http://pesn.com/2013/05/22/9602322_Rosemary-Ainslie_Planning_Public-Demo_of_her_Free-Energy-Circuit_June-1/
:o
:-X
:'(
:-* :-*
;)
;D
A question for you TK. I took a very quick look at some of her latest info (maybe 2 minutes). It seems her problem is she is claiming COP > 17. But it appears to me that while her setup is maybe 17 times more efficient than the baseline setup it is still COP < 1. It appears it is just very efficient but not 100%. Does that sound right?
Well, at various times she has claimed COP > 17, COP INFINITY (including the caps) and even COP>Infinity. But you would have to ask her yourself just what she is claiming now. I think it has something to do with "batteries exceeding their watt hour ratings" but to my knowledge she has never, in thirteen years, actually tested this claim.
Certainly she claimed, loud and long, and with posts peppered with insults, that she would have a demo on June 1, and that didn't happen.
Does it sound right to me that her circuit is especially efficient? No, it doesn't, because for one thing the mosfets she uses, IRFPG50, have an Rdss of 2.0 ohms at best. This means that, if heating the load is what you want, you are wasting a lot of power heating your mosfet. 5 amps of DC current = 50 Watts wasted heating the mosfet, by Ohm's law P=I2R. And she has never shown any gains in efficiency by using pulses compared to straight DC. In fact, although she won't admit it, the "high heat" mode of her device IS using mostly straight DC with a mosfet that is fully ON most of the time.
great posts TK at free energy news, I along with many others are banned and would have joined in
Mark
Thanks Mark, frankly I'm surprised that my comments made it thru their "moderation" or censorship there, because I was getting pretty irate. If Ainslie wants to perform public testing I am all for it, and I want everyone who is interested to know the full story and background when they are looking at what Ainslie presents. But I knew from her very first announcement that she would not actually be performing any public testing. As we all know here, she has a history of trying to cover up and change history-- she has even "disappeared" the video of the demo of March 2011 from her various YT channels, the video that she even tried to claim she did not post. However it is still available for critical viewing and comment, if you know where to look.
I could have posted much more, like for instance this: In the information on PESN she claims to have been accredited by several alphabet agencies and firms in the USA and SA, even dropping a few names. But just try to contact those companies and people! Nobody has ever been able to verify her claims or contact any of the names she has mentioned, and none of these people have ever come forward and so much as made a forum post in her favor. She can provide absolutely no documentation, not even an email, from any of those "testers" or companies that she mentions. None of her "co-authors" have ever come forward or joined in discussions, and they refuse to respond to email. When I ran down and posted the public contact information of some of the names she's dropped.... she explicitly said these people are "contactable" and all my info about them came from her .... she absolutely freaked out. But she needn't have worried because apparently they simply don't exist, because nobody has been able to find any of them. Her coauthor Donovan Martin exists but won't respond to enquiries; her other co-author Evan Robinson apparently has this web design company http://www.ejrdesign.co.za/ where it says "it's 2010, time your website grew up"........ and he won't respond to emails either....... Mario Human is apparently an itinerant preacher..... and the other authors might as well be ghosts, because nobody can find them to even ask them for comments.
She will proceed to unleash her usual barrage of insults and denials... .but what she will not do is refute me by producing any documentation, actual contact information, or current statements in support from any of these people. She cannot.
I have asked Rose for the circuit schematic she will be testing, but my post was promptly deleted by you know who. I guess that someone doesn't want me building and testing the circuit.
Anyway, the request has been passed on to Rose by other means.
Do you expect to see some significant difference from what we have been shown before? I don't. (Actually I don't expect to see anything at all, ever, from Ainslie except more prevarication.) The board in the photos on PESN shows that the mosfets are wired as before, that the Q1 mosfet is on a larger heatsink even though she has repeatedly claimed that it stays cold, that the "non inductive shunts" have been installed in place of the original cement resistors, and that there is now an LED that could be in the circuit at the FG black lead, perhaps to allow her to see just when she's got the offset cranked up enough. I can't quite tell how the LED is wired in.
Of course she has also disavowed these pictures, saying
QuoteSterling - I simply sent you a copy of our apparatus - and it specifically did NOT relate to the tests that we have or will be demonstrating. I apologize if your readers were not aware of this.
Note well: She sends the photos to Sterling so he can post them along with the article describing the (then upcoming) test. Then -- AFTER I posted my crops from these pix-- she sends off the quote above to Sterling... apologizing not for her misleading the readers, but rather for the readers "not being aware" of what she didn't bother to tell them. It's not her fault that someone might think that the pictures she sent might actually present the apparatus she is claiming that she will test publicly, after all, is it.
Do you think she'll tell us what these wires are for?
My post has now been allowed at Rose's forum, and the offending moderator has had his privileges revoked (at least for now).
Hopefully Rose will provide me with an updated schematic of the new setup.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2013, 11:13:45 AM
My post has now been allowed at Rose's forum, and the offending moderator has had his privileges revoked.
Hopefully Rose will provide me with an updated schematic of the new setup.
Quote from "her":
QuoteThe other problem I have is that I asked you to explain how energy could be delivered from the battery via Q2. I've yet to get an answer.
As many times as this has been explained to her, i.e., DC bias current thru Q2 and the FG, and AC current thru the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances, it is obvious she can not or will not (ever) understand. It is no wonder that finding some accredited academic willing to support her claims is so difficult.
The claims she makes regarding the "mysterious" operation of Q2 are so very much indicative of the limits of her understanding of electronics, and that is after having it explained to her several times.
Her position, and subsequent claims, regarding Q2's operation has likely done more for causing her research (as well as others) to be considered "pathological science" than anyone else ever could.
PW
It appears Rose is not willing to share the new schematic unless I engage her in further arguments about the operation of her circuit. As I have already explained the simulation results quite extensively I see no need to go on further about it. It's all there in black and white and clear as day.
So I'll just hang back in the wings and see what shakes out.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2013, 12:36:59 PM
It appears Rose is not willing to share the new schematic unless I engage her in further arguments about the operation of her circuit. As I have already explained the simulation results quite extensively I see no need to go on further about it. It's all there in black and white and clear as day.
So I'll just hang back in the wings and see what shakes out.
.99,
It is difficult to believe that anything could be discussed in any greater detail than was covered in all the locked threads that would suddenly allow or cause her to actually understand how her circuit operates (particularly the Q2 array).
Likely just a waste of time...
PW
I find it kind of funny in a way with how the "drama" is still so intense.
So Rose says that the circuit has not changed.
But there are new CVR resistors (possibly different values?), an added LED, possibly different measurement points, different supply voltage etc. I need these details filled in before I can build and test. I also need to know which schematic is the one which will be referred to in the new demo....from paper1 or paper2?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 02, 2013, 01:01:05 PM
So Rose says that the circuit has not changed.
But there are new CVR resistors (possibly different values?), an added LED, possibly different measurement points, different supply voltage etc. I need these details filled in before I can build and test. I also need to know which schematic is the one which will be referred to in the new demo....from paper1 or paper2?
.99,
I believe the new CSR's are merely the "non-inductive" ones she discussed receiving way back when. However, as is evident in TK's posted crops, it appears that their implementation is less than "non-inductive". If "no such animal exists", one apparently does not have to take inductance into account when wiring or interconnecting components.
PW
Quote from: MileHigh on June 02, 2013, 01:00:55 PM
I find it kind of funny in a way with how the "drama" is still so intense.
MH,
Yeah, me too... yawn...
PW
Stefan,
Contact your attorneys !
So she claims that she will..... at some point..... be demonstrating the _same schematic_ as was in her first daft manuscript then. How will this be different in any way to what has gone before? Look at the pictures. If anything, there is even more lead inductance at the battery bank, and the "noninductive" advantage of the expensive special resistors is negated almost totally by their ignorant installation.
We can see, however, that she most definitely has a larger heatsink on Q1. Why? She has always claimed, repeatedly and insultingly, that this mosfet stays cold. (I know why: it does not stay cold, because it dissipates I2R watts as heat, and its minimum Rdss is 2.0 Ohms.)
We can see that she has only three batteries connected (to something). Why? Why not use all six to demonstrate the High Heat mode as she has claimed? (I know why: it is because this Q1 mosfet will overheat and fail if she tries long duty cycles at full battery voltage.... and she knows this too.)
We can clearly see an extra pair of black and red wires snaking off behind the oscilloscope to something concealed under the cloth. It looks to me like these wires are even connected to the board, not the batteries. This is clearly a powersupply or battery charger connection. Why? Ainslie has repeatedly made the claim that her batteries do not discharge, so why is a charger or external power supply needed? (I know why: it is because her batteries DO discharge, and discharge normally, and the only way to get them back to the required voltage is to use an external charger on them.)
And we can clearly see the scopeshot in the first daft manuscript, given as Figure 3, that she claims to be able to reproduce at will , with all functioning mosfets wired as shown in the schematic. Ever since the posting of the manuscripts she has been challenged over this scopeshot; she has again very insultingly and over and over claimed that she can reproduce it, and show that all is functioning and wired correctly. But she has never done it, and I submit to you that that is the REAL reason why she did not perform any demo on June 1 and why she will NEVER perform any real test of her device in public. She cannot reproduce this scopeshot with operating transistors, but the claims in the papers completely depend on her interpretation of this scopeshot... and this means the manuscripts are lies, and they MUST BE RETRACTED.
Also, notice the strength of MY claim. I am not making some wishy washy challenge here: I am stating bluntly that Ainslie cannot reproduce the scopeshot shown above with functioning mosfets in the circuit as claimed.
All she or anyone else has to do to refute me, shoot me out of the water, get their revenge against me, make me look like an idiot... is to do it. Reproduce that scopeshot. She has the apparatus and the batteries (previous excuses involved not having these items assembled or at her location). She has photo and video recording gear. She has her own private forum where nobody can question her. So where is her proof, where is her humiliation of me? It would take just about any reader of this forum five minutes to do it and show it on a video, if it were possible.
SHE CANNOT DO IT.
And her favorite sycophant Gmeast is silent on this issue. Why doesn't HE use his wonderful talents, so respected by Ainslie, to put this simple circuit together with functioning components and demonstrate that HE can reproduce that scopeshot? I know why: because HE CANNOT. The mosfet is blown!
Chessnyt, with his famous lab and skills? He cannot do it.
Who else is there? I can't think of anyone else with building skills that is currently supporting Ainslie. Anyone with the equipment can see for themselves what that scopeshot _should_ look like with all transistors operating: the difference in the current trace is not subtle. It will resemble this one below, only with even more pronounced current amplitude, since the shot below is only using 4 batteries, not six:
Quote from: MileHigh on June 02, 2013, 01:00:55 PM
I find it kind of funny in a way with how the "drama" is still so intense.
Ainslie claimed that she would do a demonstration on June 1. She has been claiming ever since the demo of March 2011 that she would repeat testing and show some specific things when she did. Finally she puts a date on it and publicizes it on PESN and other places on the internet, and also writes letters to all sorts of people inviting and "requiring" that they attend. In this material that Ainslie puts out, she lists references to her "papers" which she claims are published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Right so far? She claims to be engaging in a scientific process and uses, or tries to use, jargon from the sciences in her rhetoric, and pretends to have written some scientific papers.
However: her "papers" are complete BS, because they depend strongly on the result shown in Paper 1, Figure 3 and reproduced in the second paper as Figure 2. This "result" is spurious, caused by a malfunctioning, miswired or totally missing mosfet, or has been produced by a different circuit than that claimed in the paper. Therefore, the claims made about this condition are wrong, the interpretations and implications cited in the papers are wrong, and the entire house of cards that Ainslie has attempted to foist off on the community--- including the attempts to gain monetary prizes--- is bogus. Even this would not be so bad, but for the amazingly arrogant, mendacious, insulting and willfully ignorant way that she has proceeded. I first locked horns with her over her false claim to have a "patent" for the Quantum single-mosfet circuit! (Still available to view in the archives of the Naked Scientists forum.)
So yes, it's intense, and for so long as she continues to insult, libel and make the false claims.... for her claims about Figure 3 are easily demonstrated to be false... it will remain intense, for some of us who have been mightily offended by that Rosemary Ainslie person.
well her theory that magnetism is some mystical particle is crap,its a force,case closed.she may scare serious scientists away with that theory but as a fellow south african i wish her luck for sure.
Maybe you should go and see her, if you are anywhere near Cape Town. Tell her Bryan says hello.
:-* :-*
;D
Well, Poynty Point..... she can't do it, says so herself, but it's simple enough, and she'll even guide you through the settings required.
I can't wait to see you reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot, which shows a mosfet getting 12 volts at its gate, for seventeen seconds at a time, on a little piece of U-channel, with a drain-source voltage of around 74 volts.... and conducting no current -- while you "bring to boil" 700 mL of water with the circuit. Please.
Do you have any time frame on when you will be performing this simple enough feat? I think I know some people who would like to watch.
-- Ickle Pickle, AKA Bryan (or is it actually Brian, I forget) Little ....................................................................................NOT.
(What's clear is that any "measurement protocol" that shows numbers that Ainslie doesn't like, will be called by her "inappropriate" to the task. Where have we heard this before?)
Gee, I thought sure that I'd wake up and see the famous ScopeShot Figure 3 all reproduced on a nice Tek DPSO, along with a subsequent demonstration that all the mosfets are still functional.
But maybe you just don't have enough IRFPG50 mosfets to be frying them like popcorn. That's OK though, because as Ainslie has said, and as I have shown empirically, just about any N-ch mosfets will do to make the magic oscillations and the negative computed power product that she takes as "evidence" for her claim.
SO fine:
Use ANY N-ch mosfet. IRF830 works well to make the waveforms, but others will work too. Your choice.
It's simple enough, according to Ainslie, so PLEASE hurry up and make that waveform, for poor little Ickle Pickle, so he can tuck his tail in embarrassment and slink off back under a rock. Just because it's taken over two years to get even to this point where she demands that someone else do it for her, that doesn't mean anything, it's just a scopeshot, no problem to reproduce. Right?
Of course.... if you or someone else CANNOT make that waveform like Figure 3...... with intact mosfets in the circuit claimed...... what then?
@tk yes i might just do that,with the risk of getting beaten up why not i say:-)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 02, 2013, 02:29:53 PM
Also, notice the strength of MY claim. I am not making some wishy washy challenge here: I am stating bluntly that Ainslie cannot reproduce the scopeshot shown above with functioning mosfets in the circuit as claimed.
....................................
And her favorite sycophant Gmeast is silent on this issue. Why doesn't HE use his wonderful talents, so respected by Ainslie, to put this simple circuit together with functioning components and demonstrate that HE can reproduce that scopeshot? I know why: because HE CANNOT. The mosfet is blown!
....................................
My circuit is different than hers. The proof I show in my video slide show stands on its own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q473lX-Zw1w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q473lX-Zw1w)
And BTW I no longer have anything to do with Rosie so please don't associate me with her work. Thank you. Oh and I only run on 28VDC, and my MOSFET is NOT blown.
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: gmeast on June 03, 2013, 07:12:37 PM
My circuit is different than hers. The proof I show in my video slide show stands on its own.
This thread is about Ainslie's circuit, her "postponed" demonstration and just what she intends to demonstrate there. Your name was brought up because you are, or were, one of only two people I can think of with any electronic competency that hasn't come right out and said that she is FOS, and she respects you as an experimenter.... for that reason you are a very logical choice to "second" her in this challenge. And I think you probably have the equipment -- if not the balls.
I notice that you do not accept the challenge to reproduce Ainslie's "simple enough" scopeshot, though, instead preferring to talk about your own work. Are you going to be claiming any OU prizes soon? Publishing a paper in IEEE journals, or even on Rossi's JNP vanity blog, where you claim large OU ratios like COP>17, COP INFINITY or the like? No?
Then fine, you deserve to be ignored.
Quote
And BTW I no longer have anything to do with Rosie so please don't associate me with her work. Thank you. Oh and I only run on 28VDC, and my MOSFET is NOT blown.
Regards,
Greg
So you are no longer associated with Rosie. What happened? The last time I looked it was like, get a room you two, come on. Did ums have a widdle falling out? Did ums discover, perhaps, that the scopeshot couldn't be so easily reproduced after all? Hmm? Oh, do tell us the story Gmeast.
But as you wish, I won't mention you any more. As long as you stop mentioning me, that is, and as long as you don't try to defraud anyone with your devices and experimentation.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 03, 2013, 11:25:22 PM
This thread is about Ainslie's circuit, her "postponed" demonstration and just what she intends to demonstrate there. Your name was brought up because you are, or were, one of only two people I can think of with any electronic competency that hasn't come right out and said that she is FOS, and she respects you as an experimenter.... for that reason you are a very logical choice to "second" her in this challenge. And I think you probably have the equipment -- if not the balls.
I notice that you do not accept the challenge to reproduce Ainslie's "simple enough" scopeshot, though, instead preferring to talk about your own work. Are you going to be claiming any OU prizes soon? Publishing a paper in IEEE journals, or even on Rossi's JNP vanity blog, where you claim large OU ratios like COP>17, COP INFINITY or the like? No?
Then fine, you deserve to be ignored.
So you are no longer associated with Rosie. What happened? The last time I looked it was like, get a room you two, come on. Did ums have a widdle falling out? Did ums discover, perhaps, that the scopeshot couldn't be so easily reproduced after all? Hmm? Oh, do tell us the story Gmeast.
But as you wish, I won't mention you any more. As long as you stop mentioning me, that is, and as long as you don't try to defraud anyone with your devices and experimentation.
I have never attempted to defraud anyone with anything. As much as it may run against the grain with some, my experiments simply show actual and truthful results. Rosie's circuit is far too "out there" for me to grasp a solid understanding of it. At the same time, I really believe her circuit works. I do NOT have the equipment to test her circuit even if I did totally understand it. My equipment list consists of a piece-of-shit Vellman PC scope and two Sperry DVMs. That's all I have... and that's why I chose to use batteries that I have carefully and painstakingly characterized as a means to measure energy.
Before I ever became aware of Rosie's MOSFET Heater project and her publications, I was interested in exploring an Inductive Resistor used as a heater because I sensed some unique possibilities for it.
And as far as your query:
"Did ums have a widdle falling out? Did ums discover, perhaps, that the scopeshot couldn't be so easily reproduced after all? Hmm? Oh, do tell us the story Gmeast."
It is as sarcastic and childish as ever and not deserving of a response. But regarding your more sensible question regarding the pursuit of some 'prize' or seek to boost my ego by publishing something ... no I'm not, I won't. And in response to your query about making ridiculous over unity claims ... I think you'll find that I have NOT claimed much more than a 25% gain ... spectacular NO, significant YES.
