Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

She is still pretending that her claims have not all been completely demolished.  All she is managing to do is dig a deeper hole.

[TinselKoala]

That's right.

She does not even know that there is a difference between "ms" and "us" when used as abbreviations for time intervals. Three orders of magnitude, who cares, they are small, take two.

The interpretation of the Figure 8 shot in "test 4" is dependent upon the timebase and the actual period of the signal sent from the FG. We know for sure the scope's timebase setting because it is displayed without Ainslie's intervention or filtering.

But if Ainslie's claim that the period is in fact 20 ms is true, then the scopeshot ONCE AGAIN constitutes a deliberate fabrication or obfuscation of data because the entire screen only holds one-quarter of a full period, only 5 ms of the entire 20 ms period. The Q1 could be fully ON that entire time (duty cycle 75 percent HI) and the screen is simply not covering that part of the period.

On the other hand, if Ainslie really "meant" to say that the period was 20 us, then each horizontal division of 500 us on the screen holds 25 full periods and there is not sufficient resolution in the display to be able to see what the Q1 ON times or dutycycles might be. But how many peaks does one _actually count_ per horizontal division? I get 14, in every division where it is possible to see the peaks. Not 25.

It is a real sin for someone to have such a nice toy Etch-a-Sketch and then use its capabilities to display garbage and meaningless numbers in boxes like that Figure 8 scopeshot.

But of course this is not the first such sin Ainslie has perpetrated on her readers and analysts. What is the actual period of the FG's setting for the Figure 8 shot? Nobody knows. What was the actual percentage of Q1 ON time? Nobody knows. Yet this is presented as data in support of her claims of no battery discharge and high load heat. What a load of garbage.

The Test 3 part is even more hilarious where it talks about "bringing water to boil" since she did no such thing. We have her apparatus photos which show the thermocouple mounted directly to the element resistor metal housing. We have her claim to have reached 104 C in Cape Town South Africa with water that "wasn't actually boiling, there were small bubbles" and we have her absurd statement that steam was evident whenever the thing indicated over 64 degrees C..... and then we have her statement made very clearly in these threads that they NEVER MEASURED THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER, emphasis hers, and that is the truth. (I'm surprised her keyboard didn't catch fire, from her emission of a True Statement.) Yet the text of the "paper" refers to the "water temperature" and "the temperature of the water" very plainly. Again, false representations of the actual experimental data, which did NOT measure the water temperature and did NOT produce a pot of boiling water as she would like you to imagine from the description in the daft manuscript. And this is taken directly from the current "edit" on her forum, not even the very different "official publication" on Rossi's vanity JNP.

I see that Ainslie is using either another new account, or someone else's account, to view my videos. The ones she has seen, she leaves a drive-by thumbs down vote against... the only one or two that they get, usually. She knows better than to try to comment, as I will block her new account instantly. She can lie all she likes on her forum, but she will not be permitted to lie and insult on my YT channel.

[MarkE]

That's right.

She does not even know that there is a difference between "ms" and "us" when used as abbreviations for time intervals. Three orders of magnitude, who cares, they are small, take two.

The interpretation of the Figure 8 shot in "test 4" is dependent upon the timebase and the actual period of the signal sent from the FG. We know for sure the scope's timebase setting because it is displayed without Ainslie's intervention or filtering.

But if Ainslie's claim that the period is in fact 20 ms is true, then the scopeshot ONCE AGAIN constitutes a deliberate fabrication or obfuscation of data because the entire screen only holds one-quarter of a full period, only 5 ms of the entire 20 ms period. The Q1 could be fully ON that entire time (duty cycle 75 percent HI) and the screen is simply not covering that part of the period.

On the other hand, if Ainslie really "meant" to say that the period was 20 us, then each horizontal division of 500 us on the screen holds 25 full periods and there is not sufficient resolution in the display to be able to see what the Q1 ON times or dutycycles might be. But how many peaks does one _actually count_ per horizontal division? I get 14, in every division where it is possible to see the peaks. Not 25.

It is a real sin for someone to have such a nice toy Etch-a-Sketch and then use its capabilities to display garbage and meaningless numbers in boxes like that Figure 8 scopeshot.

But of course this is not the first such sin Ainslie has perpetrated on her readers and analysts. What is the actual period of the FG's setting for the Figure 8 shot? Nobody knows. What was the actual percentage of Q1 ON time? Nobody knows. Yet this is presented as data in support of her claims of no battery discharge and high load heat. What a load of garbage.

I do not see any exit from the hole she has dug, and insists upon digging further.  Maybe she is going to do new demonstrations and maybe she won't.  If she does, she is unlikely to have even the slightest clue as to what is going on.

[TinselKoala]

Well that much is clear. Even what _she_ has claimed to need has already been given to her by me and you and the other people who build and sim and analyze and explain.

The heavy heatsinks are on the wrong transistors. The circuit should be configured with 4 Q1s and one Q2 as the schematic in the second manuscript at Rossi's site has it. No heavy heatsinks or multiple parallel transistors are needed for the Q2 oscillations, the mosfet is not stressed by this and only heats up moderately due to the increased power dissipation forced upon it by the oscillations thru the linear conductance region of the mosfet, instead of turning it fully ON. A modest heatsink will do fine on the single Q2. The big heatsinks and parallel configuration should be for the Q1s which are turned fully ON, in order to pass the most current from the battery to the load in an efficient manner. Still, a straight wire connection, interrupted by an electromagnetic relay for "pulsing" and with no oscillatory phase at all, would be the very best way to pulse-discharge a battery through a heater coil load.

