Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Let us note once again that on October 6 and 8, 2009, Rosemary Ainslie, posting as "witsend", HAPPILY ENDORSED THE SAME WAVEFORMS and similar ones from FTC (Glen Lettermeier) that .99 is now showing her, and that she now refuses to acknowledge.

Why and how has this change in her attitude happened? It happened because on the 6th and 8th of October 2009 she still thought that Glen's results showed "overunity" performance.  Since she now apparently believes that they don't..... she now disavows any knowledge of the waveforms, and will self-destruct as we watch.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-97.html
Post # 2900 and further on.

[TinselKoala]

Ains-lie expects people to replicate her claims.

But she WILL NOT TELL YOU the actual circuit she used. The only way we know the correct circuit for the 5-mosfet apparatus is because poynt99 traced it out from still frames from the March 2011 demonstration. The given schematics from Ainslie and Martin, all four of them, are lies. The schematics in the "papers" and the March 2011 demo video are lies. Only .99's schematic, the fifth one, determined after another month of lies from Ainslie, is the truth.

She WILL NOT TELL YOU the actual circuit used for the Quantum article. None of the three circuits she and her "team" Donovan Martin have presented are the same as what is in the box NOW, and the published Quantum circuit cannot do what she claims. Even the circuit in the box NOW can't make a 2.4 kHz frequency, because it was DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT THE SAME FREQUENCY RANGE that Glen Lettermeier used to make his Test shots back in 2009. But it isn't his circuit either. And the only way we know what is in the box NOW is because Steve Weir reverse-engineered it as much as possible, and revealed that it is NOTHING LIKE the claimed circuit in the Quantum article nor is it like any of the other circuits given. It uses a SINGLE variable resistor instead of TWO, it cannot vary duty cycle and frequency independently and it cannot make a 2.4 kHz frequency, and it DOESN"T EVEN HAVE THE SAME MOSFET that she has been specifying all along. Two mosfets in the box, one P-channel, and one N-channel, but absolutely NO IRFPG50 anywhere in evidence. To this day nobody knows, except maybe her and "Donny", what the circuit was that was used in the Quantum-17 article.

I can guarantee that what is in the box presented in photos on her forum NOW is not what was in the box in 2002. Numbers on chips have meaning! They are part numbers.... but there are more numbers than just the part numbers. THEY ARE DATE CODES giving the date of manufacture of the chips. If a certain part was manufactured in 2007... what is it doing in a box that was "lost" in 2002 and has just now been found? Just how did it get in there? GREMLINS

She WILL NOT TELL YOU what settings were used to make the data she claims. She WILL NOT TELL YOU what the scope waveforms are/were. And the reason for all this mendacity and prevarication is very simple: deniability. If you do not get "overunity" she can simply say that you are not using her circuit/waveforms/analysis etc. so you cannot claim to be actually replicating and testing HER circuit and HER parameters. Just as she is doing now with "poynty".

She wants her "replicators" to flail around and when they DO report unusual gains, she jumps on that and claims "success" . But when they DON'T report unusual gains.... it's not even the right circuit , not the right waveforms, and the replicator is too stupid to breathe, much less dare to replicate Ainslie's world-saving circuit.

And if they at first report gains, but then later retract that claim of gains.... Ainslie then retracts her previous endorsement.

[TinselKoala]

Here's a little tid-bit that knowledgeable people will know how to interpret:

STMicroelectronics was formed in 1987 by the merger of semiconductor companies SGS Microelettronica (Società Generale Semiconduttori) of Italy and Thomson Semiconducteurs, the semiconductor arm of France's Thomson. At the time of the merger the company was known as SGS-THOMSON but took its current name in May 1998 following the withdrawal of Thomson SA as an owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics

The STMicro or ST Microelectronics name and logo did not exist before May of 1998.

And here is another tidbit: STMicro puts DATE CODES on their chips, so that one can determine the date of manufacture of the chip. So do many other manufacturers like Texas Instruments, Philips, etc.

The STMicro NE555N timer chip in Ainslie's box bears the following markings, in addition to the ST logo:

CHN
NE555N
K2B718

So..... DO THE MATH (tm Ainslie).

[TinselKoala]

Well.... then.... are _these_ the Mystery Oscillations? Ainslie doesn't want to hear anything about her former collaborator FTC's oscillations... so how about the very different oscillations from her former collaborator and head cheerleader Aaron Murakami?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiSWJ4fp-k4
uploaded August 6 2009 with the text:

Contrary to skeptical mythology by false experts, the IRFPG50 is easy to get into oscillation. See diagram and more explanation at www.energeticforum.com

Well.. this "skeptical mythologist" uploaded this video on July 22, 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948GxRN1Qxo
Here I am monitoring the DRAIN pin of the mosfet, so the trace is "upside down" from Aaron's traces at the shunt and across the load, and I am operating at a frequency high enough to show only a single spindle of the oscillation bursts he demonstrates a couple of weeks LATER.

(Note the impunity with which Aaron swaps probe positions to look across the load with one channel of the Fluke-O-Scope. The one nice thing about that instrument is its isolated channel references. You can have as much as 600 V difference between the channel refs, IIRC, so you can get away with crazy things like scoping "across" the load while your other channel's reference is on the ground rail.)

But wait! Both Aaron and I are using the "wrong  mosfet" !! We are using the mosfet Ainslie _told us to use_, not the one _she actually used_. Or is it? Only the Shadow knows. But what this skeptical mythologist knows for sure is that the different mosfets behave differently in the circuit... because I have tried them both, and other types as well. By far the best performer in heating and "overunity spikes" that I tried back in 2009 was the 2sk1548, which ironically has a higher Rdss than the PG50, but is faster. And a lot cheaper.

[TinselKoala]

So let me say it plainly: The "Box", Demo Kit 1, that Ainslie and Martin have claimed many times was "lost" ("You can take my word on that") after the testing reported in the Quantum article.... and which suddenly turned up in her son's shed a couple weeks ago.... and which somehow made it through 3 moves, 3 changes of address without being "found"..... Has a chip in it that was manufactured in May of 2007.