Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

The video will be here when it's finished uploading.

http://youtu.be/ufEZW5iTv6Y

[MarkE]

The video is clear enough.

[TinselKoala]

The video is clear enough.

Clear enough for a bright child, certainly ... but perhaps not quite clear enough for Rosemary Ainslie. She is such a comedian! Time and time again I've shown her what she claims I cannot do, what she claims is impossible. Time and time again she has been proven soundly and completely WRONG by my video demonstrations. She must enjoy making herself look stupid, and her posts, as usual, are full of frantic flailings and even more frantic insults. What they do not contain, and never will contain, is any hint of understanding or any capability for performing her OWN demonstrations that actually test her vapid claims.

The video of course proves that my apparatus acts just like hers (surprise surprise) but of course it does not prove that the high-amplitude oscillations go through the FG. I don't know why she chose to post that silly cynical "challenge" anyway, since it proves nothing except that she lies when she says I haven't replicated "her" circuit and its artifactual performances. My "negative bias" playlist, the first four videos therein, however, do prove that the Q2 oscillations DO depend upon a current path through the FG or whatever is there to take its place, and they show that a bias current supply that is more negative than the negative pole of the run batteries is necessary to cause the oscillations. Together, this video and those provide the full explanation for the oscillations and the spurious amplitudes caused by the stray (or in my case deliberate) inductances in the circuit.

[TinselKoala]

Hey AINSLIE, why don't you SHUT UP and PAY ATTENTION for a change. You have been trumped, over and over again, and the more you whine and flail about stuff that you SHOULD know about, the sillier you look. It amuses me greatly.

Why aren't you calling me Bryan Little any more? Did you finally find out that you were WRONG, every time you did, for YEARS?

You are a laughingstock!

[MarkE]

She is not doing herself any favors.  Her first paragraph is more or less correct:  The statement which is an observation of readily verified reality is that Q2 conducts current through the function generator during the "Q1 Off" intervals.  The fact that it does is beyond dispute as she herself demonstrated that current flow as Phase 2 of her August 11, demonstration.  What she seems to have absolutely zero capacity to comprehend are a couple of other points:

1) When the circuit oscillates, current also flows through the parasitic capacitances of the MOSFETs.
2) The Ainslie team connected their current sense voltage probe across wiring on their breadboard instead of across the special non-inductive current sense resistors they bought.

Both effects are at work in her circuits.  Poynt99 explained this, simulated it, and closely reproduced her reported results.  Both her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations showed the extent of distortion parasitic inductance has caused her.  It is the combination of 1) and 2) that generated large voltages read by her oscilloscope during the "Q1 Off" period oscillations even though the scope probe tip was connected to the same DC node as the probe ground clip on June 29.  The voltage read was di/dt read across the wiring inductance between the probe tip location and the ground clip location.  The source of the di/dt passing through her current sense resistors was parasitic capacitance in the MOSFETs.  Based on the facts both that this has been explained over and over again, and that Ms. Ainslie remains absolutely clueless about it, it is predictable that she will forever rail on about how there must be something extraordinary happening.  For whatever reason she doesn't process the plain facts in front of her. 

Paper 1 incorporates measurements that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators proved was completely invalid on June 29, 2013.  During further demonstration on August 11, Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators completely refuted their own claims that the "Q Array" circuit produces an efficiency improvement over a direct DC connection.  They established that the circuit wastes ~80% of the input power supplied to it.