My near term goal is to run on Bat Caps and Ultra Caps (if I can afford to buy them) in an effort to get a better Discharge/Charge ratio for the battery part of this ... a separate project unto itself. This is all aimed at exploring the possibility of some sort of practical application. But that's very far down the road.
I have two other locations where I am posting my progress on this topic and see no need to post anything here. I'll mostly be relying on my YouTube Channel to report anything significant. The only reason I posted here, this time, was to inform you that it is senseless to include me as a cohort of Rosie's in any further posting by you because it no longer applies, and I'm sure you desire to be accurate in what you say.
Regards,
Greg
And another non-answer re the "simple enough" scope shot.
Here is the deal. Ainslie's papers rely heavily on this scopeshot and the conclusions drawn from it. It is IMPORTANT because it is the cornerstone of her entire "thesis" and experimental program. She is claiming that she can attain high heat in the load with NO current "measured" because the Q1 mosfet shows no current and the Q2 mosfets are "disconnected". This is a result of seeing this scopeshot, shortly after high heat had indeed been attained, but the mosfet blew out and stopped conducting. The load was still hot! So Ainslie convinced herself that the load was heating up with no current thru the Q1 and the Q2 mosfets "disconnected" to use her term.
If she is incorrect, and the scope shot is the result of a blown mosfet and the load heat is only residual, this means her papers are so severely flawed and her experiment is so contaminated with error and malfunction that they must be retracted and withdrawn and some kind of errata notice issued.... along with more than one apology.
Several knowledgeable people, other than myself, have also said that this scopeshot is impossible to obtain under the conditions Ainslie claims. It is a fundamental and important issue at the crux of Ainslie's claims. IT IS IMPORTANT. If the scopeshot is bogus in any way, such as being made with an inoperative transistor, her papers and her "thesis" are out the window and into the garbage pile, it is just that simple.
So will somebody either reproduce this "simple enough" scopeshot under Ainslie's direction, or have her show it herself ... OR IF YOU CANNOT, then say so. Ainslie must then begin the process of retraction.
How long does it take to reproduce this "simple enough" scopeshot, anyhow?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 04, 2013, 01:09:48 AM
How long does it take to reproduce this "simple enough" scopeshot, anyhow?
I've got some paper, now if I can just find my pencil set, it shouldn't take too long. ..... KneeDeep
Sketching it with colored pencils .... yeah, that would work. Don't forget to sketch in the high load heat, and the incredulous audience standing around the table with their teacups at the ready.
This right here is why she can't find any "academics" willing to waste their time attending one of her "demonstrations." Anyone who has worked with mosfets and oscilloscopes can look at the schematic, look at this scopeshot, and tell immediately that something is wrong, and it has nothing to do with COP INFINITY.
People here and elsewhere have flamed me over and over; I have borne the brunt of the worst series of insults from True Believers that anyone has ever seen on this website and others about my stance wrt false claims and fraud. So why doesn't someone step up to the plate here and use this fine opportunity to PROVE ME WRONG and get rid of me forever? According to Ainslie it is very simple to make these traces. I agree-- it is very simple, all you have to do is remove the Q1 mosfet or use one that is blown. But that is not what Ainslie claims in the manuscripts; her entire house of cards depends on this scopeshot being taken with fully operational mosfets wired as shown in the circuit she claims to use.
Where are Ainslie's supporters now? THE SCOPESHOT IS BOGUS, therefore the papers are bogus, therefore the "thesis" is not supported, therefore Ainslie must retract, issue errata, and apologize for all those years of insults and mendacity.
Hi TK
I guess many did not step up to the plate as you did such a good job. I was approached and realized quickly after getting some technical advice from my science and engineering friends that there was nothing there or worth the risk to even go and test. As a result I started receiving the usual flaming anyone gets if they do not agree or will not test.
The silent majority is 100% behind you TK and always have been.
Getting flamed (I was after my last Smartscarecrow for calling a Stan Myer replication BS without data) is really a way of enhancing ones reputation. You even flamed me once (with good reason).
So please understand...there is a silent majority and they agree with you
Kind Regards
Mark
Thanks Mark, and don't forget the long and hard work that .99 did on simulations, and all the extremely patient attempts he made at explaining her circuit and fundamentals of measurement and circuit operation to her. And of course, going back years now, we credit the work of FuzzyTomCat, Harvey, and her other former collaborators who now no longer support her or her claims.
Now she is harassing professors at UCT who aren't snapping to attention and bowing to her demands. But she forgot to send Professor Peteresen a copy of the letter she wrote to somebody called Bryan (or is it actually Brian) Little at the same time, so I'll reproduce it here. And I just might send it along to the good Professor as well, so that he can understand a little more about just what he's dealing with.
This, among other reasons, is why the Ainslie affair must be taken seriously and must be dealt with. She isn't just some crackpot posting on internet forums, she is actually harassing people in the real world and often winds up threatening them with her lawyers, while at the same time accusing them of things like burglary and computer hacking. And the scopeshot Figure 3 is the key. She cannot reproduce this scopeshot with functioning mosfets and the circuit claimed in the papers!
If it were possible at all, she could have done it in five minutes with the apparatus shown in the recent photos on PESN.
But she cannot, and nobody else can either. It would have taken her less time than it took her to write these two letters. But she cannot. The scopeshot, the interpretation of it, the papers based on it, and the claimed support for her "thesis".... all are nothing more than "horse manure" coming from the claims of Rosemary Ainslie.
(Notice how she says she will "respect" the decision, and then in the very next breath she proceeds to disrespect it and demand a reversal.)
@Markdansie: Well, Mark, it looks like you've been offered a "private viewing", even by remote control. Amazing, isn't it? This issue has been before us for over two years now, and she has never before actually taken any opportunity to reproduce the scopeshot for anyone. Not even in the previous demo video did she do it. Especially she didn't do it on this past June 1, which would have been an excellent opportunity. But she's going to do it for you!
I certainly hope that you take up her offer.
Remember, it is the Figure 3 scopeshot we are interested in, reproduced below once more for your reference. I'm also putting a "normal" scopeshot below, which shows normal current flowing in the Q1 mosfet when it is getting a sufficient positive gate signal. Also, I'm attaching for reference the schematic from the paper, which she said yesterday is the one she will be using in her next demonstration, and is the one claimed to have been used to make the scope traces.
I have no idea how she intends to show that the mosfets are "in tact" (sic), but I've certainly shown several easy ways to do it in my YT videos. You should require tests that are at least as good as those, to show that all the mosfets she uses are "in tact" before and most especially _after_ she makes the scope traces. Since the paper claims that she made these traces "while bringing water to boil", quantity variously given as "about a liter", 700 mL, and 800 mL, this should also be a requirement for her demonstration to you, of course.
So we are looking at the following salient points: a period of about 160 seconds, with an ON time of around 16 or 17 seconds per period. A gate drive signal of 10-12 volts during those ON periods, applied to the gate of Q1 as shown in the schematic. A drain-to-source (battery) voltage of over 73 volts. And ZERO current flowing through the currentsensing resistors during those ON times (shown by the golden yellow trace). Along with this on the scope, we need to see the load boiling some water at the same time. Oh... excuse me, the water wasn't actually boiling, there were tiny bubbles. (Direct quote from Ainslie's blog post describing the moment this Figure 3 scopeshot was taken.)
I don't know how you will be able to verify that she is honestly hooking up the mosfets as described in the schematic, though. Remember the month-long deception as to the true schematic of the 2011 demonstration video? The claim that all five mosfets were in parallel? That shows that she is not above using conscious deception in a demonstration.
Now Ainslie has had Sterling reproduce her "open letter" to Mark right there in the main article on PESN, including her continuing libel about Bryan or Brian Little .... while at the same time they are censoring my comments.
I placed this comment there just now, but I doubt if it will pass the censors. Sterling is evidently happier with Ainslie's lies, false claims and errors than he is with knowing the Truth about her and her silly project.
Quote
Sterling
I AM NOT BRYAN or BRIAN LITTLE, and you should do a little fact checking before you allow Rosemary Ainslie to libel third parties on your website.
Ainslie lies whenever she uses that name in reference to me. She can give you no evidence or support for her continuing nonsensical claim that I am Brian or Bryan Little and you really should be careful about what you print from her. Can you imagine your legal position if someone who actually IS Bryan or Brian Little should decide to take offense at Ainslie's continuing libels concerning him? Just check her forum threads for a long series of her references to Brian or Bryan Little, in the most insulting language possible.
The Paper2, Figure 3 scopeshot cannot be made with functioning mosfets in the circuit claimed. She has been challenged on this ever since posting the claims over two years ago and has NEVER provided any evidence that the mosfet Q1 is functional when Figure 3 was made. The by far most probable explanation of that shot is that the transistor is blown and to go any further without CONFIRMING THAT IT IS OPERATIONAL is just silly. However you can see for yourself how Ainslie is avoiding providing that confirmation. She has the necessary apparatus, as shown in your photographs. Why does she not simply perform some demonstration that repeats the Figure 3 traces and then shows the mosfet is functional? If it were possible at all, I could do it in five minutes. But she does not do so because she cannot. Nobody can!
Sterling, if you sign an ironclad NDA with me including a penalty clause, then I will happily reveal my personal identity and contact information to you. Rosemary Ainslie has no regard for the truth and proves it every time she uses the name Brian or Bryan Little in her continuing series of insulting posts that refer to me. She cannot address the real issues and problems with her claims and manuscripts so she has recruited you and your PESN in order to attack me and her other critics with ad hominem abuse, and you are complicit by publishing mendacious "letters" from Ainslie like the most recent one above.
Will Ainslie ever provide the evidence that the Figure 3 scopeshot was made with all functioning mosfets and in the circuit shown in the paper? No, she cannot. Will any of her supporters.... if there are any.... come to her aid and do so themselves? NO.... because they cannot!
Will Ainslie ever provide any evidence for her assertion that I am somebody called Brian or Bryan Little? Of course not, she cannot, because I am not!
Will Ainslie ever apologize to me or to Brian (or Bryan) Little for all the insults and libels she has committed against us? HAH. When hell freezes over, maybe.
There it is people, the huge hole in Ainslie's claims, the giant Smoking Gun that blows her papers, her claims, and her "thesis" right out of the water: the Q1 mosfet is blown when Fig.3 scopeshot was made, the heat in her load is residual, any "large heat" result depends on Q1 working (as she has acknowledged herself) and the claims made in the papers, and the papers themselves, must be withdrawn and errata statements published.
I am not sure if I want to be involved in any way TK. Often people want me involved so they can use my name, like saying its been University tested as they were standing on the front lawn of University at the time.
To be honest I am not technically qualified to do any evaluation, and my friends and engineers who are I rather not risk introducing them to her.
However there is one really smart guy I know in South Africa who might just be interested in testing. He is a very bright electrical engineer and knows many of the tricks used by over unity claimants (South Africa is full of them). I will send him an email and see if he is interested.
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on June 05, 2013, 08:33:25 AM
I am not sure if I want to be involved in any way TK. Often people want me involved so they can use my name, like saying its been University tested as they were standing on the front lawn of University at the time.
To be honest I am not technically qualified to do any evaluation, and my friends and engineers who are I rather not risk introducing them to her.
However there is one really smart guy I know in South Africa who might just be interested in testing. He is a very bright electrical engineer and knows many of the tricks used by over unity claimants (South Africa is full of them). I will send him an email and see if he is interested.
Mark
Mark, when you contact your friend in SA, please send him the links to Ainslie's papers, but most definitely send him the Figure 3 scopeshot and the schematic I posted right above, so that he can judge for himself whether or not the Figure 3 shot is possible to produce with that schematic and a properly functioning Q1 mosfet. The mosfet is getting +12 volts, roughly, to its gate during the 16 second ON portion out of the 160 second total period, yet is passing absolutely no current during this time. And it's on the "heatsink" shown in the photo below! I've also included the data sheet for the IRFPG50 mosfet that she uses, for your friend's convenience.
This woman really needs reining in. I was hoping you would help to do it, but I can certainly understand why you would not want to have further contact with her. Anyone who is critical of her winds up being flamed, insulted, and even threatened legally and yes, even physically by her, however empty those threats might be.
The heatsink that Ainslie was using on the Q1 mosfet at the time the Fig3 scopeshot was made:
(This photo was taken by her before the Q2 mosfets on their large heatsinks were added to the circuit. The March 2011 Demo Video shows that this heatsink was still in use then, and the Figure 3 scopeshot was made after the Q2s were added (obviously) but before the March 2011 Demo. This is the heatsink she used for the trial described in Figure 3, no doubt about it.)
TK or anyone else who has not been banned could they please reply to Rosemary's open letter on my behalf and let them know i can not reply because I am banned.
Kind Regards
Well, I am probably "banned" too, since my most recent comments seem to be vanishing. Isn't that great? They flame and libel, take stuff out of context, make false claims without any support, and don't even allow replies to direct communications by the parties concerned.
Mark E. seems to be still allowed to post, but I don't know if he reads here.
TK,
Just a couple points.
Regarding Q1 and FIG3 in the first paper (not the COP=17 paper, the "other" first paper...), we cannot be certain that Q1 was "blown", it may have been disconnected or not connected as per the schematic.
In FIG3, during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, the FG output trace indicates that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1. As most will agree, +12volts applied to the gate of Q1 should turn Q1 fully on, yet, during that same portion of the cycle, the CSR trace indicates that there is no current flowing at that time.
In FIG5, a capture from the month prior, during that same portion of the FG cycle, +6volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1 and, as expected, the CSR trace indicates that Q1 is turned on and passing current.
The only possible explanations for the lack of indicated current flow in FIG3 during the positive portion of the FG cycle are that Q1 was either defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic during the tests related to FIG3.
With all the confusion regarding how the Q2 MOSFET's were connected (as in which is the real schematic?) and all the clipleads used to connect the MOSFET's, it is possible that a lead or pair of leads was/were disconnected or reversed as they attempted to make the circuit more "COP=17 like".
Either way, with Q1 "blown", disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic, her data that relies on the tests related to FIG3 is invalid and should have been retracted or corrected (as discussed at great length some time ago).
Also, when she refers to her oscillations persisting even though the battery is "disconnected", please realize that I believe what she actually means is that she sees no path for DC or AC currents during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a negative voltage. She does not actually mean that she "unhooks" the battery.
Recall the struggle to get her to understand that a FG can sink or source current, and how Q2 is turned partially on when the FG applies a negative voltage to the source terminal of Q2. To this day, from her continued claims, she still does not understand how Q2 is biased on into a linear operating region as a common gate amplifier with DC bias current flowing thru Q2 and the FG, and AC currents flowing thru the intrinsic capacitances of all the Q1/Q2 MOSFET's. Instead she makes wild claims that her oscillations somehow defy, or cannot be explained by, everyday electronic theory and practice.
Just wanted to clarify,
PW
Yes, thanks PW, I believe that I generally do include the "missing or disconnected" options whenever I say things like "not according to the schematic claimed". And unlike some others, I don't make up new definitions for terms like "disconnected" or "isolated" or "floating".
However, if you consider the 16-second ON periods, the 73+ volts supplied, and the tiny joke of a "heatsink" used on that mosfet you will also have to agree that the mosfet can easily fail due to heat stress. In fact a friend who understands heat transfer requirements made an educated approximation and gives it less than a minute of life on that heatsink if the thing is kept ON for the entire time instead of being allowed to rest. Turning the FG "duty cycle" knob approximately 1/3 of a turn, and leaving it there for less than one period at the frequency shown, so that the mosfet stays fully ON for over a minute (35 or 40 percent duty cycle and a 160 second period) will almost certainly result in an open Q1 from overheating, right away, and with the FG settings exactly as shown in the scopeshot, the heat will still build up in the mosfet and it will fail, it will just take a bit longer. And the only way the circuit can produce high heat in the load is to have the Q1 mosfet on for substantial amounts of time. It is important to realize also that Ainslie used the tiny heatsink for that shot, and the much larger heatsink now visible on the photos at PESN is a new addition. Why? Recall that she has claimed several times in several insulting posts that the mosfet does not heat up. Of course, failed mosfets do not heat up, and in fact cool off rapidly when they are no longer conducting. And further, recall that she has _never again_ shown a case where the entire six batteries were used in "high heat" mode. The previous demo video even disconnected one of the 5 to leave only four, and the present photos show only _three_ batteries in use to make the high heat, and the Q1 is on a much larger heatsink!
I _know_ the shot was made with something wrong, and thus the conclusions and claims based on it are wrong. I _strongly believe and contend_ that the thing that was "wrong" is that the mosfet failed from heat stress, rather than being disconnected or missing entirely or miswired. I "trust" that the schematic we have been given is, finally, the correct one used, although I do recall the month long deception that Ainslie engaged upon in March and April of 2011. I believe that there exists a fair body of circumstantial evidence that supports this belief. One such bit of evidence can be seen in the sequential series of scopeshots taken just before Fig3, which are available for view (no thanks to Ainslie) at
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/ (http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/)
The SCRN numbers are the filenames assigned by the scope and the scope display includes the date and time of the screenshot. I think you can actually see this, or another, mosfet failing.
And I _know_ that there is an easy way to resolve the situation: Have Ainslie repeat the scopeshot under full scrutiny re schematic, connections, mosfet integrity and so forth. It would take you or me less time to do that demonstration than it took us to write our last two posts, and you know it. If... that is.... it were possible to do it at all.
And even further: Why do you think she added the four Q2 mosfets in the first place? She originally was working with the single mosfet with the same other parts. But she kept blowing mosfets! Somebody told her to add four more in parallel on heatsinks to handle the current! And when she did, she accidentally miswired them! Therefore, she still has the same overheating problem in the single transistor as before !
It is a comedy of errors, when you have all the information and start assembling it in chronological order.
:P
And even furthermore.... if she only really HAD used the schematic in the version of Paper2 posted on Rossi's JNP right now.... with the four parallel mosfets on the right, gates connected to the Red or " + " FG output lead .... she wouldn't have had the overheating problem in the first place, since she would have 4 transistors playing the role of Q1 in the circuit instead of just one, and the circuit will oscillate just fine on a single transistor in the Q2 role. But she's repudiated this schematic as being the wrong one, and of course it is not the one she actually did use. (So why am I able to take this screenshot today, then? Because it is still up, in the only "official publication" of Ainslie's manuscripts.)
