Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Actually Guys.... the lies and insults from Ainslie continue unabated.

Actually guys - I"m duplicating this post.  It's a new departure into PURE FICTION - authored by that mediocre incompetent who cannot admit that he was ENTIRELY WRONG on his claim that we operated a 90% ON duty cycle in our Quantum Paper's experiment.

What a Liar she is!  What I "claimed", and what every body who has ever worked with the problem knows, is this:
1. The circuit published in the Quantum article CANNOT POSSIBLY make the claimed 3.7 percent ON @ 2.4 kHz frequency that the article claims. In fact it makes the exact inverse of what Ainslie claims in terms of duty cycle, and she did not realize this due to her faulty understanding of what the DRAIN trace means. Confirmed over and over by builders and simulators including Glen, Aaron, Astweth, Groundloop, Joit, poynt99, and many others whom she deceived, even GMEAST.
2. If a TRUE duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz is applied, no substantial heat is produced in the load resistor. This has been confirmed by many of the same persons listed above, including Ashtweth and others.
3. I NEVER ONCE claimed that Ainslie operated "a 90% ON" duty cycle. I believe she operated at a 96.7 percent ON duty cycle IF SHE USED THE CIRCUIT THAT IS PUBLISHED UNDER HER NAME, and if she didn't use that circuit then she should have admitted it and corrected it well before now. Further, if one DOES use the duty cycles available, which is something like 60 to 100 percent ON, from the PUBLISHED QUANTUM CIRCUIT, then one does obtain the high heat in the load as claimed.
4. The Steve Weir decoding of the mess that Ainslie presented just recently as the "found" device used for the Quantum tests.... reveals even more mendacity and misdirection from Ainslie. The photographs of the box show that it contains a NEW, and radically different circuit than what was published in the Quantum article! It contains a NE555N timer chip that was manufactured in MAY 2007 !!!! And the circuit operates at the "Glen" range of frequencies and duty cycles, which is nowhere near that reported in the Quantum article. IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE SAME MOSFET PART NUMBER, but instead uses one that I tested and referred to, the IRFP450, in Post Number 116, made on June 25, 2009 here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-4.html#post58128


Far from being "ENTIRELY WRONG".... the FACTS demonstrate, with references, that I am, and always have been ENTIRELY CORRECT on this matter.

Here it is AGAIN...

Guys our 'ickle pickle' also variously known as Little TK or Little Brain - sorry, Bryan - has been lapsing into pure FICTION in his anxiety to discredit me.  Golly.  I wouldn't mind so much except that he's using appalling language.  He should at least have copied my flair for articulation.

AND HERE'S THAT NONSENSE...
Since June of 2009 when I first told them that the Quantum published circuit was wrong, that it did not make the frequency and duty cycle claimed, and that With the claimed duty cycle there will be small heat only, and that the claimed oscillations were a red herring..... it has taken them until late August, early September to realize that each of these things I told them was true. At least four builders determined that the Quantum circuit would not do as claimed (Glen, groundloop (after making circuit boards!), Astweth, Aaron, Joit, and a few others actually built the original circuit faithfully.... and immediately started changing it in various ways to try to get it to do something different than what I told them it would do.)  At least SIX different alternate circuit variations were put forth and tested, and the one that Glen finally settled on operates at over 100 times the frequency of the original, uses a much longer On percentage than originally specified, results in no actual oscillations at all, and results in high heat at the load _and_ the mosfet. And runs the batteries down. Yet they still have their "pdf" which claims that I was wrong about these things.... when it is perfectly clear that I was right and that their "replication" is of a completely different circuit operating at completely different parameters than was claimed in the original Quantum article.

Sadly he can't give us a direct link.  That would at least have given some credence to this fantasy.  Clearly his GRE has given UP trying to find enough space in that tiny little brain of his and it's just floated up, up and AWAY.  All he's left with is all that MUSTH.  And we all know how tricky it is to contain this without 'listhping'.  If he weren't entirely MEDIOCRE his latest romps into FICTION would even be amusing.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

The DIRECT LINKS, blind lying troll queen Ainslie, are given in the posts above. Even the scopeshots from your FORMER collaborators are reproduced. These are scopeshots that YOU YOURSELF ENDORSED FULLY as PROVING YOUR CLAIMS.  It is not my responsibility to demonstrate that you are utterly wrong in your idiotic assertions above .... although I have done so. If you wish to challenge ANYTHING in the statements I have made.... provide PROOF, instead of your bloviating insults. Because I provide PROOF and CHECKABLE REFERENCES for all of my statements. But of course, as usual YOU CANNOT.

Do you really want me to list the proofs of the statements I made that you quote above? It will just make you look worse, when people start reading up in the old threads.

