Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[Tseak]

From "Troll Spin" March 14th

But when you lapse into this kind of argument that requires 'thermal equilibrium'? - is that how you put it? to determine a wattage value?  Then I KNOW that you've got that GRE count of yours - JUST PLAIN WRONG.  Hopelessly so.  It's the RATE of temperature rise that determines that wattage number.  But it's an interesting concept that you're proposing.  It means that we could take water to boil - definitely hold it at equilibrium - and then?  We can ALLEGE just about ANY WATTAGE that we prefer as being responsible for bringing it to that state of 'thermal equilibrium' - as you put it.

It seems that she is proposing dT/dt measurements. Not particularly relevant to this discussion but It is also apparent from this that she has no idea about latent heat of change of state.

Long live junk

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie has never, not once, never ever shown any RATE of temperature rise data. Not even the DC calibration claimed in her daft manuscripts, performed stepwise instead of from ambient each time, shows this RATE data that she so Polly-Parrot squawks about. I doubt that she could even produce RATE data....since until now she has never even considered the time-temperature data-logging issue.

However, I started producing temperature vs. time data concerning Ainslie experiments all the way back in 2009, and I continue to do so today. Anyone who watches the "Data and Results" videos can determine the RATE of temperature rise themselves from my raw, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE data from every trial I run.

Someone really should try to explain to her just what "thermal equilibrium" means in terms of power in and power out from a load element. But of course as long as she continues to confuse the _quantity_  Joule with the _rate_  Watt measurements, there is no hope for her to understand.

Note: the first plot below is the early work from 2009-2010. I used a much smaller volume of oil for that load cell and didn't fan-cool it, so the temperature rise per Watt of input power is greater than my present load cell experiences.

Note 2: I have many more experimental runs with full RATE data, like the third plot below.

I CHALLENGE AINSLIE TO SHOW ANY "RATE" OF TEMPERATURE RISE DATA THAT SHE HAS IN HER POSSESSION NOW.

Let's see what you've got, Polly Parrot.

[TinselKoala]

Meanwhile, while Polly Parrot tosses and turns in her restless sleep, real research continues.

Here's a screenshot of the present setup "Plain Q-17" showing the Gate signal and the Vcsr (current) signal, so you can see the relationship between the mosfet's response and the gate drive. I think all the "measurement" numbers are valid. The vertical cursors can be read to give the frequency (the inverse of the period) and the pulse duration, the horizontal ones to show the zero baseline for the Gate trace and the peak current level. The frequency is a little fast, around 190 kHz instead of the 187 kHz target. Deduct half a point from my GRE, if you like, for that "failure to replicate".

The scope's resolution is set to 100 million samples per second, so there are 100 samples per microsecond, i.e. 100 samples per horizontal division.

[MarkE]

From "Troll Spin" March 14th

It seems that she is proposing dT/dt measurements. Not particularly relevant to this discussion but It is also apparent from this that she has no idea about latent heat of change of state.

Long live junk

Clueless is as clueless does and with Ms. Ainslie there is a whole lot of clueless.  She suffers so many misconceptions that it is unlikely anyone can help her at this point.  She will play around with her set-ups that will either again refute her claims or simply produce no data of any value.  She will proclaim in either case that the data proves her claims just as she now says the experiments last summer do when the reality is they refute her claims.  Her brief brush with lucid acknowledgement of reality has long since passed.

[Tseak]

TK,
Just out of curiosity, did you ever figure out what those kinks are at the bottom of your temperature curves ~3 minutes into the measurement?