(Even these schematics are wrong, though, because in the March 2011 demo and in every photo that exists of her work with the required detail, it can be seen that the Black FG lead (wrongly marked " - " on the schematic) is actually connected at the common circuit ground, that is, _on the other side_ of the current viewing resistor Rshunt. Bypassing it.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 05, 2013, 03:12:10 PM
And even further: Why do you think she added the four Q2 mosfets in the first place? She originally was working with the single mosfet with the same other parts. But she kept blowing mosfets! Somebody told her to add four more in parallel on heatsinks to handle the current! And when she did, she accidentally miswired them! Therefore, she still has the same overheating problem in the single transistor as before !
It is a comedy of errors, when you have all the information and start assembling it in chronological order.
:P
TK,
I agree with all that you say, particularly when considering Q1 having to dissipate up to 60 watts or so when turned on, and some of the ugly waveforms that were seen just prior to Q1's on current changing to zero.
I also agree that a Q1 failure is a definite possibility, but to be clear, based only on the scope shot of FIG3, we can only know for certain that Q1 is not connected or functioning as per the schematic. If, for example, they reversed the Q1 gate and source lead, they would have made a 5 MOSFET Q2 array and the waveforms would as well look like those in FIG3.
As for the whole sordid tale, and the reason they attempted to parallel aditional FET's (and did so incorrectly leading them to accidentally discover their common gate oscillator), all is very likely just as you suspect.
Note that in FIG5, where Q1 is functioning correctly, it looks like Vbatt is closer to 50 volts.
PW
QuoteIf, for example, they reversed the Q1 gate and source lead, they would have made a 5 MOSFET Q2 array and the waveforms would as well look like those in FIG3.
Ah... but then "they" would not have been able to make the high heat in the load. The point still stands: the shot is invalid and so are the claims and conclusions proceeding from it.
Only the "wrong" schematic above is capable of making the high load heat at 72+ volts input without stressing the mosfets.
But just as I demonstrate in my Cheese Power videos, in the absence of coherent explanations to the contrary, to dismiss the claims entirely you don't need to know the reason for the displayed phenomenon, it is sufficient to know that what is displayed is absurd.
Oh... thank you "poynty point" , I am laughing so hard I can hardly type.
In case you miss the humor, she is telling you that she will answer questions, then she doesn't. She is telling you that she will get her "colleagues to engage", then she doesn't. She is telling you right out front that she doesn't understand or know how to operate a critical item of her equipment, and she is telling you that she actually has no idea how things were set during the trial described by Fig. 3!
In all fairness though, there must be some "negative" gate drive signal happening or the oscillations would not occur. The circuit clips the negative gate voltage at around -4 volts, IIRC, so you will never see a gate signal more negative than that, no matter how negative the FG's offset is cranked. But you knew this already.
So, since the Fig3 scopeshot shows around +12 volts at the peaks, the question we now ask is whether or not the FG that Ainslie used, is capable of making a +12 volt square wave if the offset knob is cranked all the way to the negative stop as is claimed. I don't think it is, but maybe. Certainly my Interstate can but I don't know about the Instek model Ainslie used.
But this would not resolve the Fig3 discrepancy, it only would reveal Yet Another discrepancy between what the scopeshot shows and the claims being made.
I hope you're not despairing for a replication of her scopeshot ..... I still can't find my coloured pencil set. :P
can you post the schematic here? I saw one in pesn but seems like nothing special.
A typical topology in power electronics that would reduce the Rds_on of the circuit.
Quote from: bryanwizard on June 06, 2013, 02:23:05 AM
can you post the schematic here? I saw one in pesn but seems like nothing special.
A typical topology in power electronics that would reduce the Rds_on of the circuit.
http://www.overunity.com/13538/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-june-1-2013/msg362311/#msg362311
Well, Mark.... just by doing nothing you are already in her sights.
Notice again the continuing lies and distortions and veiled threats coming from Ainslie. Also note that, for the first time in ages, she does not refer to me as "Bryan Little".
Also note that she attempts to deflect the issue. The issue is NOT whether I can make those scopeshot traces, because I MOST CERTAINLY CAN, simply by removing the Q1 mosfet from its socket. The issue IS, and will remain, that AINSLIE cannot make those traces under the conditions described in the manuscripts. Nobody can.
PROVE ME WRONG, you bloviating fool Ainslie. It would take you five minutes to do, but YOU CANNOT. You know perfectly well that your mosfet was blown.... I HAVE YOUR BLOG And FORUM POSTS ADMITTING THAT YOU BLOW MOSFETS WITH YOUR APPARATUS.
Determined to show me? Well, what are you waiting for, Ainslie? You could have done it ages ago. You could have done it on June 1st. You could have done it when .99 asked you about it. You could be doing it RIGHT NOW.
If, that is, it were possible at all. So let's see you do it.
YOU CANNOT.
Note what we have here people. EVERY competent person who has examined the scopeshot and the schematic and the claims in the paper has acknowledged the problem with the Figure 3 scopeshot. NOBODY, but nobody, has come out endorsing the shot as even possible, much less correct. The shot can be easily explained by a missing, miswired or inoperative Q1, and conditions in the circuit (heat) are such that the mosfet is endangered. Ainslie has repeatedly made the claims in the letter to Mark D above, that it's "all over the internet" etc. She has the apparatus necessary, no more excuses about missing batteries, funerals, etc. Yet she STILL has provided no evidence, no repeat of the shot. Do you not think that she would, if she could? If YOU were in her position, and knew you were right, would you not rush to provide the evidence?
She's wrong, she knows she's wrong, and she will continue to avoid doing anything that might test her veracity. "Bend over backwards"... what a laugh. Five minutes with the scope and the video camera is all it would take. But she cannot do it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2013, 10:43:17 AM
Determined to show me? Well, what are you waiting for, Ainslie? You could have done it ages ago. You could have done it on June 1st. You could have done it when .99 asked you about it. You could be doing it RIGHT NOW.
If, that is, it were possible at all. So let's see you do it.
YOU CANNOT.
Note what we have here people. EVERY competent person who has examined the scopeshot and the schematic and the claims in the paper has acknowledged the problem with the Figure 3 scopeshot. NOBODY, but nobody, has come out endorsing the shot as even possible, much less correct. The shot can be easily explained by a missing, miswired or inoperative Q1, and conditions in the circuit (heat) are such that the mosfet is endangered. Ainslie has repeatedly made the claims in the letter to Mark D above, that it's "all over the internet" etc. She has the apparatus necessary, no more excuses about missing batteries, funerals, etc. Yet she STILL has provided no evidence, no repeat of the shot. Do you not think that she would, if she could? If YOU were in her position, and knew you were right, would you not rush to provide the evidence?
She's wrong, she knows she's wrong, and she will continue to avoid doing anything that might test her veracity. "Bend over backwards"... what a laugh. Five minutes with the scope and the video camera is all it would take. But she cannot do it.
TK,
To be sure she fully understands what is being discussed regarding FIG3, maybe you should draw some nice black arrows on FIG3 and FIG5 pointing to the areas being discussed.
In FIG5, when the FG output goes positive, as expected, the CSR trace also goes positive.
In FIG3, when the FG output goes positive, the CSR trace remains at zero. Therefore, in FIG3, Q1 must be defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic. There can be no other explanation.
One wouldn't think she could be that slow, but who knows? Remember the Ms. Gate and Mr. Source days?
PW
Of course I remember, and the thought has occurred to me that she simply doesn't know what we are talking about wrt Figure 3 (SCRN0253). She has demonstrated many times that she cannot actually read and interpret graphical data including oscilloscope traces. She relies totally on "numbers in boxes" from digital instruments. Again, she has had ample opportunity to learn these things, and even in spite of her lack of prerequisite background in mathematics and science in general, she could have educated herself from these forum threads and the references she has been given. Any bright twelve-year-old child could have come up to speed in a short time... had she been paying attention in class and doing her homework.
I've pointed out graphically several times what is the problem. Here's yet another graphic. It won't do any good, though. If she doesn't understand your excellent verbal explanations she isn't going to understand one of my graphics, that much is certain.
The first attachment is the Figure 3 shot, the second one is SCRN0150, used by Ainslie as Figure 5. I prepared the latter one some time ago.
Here's a screenshot of the Paper1 Figure5 page. Note that the verbal description does not match the Battery Voltage used.
She is trying to describe the Test 2 condition but refers to numbers that apply to Figure 3, not Figure 5. Most especially where she says 6 batteries.... when anyone can clearly see that only four were used to make the Figure 5 scope traces. Note the battery voltage trace on the scopeshot.
This page is taken from my stored copy of the version initially posted to Rossi's "jnp". I know she has made some revisions; I don't know if this page has been revised or not, but it is the "official publication".
Note also that the text implies that this "test 2" was done AFTER the previous "test 1". But look at the dates of the oscillograms.
Reading along further to examine Test 3 in the first paper, we encounter this claim:
QuoteThe element resistor (RL1) was then immersed in about 0.85 liters of water and the water temperature then steadied
at approximately 82°C. The switching period was then increased and set to approximately 1.25
milliseconds as evident in Fig. 7. The temperature of the water then rose to 104°C in less than 10
minutes.
Yet she has repeatedly said, when challenged about the "104 degrees" figure, that she DID NOT MEASURE the temperature of the water, most recently just a few days ago.
So why does the paper say that she did? What is the truth? Do you really expect to get the actual truth from Rosemary Ainslie, unless you can verify it several different ways? Did she or did she not measure the temperature of the WATER to be 104 degrees as the paper claims? How can water exist as a liquid in an unpressurized container at 104 degrees C? Does she mean Fahrenheit degrees, maybe?
Nearly every page of these daft manuscripts contains further errors, misrepresentation of facts, and totally contradictory statements.
(The link that she gives in the post excerpt below apparently leads to... that same post!! Facepalm.)
@tk..water can easily exist as liquid at 104degrees c,depends on altitude,weather humidity,vapour pressure etc.tap water,s bp alone is slightly higher than distilled water due to dissolved salt impurities etc.
@PW: take a look at this forum post she made LAST AUGUST, promising an immanent video demonstration, where she explicitly says what she will be demonstrating. It appears from this that she does, or did, understand the features, if not the cause of them. Of course... she never did make that video, did she. Why not?
Now does everybody understand why I make these kinds of records?
Quote from: profitis on June 06, 2013, 01:22:09 PM
@tk..water can easily exist as liquid at 104degrees c,depends on altitude,weather humidity,vapour pressure etc.tap water,s bp alone is slightly higher than distilled water due to dissolved salt impurities etc.
Want to bet? Ainslie is in CAPE TOWN SOUTH AFRICA, near sea level. Besides, she NEVER MEASURED THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WATER.
She never measured the temperature of the water.
And notice how she libels me when she accuses me of "slander". I have many more examples where she accuses me, .99, MileHigh, MrSean2k and others of felony crimes and worse, all without a shred of evidence.
What is "steam" anyway? Is it what Ainslie defines it as? Could Ainslie's "steam" that she observed at a temperature (of what exactly?) of 62 degrees C be pressurised and used for motive force?
It is to laugh. "Steam" in the scientific sense is water vapor at over 100 degrees C, produced by boiling the water, and is transparent and invisible. It has 1600 times the volume of the liquid water that produced it. Ainslie observed no steam.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2013, 01:27:27 PM
@PW: take a look at this forum post she made LAST AUGUST, promising an immanent video demonstration, where she explicitly says what she will be demonstrating. It appears from this that she does, or did, understand the features, if not the cause of them. Of course... she never did make that video, did she. Why not?
Now does everybody understand why I make these kinds of records?
TK,
I had (pleasantly) forgotten all the excuses she originally gave. First was that the scope wasn't being read correctly, and that the scopes offset numbers needed to be calcuated in, a call to LeCroy confirmed the scope was being read correctly. Then it was the "scope needed to be in AC coupled" excuse. Here we have the function generator's offset somehow needing to be accounted for.
If she would just acknowledge that the FG trace in FIG3 does indeed show that +12volts is being applied to the gate of Q1, possibly things could move forward a bit.
EVERYONE else that looks at FIG3 can plainly see that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle, and as long as she continues to deny this most very obvious fact, how can she expect anyone to take any of her data seriously?
Does she really expect that an academic would want to associate his reputation with someone claiming that FIG3 does not show +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1? Does she expect that no one else will actually look at the scope captures but instead will only read and agree with whatever she writes or says?
If she cannot even admit that +12 volts is applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG 3, then nothing much has changed, as she has either learned very little, or she just plain refuses to admit to being wrong.
Either way, there is little point in rehashing any of this until she is willing to change.
PW
Quote from: profitis on June 06, 2013, 01:22:09 PM
@tk..water can easily exist as liquid at 104degrees c,depends on altitude,weather humidity,vapour pressure etc.tap water,s bp alone is slightly higher than distilled water due to dissolved salt impurities etc.
I will be very happy to watch you raise some Cape Town tapwater, at 30 meters elevation above sea level, to 104 degrees C in an unsealed container. Your choice of relative humidity and ambient temperature. Bonus points if you can do it with no current flowing in your heater element.
Quote from: picowatt on June 06, 2013, 02:01:14 PM
TK,
I had (pleasantly) forgotten all the excuses she originally gave. First was that the scope wasn't being read correctly, and that the scopes offset numbers needed to be calcuated in, a call to LeCroy confirmed the scope was being read correctly. Then it was the "scope needed to be in AC coupled" excuse. Here we have the function generator's offset somehow needing to be accounted for.
If she would just acknowledge that the FG trace in FIG3 does indeed show that +12volts is being applied to the gate of Q1, possibly things could move forward a bit.
EVERYONE else that looks at FIG3 can plainly see that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle, and as long as she continues to deny this most very obvious fact, how can she expect anyone to take any of her data seriously?
Does she really expect that an academic would want to associate his reputation with someone claiming that FIG3 does not show +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1? Does she expect that no one else will actually look at the scope captures but instead will only read and agree with whatever she says instead?
If she cannot even admit that +12 volts is applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle in FIG 3, then nothing much has changed, as she has either learned very little or just plain refuses to admit to being wrong.
Either way, there is little point in rehashing any of this until she is willing to change.
PW
I agree with the "little point" part... .so why does she promise and tease, why does she continue making false claims, continue to agitate, libel and insult then? As long as she continues doing stuff like making the "june 1" promise, harassing professors, and calling me "ickle pickle" or Bryan Little, I will fight against her, with FACTS, checkable references, and demonstrations that refute her all down the line. If I can't get help from the other people whom she has libelled, like you, then I'll just continue doing it on my own, as long as I have a voice and somebody who is willing to host my posts.
The papers are bogus, the data they are based upon terminally flawed, even misrepresented by her, and the claims and conclusions are false. The papers must be withdrawn, errata issued, and Rosemary Ainslie must apologize to all those whom she has misled, lied to, and slighted.
Here's what she says about measuring gate voltages: (capture from Sunday, August 5, 2012)
Do you see? She has no clue even what her own scope traces represent, but she is quite willing to libel, insult and accuse.
QuoteIn the first instance we have NEVER taken a measure of the voltage applied to the GATE of Q1 or indeed to any gate ever, anywhere.
@tk..well i hope she will give us a circuit that anybody can copy,and get identical results.reproduceability is utmost importance in this game,a clean 6watt-minutes out the source and 20watt-minutes into the water then this case will be closed.
Quote from: profitis on June 06, 2013, 02:34:25 PM
@tk..well i hope she will give us a circuit that anybody can copy,and get identical results.reproduceability is utmost importance in this game,a clean 6watt-minutes out the source and 20watt-minutes into the water then this case will be closed.
She has given us a circuit, anyone can copy it and many people, like me, have done so. But unlike Ainslie, I have performed proper tests of the circuit and I understand how it works, thanks to PW and .99. You can see my work in the closed "Tar Baby" thread on this forum.
For example, when measuring heat "at the load", I use an insulated oil bath, with the thermometer measuring the oil temperature and temperature data taken after agitation and equilibration. So you can be sure just what I am measuring and you can perform reliable energy calculations using the quantity and specific heat of the oil and recorded times/temperatures. Most importantly, you or anyone can actually repeat my work and get the same or similar results I get. Much of this work is recorded in a series of YouTube videos on my channel.
I have always shared _every bit_ of my work on the Ainslie circuits so that anyone with the skills and equipment can reproduce it and check my claims. I use YouTube as my "lab notebook" as well as to present demonstrations of phenomena to interested persons. Search my channel for "Tar Baby" if you are interested.
You may also find some old videos from 2009 where I test and explain her original one-mosfet 555 clocked circuit. The story there is another comedy of errors, beginning with the claim of a patent, then going on to the 555 timer's duty cycle.... and so forth.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 06, 2013, 02:16:48 PM
I agree with the "little point" part... .so why does she promise and tease, why does she continue making false claims, continue to agitate, libel and insult then? As long as she continues doing stuff like making the "june 1" promise, harassing professors, and calling me "ickle pickle" or Bryan Little, I will fight against her, with FACTS, checkable references, and demonstrations that refute her all down the line. If I can't get help from the other people whom she has libelled, like you, then I'll just continue doing it on my own, as long as I have a voice and somebody who is willing to host my posts.
The papers are bogus, the data they are based upon terminally flawed, even misrepresented by her, and the claims and conclusions are false. The papers must be withdrawn, errata issued, and Rosemary Ainslie must apologize to all those whom she has misled, lied to, and slighted.
Here's what she says about measuring gate voltages: (capture from Sunday, August 5, 2012)
TK,
So, even though, from her own words, it is obvious that she cannot read and/or understand her own schematics or scope captures, she has always felt somehow qualified to argue with anyone who can.
To this day, she has been unable to present even one remotely qualified individual willing to agree with her and state that FIG3 does not show +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle.
Admitting that there is +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 would, of course, beg the question, "then why is Q1 not turning on, as indicated by the CSR trace?"
Surely she must understand how her continued refusal to admit even the most obvious does little to bolster her credibility...
PW
@tk an impressive way to do the calorometry would be to use a watch battery source which could say, raise the temp of a cup of water by maximum 7 degrees above ambient if completely discharged then show it going to 14degrees above ambient,something nobody could argue with,regardless of what the scopes say.this would remove all disputes pertaining to scope readings at least.
Quote- Figure 3 scope shot - is now a litmus test of my 'mendacity' or our 'claim'? I am MORE than willing to make this public and have offered a viewing to Mark Dansie who is a vociferous critic of our work and an ardent supporter of Tinsel Koala. It will be a pleasure to show you all how easy it is to replicate that waveform. God knows - it's intrigued us all since we first saw it now some years back.
And you have never repeated it since. Because you cannot. We are waiting, Ainslie. It's already nearly a week since your last failure to deliver on a promise, you are way past due for your next one.
You claim to be MORE than willing. But I state with complete confidence that you are UNABLE.
