Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

All right. I think I've given this affair a "fair trial" so far.

Either just lately, or in 2009-2010, or both, I've tested:

1. The Quantum magazine circuit (Q-17), with 555 timer exactly as specified.
1a. The Q-17 circuit with TK-DPDT, which allows the exact 555 circuit to actually deliver the claimed 3.7 percent ON duty cycle.
1b. The Q-17 circuit with the Aaron 555 circuit.
1c. The Q-17 circuit with the F43 FG and/or the DP101 pulse generator driving.

2. The Lost Grey Box single-mosfet circuit as shown in the SWeir deconstruction with the 555 timer schematic he drew from Ainslie's photos.
2a. Using the IRFP450 mosfet as shown in the box photos.
2b. Using the IRFPG50 mosfet as always claimed by Ainslie.
2c. Using, and not using, the flyback diode.

3. The 5-mosfet "NERD" circuit exactly as specified, with both the "correct" and the "incorrect" location of the Black FG lead.
3a. Using IRF830 mosfets.
3b. Using IRFPG50 mosfets.
3c. Using one, two and four Q2s.
3d. Using the F43 FG, the DP101 PG, and various 555 timer circuits.
3e. Using stock cement power resistors, and special non-inductive resistors for CSR
3f. The Tar Baby replicant with Charge-Pump Inverter that allows the entire circuit to be powered by the main batteries only, with no extra power supply for the bias/clock circuitry.

4. The SWeir-designed and donated "Shifting Paradigms" measurement board with its snubber circuit, its Vbatt filtering and its precision noninductive CSR.
4a. Using the F43, the DP101, and various 555 timer circuits for clocking.
4b. Using zero, one, two and four Q2 mosfets.
4c. Using DSO and Analog scopes, DMMs, and thermal measurements.
4d. Using longterm data logging to obtain time-temperature profiles.

There may be more variants and tests that I am not recalling at the moment.

I've tested each system at a wide variety of basic clock frequencies and Gate signal duty cycles. I've made oscilloscope measurements with analog and digital oscilloscopes including a high-end Tek DPSO, I've made DMM measurements, moving-coil milliammeter measurements, thermal measurements and battery rundown measurements. I've run the various systems on batteries, capacitor banks and bench power supplies. I've used several different loads and I've fully characterized and calibrated one of them for the thermal measurements. I've collated and published the raw data, I've made spreadsheet comparisons and I've generated easy-to-read and easy-to-interpret graphs which show the results I've obtained.

I've made and tested and demonstrated several variations and derivations, like the Poynt99-designed Altoid pocket OU demonstrator, the Common Gate Amplifier-Oscillator, the PWM motor driver and even the Little Pickle Radio. I've broken the circuit down into its functional component parts and demonstrated them individually. I've made a large bunch of videos dealing directly or indirectly with topics concerning this project, using YT as my Lab Notebook and sharing procedures, data and results as they happen. I've obtained and demonstrated and explained the spurious "negative power product", the high-amplitude oscillations on Vbatt and Vcsr, the bogus Figure 3 scopeshot, and all other posted scopeshots that Ainslie has produced. There are no mysteries remaining regarding the production of the various scopescreens.

In NONE of this work have I ever seen anything that even hinted at "OU" performance. I've refuted many of the overt claims made by Ainslie in the manuscripts and in forum posts, I've demonstrated over and over again that the Ainslie team doesn't understand the basics of the circuit phenomena they are dealing with, and I've even shown, with help from other analysts, that the Ainslie manuscripts contain "data" that is at best accidentally erroneous but is more probably actually deliberately fabricated. I've even demonstrated and documented overt, blatant and significant lies emitted by Rosemary Ainslie and Donovan Martin.

So at this point, before I take the apparatus apart to reclaim the space and components, I am throwing the project open for suggestions.

Obviously it is impossible to cover completely the entire possible range of duty cycles, waveforms, frequencies, power supply parameters, etc. that could be imagined for these circuits. I've covered the _stated and claimed_ parameter space as best I could, with null results. So.... suggestions please. What specific duty cycles, wavelengths, waveforms, etc. should I try, in order to see if there is any hint of excess thermal power or reduced draw from the batteries? Any suggestions as to what I'm doing "wrong" that is preventing me from seeing the claimed COP > INFINITY (sic) or COP >17 or even the "300 percent" that another claimant is claiming from similar work? Why are my batteries discharging,  even when I produce Ainslie's famous "negative power product"? (I know why.)

