Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[Tseak]

It looks like Ms. Ainslie can't suffer polite an reasonable people today.
Could it be influenced by the lunar phase?

This is the normal pattern. When she has been caught out and doesn't know what to say she gets abusive. TK has entirely demolished any vestige of reasonable argument by her. He has reproduced her results by deliberately using poor measurement technique then shown what should have been measured and lo and behold its very similar to the results in August with Steve Wier. All that's left to her is to refuse to acknowledge what is clearly there - we've also seen that before. So expect the feral mode.

[orbut 3000]

Yes, but today she even used bolded, colored, uppercase to express her opinion. That's a pretty strong and almost irrefutable argument.

[TinselKoala]

I mean, really. Ainslie has gone totally and completely nutso.  Now she's gone back to lying about the 5-mosfet circuit, which has nothing to do with the recent scopetraces she has posted. And she still persists in the ridiculous claims about current paths in that circuit. What an utter and complete idiot she is, and she compounds the problem by lying about what the demonstrations proved.

How is it possible for her to continue to make those crazy claims about the current path? How is it possible for her to continue to make the claims about the FABRICATED Figure 3 scopeshot, when it has been proven beyond any doubt that the shot, and the claims made around it, are utter LIES?

I'm flabbergasted by this idiot. WHERE ARE HER KEEPERS? The woman is dangerous in her delusions. There is no point in having any kind of discussion with her because she simply LIES and fabricates "evidence" and even denies the reality of demonstrations that explain everything in unequivocal terms. Even HER OWN DEMONSTRATIONS are lied about in her flailing attempts to save face! What a case study in ignorance she is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w

It even appears that the Great Scientist has forgotten the claimed schematics for the "Q-array" circuit, again.

[MarkE]

This is the normal pattern. When she has been caught out and doesn't know what to say she gets abusive. TK has entirely demolished any vestige of reasonable argument by her. He has reproduced her results by deliberately using poor measurement technique then shown what should have been measured and lo and behold its very similar to the results in August with Steve Wier. All that's left to her is to refuse to acknowledge what is clearly there - we've also seen that before. So expect the feral mode.

She's been full on feral for some time now.  Let's see if we can follow the pretzel dough:

1. During the June 29 tests it was shown that they could not reproduce the Figure 3 waveforms by configuring according to (almost) Figure 1.  The difference being that for the demonstration they connected the function generator black lead where they always connected it prior to August 11, at the circuit common, which connects through a long wire to Batt-.

2. During the June 29 tests it was shown that they could reproduce the Figure 3 waveforms by defeating the current sense resistors completely:  Connecting the scope probe to the low side of one CSR, and the probe ground lead to the circuit common.  IOW connect the probe across a piece of wire.

3. It has been shown in circuit theory and simulation that AC current during the "Q1 Off" phase does flow through four paths:
a. From Q1D to Q1G and into the function generator red lead through the function generator and out to the function generator black lead, due to Q1 Drain/Gate capacitance.
b. From Q1D to Q1S and into the current sense resistors and out to the circuit common, due to Q1 Drain/Source capacitance.
c. From each Q2D to each Q2S and into the function generator red lead through the function generator and out to the function generator black lead through the enhanced Q2 channels.
d. From Q2D to Q2G and into the current sense resistors and out to the circuit common, due to Q2 Drain/Gate capacitance.

TK's videos have shown that the amount of current through a. and b. is a minor fraction of the total.

4. It was demonstrated August 11, that current really does take the 3.c. path.

5. Review of the schematic and white breadboard wiring, along with review of the June 29th demonstration video experimentally confirms the 3.d. path.

6. Ms. Ainslie acknowledges the August 11 current and voltage measurements taken at the battery show net battery draw during the oscillations.  The battery voltage never reverses, and both the average current and average power are positive through the DUT.  The average power draw from the batteries was between 14W and 15W.

7. I understand from Steve that he has it on record that Ms. Ainslie agreed prior to the August 10 dry run, Ms. Ainslie agreed that in the event of a disagreement between the new current sense and voltage measurements at the batteries versus the measurements at the white peg board, that the measurements taken at the batteries would be considered the more reliable measure of battery:  voltage, current, and power.  I don't know if he means he has e-mail, or Skype recordings, or both.

8. Ms. Ainslie ended the August 11 demonstration without performing Phase 4 or Phase 5 tests because she concluded that the measured battery power drain was so high in relation to the anemic heating element output, that determining a more precise estimate of the output than between 2.4W and 3.4W was pointless.  Ms. Ainslie and Steve can be heard discussing the issue I believe around 58 or 59 minutes into the video.

9. The AC impedance of inductors increases linearly with frequency.  Inductance in series with any resistive current sense increases the measured voltage by 41% at f = R/(2piL) and asymptotically to G = 2*pi*f*L/R.

So what do we get now?  We get these insane rants from Ms. Ainslie that despite accepted circuit theory, and despite experimental confirmation that the oscillating currents through the circuit during the "Q1 Off" phase really do flow almost entirely through Q2's channel and parasitic drain/gate capacitance, Ms. Ainslie insists that is not so, and therefore if it cannot be so then the heating resistor must be crumbling while it powers itself in a loop with the battery from which she insists the heating resistor is isolated.  And why should we believe this?  She insists it is so on the basis of her measurements and intuition.  Never mind that out the other side of her mouth she discounts the measurements taken right at the batteries.

[MarkE]

I mean, really. Ainslie has gone totally and completely nutso.  Now she's gone back to lying about the 5-mosfet circuit, which has nothing to do with the recent scopetraces she has posted. And she still persists in the ridiculous claims about current paths in that circuit. What an utter and complete idiot she is, and she compounds the problem by lying about what the demonstrations proved.

How is it possible for her to continue to make those crazy claims about the current path? How is it possible for her to continue to make the claims about the FABRICATED Figure 3 scopeshot, when it has been proven beyond any doubt that the shot, and the claims made around it, are utter LIES?

I'm flabbergasted by this idiot. WHERE ARE HER KEEPERS? The woman is dangerous in her delusions. There is no point in having any kind of discussion with her because she simply LIES and fabricates "evidence" and even denies the reality of demonstrations that explain everything in unequivocal terms. Even HER OWN DEMONSTRATIONS are lied about in her flailing attempts to save face! What a case study in ignorance she is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w

It even appears that the Great Scientist has forgotten the claimed schematics for the "Q-array" circuit, again.

To Rosemary Ainslie from concerned onlookers:  "Put down that scope probe!  You'll hurt yourself."

She doesn't like what she sees so she just pretends it's not there.