Quote from: profitis on June 06, 2013, 03:46:02 PM
@tk an impressive way to do the calorometry would be to use a watch battery source which could say, raise the temp of a cup of water by maximum 7 degrees above ambient if completely discharged then show it going to 14degrees above ambient,something nobody could argue with,regardless of what the scopes say.this would remove all disputes pertaining to scope readings at least.
Feel free to demonstrate this, any time you like. In fact Ainslie has been promising to do something like this, since August of 2011 at least, and she reiterated that promise for the June 1 demonstration (which she never actually planned to carry out, as you can tell from her posts leading up to the date.)
Meanwhile this thread is about Ainslie, her promised demonstrations, and why her claims are bogus and not supported by her own published data and statements.
QuoteFigure 3 scope shot - is now a litmus test of my 'mendacity' or our 'claim'? I am MORE than willing to make this public and have offered a viewing to Mark Dansie who is a vociferous critic of our work and an ardent supporter of Tinsel Koala. It will be a pleasure to show you all how easy it is to replicate that waveform. God knows - it's intrigued us all since we first saw it now some years back.
Yes, the oscillations from the common gate amplifier (the Q2 array) can be readily reproduced, but she will have a pretty tough time applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 and not have it turn on and draw current.
At least with the schematic shown in her papers...
PW
lol @tk,if i was her i would be focused on proving it to you first before going public,at least it would be a way for me to make somewhat sure that i wasnt self-deceiving and also to prep for some very legitimate criticism from others.
Quote from: profitis on June 06, 2013, 04:43:55 PM
lol @tk,if i was her i would be focused on proving it to you first before going public,at least it would be a way for me to make somewhat sure that i wasnt self-deceiving and also to prep for some very legitimate criticism from others.
You, however, are relatively rational. Ainslie.... not so much, as you can probably tell by now from her own words.
In order to help Ainslie perform this test properly, we should talk about a good easy way to test a mosfet and show that it is indeed "in tact" (sic) both before and after Ainslie does her demonstration of the Fig.3 scopeshot.
What would you suggest, PW? Or anyone? This should be an unequivocal test that shows the mosfet can function normally in a normal circuit, and should not be too difficult for someone like Ainslie to perform. So no big fancy "electronics" words or math more complicated than multiplication, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA
@tk well ive always been vigorously self-scrutinizing until a point is reached where every angle of self-attack is counter-attacked with evidence,a type of schizophrenia where you are your own most vigorous critic and counter-critic at same time.im disappointed that mrs ainslie doesnt come here onto this thread and beat down critics right here right now and catch them out on their own words instead of via the grapevine safety(is she allowed here?)personaly i love to face critics and destroy them publicly when it comes to a self-substantiated 2lot breach claim.
@Profitis
you should contact her and see if she will send you a full set of papers that supports her conclusions. Might be a worthwhile exercise.
I get hung up on why it only does what it claims it can do with batteries and not caps.
I will not even attempt to comment of measuring techniques and electronics...I do not have the knowledge.
Kind Regards
Mark
@markdansie,i did contact her but i wanted to send her my papers and join her march against authority but she paid little attention to me,now im stuck alone with a self-charging battery and she,s stuck alone with a battery-powered battery,the irony of it all lol.
Mark:
I respect you a lot for your mentioning that you don't have the electronics knowledge to do the testing of the RA circuit. On the forums you see a lot of bluffing about that.
On SmartScarecrow's last YouTube clip just for fun I am engaging what I call "HHO Outlaws" and they are making big claims about modern cars needing much bigger alternators and stuff like that. I can read between the lines and see the bluff and bluster.
The most notable in recent memory was debating with John Rohner on PESN several months ago and it became quickly apparent that he was nearly clueless about many things including electronics, how a car ignition works, and how to test his own "PAPP engine." Big claims about his engine that can allegedly output hundreds of horsepower from nowhere and the man could not even propose a single test. Then of course in his shop Mark E. pointed out how he had no kind of engine testbed with a prony brake or or a generator connected up to a big resistive load to act as a load on his "engine."
The discussion with Rohner was a kind of "Great Turkey Shoot."
Again, your honesty is very much appreciated.
MileHigh
Quote from: profitis on June 06, 2013, 06:04:34 PM
@tk well ive always been vigorously self-scrutinizing until a point is reached where every angle of self-attack is counter-attacked with evidence,a type of schizophrenia where you are your own most vigorous critic and counter-critic at same time.im disappointed that mrs ainslie doesnt come here onto this thread and beat down critics right here right now and catch them out on their own words instead of via the grapevine safety(is she allowed here?)personaly i love to face critics and destroy them publicly when it comes to a self-substantiated 2lot breach claim.
Unfortunately, as you have guessed, she can't, because she's been banned by Stefan our host, several times under several different usernames. The most recent time was over the Tar Baby thread. It's a hoot to read that thread, you should look it up. So she carries on her sniping at a distance.
What she won't do, and cannot do, is to refute me with facts, checkable outside references and credible demonstrations of her own. Nor apparently can she find anyone left who will speak for her and explain those things that she can't.
thanks TK
Thanks MileHigh
I am fortunate to be able to call upon some great engineers and scientists when it comes to evaluating and measuring. They are very patient with me. I like it when you engage with the likes of John Rohner. Mark E and I were both In Vegas and were not exactly welcome at the stand (when I was spotted lol....must have been the superman suit)
The only thing I guess I do have is some experience and street credibility when it comes to testing technologies. I stuff up as you know (buoyancy motors), but when it comes to magnetic motors and HHo devices i have a lot of testing experience. If you read my latest story at Revolution-green. com you will see some of the experiences I had with so called self running water powered cars and generators.
If I had 5% of the knowledge and technical skill you and TK had I would be a lucky man.
i hope you and TK come over and post comments, we do not judge the stories so we have a lot of stuff there that will get through that needs to be lets says reviewed. We just present the stories, but unlike someone else we all know we do not go around proclaiming they work.
Many thanks for you guidance over the years (and the odd kick in the butt)
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the kind comments. To be honest they are "too kind." I have the full engineering foundation and a lot of bench experience but it's nothing compared to some of the other people that are around here and on PESN. I was more of a digital guy and here the discussion is mostly related to analog stuff. For example I have never in all the years heard mention of De Morgan's theorem on the forums.
On the analog side, I could never design a 4th order Chebyshev bandpass filter unless I poured over the material and relearned a bunch of stuff. Nor do I have the analog bench experience that others around here have, but I can understand the issues and can appreciate the words of wisdom that we sometimes get from the analog gurus.
But, I do understand energy and I am very good at visualization and it's very hard to fool me!
Also, I may contribute to your web site but I can't guarantee it. Thanks for the offer. My "bandwidth" is aligned with my interest level and it's normally fair to moderate unless a biggie comes along.
MileHigh
well i see your replies mrs ainslie and i just want to suggest that in order to bypass all the flimflam of these and other critics please please try the following; put a paperclip over a fair-sized watch or cmos battery to short-circuit it and drop into a insulated cup of oil and measure temp.then do same experiment with your joule heater except let it be powered by the same fresh battery.if the temp goes higher with your device then nobody can criticise anymore(they will but it,l b weak).pls make sure the oil is dry and free of significant moisture(it conducts and electrolyses) and pls do both experiments at same time alongside each other,regards,profitis
Instead of working to repeat the Figure 3 scopeshot, Ainslie is continuing to engage in delaying tactics. Poynt99 has asked her for clear photos of both sides of her current board.... something that I or any of us could provide within the half-hour........ but she promises to have a friend do it on Sunday. Will she provide the scopeshot before then? What do you think? Will she actually provide the photos on Sunday? What do you think?
It shouldn't matter though because as she says, "It's exactly the same as always".
But if it's exactly the same as always (except for the new "noninductive shunts" and the mystery LED and the extra Black and Red wires snaking off to some hidden power supply or charger thing behind the oscilloscope) then it's also "exactly the same" as Tar Baby. Remember TB? It uses the same circuit she claims to use. It uses the same mosfets, the same resistor values, the same input voltages, and makes _exactly the same_ waveforms including the Negative Mean Power that Ainslie claims indicates her COP INFINITY overunity. I've offered this device for side-by-side comparison testing with Ainslie's circuit (by a qualified third party) many times and I offer it yet again, to confirm that it is indeed a replication of Ainslie's circuit and that it performs the same under the same conditions. The schematic I used is EXACTLY the schematic that she claims to be using.
In fact it is such a good and exact replication that, when I posted a screenshot from a Tek DSO showing traces from Tar Baby, she actually thought I had rifled her computer and stolen one of HER screenshots of her circuit in operation!!
So one has to ask why she lies the way she does, in the post I've attached below. And why she's continuing to delay, when it would be a matter of a few minutes to produce the data requested. (I know why.)
Quote from: profitis on June 07, 2013, 01:19:09 PM
well i see your replies mrs ainslie and i just want to suggest that in order to bypass all the flimflam of these and other critics please please try the following; put a paperclip over a fair-sized watch or cmos battery to short-circuit it and drop into a insulated cup of oil and measure temp.then do same experiment with your joule heater except let it be powered by the same fresh battery.if the temp goes higher with your device then nobody can criticise anymore(they will but it,l b weak).pls make sure the oil is dry and free of significant moisture(it conducts and electrolyses) and pls do both experiments at same time alongside each other,regards,profitis
How does this test Ainslie's claim of COP INFINITY, or that her batteries don't discharge, or that she can make the Figure 3 scopeshot with the circuit claimed and operating mosfets? It doesn't. It's another one of your suggested experiments for _somebody else_ to do. Why don't you do what I and .99 and many others have done: build the circuit or simulate it in software _yourself_ and perform _your own_ tests. You might learn some things by doing so.
Sorry to be so blunt, but Ainslie has a long history of not doing what people suggest, and she is incompetent to perform your test anyway. She thinks taking the temperature "over" a resistor is good enough for doing energy calculations -- just look at her calculation upon which her claims are based. She doesn't even measure the temperature of the water, she reads 104 C on her thermocouple directly attached "over" or rather to the heating element, then she proceeds to calculate the energy, using the specific heat of water, based on the fiction that all the water was heated to 104 C.
(And she doesn't even get the math right on _that_.)
@tinselkoala..calculations calcushmations,if she does my suggested experiment and if anybody can replicate it it removes ALL (not some) doubts about an overunity effect.in fact its the best way to publicly demo this thing of hers,an ordinary joe clearly undastands'this battery heat cup up but this battery heat cup up more,hosau kimjongsun'.its same things with rossi except here anybody can replicate.lets see if she,l do this tk.
she can even slow down the discharge of the shorted battery to the same discharge-rate of the circuit with a resistor in retrospect but still no problemo,its the best way.both bats must run flat flat.
Go see her then, she needs all the help she can get. You've got her email and forum links, right?
But remember that she uses six automotive or marine style batteries in series, each with 50 Amp-Hour capacity and around 400-600 amps of cold-cranking current output capability. Be sure to have someone video the event when you crowbar that battery stack and drop it in a cup of oil.
@tk lol.
@Profitis
I can nominate you as my special envoy for the purposes of validation....that solves the problem.
You can use the forum here as your technical support.
Go read the papers first and get her to explain why caps may not be used only batteries.
Mark
You should make her show the reproduction of the Figure 3 scopeshot, first, because if she can't do that (with the usual: the schematic claimed, the six batteries, the functioning mosfet in place and wired correctly, the small heatsink as used at the time of the paper, the load at "water to boil" temperature, the 160-second period, all of that)...if she can't do that, and show afterwards that the mosfet is still 100 percent functional.... then what's the point of going further?
And if you don't insist on examining the direct "smoking guns" like this one, then she'll be able to do the same old dog-and-mirrors show she's been doing for years: a repeat of the 2011 demo, or another dodge like the June 1 2013 demo. Hold her feet to the fire!
@markdansie thats a fantastic idea mark,i accept the nomination but i dont want to look at papers. i want her to show evidence that evry1 can undastand,i want to see her do my experiment suggestion.ive got a silent rule of thumb that i say to myself when i contemplate a overunity effect,'will this convince both a scientist and a garden boy ',is what i always ask myself and if it only convinces one of them then its not worth persuing.
@tk im going to try think of an alternative way for her,using the circuit that she has,to prove beyond a doubt her claim given the size of those cells involved.i really do want a south african to be the worlds first officialy proven overunity,it,l swing doors open if that happened and let me tell you the newspapers here are not shy to print or announce such a thing if it happened.
You seem to be missing a huge point here, profitis.
Ainslie has misused her instruments to give her false readings which she has then interpreted incorrectly, to make wild claims about something _that isn't happening at all_. She is literally deluded.
It's not a question of whether or not an ordinary mosfet, in the same circuit that can be found in mosfet data sheets as the "inductive clamp test" circuit, can give overunity. Don't you think that frigging car stereo designers or power supply designers using switched mosfets and inductive loads would have noticed by now? It is a known technology and there is no overunity to be had there. The idea has no "face validity" at all.
The question--- or point rather--- is the bogus "research" based on ignorance of electronics, math and basic science, combined with the utter overweening arrogance and wilful ignorance of the Ainslie personality, which has been harassing research forums like this one with her false claims and her sly bullying mendacity for over thirteen years. Ainslie is making false claims about the actual performance of the work, about the equipment and apparatus used (It was nearly a year before she actually stated the make and model of the function generator she used, and she still claims it cannot "pass current from its terminal to its probe", and we still don't know the actual amp-hour rating of the batteries she used---they have vanished). She is making claims based on math errors and poorly performed temperature measurements, she does not know how to operate or interpret her own oscilloscope and she doesn't even understand the difference between "0.8" and "one-eighth". (Every statement I make is supported by my images of her own words in forum and blog posts. If you want specific illustrations let me know.)
You _must_ read the daft manuscripts, because then you'll see the thought processes, the bad reasoning and the outright uncorrected errors and the fudging, along with the false claims one after the other, that they are filled with. You should also read her posts in her forum threads concerning me and her other critics.
You see, when she encounters a fresh audience and trots out all those false claims about having been tested by SPESOL or the other alphabet agencies, or having a patent like she used to do until I came along, or her "incontrovertible" proof that she talks about -- well just read the PESN page for what she claims -- people believe her at first. Some even look at the papers and think, because they believe what she says about things like Figure 3, that she's worth paying attention to. But once they actually build and test, research and learn, read her history and her statements for themselves, they learn better. Why is there not ONE SINGLE REPLICATOR, out of at least six that I can name, who endorses her claims?
I know why.
It's OK to make mistakes, it's OK to be a difficult personality, it's OK to waste your own time on circuits that other people think have no hope of doing anything unusual.
What is NOT OK is to remain ignorant in spite of excellent help, to refuse to correct outright errors, to denigrate others who have genuine educations and experience and knowledge, and to continue to make false claims when they are known to be false. What is NOT OK is taking a dog and pony show around from place to place making the same old false claims, distracting and insulting people at every stop, making false promises that she never intends to keep, harassing professors who don't snap to attention when she demands their attendance at one of her performances. What's NOT OK is to leave errors in manuscripts long after they have been identified, to fail to withdraw manuscripts that are based on false data from failed equipment, and to claim support and endorsements from people who have never heard of her. What's NOT OK is to libel and lie about other people, make claims about them without support, and threaten them and accuse them of ridiculous things like stealing information from computers on the other side of the world.
OK?
From her recent "open letter" to Sterling A.:
Quote
........
Frankly Sterling - it worries me that you're co-operating in this effort to keep this information away from our public based on the absurdly irrelevant opinion of some people that I may be 'difficult'. If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you're actually NOT advancing over unity interests at all. I do hope that this is correctable. I trust you'll explain yourself - in due course. And may I add - it seems strange that you should care. Do you DEMAND that Yildiz - Rossi - or anyone else first be 'LIKEABLE' before you will allow their communications? Before you yourself will engage? Do you also send them one line emails with no formal or courteous address and say - 'you are cantankerous'? Or is this simply the treatment you mete out to old women? Is this a 'gender issue? Or A 'religious issue'? God forbid. I have been ENTIRELY non confrontational in my relationship with you. You, on the contrary have been positively combative. Not that I care. I only care that you post my responses on your forum - in the interests of furthering over unity claims.
Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie
Sterling posts a web page announcing and promoting her demonstration, and has given her a voice and published her claims and a couple of letters of "correction" and her letter to Mark Dansie. Yet look at how she treats him, says he's "cooperating" in keeping her information from the public!
But whose fault was it that she didn't demonstrate anything on June 1 as she promised and announced on his very web site?
Why, from the letter above, if I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that Rosemary Ainslie is a cantankerous, difficult, confrontational and combative old woman, who turns on those who try to help her and who is really really good at the "poison pen" style of writing. "Kindest regards" from her means "Drop dead you vermin".
Replicators that I know about:
Simulations in PSpice and other circuit sims:
poynt99, cheeseburger/humbugger: these two have simmed the circuit and many variations and have explained in detail several times to Ainslie just what is and what is not happening in the circuit. I think .99 may also be working on a hardware rep.
Actual hardware builds:
FuzzyTomCat, who was a collaborator with her at one time, has done more work on this circuit in hardware than anyone I can think of and wrote a paper "with" Ainslie about the work. He has reported some OU measurements at certain times but never saw anything like what Ainslie claims, and is now among her strongest detractors.
Harvey, another member of the team with FTC, and now also in her bad graces. He doesn't talk much but I know he doesn't support her.
Ashtweth and Aaron from Energetic Forum. Again, both were enthusiastic early supporters. Now.... not.
And of course Little old me, TinselKoala, starting with the one-transistor version in 2009 and continuing on to Tar Baby.
Others, like picowatt and perhaps Mark Euthanasius may have the parts and test equipment but haven't said anything about actual builds or sims, but have contributed immensely to the theoretical and practical understanding of the circuit.
GMeast (sorry, it is relevant) examined her 5-transistor circuit and rejected it out of hand and decided to try replicating the original Quantum circuit instead, and immediately found the problem with the 555 timer circuit. His "Has anyone built this? It doesn't work" post is a classic item in the Ainslie chronicle. Now he wishes to be completely disassociated from Ainslie, so we won't talk about him again, except to point out that he has his own thing, it doesn't resemble Ainslie's except that it uses a switching mosfet, and he has never "endorsed" Ainslie's claims.
If I've left anyone out, please let me know, I would really like to have a complete list of Ainslie replicators and their findings. I would especially like to hear from anyone who has built the hardware and can _confirm_ her claims, especially the claims about the Figure 3 scopeshot.
EDITED to add Groundloop to the list of hardware builders.... see his post, with pics, below!!
