 11 experiments were unable to corroborate net zero or negative battery
draw during periods of Q2 oscillation. Reference measurements taken at new sense points directly at the battery bank indicated average net
positive battery drain of 14W to 15W. Maximum heater temperature rise during these experiments was 21C. From our electrical DC power
to temperature rise tests conducted in 2011 and appear as Table II in this paper, a 21C heater temperature rise corresponds to an
equivalent power of between 2.4W and 3.4W. We therefore obtained heat output that was only a fraction of the input power.
As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts.
Details of the test protocols are available as August 11 Demonstration Outline_draft_05.pdf. Test Phases 1 - 3 were conducted during the
live demonstration. We ended the demonstration after Test Phase 3 when it became clear that the net battery power drain was far in excess
of the possible heater output power.
This retraction relates to the this circuit variant and does NOT represent a retraction of the claims in the Quantum paper published in 2002
a copy of which can be found at this link... Paper 3"