Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

This is what I like about the current process.  Careful set-ups are used, the data is collected and presented.  If the data says something that seems screwy then it gets investigated. 

[TinselKoala]

Yes, it fits a lot more with my conception of Open Source research than whatever it is that the Ainslie mob is doing.

For example here's a Little video I just made, justifying the DMM's accuracy, showing it to be within 5 percent of the Link DSO's reading of the same complex signal including substantial Q2 oscillations at 4.3 MHz as well as the solid 1 kHz, 10 percent ON Q1 current.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ST0xgf3xsw

[MarkE]

Yes, it fits a lot more with my conception of Open Source research than whatever it is that the Ainslie mob is doing.

For example here's a Little video I just made, justifying the DMM's accuracy, showing it to be within 5 percent of the Link DSO's reading of the same complex signal including substantial Q2 oscillations at 4.3 MHz as well as the solid 1 kHz, 10 percent ON Q1 current.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ST0xgf3xsw

You may find that your average current gets even more accurate if you add a low pass filter at the input to your meter.  You want a cut-off frequency of about 1kHz:  10K and 0.1uF gets you 160Hz which is good.  What that does is overcome limitations in the CMRR of the meter input amplifier.

[TinselKoala]

Right you are once again. The "Frequency Compensated I Sense" DMM position on the SWeir board is designed to do just that. I haven't done anything with that connection yet...

But meanwhile, here is the overview and raw data from the latest run: 4 Q2s and 48 Volt supply from freshly charged batteries, oscillating mode. I demonstrate the effect of the Snubber circuit on the SWeir board. The last part of the video is the usual timelapse of the raw data and has a pretty loud music track, and can safely be skipped. I haven't yet plotted this dataset.

I'm still using a symmetrical +/- square wave at 10 percent duty cycle, 1 kHz. The Gate signal FG opencircuit voltages are +/- 14 volts but in-circuit they of course hit the usual +8ish, - 4.2 values.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeLRv8RV1DM

The open-circuit Gate signal is shown in the image below, 5V/div:

[TinselKoala]

Is anyone able to decode this latest rant from the Great Scientist?

AGAIN.  We have NOWHERE IN ANY OF OUR PAPERS - ARGUED FOR THE MEASURED EVIDENCE OF ANY WATTAGE.  WE NEVER DID THOSE SUMS.  EVER.  Those sums advanced by our engineering fraternity and based on VI/DT?  It was an embarrassment of riches.  CLEARLY WRONG.  NEITHER THE WATTAGE DISSIPATED AT THE LOAD - NOR THE WATTAGE DELIVERED BY THE BATTERY are correct - not even HALF WAY CORRECT.  This OMISSION of that POWER ANALYSIS was required.  THE ISSUE IS THIS.  Protocols related to the measure of power are based on VI/DT with the ASSUMPTION of a SINGLE energy supply source.  While THESE NUMBERS that are generated from counter electromotive force - CAN ONLY BE RESOLVED IF THEY FACTOR IN AN ALTERNATE ENERGY SUPPLY SOURCE. 

AGAIN..... doesn't Ainslie actually even read what is posted under her name? We know she ignores evidence, but you'd think she could at least remember what is said in the papers.... which we know know she didn't even actually write _since she has not got the concepts necessary_. The papers were written by Donovan Martin, with puppet mistress Ainslie yakking in his ear and pulling his strings, just like she does in the demonstrations.

From the first daft manuscript:

A. Measurement of Wattage Dissipated  Measurement of the energy dissipated at the resistor element (RL1) was determined by comparison with results from a control to establish empirical measurements while avoiding the complexity of factoring in power factor corrections. A constant voltage was applied from a DC power supply source in series with RL1. The voltage was then steadily increased in increments of 1 volt each from 1 volt through to 22 volts. The wattage was then determined as the squared product of the voltage over the resistance of RL1, or P=V2 / RL1.
The temperature of the resistor was then recorded against the applied wattage and the temperature difference above ambient determined the level of wattage as represented in Fig. 2 and Table II.

And of course her continued Polly-parroting of "vi/dt" shows that she still doesn't have a clue, and doesn't even read what Donny wrote in the papers bearing her name and his.

Computation of wattage is based on the product of voltage and amperage over time or vi dt. But standard protocols have assumed a single supply source to the circuit. The measure of the potential difference from these induced voltages on the circuit cannot be precisely established except as it relates to the battery supply source. However, it is correctly represented as the sum of the voltages that are now evident in the oscillations measured across the battery supply. Therefore vi dt is the correct basis for the measure of energy delivered to and from that supply, incorporating, as it does, the sum of both the applied potential difference from the circuit and from the supply.

Well... genius Ainslie, tell us. Is it "VI/dt" or is it "VI*dt"? Do you even know the difference? Of course you don't, since you've never been exposed to the calculus. Do you even know what "dt" means? Do you know what "the integral from t=0 to T of VI dt" actually means, or how to compute it?