I never built Rosemary's circuit, but I watched for many years as countless people fail to match her claims of OU and in time it became clear to me that this woman is deluded, and lives in permanent denial of reality.
I admire TK and others for their continuing determination on exposing this fraudulent claim for all to see.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 08, 2013, 07:25:51 AM
Replicators that I know about:
Simulations in PSpice and other circuit sims:
poynt99, cheeseburger/humbugger: these two have simmed the circuit and many variations and have explained in detail several times to Ainslie just what is and what is not happening in the circuit. I think .99 may also be working on a hardware rep.
Actual hardware builds:
FuzzyTomCat, who was a collaborator with her at one time, has done more work on this circuit in hardware than anyone I can think of and wrote a paper "with" Ainslie about the work. He has reported some OU measurements at certain times but never saw anything like what Ainslie claims, and is now among her strongest detractors.
Harvey, another member of the team with FTC, and now also in her bad graces. He doesn't talk much but I know he doesn't support her.
Ashtweth and Aaron from Energetic Forum. Again, both were enthusiastic early supporters. Now.... not.
And of course Little old me, TinselKoala, starting with the one-transistor version in 2009 and continuing on to Tar Baby.
Others, like picowatt and perhaps Mark Euthanasius may have the parts and test equipment but haven't said anything about actual builds or sims, but have contributed immensely to the theoretical and practical understanding of the circuit.
GMeast (sorry, it is relevant) examined her 5-transistor circuit and rejected it out of hand and decided to try replicating the original Quantum circuit instead, and immediately found the problem with the 555 timer circuit. His "Has anyone built this? It doesn't work" post is a classic item in the Ainslie chronicle. Now he wishes to be completely disassociated from Ainslie, so we won't talk about him again, except to point out that he has his own thing, it doesn't resemble Ainslie's except that it uses a switching mosfet, and he has never "endorsed" Ainslie's claims.
If I've left anyone out, please let me know, I would really like to have a complete list of Ainslie replicators and their findings. I would especially like to hear from anyone who has built the hardware and can _confirm_ her claims, especially the claims about the Figure 3 scopeshot.
TK,
I did spend approx. 4000,- Norwegian Kr. on designing a PCB for the first 555 based switching circuit. I did give away
those PCBs for free. I have also tested the newest variant of the two MOSFET circuit. I did explain why the circuit
did oscillate, when a negative voltage was provided by the function generator on the circuit trigger input. I also did
an analysis of the bias currents in the non-oscillating and oscillating mode. In all my tests of the 555 based circuit, and
the newer two MOSFET version circuit, I never found any evidence of free energy or over unity performance.
GL.
@tk this is precisely why im recommending she quickly build a circuit to match my watch battery experiment,which if successful will be plain to see to the ruthless scientists,physicists,garden boys,electrical engineers,tennis players,footballers,you name it.it is doomed to failure if she does not do this due to all the criticism from electrical engineers(which are the first people that must be silenced by impressive awe in this case) look at the karpen pile for example,it has relentlessly withstood all criticism,the thing keeps flushing out the same level of power while evrybody runs around confused as to the origins of the power,and they,re free to replicate all they want. An electrical engineer such as yourself will know when he sees an anomaly but even if you did see one tk you would have no choice but to adjust your experiment for the rest of us out here or be destroyed by the garden boy or the thermodynamicist etc. An overunity claimant must push against an entropy of people as well as energy.
the fundamental theory around a 2nd law breach on a collapsing magnetic field is not entirely without merrit in my opinion but it seems the stumbling block with the vast majority here are to match circuit efficiency with core parameters in order to make use of the small bit of ambient heat over-intake in the core, thats the stumbling block number 1 it seems.stumbling block 2 is to adequately represent this to a broad spectrum of people,with and without knowledge in the art.you guys have no choice but to overcome these blocks to ensure a success.
@tk and i agree wholeheartedly that to scream at markdansie and sterling allen is a giagantic no-no.this is analogous to someone going to hospital in emergency and then insulting the surgeon they chose to visit lol.
Quote from: Groundloop on June 08, 2013, 10:04:43 AM
TK,
I did spend approx. 4000,- Norwegian Kr. on designing a PCB for the first 555 based switching circuit. I did give away
those PCBs for free. I have also tested the newest variant of the two MOSFET circuit. I did explain why the circuit
did oscillate, when a negative voltage was provided by the function generator on the circuit trigger input. I also did
an analysis of the bias currents in the non-oscillating and oscillating mode. In all my tests of the 555 based circuit, and
the newer two MOSFET version circuit, I never found any evidence of free energy or over unity performance.
GL.
Wow.... that is really impressive, GL, I don't know how I missed your work. It sounds like your findings are completely in agreement with everybody else's at this point, in terms of the reasons for the oscillations and the need for the negative bias voltage from somewhere and so forth. I really love that little circuit board.
Is Ainslie aware of your work? What has she got to say about it? (I don't want to bring up any painful memories.... )
Thanks for posting that !
I don't want to force you out onto the same limb I'm on, but if you would care to comment.... what is your opinion of the scopeshot Paper1, Figure3?
Quote from: profitis on June 08, 2013, 01:20:49 PM
@tk and i agree wholeheartedly that to scream at markdansie and sterling allen is a giagantic no-no.this is analogous to someone going to hospital in emergency and then insulting the surgeon they chose to visit lol.
Don't forget about Stefan, our host. She really has let him have it in some of her comments, even while she was still posting here!
Stefan and I don't agree about some things but I respect him and I'm grateful to him for providing this forum for experimenters and researchers and those with speculative ideas and theories. I'm glad that he tolerates the occasional skeptic, even though Koalas can be mean when they get poked enough.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 08, 2013, 03:19:38 PM
Wow.... that is really impressive, GL, I don't know how I missed your work. It sounds like your findings are completely in agreement with everybody else's at this point, in terms of the reasons for the oscillations and the need for the negative bias voltage from somewhere and so forth. I really love that little circuit board.
Is Ainslie aware of your work? What has she got to say about it? (I don't want to bring up any painful memories.... )
Thanks for posting that !
I don't want to force you out onto the same limb I'm on, but if you would care to comment.... what is your opinion of the scopeshot Paper1, Figure3?
TK,
I have no "painful memories" in my 10 year long free energy research other than the shit load of money and time I have spent.
RA is aware of my circuit testings. We did email for a while. I have no comments on the RA papers or scope shoots, and I do
not really care any more. I have other things to do now that are more important, and it does not include free energy research.
I still love to play with electronic as an hobby. I have designed many funny projects. My last was a micro controller circuit
for use in remote controlled cars, where my circuit did control the turning blink and also the break lights, based on what
the operator of the RC car did with the controls.
GL.
TK,
GL sent me one of his boards quite some time ago. I used that board for my testing of her first circuit back in 2009. I posted pics of it when gmeast challenged me as to what actual work I have done on her circuit. He promptly deleted that of course.
I still have my complete setup with GL's board and all.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 08, 2013, 07:26:57 PM
TK,
GL sent me one of his boards quite some time ago. I used that board for my testing of her first circuit back in 2009. I posted pics of it when gmeast challenged me as to what actual work I have done on her circuit. He promptly deleted that of course.
I still have my complete setup with GL's board and all.
.99
I still have my RA 555 circuit. Now it is built into a box that I did use to test the "solid state ORBO switch".
GL.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 08, 2013, 07:26:57 PM
TK,
GL sent me one of his boards quite some time ago. I used that board for my testing of her first circuit back in 2009. I posted pics of it when gmeast challenged me as to what actual work I have done on her circuit. He promptly deleted that of course.
I still have my complete setup with GL's board and all.
Actually, GL distributed his boards in Europe and sent me about 15 to distribute in Canada and the US.
In a post and test video I offered them for free to anyone who would emailed me their mailing address.
So, you received the board from me. Small detail but I thought I would mention it so people know of GL generosity.
I tested RA circuit and found no OU
Luc
Thanks, gotoluc, I think in 2009 I was in Canada and had just found out about Ainslie, I wasn't aware that you all were already working on her circuit at that time. I'm surprised that there was still all the argument over her 555 timer circuit, then, since you all no doubt found out the same things I did about it. I'll add you to the list of hardware replicators then. Thanks!
Meanwhile I made a video showing how easy it is to make the required demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot, including testing the mosfets. Every day that Ainslie allows to pass without her performing and demonstrating this test of her Figure 3 traces is another day of failure on her part.
The cuts and edits are kind of rough but I think the major ideas come through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5svsFA8XRg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5svsFA8XRg)
Now..... in today's mendacious post from Ainslie, she makes another promise that has just about Zero chance of coming true: A LIVE demo on June 22! Book your seats today, forks, Ainslie is going to show you what she's got! Isn't she. Yes. Right.
But note the setup and the BIG LIE: she claims that I have claimed that "there is not a video anywhere that I can't alter" therefore she can't show what she claims in a YouTube video, ever. Why, because I would alter it somehow? That's a lie. Where is the link to this statement that she claims came from me?
COME ON AINSLIE, support your paranoid and libellous accusations with a LINK for a change. YOU CANNOT. I never said any such thing, it's impossible for anyone to "alter" a YouTube video except by removing one from their own account. Like you did, when you removed your video of the 2011 demo from your account in a further attempt to cover up the lies and mistakes that it contains. But anyone can still see it on my channel.
Quote from: gotoluc on June 08, 2013, 11:43:56 PM
Actually, GL distributed his boards in Europe and sent me about 15 to distribute in Canada and the US.
In a post and test video I offered them for free to anyone who would emailed me their mailing address.
So, you received the board from me. Small detail but I thought I would mention it so people know of GL generosity.
I tested RA circuit and found no OU
Luc
Yes, that's right Luc. Sorry forgot that detail.
I ran a sim with and without Q1 and the CVR results are very similar to what you are showing in your video TK.
But running the FG swinging from -14 to +14 volts I did not see the Q1 current go above the peak oscillation as it does in your video. It looks more like Fig. 5.
Thanks for the report, .99. Could the difference be explained by the fact that I only used a 25-volt main battery supply, with a short inter-battery jumper? This reduces the amplitude of the oscillations and allows the Q1 current peaks to be extended above them, I think.
I'll have to do some more trials with higher battery voltages, I guess.
Also I think the oscillations don't show up as much on my gate drive signal because I am feeding the signal to the scope from the FG with a direct unattenuated BNC connection, instead of from an attenuated probe at the circuit board itself. Probe and wiring layout issues also contribute to the slight slope seen in my traces when the Q1 mosfet is out-of-circuit: this slope changes quite a bit when I move the scope probe cable around.
Meanwhile here's a video I made slightly over a year ago showing the use of a triangle ramp or sawtooth waveform gate drive stimulation, making "high heat" with little or no current flow.... apparently but not actually.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xs_ZsGhK9o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xs_ZsGhK9o)
In my trials with Tar Baby I always measured the temperature of the 250 mL of mineral oil in the insulated oil bath, not the "temperature over the load resistor" in air that Ainslie cites, and I always take the data when the oscillations are turned off so that there is no RF interference with the electronic thermocouple thermometer's readings. So my temperature readings are reliable and meaningful, or at least much more so than Ainslie's, where she first hangs her element in the ambient air, then claims to "take water to boil" but never actually measures the temperature of the water, or apparently its actual volume, even. Ainslie's energy calculations based on her "taking water to boil" are completely bogus, because she has no idea at all how much of her power supplied to the load element actually heated water and how much was simply wasted and not accounted for, nor does she know how much water was actually heated to what temperature. However, in my experimental setup, I do know the answers to these points. I even know how much power my insulated container "leaks" vs. its internal temperature. Does Ainslie know the same about her setup? Not likely.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 09, 2013, 10:20:13 AM
Thanks for the report, .99. Could the difference be explained by the fact that I only used a 25-volt main battery supply, with a short inter-battery jumper? This reduces the amplitude of the oscillations and allows the Q1 current peaks to be extended above them, I think.
I'll have to do some more trials with higher battery voltages, I guess.
With 25V my results are pretty much the same; the ON current doesn't exceed the oscillation current. I think your oscillation level is about right from what I can see, but you may be right.
So in order for Q1 to produce the effect, it would either have to be blown open D-S, or the G-S junction is blown preventing it from turning ON. I tested the scenario if the body diode was still intact, and it doesn't make any real difference.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 09, 2013, 10:49:38 AM
With 25V my results are pretty much the same; the ON current doesn't exceed the oscillation current. I think your oscillation level is about right from what I can see, but you may be right.
So in order for Q1 to produce the effect, it would either have to be blown open D-S, or the G-S junction is blown preventing it from turning ON. I tested the scenario if the body diode was still intact, and it doesn't make any real difference.
.99,
Or that the gate and source leads of Q1 were reversed, which would change the schematic to all 5 MOSFET's being connected as per Q2, with no MOSFET connected in the Q1 position...
PW
From the sound of it, "Donny" apparently remains confused about the offset numbers and the differences regarding their use in the LeCroy versus the Tektronix scopes. She should seek out an alternate opinion...
Even LeCroy agrees that in FIG3, +12volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 and that the CSR trace shows zero current flow thru the CSR during that same time period. Surely LeCroy understands how to read captures from their own scopes.
As suggested to her a long time ago, she should consult with LeCroy if she doubts that +12volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3 or that the CSR reads zero current during that same time period.
Draw an arrow at one of the FG positive voltage periods and another arrow at the CSR trace during that same time period, FAX it to LeCroy and ask them what the indicated voltages are at the time periods marked by the arrows.
I believe .99 even annotated a copy of FIG3 for her to do just that with well over a year ago.
Is it really that difficult for her to admit to being wrong about anything?
A "scientist" would have verified and acknowledged the errors in FIG3 when they were presented, repeated the tests and corrected the papers a long time ago. Instead, she accuses most everyone, but herself, of not acting in a scientific manner.
Her tactics to deny errors or impugn the integrity of those that question her data do nothing to support her claims, data or theories, but are instead, more damaging to their credibility and integrity than any individual or forum ever could be.
Oh well...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 09, 2013, 11:45:43 AM
.99,
Or that the gate and source leads of Q1 were reversed, which would change the schematic to all 5 MOSFET's being connected as per Q2, with no MOSFET connected in the Q1 position...
PW
Yeah, that would do it too.
Something that I stumbled upon for Rosie:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/)
Form the poster Josh Simonson:
<<< Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Remember the faster than light neutrinos? That was due to a faulty measurement technique, they could have invited another team to take the same measurement on the same system (or an identical one) and gotten the same results – that wouldn't have made it true. Because there were real scientists involved, they tried a different setup and got different results, then dug through the nitty-gritty of the measurements and were able to find the source of error and get results that are consistent with theory. That last part isn't being done here and that's a red flag for fraud. >>>
I am going to assume with some real searching multiple sources would come up confirming this statement.
Back to the action! lol
One thing I didn't make clear enough in the previous video is this: The difference in the location of the FG Black lead. In the video above I have the FG Black lead connected as per the published schematic, that is, on the transistor side of the CVR. However, if you recall the history of this particular item, you will also recall that in every posted photo of the Ainslie device that we can find, in the one transistor version, the March 2011 demo version, and including the new ones posted on PESN, the FG Black lead is connected to the common circuit ground.
Anyway, I just shot a new video, with the FG Black lead at the common circuit ground point like Ainslie shows in her vids and photos--- and as was undeniably used in the scopeshots in the manuscripts... and with 36 volts supply and longer interbattery wiring, and the objections to my previous set of traces no longer apply. These new traces are just the same as Ainslie shows; if I had done them on an Etch-a-Sketch oscilloscope with pretty pastel colors you would not be able to tell the difference between mine and hers. The video is processing now. And of course I monitor temperature of the Q1 mosfet and show substantial heating in both it and the load and even show some evidence that the Q2s can do a bit of heating on their own if the oscillations are encouraged enough.
Sorry about the delay though, I have a slow uplink so it may be a couple or three hours before the video is viewable.
Quote from: picowatt on June 09, 2013, 11:45:43 AM
.99,
Or that the gate and source leads of Q1 were reversed, which would change the schematic to all 5 MOSFET's being connected as per Q2, with no MOSFET connected in the Q1 position...
PW
Any explanation has to consider that the setup _did_ apparently achieve high heat in the element at least, and this can't be done with only Q2 mosfets oscillating, they simply don't pass enough power. To get high heat in the load you need a functioning transistor in the Q1 role.... for at least part of the time. Miswiring scenarios are unlikely IMO because of this fact. It is more consistent with all of the reported information (assuming it isn't all just a lie) to think that a functioning mosfet in the Q1 position did heat the load, trying its best to do what Ainslie required of it, but finally gave up the ghost just before the Fig3 scopeshot was made, with "tiny bubbles" at the now-submerged but still hot heating element. Take the screenshot, but keep fiddling..... then a few days later she does report to the forums that she has blown mosfets and can't get the thing working again. "It's switching but no load heat" (paraphrasing). I have the screenshots of the posts where she makes these announcements!
Of course to get it to work "properly"... that is, oscillations in Q2 and high current capability for Q1.... then you simply use the original schematic as posted in Paper 2, with the 4 parallel mosfets having their Gates connected to the Red FG lead and playing the role of Q1, and the lone mosfet with its Gate connected to ground happily oscillating away as the Q2. This way you will stop blowing mosfets when you want high load heat, and you can even use the full 72 volt nominal battery stack.
But then you will find it even more impossible to reproduce Figure 3, tra la.
New video is viewable now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I
Thanks for watching!
The Figure 3 scopeshot is SCRN0253, captured on March 2, 2011 (2011/03/02 in LeCroy-speak). We know about this shot because it made it into the manuscript. But take a look at some of the next few shots, that didn't get into the manuscripts. None of the shots taken later that day show any current in the Q1 mosfet.
The next scopeshots I can find are from April 8, 2011, and are the distinctly weird looking ones. And then I skip a bunch, until with SCRN0342 on April 30 2011 we once again see current flowing in the Q1 mosfet at the appropriate time.
Now, consider the dates of these forum posts.
So now what's really weird is that the Q1 mosfet was functional during the March 12 2011 demonstration.... and it was clearly known by them that it would blow if given the opportunity, because as you recall, they started out with 5 batteries, a bit over 60 volts, but actually removed one of these for the second half "high heat" demonstration leaving only a bit over 48 volts. This, combined with shorter ON times, saved their Q1 mosfet during that demonstration.
So I think we have had several "mosfet blown" events, and I think this is further supported by the new, larger heatsink on the present edition's Q1.
She posted the first posting of the manuscript containing the Figure 3 scopeshot on her blog on March 13, 2012, the day after the demo:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011_03_13_archive.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011_03_13_archive.html)
A remarkable thing since it purports to be a writeup of the demo itself.
