Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

While examining the Daft Manuscripts once again, I must point out another Wild Ainslie Discrepancy concerning the Figure 3 shot. We already know that this shot is fabricated, the current data being obtained from a falsely positioned current probe, and yet it is included in the manuscript and endorsed by the authors Ainslie and Donovan Martin in spite of that.

But there is another smoking gun associated with that figure. Note that the blue trace, the Gate signal coming from the FG, attains a regular POSITIVE voltage level of 10-12 volts. Yet look at the description of the test given in the text of the daft manuscript:

A. Test 1 Setup
The schematic in Fig. 1 refers with the following settings: 6 batteries x 12 volts each were applied in
series. The offset of the function generator is set to its extreme negative limit resulting in an entire
restriction of current flow during the ON phase of the duty cycle. The duty cycle is also set to the limit
of the function generators shortest ON time within each switching period of 2.7 minutes. The
waveforms produced by this setting are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.

(emphasis mine)

Once again, Ainslie lies boldly and outrageously when describing the conditions under which the data was allegedly taken. When the offset of the FG that Ainslie used is set to its "extreme negative limit", I do not believe it will put out a positive pulse level of 12 volts. The Instek GFG8216 fg has a maximum output level, according to the manual, of 10 v p-p and a maximum DC offset of +/- 5 volts into a 50 ohm load. At the extreme negative limit of the offset and the full amplitude output, Ainslie's FG will produce an output waveform that goes from -10V to 0V.  Even if the "10v p-p" is a typo which should read 20v p-p, the FG is still incapable of making a +12 volt output when it is set to the extreme negative offset level. Since the impedance of Ainslie's oscillator is higher than 50 ohms when Q1 is ON, or supposed to be ON, the positive voltage may be a bit higher than 0V, and in the Q2 phase the indicated negative voltage will always average to about -4 V due to the action of the transistors. What will NOT happen is for the output to reach +12 V as is shown in the Figure 3 scopeshot, with the Offset set all the way negative as she claims it was.

Among all the failings and mendacities of the Ainslie daft manuscripts, one of the most egregious is the failure to include a BASIC AND NECESSARY set of measurements: the FG opencircuit voltage output settings for each experimental trial reported. How is one expected to reproduce the experiment if one has no clues about the settings of a primary instrument used to produce the original data?

[TinselKoala]

All RF systems 1 meter of the ground or less will attract ground radiation ! Also its a reactive circuit so forget meter readings
forget ohms law and why dont you do what they wont tel you add a negative charge to the battery ! HAHAHA ! DIM BATS !

NANOBOT

Once again I ask you to tell me the DC reactance of the circuit I am using.

You are betraying, once again, the fact that you have not done your homework before coming to the discussion, since you evidently have missed the FACT that you have not seen me use anything but STRAIGHT AND CONSTANT DC POWER from a regulated power supply since you showed up.

If you want to parade your nonsense that doesn't even have anything to do with my work here, I tell you YET AGAIN to do it on Ainslie's forum, where you will likely get a much better -- or at least different -- reception than you are getting here. But of course you will wilt under the Ainslie onslaught, and you know it, so you avoid joining her forum so as not to embarrass yourself further still.

[MarkE]

If one has determined or reasonably estimated the thermal time constant of a primarily single order system, then one can pretty readily perform step-wise calibrations and still get good data.  If we took your set-up that exhibits an ~10 minute time constant, and wanted to be accurate to 1C we could pick power steps that would have less than 1C estimated residual change after some time period.  We see less than 4C/W slope.  If we want to use 5W power steps, we want less than:  1Cresidiual / 4C/W*5W = < 0.05 residual error.  We can get there in three time constants.  So, perform a first soak of 6TCs and then run each successive step for 3TCs would generate plots very close to what you have in about half the time.  With a little math you can accurately extrapolate out most of the remaining, and very small error. 

Of course they did not do such a thing.  However, they were measuring the heating element directly, so their thermal time constant was probably no more than 30s.  So while they did not record even a fraction of the data that a good experimentalist would, their temperature calibration data is probably not as bad as it might seem.  I think the big problem is the direct connection of the TC to the heater.

