Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Not even a facility for screwing a manual cable release into the shutter button? A small solenoid could be used to drive that arrangement.

The old Canon Xti. I bought it used about four years ago, it already had a lot of shutter actuations .... but then I've put nearly a thousand frames on it just in the past two days, documenting twelve one-hour experimental runs and some extras. I  managed to find some high-capacity batteries for it... on sale as discontinued items, at Radio Shack of all places. It gets a lot of use and is reliable and rugged. The only problem I've ever had with it was a slightly flaky main switch, which was fixed by some careful application of electro contact cleaner/lube.

No there is nothing like that.  It was less than $200. when it was new.  It takes nice enough pictures, but it requires my finger to press the shutter button for each one.  If I ever get the urge to do time lapse, I will need something else like a camera with a remote input contact, or IR, etc.

[MarkE]

It's very appropriate that you should mention that. Take a look at the schematic, FIgure 1, in the second daft manuscript in its "official publication", the posting on Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" vanity blog.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679

I've also attached a screenshot of the schematic from that paper, below. Notice anything interesting or significant?

Recall also that the March 2011 demonstration, which did NOT use this schematic but rather the one we are more familiar with, used only 5 batteries, not six, for the first part, and actually had to remove another battery for the "high heat" portion of the demonstration, which was performed with only 4 x 12 V batteries, 48 volts nominal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k

One wonders why I or any other "replicator" should be required to "replicate" tests that Ainslie and Martin themselves have not done and will not do. They know fully well what will happen if they use 72 volts and long Q1 ON times.... notice that the tiny fake heatsink on Q1 shown in that early demo has been replaced with a much larger one for the June and August 2013 demonstrations.

As I've said before: There are smoking guns all over the place in what Ainslie has provided. The indicia are all there. Ainslie and her co-authors have been deliberately obfuscating, covering up data, ignoring contrary data, refusing to release raw and processed data, and even resorting to outright lying about data, schematics, instruments, procedures and results, ever since the first Quantum magazine reports. Mistakes abound, certainly, but the _deliberate_ actions, like the 48 volt battery stack to reduce stress on the lone Q1 mosfet on its miserable heatsink, attempting to cover up its significant role in heating the load so that the red-herring oscillations can be emphasized.... these deliberate and conscious actions on the part of Ainslie and Martin reveal the REAL story of the Ainslie affair.

The little heat sink will be good to about 1.5W before the die will reach a safe value of 125C.  It might even handle 2W before getting to 150C.  Above that, there are no guarantees as to the IRFPG50 remaining alive.   On that heatsink, somewhere south of 5W internally the die will turn into a useless blob.

[TinselKoala]

Yep, I agree. The failure temperature might be quite a bit higher though. My sample of one failed at well over 200 C.


Meanwhile, let's consider what it means to have the load cell at a stable temperature, on or near the flat part of the time-temperature curve, or just sitting there in the laboratory.

If the temperature is not changing, that means that the load cell is radiating or "leaking" just as much energy to the environment as it is receiving _from any source_. It is in thermal equilibrium. The "From any source" part is important. Whether the source is resistor material being converted to energy, extra power from the batteries, fairies blowing on tiny Tesla wind turbines, superluminal zipons from the nth dimension, or whatever, if the load temperature is not changing it is not getting any extra energy over what it is dissipating to the environment. Power at the load cell = power out to the environment, if the temperature is stable. Right so far?

Now, presumably there are no overunity processes or matter-energy conversions happening in my bench PSU driven, straight DC calibration experiments. I can accurately and precisely measure the DC power level required to get the load to a precisely and accurately measured stable equilibrium temperature.  The power efficiency and thermal leak rate here is not too important as long as I get the consistent and regular behaviour that I am seeing: a given DC power level produces a given temperature, consistently and precisely. Right so far?

So I can look at a load being powered by _anything_, even fairy breaths, and when it reaches a stable temperature, I can look on my plots and read off the precise equivalent DC power level that it would take to produce that same stable temperature. Right so far?