OK, that's it for the timeline reconstruction. I think that there is ample evidence in there that shows that Ainslie had trouble with mosfets around the time of the Fig3 scopeshots and afterwards, and that somebody helped her get it up and running for the March 12 demo.... OR PERHAPS the demo didn't actually happen on that date...... and that subsequent to the demo she once again blew some mosfets.
TK,
Although recently FIG 3 has been referenced to with regard to Q1 not turning on when it should, as discussed in the past, it is actually FIG3, FIG6, and FIG7 in the first paper that demonstrate a Q1 that is not turning on when it should.
PW
Riding a dead horse.
Too much fun.
Quote from: picowatt on June 10, 2013, 12:41:05 AM
TK,
Although recently FIG 3 has been referenced to with regard to Q1 not turning on when it should, as discussed in the past, it is actually FIG3, FIG6, and FIG7 in the first paper that demonstrate a Q1 that is not turning on when it should.
PW
Fig 6 is SCRN0354, made on April 30, and Fig 7 is SCRN0355, made just under an hour later. I'm not sure about these shots the way I am about Fig 3, SCRN0253; I haven't blown them up for careful analysis. These might be showing just barely threshold activation of Q1. The shot SCRN0342, taken about an hour and a half before Fig 6, definitely does show current in the Q1.
Then the record skips, but I have two more shots, SCRN0361 and SCRN0362 from the 8th of May, neither of these show Q1 current but they also omit the gate drive trace altogether so they are not interpretable.
ETA: In any case I am not very concerned about Fig6 and Fig7 because they are taken at a much faster timebase setting than is Fig 3 and are not likely to have been the settings that actually blew the mosfet, especially since they only used 5 batteries. But Figure3, with its 160 second period and 16-17 second ON times, and the six batteries, just might do it. So this is the one I am focussing on and the one I am challenging Ainslie with.
I'm posting this video link again because I think I buried it under the "timeline" reconstruction posts. This vid shows the reproduction of the Fig3 scopetraces much better than the prior one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I
I'm tempted to make yet another video where I use all six batteries, the long on time, and monitor the temp of the mosfet until it fails. My supplier charges six dollars for the silly things though.
Good job on the video TK. It certainly seems to support the hypothesis that Q1 was blown open or disconnected for the Fig.3 scope shot.
The placement of the FG neg lead does have an effect on the CSR trace, which is why I noted the change on my markup of the setup (attached). I noticed that on the PESN photo there is no gnd lead on the Vbat probe, so I did not show one. I have posed a question to Rose about that and will update it if necessary.
Anyway, this is what I have thus far, awaiting Rose's approval as to its accuracy.
Once again, here are two sim scope shots with colors adjusted to match those from Rose's scope shots. The first is with Q1 intact and operating properly, the second is with Q1 removed from the circuit. This is with +/- 14Vp FG drive.
Notice the absence of the inductive kickback spike on the pink trace when Q1 is removed.
Here is the schematic I used to simulate the last two scope shots.
Notice that I am now using the proper 50 Ohms for the FG ;) .
I believe this is the closest I've been able to simulate the circuit. It would appear even more alike if I extended the run times to the time scale as was shown in Fig 3.
Here is a Feb 2011 scope shot from Rose that I had annotated with a question; why no current if the SW is ON?
The wave forms are quite close, but I'm not sure why the FG signal appears so poorly formed. Even if Q1 was intact, it is doubtful there is enough Gate drive in this scope shot to turn it ON.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 10, 2013, 12:14:31 PM
Here is a Feb 2011 scope shot from Rose that I had annotated with a question; why no current if the SW is ON?
The wave forms are quite close, but I'm not sure why the FG signal appears so poorly formed. Even if Q1 was intact, it is doubtful there is enough Gate drive in this scope shot to turn it ON.
.99,
I do not think that this annotated capture is the one I was referring to. This capture has the wierd "AC coupled looking" FG trace.
I was referring to a capture I believe you annotated of FG3 that marked what the offset numbers referred to (distance from center line), the FG +12Volts, the CSR zero, etc.
It would have been soon after I questoned her about Q1 in FIG3, which would have been March or April (possibly May) after her demo. If you dig around in your files around that time frame, you might find it. I can't seem to find the locked RA thread or my posts from that thread, or I would narrow the time down a bit more for you.
Recall at the time that she stated we needed to somehow subtract the "offset" numbers from the displayed data or some such thing, which was why I called LeCroy to confirm that we were indeed reading the scope captures correctly. Also recall that the LeCroy and the Tek scopes differ with regard to how the offset numbers are used. I believe the capture you annotated was to allow her to have someone review/confirm the way we were reading the LeCroy captures.
PW
Hi PW.
I recall the figure you were referring to, however that wasn't what I was trying to post there. ;D
If you really want me to dig that scope shot up, let me know and I will look for it.
Ah, is this the one?
Quote from: poynt99 on June 10, 2013, 01:10:05 PM
Hi PW.
I recall the figure you were referring to, however that wasn't what I was trying to post there. ;D
If you really want me to dig that scope shot up, let me know and I will look for it.
.99,
Not really, I just thought that was what you were looking for.
The capture in your previous post was deemed just plain wierd, if I recall.
Not sure what the disposition was regarding its "wierdness". Possibly this was a capture using the earlier FG and possibly it had sustained some damage to its circuitry. Do I recall correctly that she mentioned needing to swap FG's at one point because one gave up?
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 10, 2013, 01:12:18 PM
Ah, is this the one?
.99,
Yep, that's the one. Recall that you annotated that capture in response to her stating that the "offset" numbers somehow needed to be calculated in to the readings. Also note that a few posts back on her site, she again states that Donny (reeoneously) assures her that the offset numbers do need to to be factored in.
It appears, even now, she cannot admit that in FIG3, during the positive portion of the FG cycle, there is +12volts being applied to the gate of Q1, and that Q1 is not turning on as it should.
I just don't understand what she believes is to be gained by continuing to deny the obvious.
Why can't she just admit that there was a problem with Q1 during the indicated tests, perform new tests, correct the papers and move on?
Had she done so soon after this was brought to her attention, she may have retained some semblance of credibility.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 10, 2013, 12:14:31 PM
Here is a Feb 2011 scope shot from Rose that I had annotated with a question; why no current if the SW is ON?
The wave forms are quite close, but I'm not sure why the FG signal appears so poorly formed. Even if Q1 was intact, it is doubtful there is enough Gate drive in this scope shot to turn it ON.
This shot that you have reproduced is SCRN0184. It was almost certainly produced with a triangle ramp gate signal, perhaps tilted to a sawtooth waveform, with offset applied and yes, the transistor will only turn on at the very tip of the sawtooth. Here's a video showing very similar traces from Tar Baby using a triangle ramp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xs_ZsGhK9o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xs_ZsGhK9o)
(except of course all my mosfets are known to be working.)
Here's SCRN0183: I think there's enough gate amplitude here to turn Q1 on definitely at the peak of the sawtooth gate signal but it doesn't appear to be doing so.
And SCRN0243, referred to in the video.
Here's the "locked" thread :
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/
Now Ainslie is lying about the scopeshots we've been posting, claiming that she never posted them and that MrSean2k and I have somehow obtained them from her computer without authorization. This accusation coming from her is Yet Another Libel that she cannot support with a shred of evidence. SHE POSTED EVERY ONE OF THOSE SCOPESHOTS HERSELF and the proof is easy to find.
I've attached just a few of the proofs below. Many more can be found in the several locked threads, if Ainslie hasn't managed to edit them away. Her scope saves the screens as .bmp files, and of course Stefan doesn't allow them because they can be very large. So what did the mendacious and ignorant Ainslie do? She simply changed the file extension from .bmp to .jpg --- without actually converting the files. This got them past the upload filter, and the forum does display them in-line, but when you download them they won't open, because they aren't jpegs! You have to change the filename back to .bmp so that your image software will load them properly. It's yet another example of Ainslie's ignorance and mendacity, changing file extensions, sneaking .bmp files past Stefan's filter and lying about what they actually are.
I'm tired of doing Ainslie's homework for her. As I have said before, if she has a specific scopeshot that she claims not to have posted, let her specify it and I will show exactly where I got it. I made this same offer months ago when she first started lying about not having posted these shots and accusing me of "rifling" her computers.
Ainslie needs to get a grip on herself, stop these insane libels, APOLOGIZE for making them, and withdraw all the false claims she's made over the years! Especially the mendacious and errorfilled daft manuscripts!
Further, since she has now had well over a week to produce the proof that she says is so easy to do-- the proof that she can reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot as claimed with all mosfets functional, etc--- but has not been able to manage it, we can conclude that she can't do it, that I am right and she is wrong (yet again, time after time), and we will be expecting those errata notices and apologies forthwith. Especially since I've already posted 2 comprehensive video explanations/demonstrations explaining and illustrating the issue, along with duplicating the Current and Gate traces in the Figure 3 scopeshot and showing the difference between functioning and missing mosfets in the Q1 position.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 10, 2013, 03:18:49 PM
Here's the "locked" thread :
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/ (http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/)
And here's another locked thread:
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/
@Picowatt: Here are a couple more excellent examples, in Ainslie's post, of the anomalous current traces.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278651/#msg278651
These are all taken March 2nd 2011.
SCRN0267:
And.... here's the post of SCRN0150 which does show proper current, --- and she claims COP INFINITY again for this scopeshot.
OK. I hope that is enough to prove to the most skeptical person that Ainslie has lied when she claimed that she didn't post these scopeshots, and when she accused and claimed that I or MrSean2k or anyone bothered to break into her computers. She can't keep track of her own statements and uploads, like all liars everywhere, and she is utterly exposed for what she is by all these scopeshot posts.
And she has tried to suppress them, and has fought tooth and nail to avoid having them gathered together in one place, because she knows what they reveal: bogosity.
Hi TK
You are a brilliant person, sense of humor and I dare say because of your creativity get a little depressed at times.
The best thing you can do with Rosemary is ignore her. Others will come and be suckered in, but ultimately it will all turn to grief.
No matter how much convincing you try to show others the truth, they still want to believe and drink the coolaide.
You should see my hate mail, threats and everything else i get when I point out a measurement error or that the technology is bogus.
To be honest , your talents are far better used than giving her any more thought.
I am saying this as of all the people I know, your definitely in the top 3. (that is a lot of scientists, engineers and researchers I know)
What hurts the most is being ignored, ( like me and the academics). People like Sterling will always give her coverage and act as her cheer squad. Others will follow.
so do your self a favor, there is no need to point out anything...the true believers will always believe.
You will probably ignore this advise, just do not take offence by it. Believe me I have been bitter and twisted in the past when I have seen the lies people propagate for the purposes of ego or profit.
Kind Regards
Mark
Mark, thanks for the compliments, and you are right about my depression, and I agree with your advice. But it's not just an issue of science any more, it's personal. I am deeply offended by Ainslie, not just because of her false claims, but also and primarily because of her insulting disrespect. Not just for me, but for science, the scientific process, anyone who dares criticize her and more. She had the option to let things rest, but she decided to do her mendacious little stunt with Sterling's PESN advertising a June 1 demo that she in fact had no intention of performing, and in doing so she repeated the same tired set of lies as she's done many times before, and she can't seem to leave me out of it. She's still doing it, in her "open letter" to Mark E! None of those people she mentions have ever or will ever come forward, she cannot produce any documentation of the claimed testing of the first circuit and she's even starting to get the names wrong, her memory is going bad I think.
Here are a couple of reasons why I'm still doing this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs)
I kind of understand TK.
Talk to you soon I will send you a PM tomorrow, have something interesting for you and Mark E.
Mark
Still nothing from Ainslie except the usual mishmash of miseducated mendacity about her circuit. No reproduction of the Figure 3 scopeshot, no indication that she's watched my videos or read .99's .pdf analysis from last year. She's still making the false claims and unsupported conjectures.
Do you recall when I first built this circuit two years ago and started testing it? I assembled it with a tight layout and no stray wiring, all five mosfets were on a short bus system very close together and the entire board was maybe 4x6 inches. And it would not oscillate! The schematic was correct but it would not oscillate until I removed the mosfets from the board and provided them with about the same lengths of wire leads that I saw on Ainslie's board. Voila! Oscillations.
So here's Yet Another Challenge, for Ainslie who does not believe that her oscillations are due to stray inductances and capacitances. Build the circuit using conventional layout, with minimal wiring length, bus wires, and short leads. Does it still oscillate? If it doesn't, what must you conclude?
Of course doing true experiments and forming conclusions based on data is not Ainslie's strong point, is it.
Ainslie said,
QuoteAnd Poynty - just a point of order. Please do NOT use any downloads that TK posts. There are those that he has no right to - and the data is NOT technically mine - but belongs to an academic associated with us. They were first rifled from my computer and soon thereafter they stole my entire computer.
Ainslie lies. She cannot point to a SINGLE BIT OF INFORMATION that I have posted that she did not herself first post publicly. Not one. She's had ample opportunity to indicate, with links, just which posts of mine contain this "rifled, stolen" information, but she cannot even do that much. I've provided ample evidence already that the scopeshots were posted by her. What else is there? Excerpts from her manuscripts publicly posted, names of contact persons that she continually drops, saying they are "contactable"..... She cannot point to one single item that I've posted that she did not post publicly first. She accuses me and MrSean2k of rifling her computer, and implies that we somehow had a hand in a physical break-in and theft... and she has no evidence whatsoever to back herself up. As usual.
So we have some experimental challenges building up. Ainslie promised over and over to refute my video demonstrations, but she cannot. Ainslie has boasted over and over that she can repeat the Figure 3 scopeshot with all mosfets working.... but she cannot. Let her or her supporters build the ciruit with tight layout and see if it oscillates. If it doesn't, then Yet Another of her absurd claims is proven false. Ainslie claims that she has real engineers supporting her--- but they are not available for dialog. She repeatedly demands other people's actual identities... but she never has and never will provide the names and contact information for these people she claims are working with her. Ainslie claims publications, and peer review. But her only publications have been the Quantum magazine article concerning the single mosfet circuit, with all its errors and false claims, and the postings of her manuscripts on Rossi's vanity blog, where they have gotten no review at all, as is evidenced by the contradictory schematics, missing data and false claims made without support in the posted manuscripts. She fails to mention that a similar manuscript was rejected five times by various IEEE journals, not even passing the editor much less the reviewers.
@TK
I see she is still trying hard to convince other's of her magical circuit.Below is a scope shot of a circuit i am working on at the moment. Channel 1(the yellow trace) is across a 1 ohm CSR from P/in,and channel 2(the blue trace)is across another 1 ohm CSR to the load.Both voltages are at 12 volts.
Do you think i should get a paper written about my setup? lol.
@TK
As a fan of your channel since resonance effects for everyone videos, this is just my my thoughts after two years of reading pretty much every post about this subject.
I see a lot of petty back and fourth posts/comments/stupid pictures/snide remarks mostly from RA to a lot of members which brings me to make this post.
For an insult to diminish your public image, the public has to believe it is true. For an insult to diminish your self-image or self-esteem, you have to believe it is true. An insult cannot diminish your stature because your self-image is not your self. An insult may cause you to reassess your self-image or self-esteem.
Revenge is often sought as a remedy for humiliation; perhaps using the phrase "protecting honor" as justification. But revenge cannot be an effective remedy for humiliation, because it does nothing to increase your stature.
Humiliation is more demeaning and hurtful than "taking offense" at something. "Taking offense" is cognitive; you have questioned, disagreed with, or attacked my beliefs and perhaps my values. We disagree, and I think you are wrong. Offense is intellectual; it is about what I think. "Humiliation" is visceral; you have attacked me, my being, my self, and made me feel foolish about who I am. The attack is personal and credible enough that you have caused me to doubt my own worth, and thereby induced my shame. Humiliation is existential; it is about who I am.
Humiliation has been linked to academic failure, low self-esteem, social isolation, underachievement, marital conflict, delinquency, abuse, discrimination, depression, learned helplessness, social disruption, torture, and even death. People in power (like having you're own forum, with no real hierarchy or freedom if speech) use humiliation as a form of social control; it is a common tool of oppression. The fear of humiliation is also a powerful motivating force.
So victims of humiliation may be able to achieve resolution through either of two paths. The first is to reappraise the humiliating experience in some way that acknowledges the victim's strength and ability to cope with a difficult situation. This approach increases self-confidence and diminishes the fear of humiliation. The second path is to leave the degrading environment and find a more appreciative environment.
This is most of our points, do something new, and we (your peers) will appreciate whatever you being to us from your laboratory. We are all fully aware of the situation, and understand that you have been pushed to the limit with her actions, and in my personal opinion I would love to see your energy directed towards everything BUT this.
As I said before, long time fan of your work, but its really starting to shit me that she is diverting your time to this nonsense.
Other than that, thanks for the new Arduino videos, you got me motivated!
Stumpy.
@Stumpy:
Thank you for your comments. Believe me, I am fully aware of the psychological dynamics of this situation. And since you are clearly watching my videos, I think you can tell that the Ainslie situation does not really consume a lot of my time.
However..... efforts to change the status quo should be directed at Ainslie, I think. I'm not about to "walk away" when that creature is actually canvassing friends and possible and potential employers, trying to find out my real name and address and trying to sully my reputation with them with her lies, while at the same time continuing to make her false claims, harassing people and attempting to gain monetary awards for her nonsense.
If she wants to carry out her "research" and post it on her private forum, fine, LEAVE ME OUT OF IT. After, of course, refuting my challenges and my statements about her and her claims. But that is not what she's doing, is it. She refers to me constantly in the most insulting manner possible and she adds false claim upon false claim on a daily basis, it seems, and never manages to provide any support.
She's accused me of all kinds of ridiculous things, like hacking her computer, stealing files, and even orchestrating physical breakins into her compound. She's threatened me with all kinds of threats, legal, computer-directed and even physical, and she lies about my replications of her circuitry and my testing of them. In short..... it's personal, and every time she pops up her head with another claim about her "reviewed" and "published" daft manuscripts, which are neither, and another "Ickle Pickle" slur, I'll be there with my database of facts, references, and fully repeatable demonstrations that show, to all concerned, just what she is and what her "research" consists of.
This present thread, for example, wasn't started by me until _after_ she had already snivelled on her promise of the June 1 demonstration, that she promised for many months, finally settling on a date and advertising it on PESN, with the usual set of false claims and insults directed towards me and the many other replicators who found the truth about her and her circuitry claims. When she called it off... as I predicted she would.... then I started this thread to challenge her continuing line of BS. It's a return stroke to her serve.... and she has yet to volley, and will not manage ever to do so. If she does manage to pull off a demonstration on June 22, which I doubt, it will be the same old same old and most certainly will Not show any refutations of my work or my assertions about hers... because I am right.
