Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

The measurements of the SWeir board that I have shown so far are directly across the CVR, with the probe very close to the resistor itself. The resistor is a Caddock MP930-0.25-1%. I have not shown the DMM or scope measurement from the "Frequency Compensated I Sense" position yet. The probe connections are made using the ProbeMaster 4983HG ground clips, to the special testpoints on the board. These clips eliminate the long wire loop formed by the probe reference cliplead. The VBatt probe is reading across the very effective Battery Lead Decoupling Network.

Steve Weir spent considerable time and thought creating this test board and it's a real shame that Ainslie is so uncooperative and know-it-all sassy, or she might have gotten one for herself and actually learned something for a change.


I see that The Great Scientist is still trying to spin and misrepresent the facts that were displayed at the March 2011 demonstration. She has tried to suppress this video record; it no longer exists on any of her at least _four_ different YouTube channels, but the internet never forgets. Poynt99 has shown the clip that refutes her current misrepresentation, but I think this one is better.... because it shows just how many lies and misrepresentations they did try to get away with in that particular video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE

[MarkE]

That whole episode is bad.  What made it so much worse is that a month later Ms. Ainslie came out and declared that they had deliberately misrepresented what they were demonstrating.  This is tantamount to saying:  "I lied to you about what I show.  Please believe me the next time I show you something." 

[TinselKoala]

Oh, it's worse than that.

_Every single day_ that goes by, the team of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin lies to the public and lies to the more technical people who might come across their reports.

We know positively that the schematics in the manuscripts are WRONG. The Quantum magazine schematic is WRONG, as everyone who has actually built it knows, for whatever reason. The schematics -- both of them -- given in the two daft manuscripts reporting on the 5 mosfet circuit are WRONG and they are deliberate lies: the FG Black lead's connection to the apparatus is misrepresented, and this LIE about where it was actually hooked up has a material effect on the data obtained and the conclusions drawn in the daft documents. In addition there are the famous fabricated scopeshots like Figure 3, which also still remain without explanation or comment.

In the last demonstration you can hear Steve Weir telling them that they need to correct the schematics they have "published". Have they bothered to do so? Of course not, because to do so would be to admit their duplicity and error.

Every single day that goes by with those abject lies and/or errors remaining, the team of Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin continue to perpetrate their scheme on the public, reflecting badly not only on themselves but also on the whole community of alternative researchers.


Now the Great Scientist is emitting bleats that indicate she doesn't even know what her own reports contain. The fundamental phenomenon she _thinks_ she has observed is that the heating element appears to dissipate more POWER (in WATTS) than is provided by the power supply (in WATTS). Secondary to this she believes that the heating element is dissipating more total ENERGY (in Joules, aka watt-seconds) than are contained in the battery supply (in JOULES, watt-seconds) in the first place. Her faulty observations of the electrical parameters.... falsely claimed by her to be according to some imaginary "standard protocol"... have been cranked through her faulty math and bogus assumptions to yield her silly claimed "proof" of her delusional "thesis". Yet people who actually know the field have been trying to tell her what _actual measurement protocols_ and _real-world analysis_ actually are.... and of course she refuses to study, to learn her chosen topic, and has not made a single iota of progress in the twelve or fourteen years she has been trolling.  Presently we observe her decompensation continuing: she flails about, sputtering and frothing, squawking her polly-parrot terms she has no hope of comprehending, and falling on her face time and again as her emissions are demonstrated to be wrong. Just as Poynt99 has shown her DMM indicating the same thing as the oscilloscope; just as S. Weir has commented on my video that the method works to 100 MHz; point by point she is continually and soundly refuted, and day by day her lies and her ignorant arrogance become plainer and plainer.


Meanwhile, I am continuing to test. I've added some more data points. The most recent two are runs with the SWeir board at closely similar power settings and identical FG settings, the only difference being that the second set uses the Snubber circuit to eliminate the Q2 oscillations, whereas the first set has full-blown Ainslie oscs from the Q2s. Next will be some higher power runs using 4 Q2s and 48-60 volts input.

I invite the reader to imagine where, on the scale of this plot, a point indicating COP > 17 would fall. 

[MarkE]

This data is intriguing.  Intuitively would have expected that the efficiency of the circuit would have improved when the oscillations are suppressed.  Instead, the one data point so far suggests that the efficiency improves oscillating versus steady operation.  The difference is not large, but it is noticeable.  I suspect that the total input power is not being accounted for particularly during the oscillations.

[TinselKoala]

This data is intriguing.  Intuitively would have expected that the efficiency of the circuit would have improved when the oscillations are suppressed.  Instead, the one data point so far suggests that the efficiency improves oscillating versus steady operation.  The difference is not large, but it is noticeable.  I suspect that the total input power is not being accounted for particularly during the oscillations.

Yes, that's right. I'm not completely confident in the single data points; let's not draw too many conclusions until I have some more osc-nonosc comparisons with the full 4 q2 config. Also, as you say, I don't think that the DMM, where I have it, can see the FG's power contribution during the oscillations. The SWeir board, however, does have a testpoint where the FG current can be measured.

My controls are not exactly bullet proof: the biggest flaw in those two points is probably that both those trials were performed consecutively using the same set of 3 batteries, without recharging in between. In the raw data timelapse it's evident that the battery voltage is sagging more in the second, non-oscillating, run. If I take the mean of the voltage and current readings instead of the starting values, for the nonosc run I get 16.2 Watts, instead of the plotted 17.3, and with a few percent probable uncertainty in the temperature measurements the osc and non-osc points are essentially overlapping.

But if I am _underestimating_ the true input power to the DUT, and still obtaining results on the left-hand side of the plot.... well, shucks, I must not be holding my mouth right, or something.