1. Since June of 2009 when I first told them that the Quantum published circuit was wrong, that it did not make the frequency and duty cycle claimed, and that With the claimed duty cycle there will be small heat only, and that the claimed oscillations were a red herring...
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g
2. it has taken them until late August, early September to realize that each of these things I told them was true
Proof: DIRECT LINK TO THREAD WHICH CONTAINS EVIDENCE OF AINSLIE's CONTINUING DUPLICITY AND ARROGANT MENDACITY, including proofs of all my statements:
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html   
Scroll forward to find the points where each member reports their experiences, and note all the various revisions that people, mostly Aaron, post to the original circuit, finally abandoning it altogether.
3. At least four builders determined that the Quantum circuit would not do as claimed (Glen, groundloop (after making circuit boards!), Astweth, Aaron, Joit, and a few others actually built the original circuit faithfully.... and immediately started changing it in various ways to try to get it to do something different than what I told them it would do.)
Proof: Ditto, in the thread cited above. For example posts # 2680, 2899, 2917, etc.
4. At least SIX different alternate circuit variations were put forth and tested, and the one that Glen finally settled on operates at over 100 times the frequency of the original, uses a much longer On percentage than originally specified, results in no actual oscillations at all, and results in high heat at the load _and_ the mosfet. And runs the batteries down.
Proof: The IET and IEEE submissions, which are still up on Scribd and which have been linked to many times in the past, and the many different schematics Aaron (Asea) and others posted in the thread linked above.
5. Yet they still have their "pdf" which claims that I was wrong about these things.... when it is perfectly clear that I was right and that their "replication" is of a completely different circuit operating at completely different parameters than was claimed in the original Quantum article.
Proof: Different circuit different parameters: The IET and IEEE submissions, and the reports in the DIRECTLY LINKED thread above. Astweth's statements about the contents of the .pdf that refer to me are in the thread, although the Panacea U. hosting site is no more.

I love it.... you cannot refute anything I say, troll queen Ainslie, and you still persist in your trolling, lying "Bryan Little" idiocy even though you know it's not true.

I've just given PROOFS, including references, for every statement I made that Ainslie calls NONSENSE, a FANTASY.

Yet her claims about me are complete fantasies for which she cannot provide a jot of supporting evidence at all.

[TinselKoala]

  Someone asks Ainslie for help in his work on her circuit, _after_ all the work of Glen and others and _after_ she "withdrew" her authorship of the joint IEEE submissions, and she replies, among other mendacities:

The final point is that the mosfet we always used was an IRFG50.

(sic)  02-17-2010, 01:58 PM

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-6.html#post85727
Post # 152


Oh, really? Then what is the IRFP450 doing in the Demo Kit 1 box, then? 

It is most certainly not an IRFPG50, it is not even an IRFG50, whatever that is.

It IS, however, a mosfet part number that I TESTED AND REPORTED ON in June of 2009.
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-4.html#post58128
Post # 116

[TinselKoala]

By the way, I have about a dozen of those Spectrol precision pots that Ainslie used in the box built for her by Bernard Bulak and Brian Buckley at some time before the Quantum article in 2002. (Unfortunately Bulak is no longer with us.... and nobody  knows where Buckley is.)

As you can see these are the same manufacturer, same model number 534, same resistance range, same tolerance and linearity, right down the line. Same pots.

These are wirewound 10-turn precision pots. WIREWOUND. And in my experience they are very fragile, the pressure of the wiper onto the wire is not all that great, and the power handling capability is low in spite of their size. They can be disassembled and cleaned, if you are careful and lucky.

These of course are the exact same pots that were used to control, originally, the "on" and "off" times, or duty cycle and frequency, of the original circuit, whatever it was, that was in the box. A single one controls the frequency, with a fixed non-adjustable "on" time, in the new circuit with the 555 chip manufactured in 2007.

They get dirty, are rough to begin with and of course are "highly inductive", consisting of a long "spring" of resistance wire that is itself wrapped in a helix inside the pot housing. The reason I have so many of these very expensive potentiometers is because a local manufacturer of MRI equipment decided that they were not reliable enough for their equipment, decided to use another brand, and gave their whole stock of the Spectrol parts to a friend of mine who worked there. He had no use for them so now they are mine.

What a coincidence, eh? Ainslie's old box uses a mosfet that I first described in connection with her circuit in June of 2009, and it uses, or used, the exact same pots that I understand fully to be, themselves, unreliable and capable of injecting _lots_ of noise into the application.

[TinselKoala]

Here is a disassembled Spectrol pot of the same type, resistance rating and part number of the ones in Ainslie's box.

1. The exploded parts, showing the multiple sliding contacts and the helix of wrapped resistance wire on the former.

2. A close up of some of the actual resistance wire unwrapped from the helical former. Look closely! This wire is quite a bit finer than a strand of my hair. 

So it's easy to see some things: First, not high power handling. Second, massive inductance. Third, many sliding contacts which will add noise and unreliability. Fourth: Definitely high precision and fine workmanship... but not too sturdy.

[TinselKoala]

One seriously must wonder what motivates this person. A sicker soul is hard to imagine. She even resorts to gratuitous insults and defamation against poynt99, who has had nearly infinite patience and forebearance with Rosemary Ainslie the Red Queen of Trolls. Look at how she bullies him now!

Rosemary Ainslie, I have a suggestion for you: Stay away from the sherry until after breakfast, anyway. It seems to be interfering with your antipsychotic medications.