The IRFPG50 mosfet is not the ideal mosfet to use in a FE device because of its high power dissipation. Its minimum Rdss at Vgs=12 volts is 2.0 ohms and in the linear region it is even worse. The extremely high voltages are illusions, the circuit works fine with much cheaper mosfets like the IRF830. If voltages can be kept even lower by proper circuit design, modern mosfets like the IRF3205 could be used, with truly minuscule power dissipation by the transistors themselves.

If continuous Q2 oscillations are what is desired, as Ainslie professed to believe at one time, this is easily attained without even the need for an expensive and apparently difficult to use FG. Many people told her how to do this, I and others showed her many times, but she herself has never actually implemented any of the suggestions or even tried them for herself. Why? Because it would have required her to admit that the FG is a bias current/voltage source, that the other continuous methods do the same, and that this is in direct conflict with both her "thesis" and with her (non) understanding of the circuit's operation.

If the bias source ( the "timer" Ainslie sometimes calls it) needs to be operated from the main battery itself, I have told how to accomplish this by the use of a charge pump inverter powered from the lowest of the main batteries. Ainslie has claimed many times that they do not need any other power input than from the main batteries but she has never demonstrated this, nor does she understand why it cannot be done as easily as she seems to think, without using, as I have shown, a separate more negative bias battery or other power source like the FG connected to its own power supply.

If big tall HV spikes are what is needed, we have shown her how properly to produce those. If rapid transitions between oscillation phases and DC phases are needed.... ditto, the information has come from the _real_ workers on this problem, not from the lazy and incompetent Ainslie mob.

If proper experimental design happens and proper metrology is to be performed, where did they get the information and models for that behaviour? Guess where. If proper analysis and presentation of data are to be performed, ditto. Once again, Ainslie and her posse have actually produced nothing of value _even with respect to their own experimentation_ unless it is to provide a list, and examples, of what to avoid and how not to do Science.

If proper post-hoc analysis and discussion is to be carried out, then once again the Ainslie crew has shown that they have no clue as to how it is done. If papers are to be submitted for consideration in a peer-reviewed technical or scientific journal.... the people who have apparently NEVER READ such papers should read the editorial guidelines at least, consult a style manual, do a literature search, etc. etc.-- all things that have been shown to her and her ilk by "outsiders", by her critics.

[MarkE]

Well that much is clear. Even what _she_ has claimed to need has already been given to her by me and you and the other people who build and sim and analyze and explain.

The heavy heatsinks are on the wrong transistors. The circuit should be configured with 4 Q1s and one Q2 as the schematic in the second manuscript at Rossi's site has it. No heavy heatsinks or multiple parallel transistors are needed for the Q2 oscillations, the mosfet is not stressed by this and only heats up moderately due to the increased power dissipation forced upon it by the oscillations thru the linear conductance region of the mosfet, instead of turning it fully ON. A modest heatsink will do fine on the single Q2. The big heatsinks and parallel configuration should be for the Q1s which are turned fully ON, in order to pass the most current from the battery to the load in an efficient manner. Still, a straight wire connection, interrupted by an electromagnetic relay for "pulsing" and with no oscillatory phase at all, would be the very best way to pulse-discharge a battery through a heater coil load.

The IRFPG50 mosfet is not the ideal mosfet to use in a FE device because of its high power dissipation. Its minimum Rdss at Vgs=12 volts is 2.0 ohms and in the linear region it is even worse. The extremely high voltages are illusions, the circuit works fine with much cheaper mosfets like the IRF830. If voltages can be kept even lower by proper circuit design, modern mosfets like the IRF3205 could be used, with truly minuscule power dissipation by the transistors themselves.

If continuous Q2 oscillations are what is desired, as Ainslie professed to believe at one time, this is easily attained without even the need for an expensive and apparently difficult to use FG. Many people told her how to do this, I and others showed her many times, but she herself has never actually implemented any of the suggestions or even tried them for herself. Why? Because it would have required her to admit that the FG is a bias current/voltage source, that the other continuous methods do the same, and that this is in direct conflict with both her "thesis" and with her (non) understanding of the circuit's operation.

If the bias source ( the "timer" Ainslie sometimes calls it) needs to be operated from the main battery itself, I have told how to accomplish this by the use of a charge pump inverter powered from the lowest of the main batteries. Ainslie has claimed many times that they do not need any other power input than from the main batteries but she has never demonstrated this, nor does she understand why it cannot be done as easily as she seems to think, without using, as I have shown, a separate more negative bias battery or other power source like the FG connected to its own power supply.

If big tall HV spikes are what is needed, we have shown her how properly to produce those. If rapid transitions between oscillation phases and DC phases are needed.... ditto, the information has come from the _real_ workers on this problem, not from the lazy and incompetent Ainslie mob.

If proper experimental design happens and proper metrology is to be performed, where did they get the information and models for that behaviour? Guess where. If proper analysis and presentation of data are to be performed, ditto. Once again, Ainslie and her posse have actually produced nothing of value _even with respect to their own experimentation_ unless it is to provide a list, and examples, of what to avoid and how not to do Science.

If proper post-hoc analysis and discussion is to be carried out, then once again the Ainslie crew has shown that they have no clue as to how it is done. If papers are to be submitted for consideration in a peer-reviewed technical or scientific journal.... the people who have apparently NEVER READ such papers should read the editorial guidelines at least, consult a style manual, do a literature search, etc. etc.-- all things that have been shown to her and her ilk by "outsiders", by her critics.

What the Ainslie team needs is a real research vehicle.  And now the folks at FunCo have the answer.