Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

So. Apparently Ainslie is now saying something like this:

It doesn't matter what circuit you use as long as it has a mosfet with a body diode in it and shows some "BEMF" or inductive spike kickback. It doesn't matter what you drive it with, either, or what frequency or duty cycle because the osciilations override that anyway. And it especially doesn't matter that the schematic published in Quantum isn't the one used, or that the FTC Test #13 isn't made with the published schematic, or that the published schematic can't do what is claimed for it. It just doesn't matter! Build anything, and just tune it. You will eventually find the "flop mode" which gives you overunity. And if you don't, after years of trying... .that's not Ainslie's fault, you are just too stupid for pickles.

At the same time it appears that the FTC Test #13 is endorsed by Ainslie as giving the proper waveforms at the proper frequency and duty cycle settings. I say it appears, because it is next to impossible to pin Ainslie down, even after all these years. 
And I am now clear that the scopeshots .99 posted above are from Glen's Test # 13.

So... where are the "oscillations"? There aren't any "oscillations" evident in those shots. And as I showed in my own replication of them using a FG, "careful" tuning is indeed required to get the Drain signal to be a single, tall spike, rather than a bit of an ordinary ringdown. It takes about 30 seconds to "tune" for this. And as I have also shown, the apparatus at that frequency does keep the mosfet ON much longer than the duty cycle setting of the driving system will indicate. In fact with a duty cycle _setting_ of 50 percent, the mosfet is actually ON for something like 80 percent of the cycle or even more. Hence the heating of the load observed.

The mosfet is ON when the Drain voltage is LOW. I have indicated the battery voltage on Glen's screen below. The mosfet is ON as long as the trace is below the red 24volt level of the battery voltage.

I've also reposted my reproduction of the shot, showing Drain and Gate traces, since I only have a 2ch DSO.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie continues to slide down the hill of decompensation. Soon we'll see the fullblown psychosis again, complete denial of reality. If it weren't so funny it would be sad.

No Poynty.  I am NOT asking you to agree to what duty cycle we used.  I'm DEMANDING that you agree that we COULD generate that 3% duty cycle with the use of our equipment.  This possibility was ROUNDLY DISMISSED.   REMEMBER?  By EVERYONE - INCLUDING MARK EUTHANASIUS AND YOURSELF and our Little TK.  Then hot on the heels of THAT fact - is this point.  IF we claim to have applied a 3% ON duty cycle - then that claim is FEASIBLE - given that we COULD. 

No, AINSLIE. What everyone has been telling you is that the circuit YOU PUBLISHED cannot do WHAT YOU CLAIMED. And that is definitely true. Nobody knows, even today, what circuit you ACTUALLY USED. Even the circuit that Steve Weir drew out for you is only what is in the box NOW, and it clearly has been altered since the Quantum article. 
The 555 timer in the circuit that Weir posted can make the short ON duty cycle but it CANNOT make the 2.4 kHz frequency you claimed to use, for one thing.
So you are still in very hot water: the present schematic ALSO cannot make the dutycycle/frequency combo that you claimed in the article. It uses a different mosfet than you claimed in the article. In spite of the similar part number, the IRFPG50 and the IRFP450 are entirely different performers.

NOBODY ACTUALLY KNOWS, at this point, STILL, what was used in the Quantum article. It is obvious that the apparatus has been modified since the picture on the front page of the Quantum article was taken and it is obvious that the schematic now given uses a different mosfet than what the article claims. And it can't make a 2.4 kHz frequency like the article claims.

The photo on the front page of the Quantum article shows two analog meters in the front panel of the device. There are no meters shown on Steve Weir's schematic. The Quantum article and schematic claim that the frequency and duty cycle are independently adjustable.... but the SWeir schematic cannot do independent adjustment, the "on" time is nearly constant throughout the frequency range and so the duty cycle varies along with the frequency, not independently. One potentiometer instead of two. But on the front page of the Quantum article we can make out... barely.... as many as FOUR potentiometers.

The article STILL LIES, even more now that we know that the circuit you give now is even further away from what the Quantum article claims.

Mark Euthanasius has stated - VERY PUBLICLY - that BECAUSE we could not have applied a 3% duty cycle - then EVERYONE needs MUST reject the ENTIRE CLAIM related to our Quantum paper.  And you stood behind him.  It's now been shown that we COULD apply that duty cycle.

No, AINSLIE, what we have stated VERY PUBLICLY is that the PUBLISHED SCHEMATIC IN THE QUANTUM ARTICLE cannot do what you claimed it did, and that is STILL TRUE and it is also true that the "new" schematic can't either: it operates at too high a frequency range. And all that has been shown is that NOW the apparatus MIGHT have been able to apply a short ON duty cycle at a much higher frequency than you claimed, IF it was actually what you used THEN.

