Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

There are a couple of different versions of the "Paper 1" and "Paper 2" floating around.  The differences are in figures that show electrical connections supposedly used in various experiments.  I would hope that the versions maintained on Ms. Ainslie's personal website are the most faithful representations of what Ms. Ainslie thinks that she has done.  Paper 1 reports on Ms. Ainslie's "Q Array" experiments.  Ms. Ainslie conducted two public demonstrations last year, one on June 29, and the other on August 11, where she obtained results that completely undermined what she reports in Paper 1.  The August 11 demo ran for a little over one hour, and is here:

August 11 Demonstration Video:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper6

This demonstration was supposed to show that for N Watts of power drawn from a battery bank at least 5N Watts thermal power would be radiated from a resistive heating element when that element was connected to her:  "Q Array" circuit, and the circuit was operating in its oscillating state.  What the demonstration showed is that for N Watts in, the resister radiated only about 0.2 Watts out.  There is no exact figure because Ms. Ainslie terminated the demonstration early due to the vast disparity between the promised and actual results.

Paper 1:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=36e256c52f0306d2c156ee365894e63f&action=paper1

Paper 2 which espouses theory based on the now refuted Paper 1 experiment results:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=36e256c52f0306d2c156ee365894e63f&action=paper2

Paper 3, which is the Quantum Magazine article that you already found:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=36e256c52f0306d2c156ee365894e63f&action=paper3

The other versions of Paper 1 and Paper 2 are I believe on Andrea Rossi's JNP website.

Ms. Ainslie's basic idea is that if one switches an R-L circuit on and off just the right way that the stored energy in the magnetic field will somehow induce the resistor to release an extra internal energy.  The best that I can tell is that neither Ms. Ainslie nor her collaborators are very good at setting up and conducting experiments.  They have managed to connect circuits in ways other than they thought, and misinterpret the results.  There are plenty of examples of this in the four hours of video from the June 29th demonstration, including about 90 minutes of dead air that occurred as they tried to fix oscillations that occurred when they operated a MOSFET in it's linear region with lots of external inductance.  That operating region was not a subject of the demonstration.  Nevertheless, they spent more than two hours trying to deal with it before a viewer asked them what they were struggling with and straightened them out. 

Any analysis of Ms. Ainslie's "Q Array" will show that the only time that the heating resistor dissipates substantial power is when the Q1 MOSFET is on.  Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators claim in Paper 1 that with no measured current through Q1 that the resistor produces heat prodigiously.  This is in fact correct, because as became clear June 29, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators connected their test equipment so that it did not measure the Q1 current.  They had connected their ground clip and probe tip from their oscilloscope to the same DC side of their current sense resistors resulting in zero voltage sense for whatever current was running through the circuit.

[TinselKoala]

There is more to the story than that, though. Subsequently to the "incorrect" connection, as displayed in the Figure 3 scopeshot, more data was obtained with correct connections. This means that the "error" that resulted in the Figure 3 data must have been known and recognized _and corrected_  by the authors of the paper. The Figure 3 data was challenged practically as soon as the papers appeared and Ainslie always vigorously defended it as being true, correct, and indeed trivial to obtain. Yet this was shown to be wrong, as MarkE mentions above. Yet that figure and the conclusions drawn from it still remain in all versions of the papers. This constitutes fabrication of data: the data is known to be erroneous, not gathered under the claimed conditions, in fact it is completely invalid... and this is known and has been known for years... yet it remains in the papers nevertheless.

Furthermore, the papers contain schematic diagrams that were _never_ actually used by the Ainslie claimants until the August 11, 2013 demonstration. Even furthermore than that, the second paper which expounds her "thesis" contains an "explanation" that relies on cartoon drawings of the circuit that do not even correspond to the way the circuit is actually wired! It is like someone telling you how to find the Louvre--- with a London subway map.