So. When I test a circuit that is supposed to produce some kind of excess heat in the load, and it warms the load up to a stable temperature, it doesn't matter if that extra energy comes from the resistor mass, the batteries, zipons, fairies or whatever. If the DC power level required to get the load to that same stable temperature in the calibration runs is Less Than the  DC input power to the circuit under test..... then there is no reason to believe that any extra energy is coming in from anywhere, since the supplied DC power is more than enough to do the work. Of course this neglects the heat that is "wasted" in the circuit itself; we know the mosfets in the Ainslie circuit dissipate significant power and for complete accuracy the entire circuit should go into the calorimeter. Only if the stable temperature of the load is Higher than that predicted by the DC input power alone, should any claim of possible OU be entertained. Even then it is far from proven, but this would be the very minimum evidence from an experiment of this kind that would suggest any OU activity.

Right?

ETA: The True Total input power to the DUT must be considered, so no "mistakes" in locating the current sense probe are allowed and any contribution of the FG or other bias supply must also be added to the total power supplied. Of course.

[MarkE]

Yep, I agree. The failure temperature might be quite a bit higher though. My sample of one failed at well over 200 C.


Meanwhile, let's consider what it means to have the load cell at a stable temperature, on or near the flat part of the time-temperature curve, or just sitting there in the laboratory.

If the temperature is not changing, that means that the load cell is radiating or "leaking" just as much energy to the environment as it is receiving _from any source_. It is in thermal equilibrium. The "From any source" part is important. Whether the source is resistor material being converted to energy, extra power from the batteries, fairies blowing on tiny Tesla wind turbines, superluminal zipons from the nth dimension, or whatever, if the load temperature is not changing it is not getting any extra energy over what it is dissipating to the environment. Power at the load cell = power out to the environment, if the temperature is stable. Right so far?

Now, presumably there are no overunity processes or matter-energy conversions happening in my bench PSU driven, straight DC calibration experiments. I can accurately and precisely measure the DC power level required to get the load to a precisely and accurately measured stable equilibrium temperature.  The power efficiency and thermal leak rate here is not too important as long as I get the consistent and regular behaviour that I am seeing: a given DC power level produces a given temperature, consistently and precisely. Right so far?

So I can look at a load being powered by _anything_, even fairy breaths, and when it reaches a stable temperature, I can look on my plots and read off the precise equivalent DC power level that it would take to produce that same stable temperature. Right so far?

So. When I test a circuit that is supposed to produce some kind of excess heat in the load, and it warms the load up to a stable temperature, it doesn't matter if that extra energy comes from the resistor mass, the batteries, zipons, fairies or whatever. If the DC power level required to get the load to that same stable temperature in the calibration runs is Less Than the  DC input power to the circuit under test..... then there is no reason to believe that any extra energy is coming in from anywhere, since the supplied DC power is more than enough to do the work. Of course this neglects the heat that is "wasted" in the circuit itself; we know the mosfets in the Ainslie circuit dissipate significant power and for complete accuracy the entire circuit should go into the calorimeter. Only if the stable temperature of the load is Higher than that predicted by the DC input power alone, should any claim of possible OU be entertained. Even then it is far from proven, but this would be the very minimum evidence from an experiment of this kind that would suggest any OU activity.

Right?

That is of course what Ms. Ainslie demonstrated herself on August 11, 2013.  The temperature rise fell between previously calibrated temperature rises at power input levels of 2.4W and 3.4W, therefore the total power out of the heater resistor, independent of the energy source was ~3W.  In the meantime the battery power measurements were ~15W.  Even grade school students can understand that this means that the power coming out of the heater was only a small fraction of the power being applied to the circuit.  There was therefore no evidence  of additional power coming from anything else. 

[TinselKoala]

Right, of course, but as you can hear at the very end of the August 11 demonstration, Ainslie claims to SWeir that, before he got there, they used the exact same settings and got completely different results. Like all "free energy" devices, the NERD circuit is very shy when knowledgeable people are watching and will only produce its OU when the experiments are conducted in private, by the claimants alone.

So while _we_ believe and accept the SWeir results (which Ainslie only pretended to agree with) we know that the Great Scientist only accepts results that "prove" her claims. Any other results are invalid, because the people who obtain them are stupid Little pickle farmers who stumble over their dangling and inflated GREs and use ancient garage sale equipment, while phoning in anonymously from the other side of the planet.