Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

@chessnyt: The relevant demonstrations are linked about four or five posts back in the thread( ETA: reply # 583). I think the two of them total about 17 minutes  to watch, and require only a few parts to perform, and just about any mosfet will do, you don't really need the PG50, but you should try to select one with large input capacitance and high Rdss if you can. I had essentially the same results with IRF830.

[TinselKoala]

And here you can see again that the ignorant ranting Ainslie cannot accept the evidence that is put before her. She would rather dig herself in deeper and deeper than actually to investigate the matter for herself. It's sad, really. Who in the world could possibly support her after this? Who would really LIKE to have their names associated with that madwoman? It boggles the mind. Oh, where are you Donovan Martin? Can you  not take your co-author aside and try to get her to reason? Where is ANYONE who can explain things to Ainslie in terms she might understand? I have presented simpler and simpler demonstrations, descending down to the very individual elements of the performance of the circuit, and when she finally sees what I am showing she has to claim that it is fake, in order to defend her own ego from crumbling under the exposed weight of her mendacity and error. Really sad. Funny.... but tragic.

The demonstrations are so simple that it is beyond belief that they can be misunderstood. They are so simple that it is impossible to fake the results. They are so simple that I would bet that my neighbor's ten year old son would understand them. But the Great Scientist Ainslie.... well, it is as you see. I shake my head, I almost feel pity for the poor old deluded Ainslie. To finish out her life believing in such nonsense is indeed a tragedy.

Come on, fellows, can you not talk or show some sense into that old grey head? Is it _moral_ for you to leave her making such an abject fool of herself? How would you feel if that was your _mother_ ranting and raving such nonsense, such easily refuted assertions, such lies and misrepresentations?

[orbut 3000]

I would be very proud of my mother if she could troll like that Ainslie persona at that age.   

[TinselKoala]

IF you mean this video - http://youtu.be/ufEZW5iTv6Y ... I do not think you fake it.  IF you mean this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4... I KNOW you fake it.  I've used words of 1 syllable there.  You SHOULD therefore understand what I've just written.

Here's why.  When you cut the MOSFET out of the circuit on that Q2 Array - you've got the probe of the function generator attached ONLY to the SOURCE LEG OF Q2.  It CANNOT SWITCH THE CURRENT FROM THE SOURCE LEG.  IT NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE GATE.  ANY GATE.  And you've taken the only gate AWAY - out of the picture.  Therefore it CANNOT switch.  DON'T look at the circuit.  LOOK AT YOUR EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS.  The PROBE of the function generator is NOW ONLY CONNECTED TO THE SOURCE LEG OF Q2. SO. On THIS video - you've either performed a MIRACLE.  Or you you are FABRICATING THE EVIDENCE.  Which is a euphemism for CHEATING.  Not good Little TK.  Not at all.

There is of course one other possibility that YOU HAVE NOT MENTIONED, dear troll queen. And that of course is that YOU ARE UTTERLY WRONG about how mosfets actually work.

And of course, since you have not done your homework before shooting off your mouth, you have not seen the EVEN SIMPLER videos that hold the clue that is so obvious even you could not miss it: a battery is used to LOWER the voltage at the SOURCE of the mosfet. What does that do to the Gate Voltage, then? Why... if the Source is Lower than the Gate.... then the Gate must be HIGHER THAN THE SOURCE!!!  And it is this _relative_ elevation of the gate voltage by lowering the source voltage that turns on the mosfet.

And the two batteries are in series through the mosfet when the mosfet turns on. And of course when the bias battery is removed and the Function Generator is put in its place... THE SAME THING HAPPENS. And the FG is in SERIES WITH THE MAIN BATTERY and all of the current flows through it just like it was ANOTHER BATTERY.

The point here - Little TK - is this.  IF the function generator was providing a path for the flow of discharge from the batteries - then - at these levels of current flow - it would be NUKED.  THEREFORE?  IF the batteries ARE the source of all that 'heat' - WHEREVER it is that the battery is DISCHARGING - IF it is RESPONSIBLE for and the SOURCE OF all that WORK - it CANNOT be using the function generator NOR IT'S PROBES for its path.

The point here, mendacious ignorant old woman, is THIS: The FG DOES provide a path for the discharge flow from the batteries, as PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN JUST AS ABOVE. And it is true that  the FG would be damaged IF IT REALLY CARRIED THAT MUCH CURRENT. Since its internal impedance is 50 ohms, to put 20 amps through it would require how much voltage? Eh? Can you do the math? V=IR=20 x 50 = 1000 Volts!!!! And a power supply that could supply 20 amps at 1000 volts! A 20 KW power supply! And yet the FG , even your OWN weak Little chinese cheapo, survives without difficulty. THEREFORE: the currents cannot be that high at all.
And accurate measurements of the ACTUAL CURRENTS in the circuit flowing through the FG during the oscillations are much less than 2 amperes. You and your mob have proven this yourselves under the guidance of Steve Weir.

[MarkE]

And here you can see again that the ignorant ranting Ainslie cannot accept the evidence that is put before her. She would rather dig herself in deeper and deeper than actually to investigate the matter for herself. It's sad, really. Who in the world could possibly support her after this? Who would really LIKE to have their names associated with that madwoman? It boggles the mind. Oh, where are you Donovan Martin? Can you  not take your co-author aside and try to get her to reason? Where is ANYONE who can explain things to Ainslie in terms she might understand? I have presented simpler and simpler demonstrations, descending down to the very individual elements of the performance of the circuit, and when she finally sees what I am showing she has to claim that it is fake, in order to defend her own ego from crumbling under the exposed weight of her mendacity and error. Really sad. Funny.... but tragic.

The demonstrations are so simple that it is beyond belief that they can be misunderstood. They are so simple that it is impossible to fake the results. They are so simple that I would bet that my neighbor's ten year old son would understand them. But the Great Scientist Ainslie.... well, it is as you see. I shake my head, I almost feel pity for the poor old deluded Ainslie. To finish out her life believing in such nonsense is indeed a tragedy.

Come on, fellows, can you not talk or show some sense into that old grey head? Is it _moral_ for you to leave her making such an abject fool of herself? How would you feel if that was your _mother_ ranting and raving such nonsense, such easily refuted assertions, such lies and misrepresentations?

At this point she is just foaming at the mouth.  Her ignorant assertions are so naive and silly the real question is:  Who takes anything that she is saying seriously?