Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

You may also find this paper interesting. Authors are R.A Ainslie, H.W Gramm, G.A Lettenmaier, A.Palise, A. Gardiner, D Martin, S. Windisch.

This is the controversial rejected IEEE submission.

[MarkE]

As far as I can tell there are _no_ data from the Grey Box available at all.

Remember how Ainslie always says that there was no measurable discharge of the batteries in the Quantum experiment? Well, it turns out that that all depends on which version of the documentation you consult. In an early report of that experiment Ainslie published this table:

Pray tell:
1. Where is the current measurement for the DUT?
2. Where is the voltage measurement for the control?
3. Where is the current measurement for the control?
4. What is the explanation for the increase in "Control Watts" during the last 37 minutes?

[TinselKoala]

That's all "explained" (sic) in the source document. I attached the document .pdf underneath the image of the table and graph. It's amazing how many reports of the same experimental trials there are out there.

[TinselKoala]

Are the DMMs valid indicators of the input power to the experimental system being driven by the 555 timer or other oscillator/clock? Poynt99 has analyzed this issue and found that they generally do a surprisingly good job of averaging even complicated-looking signals. And in the particular situation of my experimental setup ... so have I. At least at the one set of parameters I've explored so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMeHpTW_QIA


As far as "replicating" Ainslie's claimed data:
The trouble here is that Ainslie cannot be pinned down as to the proper operating parameters. As you have seen in the various "reports" of the original Quantum experiment, she cannot even agree with herself on the circuit used, much less the frequency and duty cycle needed to produce her claimed COP > 17.  If we stick with the claimed 2.4 kHz and 3.7 percent ON duty cycle as stated, YET AGAIN, in the 2009 versions of the reports (but without a specific timer/clock/oscillator circuit given) ... we have the problem of the SWeir decoded Grey Box, which cannot operate at that low a frequency, nor anywhere near it, and the Ainslie-endorsed Glen Lettenmeier work at 300 kHz and even higher.  It's highly convenient for Ainslie, this waffling and flailing about, moving goalposts. For you see.... the operating parameters that we find _do not_ produce any OU, do not produce excess heat at the load, do not recharge or keep the batteries charged up, don't slow down the rate of discharge.... well, silly, _those_ parameters are clearly not the magic Ainslie parameters!

Ainslie will not say : Use THIS precise circuit. Use THIS exact frequency or frequency range. Use THIS duty cycle. And you will obtain THESE results indicating 17 times more energy out than you are putting in. For when she has done so, as in the 2009 versions.... it turns out that nobody can corroborate her claims. So she has learned just where to obfuscate, how to move the goalposts, how to carry on with her denigration of her critics. What she hasn't learned is how she herself can accomplish what she has claimed to be able to do.... for in fact she cannot do it.

[MarkE]

Are the DMMs valid indicators of the input power to the experimental system being driven by the 555 timer or other oscillator/clock? Poynt99 has analyzed this issue and found that they generally do a surprisingly good job of averaging even complicated-looking signals. And in the particular situation of my experimental setup ... so have I. At least at the one set of parameters I've explored so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMeHpTW_QIA


As far as "replicating" Ainslie's claimed data:
The trouble here is that Ainslie cannot be pinned down as to the proper operating parameters. As you have seen in the various "reports" of the original Quantum experiment, she cannot even agree with herself on the circuit used, much less the frequency and duty cycle needed to produce her claimed COP > 17.  If we stick with the claimed 2.4 kHz and 3.7 percent ON duty cycle as stated, YET AGAIN, in the 2009 versions of the reports (but without a specific timer/clock/oscillator circuit given) ... we have the problem of the SWeir decoded Grey Box, which cannot operate at that low a frequency, nor anywhere near it, and the Ainslie-endorsed Glen Lettenmeier work at 300 kHz and even higher.  It's highly convenient for Ainslie, this waffling and flailing about, moving goalposts. For you see.... the operating parameters that we find _do not_ produce any OU, do not produce excess heat at the load, do not recharge or keep the batteries charged up, don't slow down the rate of discharge.... well, silly, _those_ parameters are clearly not the magic Ainslie parameters!

Ainslie will not say : Use THIS precise circuit. Use THIS exact frequency or frequency range. Use THIS duty cycle. And you will obtain THESE results indicating 17 times more energy out than you are putting in. For when she has done so, as in the 2009 versions.... it turns out that nobody can corroborate her claims. So she has learned just where to obfuscate, how to move the goalposts, how to carry on with her denigration of her critics. What she hasn't learned is how she herself can accomplish what she has claimed to be able to do.... for in fact she cannot do it.

She has played her cards and lost.  What would be good is if you can show true power.  If none of your scopes do multiplication then you could stiffen up the voltage filtering.