Meanwhile, I'll still be doing my thing, making amazing effects with properly switched mosfets, with overunity COP ratios, that, calculated by her chosen method, would be in the thousands. Sorry... I can't quite manage the COP INFINITY that she often claims... but then neither can she.
And of course my vacuum plasma work continues as do my extreme high voltage investigations and my Arduino learning adventures. I've actually written around a hundred different little application sketches for Arduino, doing everything from Sous Vide crockpot cooker control to 3-d multiplexed cube displays to the present toying around with the software FFT color organ light show and realtime audio signal processing... and the "processing" application itself. There are lots of much better Arduino tutorials than what I'm putting up and I learn a lot from watching them, and I'm really starting to get the hang of coding. I taught myself c++ in college but never liked it much then and didn't use it for anything really, but now the c++ coding is really clicking and starting to be a lot of fun.
@TinMan:
Sure, why not. Your scope shot proves that you can at least manage to make and post your own scopeshots, perform your own demonstrations, answer questions when they are put to you, and provide evidence that you are doing as you say. That puts you _way ahead_ of Ainslie and all her ilk. I'll bet you haven't written a single letter demanding that a busy "academic" pay attention to your reams of word-salad "thesis" either, have you.
From working with you in the past I know that you are careful to avoid making claims you can't back up with demonstrations, and that you are happy to admit when you don't know something and to take advice from those who might be a page or two ahead of you in the book. Personally, I find your explorations a lot more interesting than Ainslie's tired old "zipon" fantasies which explain nothing and predict nothing, and your experimental work is accomplished with a lot more panache and direction than hers is, and should be seen as an example for those who follow. I don't always agree with your conclusions nor you with mine but we manage to discuss matters productively for both of us, and I've had fun with your circuits that I've tested.
Nice that you got hold of a 2-channel scope, and are willing to share data from it. Cheers.... and I hope it has finally cooled off a bit for you, we are already into the 35 degree days here with 40 to come next month.
--TK
@.99:
Challenge her to operate without heatsinks, if she believes that her mosfets don't dissipate plenty of power in their Rdss. She won't do it.
Let her remove the heatsink from Q1 and then "bring water to boil 800 mL" with her apparatus. She won't do it.
Challenge her to build a tight build on a PC board and then demonstrate oscillations. She won't do it. Challenge her to just about anything that will test her absurd and ignorant claims .... and she won't do it, because she can't even operate her own equipment, apparently. And when someone else does it for her, she insults, denigrates, and never cites their work when she finds a new set of innocent marks to try to impress.
TK:
Unfortunately Rosemary is locked into a never-ending spin zone with respect to you and your excellent clips and she will never concede anything.
With Poynt she is in "play nice" mode right now. Assuming that over this coming week that Poynt has the time to build the circuit and test it, then Rosie Posie is going to get blown out of the water. Poynt has access to that dream four-channel DSO and there is just no chance.
So I suppose that we won't be surprised when Rosie reenters the spin zone with respect to Poynt. What else can there be?
You just can't get no satisfaction.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 13, 2013, 02:19:59 PM
@TinMan:
Sure, why not. Your scope shot proves that you can at least manage to make and post your own scopeshots, perform your own demonstrations, answer questions when they are put to you, and provide evidence that you are doing as you say. That puts you _way ahead_ of Ainslie and all her ilk. I'll bet you haven't written a single letter demanding that a busy "academic" pay attention to your reams of word-salad "thesis" either, have you.
From working with you in the past I know that you are careful to avoid making claims you can't back up with demonstrations, and that you are happy to admit when you don't know something and to take advice from those who might be a page or two ahead of you in the book. Personally, I find your explorations a lot more interesting than Ainslie's tired old "zipon" fantasies which explain nothing and predict nothing, and your experimental work is accomplished with a lot more panache and direction than hers is, and should be seen as an example for those who follow. I don't always agree with your conclusions nor you with mine but we manage to discuss matters productively for both of us, and I've had fun with your circuits that I've tested.
Nice that you got hold of a 2-channel scope, and are willing to share data from it. Cheers.... and I hope it has finally cooled off a bit for you, we are already into the 35 degree days here with 40 to come next month.
--TK
Thanks TK.
Yes finaly saved enough to get the new scope,and also got myself a nice Atten 20 MHz FG along with an Atten bench top power supply. Still trying to work out a few thing's with the scope,like the math function-but i have Poynt helping me out with that one as much as he can. Im still in junior grade with electronic's,but learning fast. And it is nice to be able to see what is going on in a couple of different location's at a time in a circuit with the 2 channel scope.
Now as far as Ainslie go's,she seems to have you preaty wound up. Maybe this is her intention?-to keep you from doing what you do best(experiment), and waste your time on her bag of lies. If it's any help,i would be more than happy to put the circuit in question together
,and post my result's here. Just throw me the circuit,and i will give it a shot.
Cheers
TM
P.S-the weather is now opposite to what it was. Now it's ruddy cold,but i have my new lab set up in the house,so the fire keeps me warm lol.
tinman,
I'm beginning my build this weekend, and will be testing/demonstrating various things on the circuit. It would be nice if you could sort out that math measurement problem, otherwise power measurements are relegated to spreadsheet crunching. It works but is a bit cumbersome.
Join us, it'll be fun.
Yes, great fun.
.99.... I hope you realize that Ainslie still doesn't understand that a mosfet can function in a linear conductance mode. She still believes that it is either ON with zero resistance or OFF with infinite resistance, and cannot fathom that a gate signal fluctuating around 4 volts could cause a mosfet to conduct partially, enough to sustain oscillations and pass a small amount of current to a load.
Until you can make her understand linear operation of mosfets and the significance of the changing Rdss when a partial gate charge is delivered, she will continue to believe that there are no current paths during oscillations and she will continue to fail to understand the power dissipation in the mosfet's series resistance.
How does she intend to test her mosfets for proper functioning before and after she reproduces the Figure 3 scopeshot? I'm the only person who has ever shown, in this Ainslie context, a simple and fast and easy way to confirm that a mosfet isn't blown, shorted or open, and still works in the linear region to a changing gate charge. How will she do it? How do you recommend that she do it?
Quote from: MileHigh on June 14, 2013, 02:25:46 AM
TK:
Unfortunately Rosemary is locked into a never-ending spin zone with respect to you and your excellent clips and she will never concede anything.
With Poynt she is in "play nice" mode right now. Assuming that over this coming week that Poynt has the time to build the circuit and test it, then Rosie Posie is going to get blown out of the water. Poynt has access to that dream four-channel DSO and there is just no chance.
So I suppose that we won't be surprised when Rosie reenters the spin zone with respect to Poynt. What else can there be?
You just can't get no satisfaction.
MileHigh
Yes.... that's right. She doesn't even watch my videos, you know, because they cause so much cognitive dissonance that her brain is "brought to boil" and she can't see straight.
If .99 gets results from his build that are significantly different from those I got -- and still get -- from Tar Baby.... I'll eat Tar Baby entire, with hot sauce.
I am particularly interested in Ainslie's claim that "they" have a compact version without excessive wiring length, that oscillates nevertheless. When I first built and tested this circuit I used a tight layout and buswire construction and did not find oscillations. Only after I unsoldered the mosfets, provided them with sockets and long lead lengths approximating Ainslie's poor connections and wire maze, did I obtain the Ainslie parasitic feedback oscillations.
I'm also interested in her claim that "they" can operate without an external negative bias supply and with a built-in source of timing, not needing the FG. Of course I was the first actually to demonstrate this, last year sometime, and I'm quite certain that Ainslie could not do it on her own. Therefore, if this claim of hers is true, there must be someone knowledgeable in electronics providing her with substantial material help. Who is this person and why is he or she not available for dialog?
I refuse to believe that anyone in mainstream engineering or science would even begin to take Rosemary seriously. Which only leaves the pseudo scientific and engineering types or the gullible. I don't see that she requires debunking, anyone that believes her is already lost to logic. The more time people give her the more her objective is realized. Taking her seriously about what she says is like debunking the contents of a MAD comic.
I have to wonder why so much effort is put into debunking someone so deluded. If she doesn't know anything of electronics where is all this stuff coming from ? Must be others involved. If so why are they hiding behind a deluded woman ? And what do they possibly hope to achieve by doing that ? It makes no sense. If she was ignored she could do no harm.
Can anybody give the name of an institution or a qualified person that takes what she says seriously ? If not why the fuss. If she is trying to get investment based on lies the police should take care of it, and if anyone has been ripped off it's up to them to go to the police. If anyone is taking her seriously then the people paying them their wages ought to stop.
Who has she ripped off ? What is she selling ? How can anyone take her seriously anyway. None of makes any sense.
I can get a Logic chip to oscillate reliably in a similar way and drive a mosfet, it's nothing special. Most setups have a self oscillating frequency and with logic chip oscillators if one part of the oscillator is left unconnected the chip oscillates at frequency determined by the usual factors ( sometimes requiring a touch, but not for some chips). A CD 4001 chip oscillates at about 20 Mhz I think from memory different individual chips have a slightly different frequency they like to freely oscillate at, as do different chip types.
To me this entire debacle looks like a bunch of wannabe hunting dogs ripping into a stuffed teddy bear.
Cheers
She must have some attribute that attracts people because some seem totally obsessed with her. Boggles the mind.
..
Quote from: TinselKoala
Therefore, if this claim of hers is true, there must be someone knowledgeable in electronics providing her with substantial material help. Who is this person and why is he or she not available for dialog?
Could it be, (horror of horrors!) that she is
actually studying and learning? Rosie is an
exceptionally bright woman who is no doubt
fully capable of mastering many technicalities.
Perhaps I'm one of the few (or even possibly
the only) who likes and respects Rosie, but I
do. Her communications skills are incredibly
good and her sense of humor is wondrous.
She's a woman with great skill in the art of
stimulating interesting dialogue. Aye, she's
feisty and hard to pin down when it comes to
wrestling with her - but then she is a woman.
From my vantage point it would seem that
Rosie is winning the conflict in the poetically
dramatic sense. Her "men callers" just keep
comin' back for more and more of her wit and
humor!
Au revoir!
Quote from: FarmHand
She must have some attribute that attracts people because some seem totally obsessed with her. Boggles the mind.
Aye, that is so!
Farmhand,
I can't help but feel as though you're dis'ing me.
There are several good reasons to question Rose and her actions. One good one for me is her claim to be considered for the OUR Award. One other good reason may be her disrespect for all who oppose her.
If it pains you to see people making an effort to keep the record straight, then read elsewhere. No one here wants your negative sentiments.
@Farmhand:
It's apparent that you don't know the history of Rosemary Ainslie. I first encountered her in late 2008 or early 2009, when someone from this forum contacted me with the information that she had a patent on a simple circuit, large and repeatable OU ratios, with publication and review/vetting by the alphabet agencies that she still talks about. So I found her on the Naked Scientists forum, trying to discuss her ideas with professional EEs who actually designed and patented circuitry with mosfets, like switching power supplies and boost converters, etc. I found very quickly that the claim to have a patent was a lie; she filed a WIPO application which she never followed up. But the NS people actually did hold real granted patents, and believed her when she said she did.
She finally got banned there for spouting nonsense in her aggressive manner, and went to Energetic Forum where she encouraged everyone to build and test her circuit and her claims. So.... I did so, and immediately found about the flipped duty cycle of her published 555 timer circuit. Trying to get this point across to the geniuses at EF and to Ainslie took literally _months_ of wrangling and arguing, and to this day Ainslie still doesn't understand either the significance or the reasons for the flipped cycle or its effect on the circuit. I am still astounded over the months of people claiming things about that 555 timer circuit which has about three dollars worth of components in it and can be built and tested in half an hour.... I took a LOT of flack over that duty cycle issue. She thinks she was heating her load with a 3 or 4 percent duty cycle when she was actually using 96-97 percent ON, and in fact I reproduced her temperature/time profiles nearly exactly using the long duty cycle. Many of us, as listed above, worked on her circuit at that time-- and she got banned from EF after she turned on her former believers there when they couldn't verify all of her claims.
It's a long story. The punch line is that many of us spent a lot of time on Ainslie, at first examining and then debunking her various claims and getting nothing but venomous disrespect and insults from her. But she will not accept our work and stop making her claims. I did not start this thread until _after_ she had already "postponed" her announced June 1 demonstration, at which she had promised to address the issues raised by her critics here. She is damaging the whole idea of independent research and giving lots of ammunition to those traditionally trained scientists that look at websites like this one and laugh themselves silly. "We", meaning people like you and koalas like me, do not need this kind of false prophet corrupting our real investigations. When she claims to have publications she gets a certain "street cred" when she approaches someone new to her... just as she did before when she was claiming to have a patent. But just like the "patent", the claims of "publications" are lies. She has the Quantum magazine publication and the posts to Rossi's JNP vanity blog and she's been rejected over and over by real journals. So after, for example, an IEEE journal editor sees her claims and reviews her work and finds it ridiculous and mendacious, how do you think he's going to view the next "crackpot idea" that comes along? Will his attitude be more, or less favorable, considering his prior exposure to the Ainslie phenomenon?
She only gets reactions like in this thread when she provokes them. If she had not made the PESN announcement, repeating the mendacious claims and the insults towards the people who did work on her stuff, then this thread would not exist and nobody here would be talking about Ainslie at all. If she had actually managed a demonstration that showed what she claims, and refuted all of my demos like she claims she can, that would be Waaay different from what we've got now, with her snivelling "postponement". She can work in peace and quiet without worrying about a bunch of dogs with a stuffed teddy bear.... but when she takes her crapdoodle on the road, insults people and harasses professors and editors, she will get a reaction.
She's insulted and disrespected all of us actual builders and simulators, and me by far the worst, although PW and .99 are right up there too. I spent many years studying, and then paying for my studies, and to have my education and my teachers dissed so profoundly by someone who is as ignorant as Ainslie makes the matter personal, and as long as she continues to be so loudly wrong without apology, I'll continue to be loudly RIGHT with the truth.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 14, 2013, 06:24:39 PM
Could it be, (horror of horrors!) that she is
actually studying and learning? Rosie is an
exceptionally bright woman who is no doubt
fully capable of mastering many technicalities.
(snip)
Anyone with knowledge who reviews her recent posts in her "Protocols" thread, discussing the topic with .99, will see that what you suggest could NOT in fact be true. Sometimes it seems as though progress has been made, but then we see that she is only parroting big words, without real understanding of the concepts involved. She still does not understand basic functions of her oscilloscope (trace offset setting, AC vs DC coupling, etc) and she still does not understand the operation and functioning of her own FG (the claims about current flow, the effect of the offset knob, etc.). When it comes to understanding basic operation of the main component of her system, the IRFPG50 mosfet, she remains as ignorant as a baby. Go ahead, ask her what Rdss means and how much power is expected to be dissipated in the mosfet when it's carrying 5 amperes of current. Ask her to describe the linear operation region of a mosfet's functioning. Ask her if there is really no such animal as inductive reactance. Test your idea about whether Ainslie is remaining willfully ignorant, as I claim, or whether she is learning her topic, coming up to speed on technical issues and equipment operation. Ask her some technical questions!
TK,
I can't speak to the "studying" part, but the "learning" part is obviously lacking...
By the way, her "special" non-inductive resistors are Vishay RCH 25 series 1R resistors (4 in parallel).
As per the data sheet, they are specified as having an inductance less than or equal to 100nH. Not all that special, not all that "non-inductive"...
For comparison, a Caddock TO-3P package non-inductive resistor is specified as having 4nH when measured at the leads .1" from the package (which is lowest inductance off the shelf part I could find).
As well, the inductance of all those lengths of interconnect wires used to parallel the resistors also needs to be calculated into the total inductance of the 4 resistors in parallel. In other words, contrary to her claims otherwise, her new and improved "non-inductive" CSR is not all that non-inductive.
Of course, that is assuming that such an animal as inductance actually exists...
PW
@Mark Dansie:
You should be aware of a few things that you might not yet have noticed.
Ainslie has been banned from many forums. Naked Scientists, Energetic Forum, this forum at least twice, and others. Why? We know why, and you will probably be finding out before too much longer. She has four separate YouTube accounts: dooziedont, aetherevarising, and two under her own name. Why? I know why. She has removed and attempted to suppress the video she posted of her demonstration from March of 2011. Why? I know why. (But the internet never forgets, so this very informative video is still viewable, with all the lies and smoking guns it contains.)
Ainslie cannot provide any evidence, not so much as a scrap of paper or an email, for her claimed vetting by the alphabet agencies and companies that she lists. The "contactable" people whose names she drops..... aren't.
The true history of Ainslie's submissions to journals is best told by FuzzyTomCat..... because the fantasy story that Ainslie tells isn't how it actually went down.
Some people on this thread, like .99 and me, have actually spent _more time_, money and effort working with and understanding this circuit than Ainslie has herself. Others have spent less time but have contributed greatly by analyzing and explaining and suggesting experiments for the builders and simmers to perform. And on other, more credulous forums, other builders have done even more work.... and have always found that Ainslie's claims are false. Ainslie herself has been rather less than cooperative throughout this process. What I am telling you here is that Ainslie herself has done nothing like the amount of work that other people have performed on her circuit; she clearly doesn't understand it and _nobody_ anywhere is prepared actually to demonstrate, with their own constructions, that any of her claims are true. The evidence against her and her claims is literally overwhelming.
When Ainslie makes a statement -- ANY statement at all, you should require her to provide support for her contention, by outside references that can be checked. (Some of her bloopers are famous, like "Per never means division" and "no such animal as inductive reactance" and "A Joule is a Watt, the terms are interchangeable".) If she provides you with a number from a calculation.... be sure to check the math yourself. If she refers to the work of others in any way.... make her give a link that supports her reference. If she speaks of me as Bryan Little or makes any kind of "pickle" slur or other snide insulting remarks, or if she pleads that she is "just a little old lady" and complains of sexism, ageism or other kinds of discrimination..... you know that she is trying to deflect attention from the main issue: her bogus claims and her failure to support them with actual evidence. Most particularly, if she claims that some agency has examined her apparatus and data, make her prove it to you by showing you their report. If she mentions a professor's name, or any other names, by all means try to contact that person and ask them about Ainslie. Professor Gaunt, Professor Khan, and others have responded to inquiries and their responses are very revealing. You won't be seeing those responses from Ainslie, though.
