Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Here's a burr for your saddle-blanket, GMeast.

http://youtu.be/O7Mcp390HyU

Ainslie said,
And I laugh. More IMPOSSIBILITIES claimed by Ainslie, that I show to be perfectly POSSIBLE and in fact TRUE.

LET AINSLIE PERFORM EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE MY FINDINGS. She cannot, and neither can her faithful steed Gmeast, because my findings are TRUE and fully documented. All she can do is emit further bloviations, giving me more and more opportunities to REFUTE HER UTTERLY. The ignorant troll queen knows nothing about electronics in general or mosfets in particular and is happy to brag and display her ignorance in public for all to see! And she has suborned GMEast as well, which is sad, because he really should know better.

And LET AINSLIE PUBLISH A PAPER.... any paper! She cannot! Never has, and never will. Editors laugh at her, and summarily reject her submissions as the amateurish hodge-podge of error and mendacity that they are.

That was another nice demonstration.  If you get the chance and are so willing, I think it would be good to also show the current that flows through the drain/gate capacitance of Q2 MOSFETs during the oscillations.

It is too bad that you don't have a non-contact current probe.  You could make one up with a small ferrite toroid and a 50 to 100 turns.  Then you can thread a lead through the core to monitor for AC current.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie said,

But to claim that those IRFPG50's can discharge current from a battery or any supply source through the GATE of a MOSFET?  And then to say that they PROVED this?  For those of you who are NOT purists, trust me on this.  It is IMPOSSIBLE - unless that MOSFET has somehow degraded that it is ENTIRELY defunct.  That's just one of MANY absurdities.  The most of them have been discussed.  I put it to you that IF they're the 'experts' that they pretend - then LET THEM PUBLISH A PAPER ON THESE FINDINGS.  Because, of a truth - there would be a million or more aspiring power and electronic experts who would be MOST intrigued. 

Trust her on this. What a fool she is!

Ainslie, there is NO NEED for me or "us" to publish any paper on these findings... because these findings are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IN ACCORD WITH CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. Textbook after textbook has ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED that support my "findings" or rather my demonstrations of perfectly ordinary circuit and component behaviour.

On the other hand, neither YOU, O Great Scientist ROSEMARY AINSLIE, nor your faithful steed GMEAST, can provide even ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to an "aspiring power and electronic expert" who might agree with YOUR position. Of course you can't, because it's clear that your Straw Man is just that: totally made of straw, without substance and without evidence to refute my "findings".

[MarkE]

Ainslie said,

But to claim that those IRFPG50's can discharge current from a battery or any supply source through the GATE of a MOSFET?  And then to say that they PROVED this?  For those of you who are NOT purists, trust me on this.  It is IMPOSSIBLE - unless that MOSFET has somehow degraded that it is ENTIRELY defunct.  That's just one of MANY absurdities.  The most of them have been discussed.  I put it to you that IF they're the 'experts' that they pretend - then LET THEM PUBLISH A PAPER ON THESE FINDINGS.  Because, of a truth - there would be a million or more aspiring power and electronic experts who would be MOST intrigued. 

Trust her on this. What a fool she is!

Ainslie, there is NO NEED for me or "us" to publish any paper on these findings... because these findings are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IN ACCORD WITH CONVENTIONAL PHYSICS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. Textbook after textbook has ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED that support my "findings" or rather my demonstrations of perfectly ordinary circuit and component behaviour.

On the other hand, neither YOU, O Great Scientist ROSEMARY AINSLIE, nor your faithful steed GMEAST, can provide even ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to an "aspiring power and electronic expert" who might agree with YOUR position. Of course you can't, because it's clear that your Straw Man is just that: totally made of straw, without substance and without evidence to refute my "findings".

Again:  She has very little idea of what she is talking about.  Here are a couple of interesting numbers for you:
Gate/drain charge on the IRGPG50 is 110nC.  If the MOSFET gets fully turned on and off then all of that charge has to be pumped in and swept out each cycle. At 2.5MHz that would amount to 275mA current, per MOSFET.  Since the MOSFETs do not fully turn on or off the actual current is lower.  But this should all be readily testable on that board you got from Steve.  You can measure the gate current with a scope under conditions of low frequency full on-off switching, and under the oscillating conditions.

[TinselKoala]

Sure, I can do that. But first I want to see some evidence for Ainslie's repeated claims, which have to do with heating of the load. Not battery lifetimes on pulsed discharge schedules or any of that.

Here is the last paragraph in the adden-dumb to the daft manuscripts that she believes gets her out of the obligation to completely withdraw them.

In effect both the positive and the negative voltages of each oscillation swings, first clockwise and then anti clockwise, through the element resistor and it bypasses the battery entirely. However, there is a small discharge from the battery at each positive cycle that enables enough current discharge to establish a positive voltage through the Source of Q2 to the Gate of Q1. Which then overrides the negative signal that is applied by the switch driver. This ensures that some energy is discharged by the battery, albeit that it is in no way proportionate the amount of energy that is dissipated as heat at the element resistor. Which, in turn results in the dissipation of energy at the element resistor that is far in excess of the amount of energy discharged by the battery supply which in turn, results in the defeat of unity constraints.

So I want to see some data that supports this claim. Where is a data set that shows the RATE of temperature rise, which Ainslie claims is needed, to be greater than that obtained by straight DC at the same average power level? What circuit is used, what are the operating parameters?

The claims in the manuscript body, which refer to the Figure 3 and other erroneous FABRICATED scopeshots are of course invalid for that reason alone, although others also obtain. So where is any data that supports Ainslie's claims?

Nowhere, that's where. She has never produced any _when people are watching her_ , and she cannot do so honestly.

"Before you (Steve Weir) got here, we got completely different results at exactly the same settings. Tell him, Donny...."  Yeah.. right. The "skeptic effect" works at the complete antipodes, all around the world.



It takes less than four hours to set up, run, gather data, collate record and present it in intelligible manner. WHERE IS THE DATA THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CONTENTIONS AND CLAIMS, AINSLIE?

Can't take a few hours out of your busy day to perform the experiment? Oh... that's right, YOU aren't actually performing the experiments and you don't actually want to bother whoever IS actually performing them, actually, long enough to present one single LITTLE data set to support your claims. Actually.

[MarkE]

One of the elephant's in the middle of Ms. Ainslie's living room is the fact that her own measurements August 11, 2013 reliably showed about 15W power draw from the battery while the heat evolved from the heating resistor amounted to only about 3W.  Ms. Ainslie chooses to wave her hands and pretend that the current measurements taken at the shunt resistor right at the battery were somehow invalid.  Her "explanation" in no way provides any reason to believe that those measurements were highly distorted.  Ms. Ainslie agreed that those measurements would be a more reliable indication of true battery current than the current sense resistors on the white peg board.  Whatever ideas Ms. Ainslie has about current flowing or not flowing through the MOSFETs, no sane person can deny that the demonstration reliably showed voltage developed across the low inductance current sense resistor located at the battery.  No one can deny that because the resistor is low inductance and the connections had low inductance that the measured voltage was not reasonably close to:  Ibattery=Vbattery_current_sense/1 Ohm.  Yet, Ms. Ainslie insists that the measurements she demonstrated are wrong.  How does Ms. Ainslie explain voltage across the low inductance CSR without a corresponding current through it?  She doesn't.  She just wails and flails claiming that the current measured is not real.  Why?  Because she doesn't want it to be real.