Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

TinselKoala · January 21, 2014, 12:53:55 AM

Why, Poynty.... have you been holding out on us? Ainslie says that you have a "faithful" copy of her device! Different in some significant way from my Tar Baby, is it? And you've been doing draw-down tests for three months!!

And she used, in "early days"... an IGBT !! All these years and this is the first we've ever heard about it. What was that circuit, I wonder? What was its operating frequency and duty cycle? What a hoot this Ainslie is!

I have repeatedly offered to have Tar Baby tested side-by-side with Ainslie's apparatus, or any other "replication" of Ainslie's apparatus, to see if there are any differences in waveforms, heating or battery performance. Tar Baby is ready to go, to any qualified third party who can conduct the tests. Tar Baby uses the same components as Ainslie has claimed to use, can be quickly configured to _any_ of the many different schematics Ainslie has claimed to use, and gives the same waveforms for the same input settings as Ainslie has demonstrated. Ainslie has always avoided any kind of direct comparison like this because she KNOWS that my work with Tar Baby has comprehensively demolished each and every claim she has made about "her" circuit. The challenge to prove that her circuit performs any differently from Tar Baby has been made for several years now. She has even mistaken my Tek DSO scopeshots from Tar Baby experiments as being her own!

Now Ainslie claims to have used an IGBT, in the "early days". This is laughable in the extreme. Early days, 12 or 14 years ago? Used an IGBT? Right.

And they've noticed that the Quantum single mosfet circuit, or some unspecified variation of it, does not oscillate the way that the 5-mosfet circuit does. Surprise surprise!

(Can't run at an output of 30 watts without NUKING her transistors??? That's absurd, and is definitely disproved by her own published data.)

Where are these suggestions that Ainslie claims were made by Mark E? 30 Watts, capacitors....

MarkE · January 21, 2014, 01:05:29 AM

TinselKoala the only statement of any value in Ms. Ainslie's post is that they are conducting some new tests. The rest is noise.

TinselKoala · January 21, 2014, 01:33:25 AM

Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 01:05:29 AM
TinselKoala the only statement of any value in Ms. Ainslie's post is that they are conducting some new tests. The rest is noise.

"They" being the same crew, unsupervised, that cannot read a frequency from a digital oscilloscope, the crew that made the Figure 3 scopeshot "error" and persisted with it for years, the crew that has demonstrated over and over their incompetence in making and interpreting simple measurements, the crew that doesn't know the difference between a Watt and a Joule?

I can hardly wait for her "complete report" of this new testing.

MarkE · January 21, 2014, 03:11:29 AM

TinselKoala, their prior demonstrations showed that outside guidance made a huge difference. I doubt they have such help for this go round as evidenced by the procedures Ms. Ainslie has published that are IMO very poor. I think that the best they can hope for is that if they report some really extraordinary results that someone will then test using reliable methods and a similar test device.

TinselKoala · January 21, 2014, 05:05:11 AM

Quote from: MarkE on January 21, 2014, 03:11:29 AM
TinselKoala, their prior demonstrations showed that outside guidance made a huge difference. I doubt they have such help for this go round as evidenced by the procedures Ms. Ainslie has published that are IMO very poor. I think that the best they can hope for is that if they report some really extraordinary results that someone will then test using reliable methods and a similar test device.

You mean like Deja Vu all over again?

Several years ago she did just that. She reported some really extraordinary results. Someone.... many people, actually, like Aaron, Ashtweth, DrStiffler, Glen Lettenmeier, Poynt99, and many others, including " Little TK " .... tested them using reliable methods and similar test devices. And we all demonstrated -- eventually -- that her claims were false, unsupported by what verifiable data she herself emitted, and full explanations for each and every feature of her apparatus and its performance were given, long ago.

You are right, the procedures she has proposed are naive, very poor. You will never see data from proper control experiments from the Ainslie crew. She whines and complains, asserts that my Tar Baby is somehow different from her kludge.... yet she cannot specify how or why she claims this. Tar Baby does everything her version does (how could it not, it's the same circuit!), and in fact I've used it to demonstrate many things she cannot even grasp, like the Q1 oscillations that caused her crew to believe that their FG was malfunctioning! Her silly protests that I or others have not reproduced her circuit and its behaviour are just that: silly, naive, and mendacious.