Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Hey T

How about 2 separate immersion tanks. 1 for the load and 1 for the other circuitry. This way being that the load is most likely the hottest, its heat wont affect the other components adversely, as it shouldnt in a well designed product.

Mags

It complicates the measurement process. However, IF the total energy output in the single tank experiment is found to be greater than the input, it would be worthwhile to do your suggestion as a second experiment. If the single tank experiment doesn't show an excess... why bother with the more complicated version?

Also, you'd be surprised at how hot those mosfets can get. The reason they changed from the single mosfet version on its little heatsink to the 5 mosfet version with larger heatsinks was an attempt at making the circuit able to handle higher currents without overheating the transistor. It would have worked that way too if they hadn't made their wiring mistake, and then locked themselves into it.

Interestingly, if you reverse the Q1 and Q2s connection to the circuit, leaving one Q2 and having 4 Q1s in parallel, the circuit handles high current much better and still can oscillate just fine in the negative bias condition. Furthermore, this is just the configuration given as the "wrong" version, which still can be viewed here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Proposed%20variation%20to%20Faraday%20s%20Lines%20of%20Force.pdf

Note the subtle but highly significant difference between the schematic in that paper, which Ainslie still counts as the "official publication", and the current (claimed) one here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Experimental%20Evidence%20of%20a%20Breach%20of%20Unity.pdf

[TinselKoala]

No comment about the schematics?
These two posts of the daft manuscripts on Rossi's JNP are the only "official publications" of any of Ainslie's documents, other than the Quantum magazine article from 2002.

Yet these two "official publications" contain two different schematics purporting to describe the same experiment. And NEITHER of them actually represents the true circuit they used.... the Ainslie team has _always_ used the Black FG lead (marked " - " on the schematics) connected at the common circuit ground at the negative battery pole. The only time they may have done otherwise was the August 11 demo.

[MarkE]

Both links throw 403 and 404 errors. 

If you watch the August 11 video they did set up with the FG black lead connected to the Q1 source side of the CSRs as in the papers.  They were able to do that because they followed Poynt99's suggestion of isolating the green mains safety lead at the end of the function generator power cord.  At the point in the video where Donovan Martin made the function generator black lead connection to the correct side of the CSRs Ms. Ainslie can be heard protesting.

[Pirate88179]

I received this message also.

Bill

"Forbidden You don't have permission to access /files/Proposed variation to Faraday s Lines of Force.pdf on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Apache Server at www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com Port 80"

[TinselKoala]

My fault, I apologize. Apparently one cannot link directly to the .pdf stored on Rossi's server.

Please try these links to Rossi's JNP pages which host the files, then select "read the whole article" or "download the ZIP file" .

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645  (part one)

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679  (part two)