[MarkE]

The last frontier that Ms. Ainslie and her crew seem to be ineptly driving towards is well-known battery effect.  There are lots of fun tests that could be done to qualify that.  I am not sure what the point would be.  There is lots of space there that can be tested only to repeat ground that has already been covered many times.  If it interests you, then the way to separate battery effect from magical power discharge, aside from measuring the battery side power correctly is to impose a low-pass filter between the switch and the resistor for one set of trials, and the resistor and the switch for another.  This way, one port pulses and the other does not.  If pulsing affects the battery ( which we know it does ), then this will be seen.  If pulsing affects the resistor, then that will be seen.  And as we know pulsing does not do anything for the resistor beyond rms.

[TinselKoala]

I see that the ignorant troll queen Ainslie is criticizing my videos and my test equipment, again. I have to laugh at that, since they can't make a video presentation and can't use their own expensive equipment to display anything other than fraudulent data and etch-a-sketch meaningless combs of noise.

Some clips of Ainslie's video demonstration, illustrating the camera, presentation, organization and instrumentation skills (sic) of her bumbling team of incompetent nincompoops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIB-_dL-unA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bxAobjN98

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAYeW0PBfLw


Compare that mess up above to my presentation of this set of raw data from two tests:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psbnotQ65rc

And of course here's the little intro video I shot explaining the Link DSO and demonstrating it using the "Ainslie Oscillations" on the Little Brian circuit board:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wy8w9MWJY


And the ignorant troll queen Ainslie pretends to be able to criticise me! Without ground to stand on or even the coordination necessary to make a stand, she brags about her ignorance and tries to discuss work of mine that she hasn't even seen. It is to laugh! Meanwhile the continuing lack of any data to back up her claims is just tiresome and tedious, however expected and par-for-the-course it is.

[TinselKoala]

And let's not neglect to note the statement from Ainslie that seems to be a frank admission that they are currently unable to repeat the large temperature rise that was reported in the Quantum Magazine article:

At the moment we're testing the Quantum circuit with the use of just one MOSFET.  But we're switching with the function generator with its ground pin unplugged.  Temperature measured in the mineral oil is barely 9 degrees above ambient.  But that's more than enough proof that energy is being dissipated.  I'll try and download the waveform hereunder.  We know, with adequate precision - the amount of current/voltage needed for this level of dissipation so the control is relatively easy to establish.  I'll try and open a new thread to keep record of the data we're collecting.  I'm hoping that our purists will be able to access that data and do their own spreadsheet analysis.  But I first have to clear this with the team.  It may be counterproductive - especially with our Little TK lurking here, there and everywhere. 

Yes, indeed, O Great Scientist Ainslie,  it may be counterproductive for you actually to publish YOUR data on this "open source project", since it will not support your claims, unless it is fabricated like your previous data sets. You've already found out that you can't reproduce the Quantum magazine claims using the parameters you claimed to have used then.

However I feel no need to cover up and hide my data, and I can actually _prove_ that the data is as I report and was taken under the conditions I report.

By the way, Ainslie .... where are the scopeshot images from the June and August 2013 demonstrations that you promised to publish? You  know, the ones that showed your claims were bogus, in real time, under the direction of Steve Weir? Where are they? I know where, you've swept them under the rug so they can't be examined.... if your team of incompetents actually managed to save them at all, actually. The USB stick in your LeCroy is just there for show.

[MarkE]

Ms. Ainslie has never reproduced her own claims.  Nor has anyone else.  Greg East seems keen to support her claims.  He could always attempt to reproduce any of them.

Ms. Ainslie fails to understand how she has corrupted the input signals to her instruments.  The best instrument in the world will not fix Garbage In Garbage Out.

From the looks of things they are using the function generator instead of the 555 for their attempt to reproduce the Quantum Magazine tests.  That's a good decision.  They are predictably not getting much power out of their heater at a low duty cycle.  If they measure faithfully then they will find that what you and most everyone else has been telling them for years is true:  The duty cycle they thought they had was the complement of the actual duty-cycle.  They already disproved their Paper 1 and Paper 2 last summer.