Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Ms. Ainslie currently asserts additional disproven ideas:

"What no-one could manage was an explanation for, or an analysis of, the path or the source of that oscillation.  This included Poynty - TK - Picowatt - MileHigh and the rest.  It was variously ASSUMED that the battery was passing current through the probes of the function generator itself - directly from the GATE of Q2 to the Source rail of Q1.  This is IMPOSSIBLE. "

Poynt99 has performed detailed circuit simulations and published those simulations here that show exactly the source of the oscillation.  TinselKoala has posted videos that reproduce the oscillations.  Phase 2 test measurements during the August 11 demonstration show unequivocally that the function generator contributes 250mW - 400mW power to the oscillations, which is in-line with Poynt99's previously published simulations.  The circuit theory that explains both the oscillations, and the function generator's role in the oscillations has been explained by Poynt99, and TinselKoala multiple times.  In short, when the function generator outputs a negative voltage on its red lead relative to its black lead, it biases the Q2 MOSFETs into a source follower configuration.  This is a linear mode of operation, the MOSFETs have high transconductance gains, and the circuit construction has high parasitic inductance.  Together these conditions cause the Q2 MOSFETs to oscillate.  A small fraction: about 2% of the ~15W that circulates through the circuit is supplied by the function generator.  The remainder comes from the battery as shown during Phase 3 of the test.  What Ms. Ainslie declares is "IMPOSSIBLE" and unexplained is: ordinary, fully explained, simulated, and replicated.

[profitis]

heya @tinselkoala.i got an experiment for us to try if your interested.do you have any mim-type diodes lying around perhaps?

[MarkE]

Ms. Ainslie further regresses with claims that the August 11 demonstrations showed over unity:

"What I managed thereafter was a detailed explanation for that path of current flow that then REQUIRED that measure of over unity. Which is here defined as more energy being returned to the ELEMENT RESISTOR than was initially supplied by the battery.  " 

Again as seen in the video and noted in Ms. Ainslie's retraction:  The battery supplied ~15W, and the heating resistor evolved ~3W.

Ms. Ainslie insists against her own June 29, and August 11 observations:

"The implications of Test 3 paper 1 are LOUDLY denied by Little TK PRECISELY because we prove that we can SET the signal from the function generator to obviate ALL current flow during that ON period.  We have demonstrated this repeatedly and publicly.  It makes no difference to their DENIALS.  Effectively we are stating that notwithstanding the measured evidence of a current flow during the 'on' period that duty cycle - there is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH THE CIRCUIT NOR THE ELEMENT RESISTOR - NOR ANYWHERE ON THAT CIRCUIT - DURING THIS 'ON' PERIOD.  "

The June 29 demonstrations failed multiple times to reproduce Paper 1 Figure 3.  Waveforms similar to Figure 3 were reproduced when the oscilloscope probe that was supposed to measure the voltage across the current sense resistors was shorted out.  When the probe was connected properly, the oscilloscope showed current flow whenever the Q1 gate drive signal was greater than the threshold value of 4V. This can all be seen in the last forty minutes of the demonstration when Mr. Weir assisted Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.   Ms. Ainslie is declaring observations her videos directly contradict.

I cannot venture a guess how much longer or how much further Ms. Ainslie's protests will continue in direct contradiction to the incontrovertible evidence present in her own demonstrations of June 29, and August 11, 2013.  I invite Ms. Ainslie to point to the portions of her demonstrations that she believes support her assertions.

[poynt99]

And Guys - just to state all that more plainly - here's the thing.  With the Q-Array circuit - it is theoretically possible to apply a continual negative signal to the Gate of Q1.

Yes, we know. I advised you of this quite some time ago.

It is also theoretically possible to apply that signal from the same battery supply source in series with the element resistor.  This will result in a continual oscillation where the only measure of energy discharged from the battery supply will then, theoretically, also replenish those batteries.  This will result in a zero loss of energy from that supply source - while it is, nonetheless, driving a load.

Not quite. If the measurement is performed properly, and noting the implications of the indicated polarity of net power measured, it will be obvious that some power is being used from the source (batteries).

[MarkE]

Ms. Ainslie expresses great upset at my comments.  My comments are completely and thoroughly backed by the demonstrations Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators performed June 29, and August 11.  The videos of those demonstrations are available on YouTube.  Ms. Ainslie now insists, even swears on: her life, her children's lives, and those of her grandchildren what the videos contradict and Ms. Ainslie herself concedes in the June 29 video.

I urge Ms. Ainslie to refresh her memory by reviewing the videos of her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations.
The June 29 demonstration failed to reproduce Figure 3 under the conditions set forth in the paper.  Figure 3 was reproduced by shorting the oscilloscope Channel 1 probe in an RF loop.
During the June 29 demonstration nearing the very end of the video Ms. Ainslie concedes measurement error fouled Figure 6, which corresponds to the "Test 3" that she now swears was valid.

Ms. Ainslie continues to insist that the August 11 demonstration showed zero current flow during the Q2 oscillation / Q1 off phase.  Again the video record shows otherwise.

No amount of declaration can change established fact.  Ms. Ainslie's stated recollection of the demonstration results is simply and terribly wrong.

Ms. Ainslie's hypotheses concerning operation of her circuits are flat out wrong.  Ms. Ainslie's declared interpretations of the detailed circuit operation explained to her by fully competent working professionals does not reflect what those professionals have explained to her numerous times.

If Ms. Ainslie really believes that either the June 29, or August 11 demonstration reproduced any:  Figure 3, Figure 6, or Figure 7 from Paper 1 following the circuit configuration of Figure 1 from that same paper, even allowing for the relocated connection of the function generator black lead, then I invite her to point out where that may be seen on either video.  I again point out that in the last forty minutes of the June 29 video that the controversy over the apparent zero current oscilloscope readings during the Q1 on phase in each of those three figures was fully resolved, and that it was resolved that those figures appear as they do because they were the result of measurement error by Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.  Specifically, they made the erroneous measurements by placing the Channel 1 probe tip on the wrong side of the CSRs.  It is all on the June 29 video.  There is no reason for debate.

Ms. Ainslie continues to declare that battery current does not move through the function generator during the Q2 oscillation phase.  Again, the August 11 video proved that battery current does move through the function generator and it also proved that the function generator contributes a minor percentage of the overall power dissipated by the breadboard circuitry.

It is terribly unfortunate that Ms. Ainslie has regressed in her positions and is contradicting the hard evidence presented in her own recent demonstrations.  Ms. Ainslie implores that she is calling for additional investigation.  Again, I suggest Ms. Ainslie review the videos of her own demonstrations.