Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

We will see what she tries to come up with.  Something that you didn't mention in the video narrative was the low level at the function generator output.  When you cut the source lead of Q2, Q2 no longer drove current through the function generator's output impedance, and the function generator output voltage dropped to ~-10V, and of course without any oscillation.

Yes, that's right. It is evident on the scope screen but I didn't specifically mention it in that video.

However I did explore that issue recently in one or more of the videos in the Negative Bias playlist, iirc, where I show the open circuit voltage output of the FG before connecting it to the circuit, and then the loaded output after connection.

I also demonstrated, as did Ainslie herself under Steve's guidance, that the negative voltage setting of the FG controls the amplitude of the oscillations by varying the current supplied by the FG itself, and that the _scope trace_ of the FG output in this condition never goes below about -4 V with "fuzz", no matter the settings of the FG offset and amplitude, when the Q2 is present.
This was also covered much earlier when I showed that a simple 9v battery, in lieu of the FG, is all that is needed to make high amplitude Q2 oscillations constantly, for as long as the battery lasts, without any necessity for any Q1 in the circuit at all.

Of course this does not produce high heat in the load; Ainslie knows that high load heat requires Q1 ON times in order to be present.

You are correct that the upper left hand figure shows physically unreasonable results.  Those are the physically unreasonable results Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators reported in Paper 1.

Yes, that's right, but there are also some legitimate, apparently valid shots in the daft manuscripts that do show substantial current in the Q1 ON  segments, and they were obtained with that Figure 1 schematic (although they always used the FG Black lead location shown in the second schematic on the Dummies cover.) The  Figure 3 shot and the others which show sufficient gate drive but no current in Q1 were likely obtained with the hookup in that second schematic, although there are other possible explanations as well, like simply not hooking up the probe at all, or the solder melting and allowing one or more of the wires to come off the Q1 pins. That Q1 gets _hot_ when it is fully ON for any appreciable length of time, as I have illustrated in the rather long "test to destruction" demonstration. I was surprised to see the mosfet temperature go to something like 220 degrees C before the thing failed; in my test I used my ordinary Molex socket, I didn't think to solder the leads instead (electronic solder melts at 190 C, roughly), so my test mosfet didn't become disconnected, but it is perfectly plausible that Ainslie's might have melted the solder before the mosfet actually failed, thus preserving the transistor but still making the circuit act like the mosfet was blown or missing. Of course this loose wire must have been reconnected (if this explanation is true)  for the subsequent tests which do appear to show valid data. The only way to discriminate between these explanations is to look at the heating of the load. Of course with the disconnected Q1 the load will not heat substantially, but with the simple probe misconnection it will. The scopetraces will be the same in both cases, but in the disconnect case, the battery will indeed not be discharging and the load not heating, whereas in the misplaced probe case, the battery will discharge normally and high heat in the load may be produced without any _indicated_ current. Unfortunately we cannot trust Ainslie's reports so I can't discriminate between the two conditions ... there is really no telling which fault is responsible for the traces, although I acknowledge that the misconnected probe is the most likely explanation for the data seen.

[MarkE]

Yes, that's right. It is evident on the scope screen but I didn't specifically mention it in that video.

However I did explore that issue recently in one or more of the videos in the Negative Bias playlist, iirc, where I show the open circuit voltage output of the FG before connecting it to the circuit, and then the loaded output after connection.

I also demonstrated, as did Ainslie herself under Steve's guidance, that the negative voltage setting of the FG controls the amplitude of the oscillations by varying the current supplied by the FG itself, and that the _scope trace_ of the FG output in this condition never goes below about -4 V with "fuzz", no matter the settings of the FG offset and amplitude, when the Q2 is present.
This was also covered much earlier when I showed that a simple 9v battery, in lieu of the FG, is all that is needed to make high amplitude Q2 oscillations constantly, for as long as the battery lasts, without any necessity for any Q1 in the circuit at all.

Of course this does not produce high heat in the load; Ainslie knows that high load heat requires Q1 ON times in order to be present.

I do not assume that because Ms. Ainslie has been shown something even if she acknowledges it that she then knows that something. 

[TinselKoala]

I do not assume that because Ms. Ainslie has been shown something even if she acknowledges it that she then knows that something.

Ah... touché.

LOL.....

[TinselKoala]

I know at this point that Ainslie really doesn't know how to read the simplest schematics, but I'm putting this out anyway, just to emphasize the ridiculousness of her "explanation" that the oscillations cannot occur unless the source of Q2 is connected to the Gate of Q1.

(Hey Ainslie... so you are admitting you were utterly and foolishly WRONG when you said that the Q2s are DISCONNECTED during the oscillations, because now you are claiming that they need to be CONNECTED to the Q1 after all. But even that is WRONG.... as is usual for the things you say. Don't worry, nobody really expects your apology, we will just add this to the burgeoning database that shows you cannot back up your claims and you don't have the integrity to withdraw them. You are "afflicted with sad knowledge" all right -- "knowledge" that is utterly false and a result only of your ignorance, arrogance, and delusions.)

[MarkE]

Can't refute a demonstration that demolishes your ideas?  Don't fret.  Just claim that the circuit used in the demonstration is wired wrong.  Never mind that the videographer placed the circuit right on top of an enlarged schematic.  Never mind that the demonstrator color coded the wires.  Just pretend that you can't follow six color coded leads.  Then declare you can't be bothered to watch the video because of your incorrect claims that the circuit it demonstrates is wrong.