Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Some things to note:

1. Nanobot / Atommix / IST clearly has no clue. That's what happens when you show up late for class and haven't done a lick of homework all semester.

2. Thaelin... funny.... how do you know we're beating a dead horse if you stopped looking in a long time ago? Never mind, your comments and attention are appreciated.

3. MarkE: Thanks for looking at the graph. Yes, two time constants, probably due to the delay in the start of convection after power is applied. And/or something systematic in the experimental setup or procedure, perhaps in the way I'm starting the data collection. I take the "zeroth" sample to get ambient temp with DC power off, then during the first minute interval I adjust the power (voltage output) of the stabilized PSU to give the nominal value for the series. So in the first minute or perhaps two the power level is changing somewhat. Also, these calibrations are done with the "naked cell" with the small fan I call "boxfan" blowing on it. If I used the full thermal insulation, I now realize, it would take a very much longer time to stabilize and would reach much higher temperatures. This would likely be more precise than the uninsulated cell, and if it becomes necessary to attain such precision, the procedure can be applied to the fully insulated cell quite easily. However, after a few more runs at more power levels, I'll be able to construct a nomogram that will allow one easily to enter the observed 60-minute (or other interval) temperature of the load and read off the equivalent applied DC power level. Once I have the load cell calibrated in this way I will be ready to perform actual experimental runs to determine load heating efficiencies .... if I can ever be allowed to know the operating parameters of the apparatus, something which has been a great difficulty all along... see below for an example.

4. Now... on to substance. The Great Scientist has made much, lately, of the scopeshot known as Figure 8, Test 4, attached below. Note that there are very important pieces of information missing -- we do not know the Duty Cycle and it cannot be determined from the display. Nor do we know the open-circuit voltages of the FG's output setting, and again, we cannot determine these from the display.

The text describing the shot says that the Period of the FG's output was set to " 20 ms ". This means, in ordinary language, 20  milliseconds. This would correspond to a frequency of only 50 Hz, but we know that Ainslie has used very slow frequencies before when she desires to produce high heat in the load. BUT..... the oscilloscope's timebase is set to 500 microseconds per horizontal division (top left of screen). This means that the _entire screen_ of 10 divisions only displays 5 ms, five milliseconds, of the 20 millisecond period of the waveform. The other three quarters of the period could consist entirely of Q1 ON, high current, for all we can determine. It is impossible to tell from the display.

On the other hand, we have seen how casually the Great Scientist treats data and especially how she is deficient in expressing herself mathematically. She has confused "milliseconds" and "microseconds" before. After all, what is a mere three orders of magnitude error? Chopped liver, apparently.  So perhaps the "20 ms" period in the text is supposed to be "20 us", twenty microseconds, for the period. This would of course give us an operating FG frequency of 50 kHz.... much higher than Ainslie typically runs. And it would mean that _each division_ of 500 microseconds horizontally would contain 25 full 20 microsecond periods of the FG's output.  Again... at this resolution it is impossible to determine the Q1 ON duty cycle. (Incidentally.... I can only count 14 peaks per horizontal division, consistently all the way across the screen, instead of the 25 peaks that a 20 microsecond period would produce.)

So... just what is the deal here? 50 Hz, or 50 kHz? 100 percent Q2 oscillations, or some perhaps high proportion of Q1 ON times? The Figure 8 scopeshot, combined with the description in the text, once again is more illustrative of the rather charming.... and pathetic... naivete of Ainslie and her co-authors.

This is NOT a trivial issue, Ainslie. If you are really using a 20 millisecond period and not displaying 3/4 of the signal... ONCE AGAIN that constitutes Fabrication of Data. If you are really using a 20 microsecond period, then you either are once again deliberately obscuring essential information, or you are displaying your abysmal ignorance of proper oscilloscope usage, or... most likely... BOTH.

[MarkE]

Some things to note:

3. MarkE: Thanks for looking at the graph. Yes, two time constants, probably due to the delay in the start of convection after power is applied. And/or something systematic in the experimental setup or procedure, perhaps in the way I'm starting the data collection. I take the "zeroth" sample to get ambient temp with DC power off, then during the first minute interval I adjust the power (voltage output) of the stabilized PSU to give the nominal value for the series. So in the first minute or perhaps two the power level is changing somewhat. Also, these calibrations are done with the "naked cell" with the small fan I call "boxfan" blowing on it. If I used the full thermal insulation, I now realize, it would take a very much longer time to stabilize and would reach much higher temperatures. 

That depends on the relative thermal inertia to the thermal resistance of the added insulation.  The radiant barrier material that it looks like you have has a very low thermal mass.  That will tend to offset the very high thermal resistance.  The other option that you have is to regulate the outside temperature of the insulated assembly with the fan duty cycle or speed.  That would tend to reduce the number of time constants in the system.