The papers, both of them, are so error ridden, so filled with actual misrepresentations and false claims, that they do not even deserve to be called "papers" at all. No one who has actually written a scientific paper for publication would seriously call those things "papers". They do not contain any literature searches, they misrepresent the actual conditions of the experiments, the experiments themselves are amateurishly performed and ignorantly reported, and in the final end, there is actually no connection between the experiments and the claims of the "thesis". That is, there is no testable hypothesis made from the "thesis" that is then tested in an attempt to falsify it by experiment. The documents are excellent examples of pseudoscientific misconduct, in that they make false claims that are not supported by the "good" data presented, and the "bad" data is presented as supporting the claims, even after the data is known to be bad, fraudulently obtained.

There are indeed more discrepancies in the daft manuscripts that do not involve the false circuit diagrams, though. Some specifics: the papers refer in several places to the "temperature of the water". Yet we know, and Ainslie has herself admitted, that they never measured the temperature of the water. Their thermocouple has always been directly attached to the metal housing of the RV water heater element they employed as a load. Only after this element is completely hot was it lowered into a container of water. The paper misrepresents the true nature of the data when it refers to the water temperature. Furthermore: the papers talk about "bringing water to boil" when the water was _never actually boiling_. Again, Ainslie has admitted this much. In the papers at one time, bogus calculations appeared stating that the experiment dissipated 5.9 megaJoules in a period of about 90 minutes. This absurd claim has been removed from later edits of the manuscript, without any explanation whatsoever. Other absurd claims still remain, though.

[chessnyt]

Any chance anyone could kindly link this "Thesis", or them if more than one version. My apologies for my ignorance in having not already read it. Seems like it would be a good read.

Cheers

P.S. O.K. Right there on the first page of this thread, http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf.

Is this the only one though ?

..

@Farmhand:
Here's the link to the thesis:
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php?action=paper5

Regards,

Chess

[MarkE]

Once more down the rabbit hole with Ms. Ainslie.  Ms. Ainslie is apparently upset because I have linked to her failed demonstrations and her papers that her demonstrations refuted.  Ms. Ainslie contends that her failed experiments "does not directly relate to the thesis".  That's an odd way to talk about experiments that she designed in order to try and support her ideas.  They very much relate in that they failed to provide the support that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators predicted that they would provide.

[TinselKoala]

And as usual.... and as I have pointed out many times before.... Ainslie has no clue whatsoever as to the nature of the Standard Model or Quantum Electrodynamics, which she pretends to criticise and in her ultimate hubris, to replace.

Just look at what she says in the post you imaged above:

The term 'Electric' was initiated and required to imply that the 'electron' is the 'cause' or 'carrier particle' of this, so called, ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE.

Not actually, Ainslie.

Ainslie really should try to get her "physics" from some real sources, instead of books like Zukov's "Dancing Wu Li Masters". The carrier particle of the electromagnetic force is the PHOTON. The electron is not a photon and does not carry the electromagnetic force. It carries the unit negative CHARGE.... something Ainslie apparently does not think exists.... and there is no magnetic field without MOVING CHARGES, and anyone can make the magnetic field associated with moving charges to DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY... simply by moving along with the charges. Ainslie parrots things like Faraday's Law of Induction without having the foggiest clue as to what it means, and when it comes to Maxwell's Equations... forget about it, she does not have the prerequisites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/modern/forces.html
http://sciencepark.etacude.com/particle/forces2.php
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/users/roberts/roberts_force_carriers.html

Note that, as always, Ainslie cannot provide any support for her absurd contentions about the Standard Model, about QED, and just what the electron is and is not.

Furthermore, there exist many places in the record where Ainslie specifically states that the experiments were made in order to "prove" (sic) her "thesis". Now she says they do not directly relate to her "thesis". Of course not, since they fail to support it! As I have noted before, Ainslie's attitude is that anything that does not "prove" her "thesis" is wrong, even her own data, which she attempts to suppress once it is known unequivocally to be wrong.