THEREFORE do Mark Euthanasius and TK and you need to publicly admit that the BASIS OF YOUR COMPLAINT HAS NOW BEEN VOIDED. 

WRONG AGAIN. Far from being "voided" the basis of the complaint is reinforced. The present schematic doesn't even use the same transistor that you claimed to use and it can't make the low frequency! The timer doesn't have a separate power supply! There is only one potentiometer hooked up!!

THEREFORE do YOU, Rosemary Ainslie, need to admit publicly that YOU STILL HAVE FALSE CLAIMS AND DATA APPEARING UNDER YOUR NAME in publications that you will not correct or remove.

Unless, of course, you all see that there is NO requirement on the part of you all - who have been FRUSTRATING investigations into over unity claims - over MANY MANY YEARS - to EVER make any admissions at all.  You simply reserve the right to discredit the good work that HAS been advanced - and the good name of researchers who are advancing this work - in your anxiety to PREVENT research into over unity claims.  And you will all of you VERY PUBLICLY - show the UTMOST disrespect to any such claimant - REGARDLESS.  There is NO greater discourtesy that has happened on these forums against my good name, my work, my age, my talents - than this REFUSAL.  If I felt that I'd been gang raped by all you internet thugs - RIGHT NOW I feel DOUBLY OUTRAGED.

Kindest regards
Rosie

Believe me, Ainslie drama queen.... had you been gang raped in your South Africa gated compound, you would know the difference between defending a thesis and defending your life against a gang of black thugs who want to humiliate you physically. People have been gang-raped in South Africa, you  know.... lots and lots of them, it is the  Capitol of the World, apparently, and your self-serving statement shows a disgusting lack of empathy or respect for those women victims of your countrymen. There is an outrage happening all right, and you are the perpetrator, not the victim.

[TinselKoala]

And as usual, Ainslie wants other people to do her work for her.

She wants someone to show her what SHE HERSELF HAS NEVER SHOWN, and what doesn't exist in the FTC Test 13 scopeshots!!

I'm not saying it is impossible to get a mosfet to oscillate in the absence of a supplied Gate HI signal from the experimenter's FG or other clocking device .... of course it is possible, and the bigger the rat's nest of wiring the easier that is. I am saying that Ainslie doesn't understand what she is talking about and cannot demonstrate it for herself.

But of course she will distort and alter what I say into something that she can then attack. Watch!

(Note the statement in the Quantum article: "There is a variety of settings that can be applied to the duty cycle (note variable resistors) that results in "overunity coefficients". But the repeatability of such results depends on the precise components used in that circuit." One would think then that the difference between the IRFP450 in the present schematic and the IRFPG50 that the article claims was used... might affect the "repeatability". I'll bet that a lot of Ainslie's early "replicators" are wailing and gnashing their teeth right about now.)

[TinselKoala]

Quoting from the first page of the Quantum article:

Circuit Diagram: This article describes the precise circuit, as depicted in Figure 1, that is used to expose this benefit in transient energy. This is to enable and urge others to duplicate the experiment and determine the measurements independently.

(emphasis mine.)

The "Figure 1" of course is the circuit with the 555 timer that cannot produce the duty cycle and frequency combination claimed. The PRECISE circuit.

Here is how the Oxford English Dictionary defines "precise":

Precise:adjective marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail:precise directions I want as precise a time of death as I can get
(of a person) exact, accurate, and careful about details:the director was precise with his camera positions
[attributive] used to emphasize that one is referring to an exact and particular thing:at that precise moment the car stopped

Exact, accurate, careful about details.....  Yet now she wants to claim a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CIRCUIT was used, not even the same mosfet or number of controls or separate power supply. PRECISE !!!!

And she says she will NEVER withdraw the Quantum article. She doesn't care at all that her lies and misrepresentations and urgings to replicate a FALSE CIRCUIT CLAIM are still "out there" bearing her name !

And she urges replicators to use the WRONG SCHEMATIC, once again. Only instead of only a month, this time it has been nearly ELEVEN YEARS that she has perpetrated the deception wrt the schematic used.


The Quantum article Figure 1, followed by the schematic that SWeir drew out and that she posted in her "trolling" forum thread are attached below.

Note that this is NOT the PRECISE schematic that accompanied the Quantum article as Figure 1.  In fact it is VERY DIFFERENT and doesn't even use the same mosfet. Neither does it correspond to the photograph on the front page of the article: there are no analog meters in the new schematic, and there are at least four adjustable potentiometers on the box in the photograph in the Quantum article.

(Coils? P-fet? Not shown? )

[TinselKoala]

Is the present circuit supposed to use the same battery supply for the mosfet and the 555? Why is this part of the schematic not shown? Where is the battery for the power section and how is it hooked up?