Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

I think one big problem is that there are different "theys" operating here. The experimentation and primary data collection was done by Ainslie herself acting pretty much in isolation, once the experiment was set up and the basic knobs and buttons on the scope and FG were explained to her. Then there is the "they" composed of Ainslie and Martin, where she explains verbally what she thinks she sees and Martin attempts to translate that into some form of scientific English. Then there is the "they" composed of the completed team, with some members only doing things like clerical work and graphics, to produce the various editions of the daft manuscripts, to fetch and carry heavy batteries around, and so on. Some of the people whose names are on the manuscripts may never have actually done anything substantive at all; certainly they are unreachable for comment.

The various blog and forum posts that were made by Ainslie herself at and around the time of the data collection resulting in the Figure 3 and the other problematic scopeshots are very revealing. She betrays at least two incidents of mosfet failures, one suspected FG failure caused by her failing to pull out the offset knob, one "chip" failure during some other experimentation, the "fire dragon" incident that melted down her battery clipleads, some kind of incident that caused her to send the scope out for repair/calibration, and so on. There was known trouble with the apparatus, there was also imagined trouble caused by improper operation, and she had to bring in people to look it over and repair it. Why did Martin not question the data that was obtained at that time? Perhaps he was out of the country. We know Ainslie doesn't like to bother him with trivia, like requesting the scopeshots they promised from last summer's fiasco.

[MarkE]

There have been many mistakes, there remain many misconceptions, and memory looks questionable.  These are not conducive to reliable research.  We will see what comes next.

[TinselKoala]

We will see what comes next, all right. It will consist of more insults and disrespect from Ainslie, more prevarication and false claims without support, more "misrememberings" of the actual events of June 29 and August 10-11. What we won't see  is valid data that supports their claims.

In just the time we have been discussing data logging, for example.... a single dedicated researcher could be sitting at the apparatus, performing runs and recording manually the relevant data. I estimate four or five complete runs to thermal equilibrium could be accomplished per day, without strain, by a single person with a systematic approach and a pre-prepared spreadsheet to receive the data points. No fancy or expensive data logging equipment is really necessary. The LeCroy can save the appropriate screenshots and the rest of the data can be read off the instruments and entered manually into the spreadsheet.

Had Ainslie and her team really desired to produce valid thermometric data they could have done so long ago. They could be doing it now, without any further expense. But they will jiggle and swerve around the data logging issue and in the final end will wind up stalling for more months and years and probably will wind up not releasing any valid data at all. The only valid data they have released in years is that which Steve Weir coaxed out of them and which appears only in the videos of the demonstrations! And this is "released" in spite of them: they still haven't published the actual relevant scopescreen shots that they _claimed_ they saved to the USB stick during the demos. The best versions of the data are in the screenshots from the video that I and MarkE have saved and posted!

[MarkE]

I've asked Steve about those screen shots that were supposed to be on the USB stick.  Steve told me that they will not be released.  He did not say why.

[TinselKoala]

Do you see? Ainslie continues in the same old errors, not having learned a single thing! She continues to claim that during the "off", oscillation period, there is no path for current to flow. She has no conception of the actual facts of mosfet behaviour.

I will try and post a link to that addendum.  What this shows is that for the battery to be delivering energy during that ON period it must first have a PATH to deliver that energy.  IF in fact, the battery cannot discharge energy BECAUSE THERE IS NO PATH for this delivery - then you CANNOT apply the standard vi/dt analysis.  I have argued those measurements as based on the certain evidence that the battery DOES NOT DISCHARGE any energy during OFF period of the duty cycle.  The measurements are the result of the applied voltage that is from counter electromotive force from the element resistor itself.  Those probes CANNOT distinguish the SOURCE of the measured voltage.  It can ONLY measure the ACTUAL voltage.  AGAIN.  Since the battery is NOT discharging energy - THEN ONE CANNOT APPLY vi/dt analysis to the battery.  What I've argued is, apparently,  a well known FACT.  Which is that resonance can 'swing' through a circuit thereby avoiding any passage through the energy supply source.  This argument has the added merit of COMPREHENSIVELY resolving ALL THOSE MEASUREMENTS UP TO AND INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF WATTAGE DISSIPATED AT THE ELEMENT RESISTOR - the ONLY work station on that circuit.

Ainslie remains utterly confused and continues to emit ridiculous statements that are contrary to actual FACTS that anyone can check for themselves. During what she calls the "OFF" portion of the duty cycle, the Q2 mosfets have their SOURCE voltage LOWERED below the voltage at their Gates. That is, the common connection between the Gate of Q1 and the Sources of the Q2s is receiving a _negative_ voltage which supplies the negative bias current necessary for the oscillations to occur. The Q2s are most certainly connected in a complete circuit with the battery and the load, the oscillations most definitely DO pass current from the battery to the load and the batteries most certainly DO discharge normally during this time. Ainslie is simply ignoring the truth AS USUAL, even after her own demonstrations showed it all to the world. And as if that weren't enough, I have completely dissected and explained the linear operation mode of the Q2 mosfets when their Source voltage is driven below the voltage at their Gate.  Of course the overweeningly arrogant and willfully ignorant Ainslie will not watch, learn and discuss these videos... but other people are doing so, and everyone who does, will recognize Ainslie's ridiculous, cherished ignorance in her statements like the present one.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa8hSDVrRWjmJ2WxgzRvMt7V