This would likely be more precise than the uninsulated cell, and if it becomes necessary to attain such precision, the procedure can be applied to the fully insulated cell quite easily. However, after a few more runs at more power levels, I'll be able to construct a nomogram that will allow one easily to enter the observed 60-minute (or other interval) temperature of the load and read off the equivalent applied DC power level. Once I have the load cell calibrated in this way I will be ready to perform actual experimental runs to determine load heating efficiencies .... if I can ever be allowed to know the operating parameters of the apparatus, something which has been a great difficulty all along... see below for an example.

This could be a major issue.  Ms. Ainslie is likely to reject anything that you produce that does not fit with her "thesis".

4. Now... on to substance. The Great Scientist has made much, lately, of the scopeshot known as Figure 8, Test 4, attached below. Note that there are very important pieces of information missing -- we do not know the Duty Cycle and it cannot be determined from the display. Nor do we know the open-circuit voltages of the FG's output setting, and again, we cannot determine these from the display.

The text describing the shot says that the Period of the FG's output was set to " 20 ms ". This means, in ordinary language, 20  milliseconds. This would correspond to a frequency of only 50 Hz, but we know that Ainslie has used very slow frequencies before when she desires to produce high heat in the load. BUT..... the oscilloscope's timebase is set to 500 microseconds per horizontal division (top left of screen). This means that the _entire screen_ of 10 divisions only displays 5 ms, five milliseconds, of the 20 millisecond period of the waveform. The other three quarters of the period could consist entirely of Q1 ON, high current, for all we can determine. It is impossible to tell from the display.

On the other hand, we have seen how casually the Great Scientist treats data and especially how she is deficient in expressing herself mathematically. She has confused "milliseconds" and "microseconds" before. After all, what is a mere three orders of magnitude error? Chopped liver, apparently.  So perhaps the "20 ms" period in the text is supposed to be "20 us", twenty microseconds, for the period. This would of course give us an operating FG frequency of 50 kHz.... much higher than Ainslie typically runs. And it would mean that _each division_ of 500 microseconds horizontally would contain 25 full 20 microsecond periods of the FG's output.  Again... at this resolution it is impossible to determine the Q1 ON duty cycle. (Incidentally.... I can only count 14 peaks per horizontal division, consistently all the way across the screen, instead of the 25 peaks that a 20 microsecond period would produce.)

So... just what is the deal here? 50 Hz, or 50 kHz? 100 percent Q2 oscillations, or some perhaps high proportion of Q1 ON times? The Figure 8 scopeshot, combined with the description in the text, once again is more illustrative of the rather charming.... and pathetic... naivete of Ainslie and her co-authors.

This is NOT a trivial issue, Ainslie. If you are really using a 20 millisecond period and not displaying 3/4 of the signal... ONCE AGAIN that constitutes Fabrication of Data. If you are really using a 20 microsecond period, then you either are once again deliberately obscuring essential information, or you are displaying your abysmal ignorance of proper oscilloscope usage, or... most likely... BOTH.

I have a couple of ideas:  If your thermal resistance is low enough then you could perform a 100% Q1 on, and 25% Q1 on w/o any Q2 oscillations.  You could run 100% Q2 oscillations.  And you could run 25% Q1 on w/ 75% Q2 oscillations.  If your thermal resistance is too high then you will need to think of something else.

[TinselKoala]

All doors open lead to somewhere !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Are we doing Chinese fortune cookies now? Here's one I just picked up off my desk:

Get your mind set ... Confidence will lead you on.


Not "lead you onward"..... 

[TinselKoala]

MarkE said,

Ms. Ainslie is likely to reject anything that you produce that does not fit with her "thesis".

Of course she will. Do I care much? No, I don't. As I've said before, Ainslie has demonstrated herself to be completely immune to logic, reason, evidence, outside references or instruction from those who know their subject. If it conflicts with the "thesis", it is wrong, QED.  Hence no amount of experimentation or demonstration on my part (or anyone else's, even her own) will change Ainslie's one-track mind by a single iota... this is given. Ainslie has also demonstrated a talent for goalpost-moving that is unprecedented  in my experience. (With the possible exception of PJH, or whatever he calls himself, and his "quenco".)

However, onlookers and potential reviewers who examine the issues without the blinders of a foregone "thesis" conclusion will be able to tell which end of the paradigm is up, I have no doubt of that. And I may be able to demonstrate what an actual publishable paper reporting an experiment really looks like.

[TinselKoala]

Low power DC load temperature calibration is complete. I've plotted one cool-down cycle on the graph as well as the 10 runs at various DC power settings.

The final plot is nice and linear. Given a measured temperature at the 60 minute mark, one may confidently read the equivalent DC power level from the plot.


Real data has a certain beauty to it. I have always thought that was one of Nature's great truths.