Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MileHigh]

Hey!  I found a nugget of high comedy:

NOTA BENE.  The current flow measured directly at the negative terminal of the battery shows NO discharge during the 'OFF' period.  Therefore?

[MarkE]

Hey!  I found a nugget of high comedy:

I know the quote sounds obvious and foolish.  Had Ms. Ainslie's quote been true it would have been very significant.  It would have meant that the battery was not supplying power during the intervals when the breadboard circuit was going through its big oscillations.  During the August 11 demonstrations those were the only times that the heating element was powered. 

Ms. Ainslie's quote refers to the function generator negative voltage interval, AKA the Q1 "OFF" intervals.  She has things backwards:  During the August 11th demonstration, current only flowed during the function generator negative voltage intervals, AKA Q1 "OFF" intervals of her papers and June 29 demonstration.  The current flow during the Q1 "OFF" interval is is the oscillatory current measured both at the white breadboard fixture and at the batteries that results from linear operation of the Q2 MOSFETs.   During those oscillations some small amounts of current passed through the drain to gate, drain to source, and gate to source parasitic capacitance of Q1.

For all tests conducted during the August 11, demonstration, the function generator's maximum positive excursion was ~2V which was insufficient to bias Q1 on.  Ms. Ainslie has consistently referred to the periods of function generator positive swing as the Q1 "ON" periods.  And they would be were the positive excursion set well above the IRFPG50's Vgs of 4V.

[TinselKoala]

We should also explicitly note that the oscillations of Q2s are partially turning those transistors on, biasing them into their linear operation region. They aren't turning on fully, and so their drain-source resistance is even higher than the nominal Rdss of 2.0 ohms each (4 in parallel would have an aggregate resistance of 0.5 ohms when fully ON). This means that the power dissipation in these transistors is relatively high during the oscillations. We can recall that the August 11 demonstration showed around 13 to 15 Watts of power coming from the battery stack in the Q2-oscillation, no Q1 current, configuration, and that this produced a temperature rise of about 21 degrees C in the load resistance. Ainslie declined to complete the Phase 4 DC control test, so reference was made to the temperature calibrations in "Paper 1".... which showed that a DC power of around 2 or 3 Watts was sufficient to produce a 20 degree temperature rise in the load. The exact values can be heard toward the end of the video clip below. The "missing power" is heating up the mosfets, mostly, although according to my measurements a significant amount is also being radiated as RF at the oscillation frequency. That's right.... there is actually more power being dissipated by the internal resistance of the partially-on mosfets during oscillation, than there is in the load resistor. A comprehensive examination of power in this circuit should have the entire circuit, mosfets and everything, immersed in a known quantity of oil, and the temperature measurements should be made on the oil. In this way the total power dissipation of the entire circuit could be compared to the power drawn from the battery. If there is any hope for experimental support for Ainslie's conjectures, the _total_ power dissipation of the entire circuit must be compared to the battery (plus FG) power contributed to the circuit.

What's the "TL;DR" ?

Since this is the last bit of data we have from Ainslie, we completely reject her current set of claims made without evidence. In the video clip, we can hear her waffling about: But but... when you weren't watching us, we got completely different results from the same settings. That gets a ROFL, for sure ! All of Ainslie's OU results happen when there is no one watching, no record is made and nobody knows just how settings were set. When people are watching and parameters carefully measured and recorded, HER OWN DATA indicate that there is only normal circuit behaviour happening, in a _grossly inefficient_ heater circuit, if heat at the load is the only consideration. However, the total power dissipation of the circuit was not monitored in these or any other sets of Ainslie experiments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w


Ainslie's current claim seems to be that the batteries, when used with her circuit at her operating parameters, will outlast their amp-hour ratings compared to the same batteries, making the same heat at the same load, using DC alone. How exactly is this test to be arranged? How do you use the same batteries and the same load to provide DC current to make the same heat as the Ainslie circuit makes? Do you limit the current with an inline rheostat (dissipating power there)? Do you use PWM or some other chopping scheme? Do you use a _different load resistor_?

Note once again in the posts imaged below, how Ainslie makes false allegations against me, without being able to provide any references at all to support her ridiculous claims. Where did I EVER say that a FG could not be tuned to a negative offset? Nowhere, that's where. Ainslie simply lies. Since I've demonstrated the offset function time and time again, her foot is once again seen to be stuck firmly down her throat. To what does she refer when she says I  ENTIRLY omitted 'time' in my analysis of power? We have seen Time and Time Again that Ainslie cannot tell the difference between Power and Energy and does not understand the difference between a Quantity (Joule) and a Rate (Watt). Ainslie is over her head in any discussion of Power and Energy, because she does not understand the relationship between the two and does not have any math beyond simple arithmetic.

[MarkE]

TinselKoala the short summary is that Ms. Ainslie's best and most recent demonstrations completely refute her claims.   Nothing can change that but new data that supports her claims.  There is no sign of such data from any source.

[MileHigh]

There is a lot of drama in flux, it's just like the good old days.  The issue of battery discharge rates and how much energy you can extract from a battery was covered by PicoWatt but I don't think it was ever acknowledged.  Rosemary is proposing swapping the batteries, so she should get symmetrical results.  THEN? lol

As long as she gets a pair of brand new batteries then let her rip Rosie!  Let's hope she can find someone to run the tests for her.  There is the technical challenge of setting up the right load resistor for the control experiment.  It would be a fun challenge to do a really good thermal setup and plan the execution of the test.  You could take a trip to a big-box hardware store and whip up something quite easily.  Get some styrofoam and some plastic pails and some insulation.  How many pails of water should my battery energy heat up?  How will I agitate it?  What should I use for a delta-t?  Should I measure the the thermal time constant of my insulated water vessel to make sure it is not likely to affect my results?  How do you check the batteries?

There is enough drama right there to fill a full season of episodes.