Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

I think it's time for another title from our favorite publisher.  See what this suggests as an appropriate test for Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.

[TinselKoala]

Hmm.... that's pretty racy stuff, low pass filtering and all. Are you sure that shouldn't be in the Adult Books section?

[MarkE]

Hmm.... that's pretty racy stuff, low pass filtering and all. Are you sure that shouldn't be in the Adult Books section?

The part where the duty cycle reflects load impedance back to the source at 1/(Duty Cycle²) may put the Ainslie team into a permanent brain lock.

Now if you or I, or anyone else worth their mettle were going try to see whether or not BEMF on the load resistor results in unexpected energy, we might reduce all variables to just the pulsing or non-pulsing power going into the resistor.  Oh, but wait:  That's exactly what you have already done!

If Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators wish to use battery draw down as their proxy for efficiency, then they cannot insert an device that is going to dissipate over 2/3s of the drawn energy in the control case, without doing likewise for the device under test case.  They have painted themselves into a corner where their proposed tests show that linear regulators are inefficient.

[TinselKoala]

This whole affair has been one of changing claims, unspecified and misrepresented conditions, and moving goalposts on the part of Ainslie and her mob. The Quantum magazine article claimed COP>17 based on thermal measurements. The 2009 claims were based on heating that was claimed to be anomalous compared to the power delivered by the battery. The 2011 appearance of the 5-mosfet circuit made further claims about heat being seen that was not due to the "measured" power delivered by the battery. The daft manuscripts, with their forged data and error-ridden text containing misrepresentations and completely implausible claims not supported by their own valid, but thin, data.... are nothing but examples of pseudoscientific misconduct and only repeat the silly claims made in the earlier emissions of the Ainslie gang.

But we have _NEVER YET_ seen a proper description from the Ainslie mob that connects all the dots:

Here are the claims made, terms defined, parameters specified.
Here is how the claimed performance differs from what is expected using ordinary physics, including a literature review.
Here is the specified circuit used, exactly and without errors.
Here are the operating parameters, such as supply voltage, frequency and duty cycle settings, etc. specified _exactly_ or within reasonable error ranges.
Here is the evidence in support of, or in contradiction of,  the claim, in the form of scope traces, raw data from dataloggers, meter readings, videos, etc. proving that the experiment was performed as claimed and yielded the data claimed.
Here is how the evidence supports (or contradicts) the claim, a logical chain of reasoning followed through without error.
Here is the error analysis: a discussion of possible/probable errors in the experiment, how they would affect the data and how they were controlled or eliminated.

Nor will we ever see such a complete report from them.

[MarkE]

This whole affair has been one of changing claims, unspecified and misrepresented conditions, and moving goalposts on the part of Ainslie and her mob. The Quantum magazine article claimed COP>17 based on thermal measurements. The 2009 claims were based on heating that was claimed to be anomalous compared to the power delivered by the battery. The 2011 appearance of the 5-mosfet circuit made further claims about heat being seen that was not due to the "measured" power delivered by the battery. The daft manuscripts, with their forged data and error-ridden text containing misrepresentations and completely implausible claims not supported by their own valid, but thin, data.... are nothing but examples of pseudoscientific misconduct and only repeat the silly claims made in the earlier emissions of the Ainslie gang.

But we have _NEVER YET_ seen a proper description from the Ainslie mob that connects all the dots:

Here are the claims made, terms defined, parameters specified.
Here is how the claimed performance differs from what is expected using ordinary physics, including a literature review.
Here is the specified circuit used, exactly and without errors.
Here are the operating parameters, such as supply voltage, frequency and duty cycle settings, etc. specified _exactly_ or within reasonable error ranges.
Here is the evidence in support of, or in contradiction of,  the claim, in the form of scope traces, raw data from dataloggers, meter readings, videos, etc. proving that the experiment was performed as claimed and yielded the data claimed.
Here is how the evidence supports (or contradicts) the claim, a logical chain of reasoning followed through without error.
Here is the error analysis: a discussion of possible/probable errors in the experiment, how they would affect the data and how they were controlled or eliminated.

Nor will we ever see such a complete report from them.

Of course we will never see anything like that from Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators.  You on the other hand have presented plenty of irrefutable experiment data.  I hope that you continue your fine experiments.