[MarkE]

While examining the Daft Manuscripts once again, I must point out another Wild Ainslie Discrepancy concerning the Figure 3 shot. We already know that this shot is fabricated, the current data being obtained from a falsely positioned current probe, and yet it is included in the manuscript and endorsed by the authors Ainslie and Donovan Martin in spite of that.

But there is another smoking gun associated with that figure. Note that the blue trace, the Gate signal coming from the FG, attains a regular POSITIVE voltage level of 10-12 volts. Yet look at the description of the test given in the text of the daft manuscript:
(emphasis mine)

Once again, Ainslie lies boldly and outrageously when describing the conditions under which the data was allegedly taken. When the offset of the FG that Ainslie used is set to its "extreme negative limit", I do not believe it will not put out a positive pulse level of 12 volts. The Instek GFG8216 fg has a maximum output level, according to the manual, of 10 v p-p and a maximum DC offset of +/- 5 volts into a 50 ohm load. At the extreme negative limit of the offset and the full amplitude output, Ainslie's FG will produce an output waveform that goes from -10V to 0V.  Even if the "10v p-p" is a typo which should read 20v p-p, the FG is still incapable of making a +12 volt output when it is set to the extreme negative offset level. Since the impedance of Ainslie's oscillator is higher than 50 ohms when Q1 is ON, or supposed to be ON, the positive voltage may be a bit higher than 0V, and in the Q2 phase the indicated negative voltage will always average to about -4 V due to the action of the transistors. What will NOT happen is for the output to reach +12 V as is shown in the Figure 3 scopeshot, with the Offset set all the way negative as she claims it was.

Among all the failings and mendacities of the Ainslie daft manuscripts, one of the most egregious is the failure to include a BASIC AND NECESSARY set of measurements: the FG opencircuit voltage output settings for each experimental trial reported. How is one expected to reproduce the experiment if one has no clues about the settings of a primary instrument used to produce the original data?

In the procedure write up for the August 11, 2013 demonstration I think they were supposed to show the function generator open circuit voltage, but never did.   Typically a function generator that is offset to one extreme or the other is restricted to either positive only or negative only values.  So, the waveform shown is unlikely to be the result of the controls set as they described.  Really, who cares?  We know that whatever they did for their papers it was essentially useless.  They proved that with their demonstrations.  I would just get on with your valid experiments.

[TinselKoala]

If one has determined or reasonably estimated the thermal time constant of a primarily single order system, then one can pretty readily perform step-wise calibrations and still get good data.  If we took your set-up that exhibits an ~10 minute time constant, and wanted to be accurate to 1C we could pick power steps that would have less than 1C estimated residual change after some time period.  We see less than 4C/W slope.  If we want to use 5W power steps, we want less than:  1Cresidiual / 4C/W*5W = < 0.05 residual error.  We can get there in three time constants.  So, perform a first soak of 6TCs and then run each successive step for 3TCs would generate plots very close to what you have in about half the time.  With a little math you can accurately extrapolate out most of the remaining, and very small error. 

Of course they did not do such a thing.  However, they were measuring the heating element directly, so their thermal time constant was probably no more than 30s.  So while they did not record even a fraction of the data that a good experimentalist would, their temperature calibration data is probably not as bad as it might seem.  I think the big problem is the direct connection of the TC to the heater.

No argument from me as to these points, mostly.

My intention is to be able to compare, directly, the time course of the test article's temperature rise with the calibration data. With the individual runs as opposed to the stepwise method, I will be able to do this very easily, since I have the Rate information that the stepwise method neglects to record.... in direct contradiction to the Great Scientist's most recent squawkings. Plotting the actual time course of the temperature rise, from the ambient baseline, of the test article at whatever stimulation level, will instantly provide a measure of the equivalent DC power dissipation level _at all times_ during the experimental run.  I will be able to detect changes in the physical setup (changing time constant) as well as being able to see the actual power dissipation _and total energy dissipation_ during actual experimental runs. Ainslie's methodology does not permit this kind of discrimination. True, the nearly linear Figure 2 plot that Ainslie presents is relatively valid....IF she is able to reproduce the exact physical setup and time constant again. What are the probabilities of that happening?