So.... it will be a lot of fun to watch what she does to your forum when you start hosting her claims and your people start discussing .... and even building.... her circuit.
(I thank FuzzyTomCat for providing me with the documents attached below.)
Quote from: picowatt on June 14, 2013, 11:02:30 PM
TK,
I can't speak to the "studying" part, but the "learning" part is obviously lacking...
By the way, her "special" non-inductive resistors are Vishay RCH 25 series 1R resistors (4 in parallel).
As per the data sheet, they are specified as having an inductance less than or equal to 100nH. Not all that special, not all that "non-inductive"...
For comparison, a Caddock TO-3P package non-inductive resistor is specified as having 4nH when measured at the leads .1" from the package (which is lowest inductance off the shelf part I could find).
As well, the inductance of all those lengths of interconnect wires used to parallel the resistors also needs to be calculated into the total inductance of the 4 resistors in parallel. In other words, contrary to her claims otherwise, her new and improved "non-inductive" CSR is not all that non-inductive.
Of course, that is assuming that such an animal as inductance actually exists...
PW
Thanks for identifying the resistors, I couldn't make them out from my blowups of her posted photos.
But I did point out the same thing that you are pointing out: Installed as they are, any low-inductance advantage is cancelled by the long wiring lengths and the probe connections themselves.
Ainslie's apparatus has evidently not changed in any important way -- except of course the significant addition of the larger heatsink on Q1. If the photos on PESN represent her current work, we still see massive inductances in battery wiring and on the board itself. We still see the load element suspended in air with the thermocouple attached directly to it. And we still see the "smoking gun" : the use of only three batteries in "high heat" mode, along with the larger heatsink on Q1. Yet just as recently as a couple of days ago Ainslie still claims not to understand that the Q1 mosfet gets hot.
And as to the issue of the photographs and scopeshots I have posted...... have I wriggled enough, do you think? Have Ainslie's "appropriate departments" deigned to act in the matter? Are we sufficiently amused yet?
Is Ainslie ever going to apologize for the insults, lies and false accusations contained in this one single post of hers alone? It is to laugh.
Mark, you are going to have so much fun when she's on your forum...... I am really looking forward to seeing what she comes up with for you.
Hi TK
I have received an open letter she has asked us to Publish. To be honest I do not know if I should or should not. If I do there will be no censorship on the comments box (unlike free energy news)
I am between a rock and hard place. We intend to report many things but not declaring anything to be real or true unless backed by credible data. A bit like Smartscarecrow "Let the audience make up their own damn minds"
On the otehr hand we want to maintatin credability.
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on June 16, 2013, 11:20:48 AM
Hi TK
I have received an open letter she has asked us to Publish. To be honest I do not know if I should or should not. If I do there will be no censorship on the comments box (unlike free energy news)
I am between a rock and hard place. We intend to report many things but not declaring anything to be real or true unless backed by credible data. A bit like Smartscarecrow "Let the audience make up their own damn minds"
On the otehr hand we want to maintatin credability.
Mark
Mark,
She has stated that she will be making a video on the 22nd that will prove that the waveform in FIG3 can be duplicated with a functional Q1 connected as per the schematic.
The issue with Q1 in FIG3 is simply that the light blue scope trace is indicating that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 during the portion of the cycle when the function generator (FG) output is a positive voltage. +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 should turn Q1 fully on and the subsequent current flow should be indicated by a positive voltage at the current sensing resistor (CSR), as would be indicated by the dark yellow CSR trace.
However, there is no current flow indicated, as the CSR trace remains at or very close to zero volts during the time +12 volts is being applied to Q1, indicating that Q1 is not turning on.
The only possible explanations for Q1 not turning on in as it should in FIG3 are that Q1 was either non-functional (damaged), disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic during the FIG3 capture.
Looking at FIG5, one can see an example of a scope capture wherein Q1 is functioning properly and its subsequent current flow is indicated by a positive voltage on the dark yellow CSR trace during the portion of the cycle when the light blue FG output trace is a positive voltage.
It is very likely that during the FIG3 tests, she did not realize that Q1 was damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic. When originally asked about this, all she had to do was acknowledge that there was an error, repeat her tests to generate a new FIG 3 with a properly functioning or connected Q1, and correct or replace her data with the data from these new tests.
Instead, she denies that the scope indicates +12 volts is being appied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, or erroneously claims that the scope needs to be AC coupled. She has accused those that ask about Q1 in FIG3 of not knowing how to read a scope, how to read schematics, attacked them as being unqualified sufficiently in electronics to discuss Q1, or threatened legal action.
In any event, her continual refusal to admit that there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 has only blown this issue into the large proportion it has become, and she herself has now referred to this issue as a "litmus test". In many ways, it is indeed a litmus test, but not of her technology and theories, but of her integrity and believability.
She claims she will be creating a video this coming weekend (22nd) that will prove that there is nothing wrong with Q1 or its connections in FIG3 by duplicating the waveforms as indicated by FIG3.
Anyone that understands electronics to even the smallest degree, can see from looking at her schematic that there is no way the FG output, which is connected to the gate of Q1, can output +12 volts without Q1 turning on and current flow subsequently being indicated by the CSR.
One would have to attempt deception, to some degree, to intentionally reproduce the FIG3 waveform using her schematic, such as disconnect Q1, connect Q1 differently from the schematic, or use a damaged MOSFET for Q1. Alternately, one could attempt to AC couple the scope, or a probe point, and adjust the waveforms so that they appear similar to FIG3, even though they would not be (as would be indicated by properly using DC coupling throughout).
My advice to you regarding your "rock and a hard place" decision would be to wait and see how and what she does in her upcoming video to reproduce the FIG3 scope shot.
As she says, it is a litmus test...
PW
Profitas
Can you read a scope and know how to hook one up?
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on June 16, 2013, 04:30:03 PM
Profitas
Can you read a scope and know how to hook one up?
Mark
Mark,
Was this question actually directed at "Profitas" or was it meant to be in response to my (picowatt's) previous post?
PW
@PW: I believe that profitas is local, thus he might actually be able to visit Ainslie in person.
Let's not forget that an important part of the "proof" of Figure 3 is to show that all mosfets are "in tact" and functional, both before and after the scopeshot is reproduced. How does Ainslie intend to do this?
As far as I am aware, I am the only individual ever to show a quick and easy way to test these mosfets for shorts, opens and ability to operate in the linear conductance region in response to a changing gate charge. This requires construction of a simple fixture consisting of a potentiometer, a light bulb, and a socket for the mosfet, and a 12-volt battery or power supply. It takes about 30 seconds to test a mosfet on this fixture.
How would other readers here suggest that she perform this vital part of her Fig.3 demonstration.... since she clearly won't go near anything I suggest or demonstrate?
Let's also not forget just what needs to be demonstrated: The Figure 3 scopeshot in the first of the two manuscripts, under the conditions claimed for it in the paper.
1. Q1 mosfet on the original, small heatsink that was used for the work described in the paper.
2. The full 6 batteries in series, supplying at least 72 volts to the circuit, as described in the paper and as indicated on the Fig. 3 scopeshot.
3. A period of about 160 seconds with a "high" signal of +10 to 12 volts for 10 percent of the time (10 percent duty cycle) or about 16-17 seconds ON per period, as indicated on the scopeshot.
4. Bringing 800 mL of water "to boil", as claimed in the paper, using the signals as indicated on the Fig 3 scopeshot.
Failure to demonstrate this full set of conditions, as described in the paper, will of course mean utter and total failure on Ainslie's part, once again, to support her claims with truth. And further, her failure will demonstrate unequivocally that the data in the papers are bogus, the claims based on them ridiculous, the conclusions unsupported and the papers must therefore be withdrawn, and errata and apologies tendered to those whom she has insulted, denigrated and misled for all these years.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 16, 2013, 07:21:01 PM
Let's also not forget just what needs to be demonstrated: The Figure 3 scopeshot in the first of the two manuscripts, under the conditions claimed for it in the paper.
1. Q1 mosfet on the original, small heatsink that was used for the work described in the paper.
2. The full 6 batteries in series, supplying at least 72 volts to the circuit, as described in the paper and as indicated on the Fig. 3 scopeshot.
3. A period of about 160 seconds with a "high" signal of +10 to 12 volts for 10 percent of the time (10 percent duty cycle) or about 16-17 seconds ON per period, as indicated on the scopeshot.
4. Bringing 800 mL of water "to boil", as claimed in the paper, using the signals as indicated on the Fig 3 scopeshot.
Failure to demonstrate this full set of conditions, as described in the paper, will of course mean utter and total failure on Ainslie's part, once again, to support her claims with truth. And further, her failure will demonstrate unequivocally that the data in the papers are bogus, the claims based on them ridiculous, the conclusions unsupported and the papers must therefore be withdrawn, and errata and apologies tendered to those whom she has insulted, denigrated and misled for all these years.
TK,
With or wthout the higher battery voltage, she cannot duplicate FIG3 with a functional MOSFET connected as per the schematic in the Q1 position. If she does somehow manage to do that, then she cannot also duplicate FIG5, as she would have to replace Q1 or change some connections to do so.
She probably thinks that selecting AC coupling on a scope channel or some such nonsense will vindicate her, when instead it will only further erode her credibility. It will be interesting to see if she actually attempts an outright deception.
She should just own up and accept that there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3, repeat her tests, collect new data, and correct the papers. Instead, she digs the hole deeper.
Oh well...
PW
It's all so fantastical, don't you think? We have this grinding battle over a waveform that clearly shows that a MOSFET is not working or there is a circuit connection problem. What should not be a dispute at all is a knock-down drag-out fight. Another fight for months and months about how a function generator works when again there should be no dispute. And that's just scraping the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
I hope that Rosie sees with her own eyes how she is wrong about the MOSFET waveform issue from her own build. I hope that Poynt does his build and presents his data and analysis. One would hope that Rosie will have no choice but to accept the facts that will be clearly and unequivocally presented by Poynt. It seems like that's the only end game possible because Rosie will not accept the learned opinions and real-world analysis done here.
It's just crazy and I can't follow it in detail any more. It's just nuts. It's like a battle of Cold War ideologies, and we all know how that one ended.
There have been moments of high comedy also. Way back when Rosie and pixie faerie Joit had this preconceived notion that "ON MUST BE HIGH" with respect to the MOSFET switching. That was a two-week battle and TK had to make a clip showing that when the gate input of the MOSFET is HIGH and the MOSFET is ON, then the drain output will go LOW. This "discovery" of the inversion on the output was a "shocker" for Rosie and her Energetic Forum followers. And of course Aaron's build was high comedy all around and it was tragicomic to see how this "leader" when it came to free energy circuits had accumulated about TWO WEEK'S worth of bench skills after working on the bench with luminaries like John Bedini and Peter Lindemann for TEN YEARS.
Just please somebody bring this thing to an end!!! Please make it stop!!!!
What I have in mind is either we have some one visit for the video test or we do a live test over Skype where we can ask specific things to be tested. We can record that. i want to bring it to a conclusion as well.
i would like anyone who is local to be bale to attend.
Just thinking out loud
i wil lpublish the letter on the condition a test or video follows
Mark
@MH: The kerfluffle over the flipped duty cycle in Ainslie's first circuit went on for far longer than two weeks. In fact it still raises its head now and then. Remember when the person who doesn't want to be referred to here anymore started to build that circuit from the link Ainslie gave him? She STILL has not corrected that schematic (because she can't) nor has she issued an errata notice. She refers to that article constantly but never mentions that the schematic makes the flipped dutycycle and that the heat results are wrong because of her errors. For a short while, in the face of incontrovertible proof that I am right and she is wrong, she did acknowledge the flipped cycle and "apologised", but never followed through with a retraction or correction, and then later on actually retracted her apology! And now.... well, just ask her and see what she has to say about it. She's still baffled by the fact that the Drain voltage is high when the mosfet is off in the configuration she uses, and if you read her latest shouts, it's clear once again, as I have been saying all along, that she has no clue about linear operation of a mosfet. Her mosfets, she believes, are either open, or they are "soldered" inside, either fully OFF or fully ON. She cannot understand their operation as amplifiers, nor how feedback oscillations work in amplifiers. Until she can accept this linear, partially conducting response region of a mosfet's operation she will _never_ be able to understand or accept just how her circuit operates. It has been explained to her over and over, and I've demonstrated it in my videos, and millions of high-powered stereo music systems demonstrate it every day.... but she still does not get it.
@Mark D: You should make her show you a video _first_, I think. She won't, though.
So I ask again. How is Ainslie going to show that the mosfets she uses in her demonstration this coming Saturday are "in tact" before and after she makes the Figure 3 scopeshot, bringing water to boil under the conditions claimed in the paper? Does anyone have any suggestions? I note that Ainslie's mosfets are soldered to long clipleads, except for Q1 which has its soldered leads terminated in crimped connectors bolted into the circuitry. Are we going to see Ainslie take the apparatus apart, test the Q1 mosfet somehow, put the apparatus back together, boil some water while making the Figure 3 traces, then take the apparatus apart again, test the Q1 again, all live on camera ? I can hardly wait. I'll be stocking up on popcorn this week.
Quote from: picowatt on June 16, 2013, 07:43:29 PM
TK,
With or wthout the higher battery voltage, she cannot duplicate FIG3 with a functional MOSFET connected as per the schematic in the Q1 position. If she does somehow manage to do that, then she cannot also duplicate FIG5, as she would have to replace Q1 or change some connections to do so.
That's right, but the higher battery voltage is important and since it's shown on Figure 3 in the paper and in other similar shots it must be used in the upcoming duplication. I want Ainslie to have to acknowledge in no uncertain terms that her Q1 mosfet does indeed get hot, and I think it will be amusing to see how many transistors she wastes trying to do what she claims is so easy to do -- "bring water to boil" with zero current coming through Q1 even though it's getting sufficient gate signal to turn fully on.
Quote
She probably thinks that selecting AC coupling on a scope channel or some such nonsense will vindicate her, when instead it will only further erode her credibility. It will be interesting to see if she actually attempts an outright deception.
She is certainly not above outright deception, as she has shown amply many times in the past, most noticeably concerning the schematic in use in the demonstration of March 2011. But it is more likely that she will simply not perform any demonstration at all. After all, we know that the scopeshot can't be made under the conditions she claims, and pretty soon she will know this too, so there will be some reason found not to have the demo in six days, just as there was one found not to have it on the first of June as she promised before.
Quote
She should just own up and accept that there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3, repeat her tests, collect new data, and correct the papers. Instead, she digs the hole deeper.
Oh well...
PW
She can't do any of that, because it's not just a matter of correction. The fundamental claims in the papers rest on two foundations: first, the amazingly bogus calculations that caused her to believe and claim that her batteries were not discharging and that she was delivering more energy to the load than her batteries contained, and second, the false claim of high load heating with no current flow, that resulted from her wrong interpretation of the Figure 3 scope data. In short, she has nothing at all in either paper that is defensible. They are not "correctable", they are garbage through and through.
Mark,
You are indeed in a difficult position. The "anomalies" are re-iterated in her latest epistle. Here are a few
QuoteThe amount of energy that is first supplied during the 'on' period of the duty cycle is NIL. NOTHING. NADA. And then the MOMENT that the switch 'opens' or is OFF - that moment when NO current should be enabled - then the OSCILLATIONS START. AND IT IS GENERATED AT A FREQUENCY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SWITCH. AND IT PERSISTS FOR AS LONG AS THAT SWITCH IS OPEN.
A FET hard switched with a battery supply that passes no current?
Regarding a complete misunderstanding of the nature of a FET:
QuoteThe MOSFET is just a simple switching device.
and
QuoteEffectively that 'virtual solder' has NOT been applied as there is NO PATH for the current to freely flow from the positive terminal of the battery to the negative terminal of the battery.
Capacitance?
She demonstrates once again that she has no understanding of her circuit and apparently is not interested in learning.
Even more damaging to her claim of zero energy input is :
QuoteThen the requirement is that I 'self loop' the system and replace the battery with a capacitor. Sadly the capacitor discharges to zero. We show that we require the batteries' innate voltage imbalance to perpetuate each cycle of that oscillation.
Apparently the batteries are required to imbalance the circuit but do not provide any energy whatsoever???? huh!
Ms Ainslee claims to have a team of reputable people who endorse her work.
QuoteWe have a team of highly qualified engineers - one is writing his doctorate in engineering - two are qualified engineers and one is a technician who is studying further as a senior student for his engineering degree. One other has a masters degree in molecular biology. Our protocols were designed by Professor Gaunt - and our papers written on those tests have been further ratified and refined by 3 academicians. Our papers have been reviewed prior to publication and we have had very favourable feedback from many academics, most prestigious amongst them being Professor Horowitz.
I suggest that you agree to the publication of the document following a successful demonstration which is endorsed by these people or at least the majority of them. Not an unreasonable request seeing that they apparently have already examined the circuit and are happy with it.
After reading her recent posts, it is obvious that continued attempts to discuss anything with her regarding electronics would be fruitless, and a complete waste of time. She continues to demonstrate her unwillingness, or inability, to learn and actually understand her circuit's operation.
As she claims that she is supported by a team of intelligent people, she should be required to present at least one person, sufficiently skilled in electronics, that is willing to support her assertions and engage in dialog regarding the electronic operation of her circuit.
If her "team" actually believes that +12volts to the gate of Q1 will not cause Q1 to pass current, or that a negative voltage applied from the FG to the source terminal of Q2 will not bias Q2 partially on into a linear region of operation, or that the Q2 DC bias current cannot flow thru the FG, or that the AC currents of the Q2 oscillations cannot flow thru the intrinsic capacitances of all 5 MOSFETS's, then the onus should be upon her to present at least one knowledgable person that supports those beliefs and is willing to engage in dialog.
Until she can find even that one supporter, sufficiently skilled in electronics and willing to discuss her circuit, I have to agree with MH, this just needs to end...
PW
10x 7A/h batteries are charging, MOSFETs are found (thank you Glen), 2 MOSFETs mounted on a heat sink, load resistor, CSR, MOSFETs ready for hook up. I will not be building the circuit on peg board, but I will follow a similar wiring layout. I will also be starting with the as-built connections, mainly where the FG is connected to bypass the CSR, as shown in the annotated schematic.
Ready to start testing soon. :)
Her latest layout.
And yet, there is no end...
QuoteDear picowat,
It seems that you are proposing that our IRFPG50's have degraded to the point that they cannot pass any current coming from the battery supply source. Your evidence is based on the fact that the applied signal from the function generator is at 12 volts. Which under all other circumstances should then enable the flow of current from the battery supply. Yet we clearly do not have the flow of current during this 'on' period of the duty cycle - coming from that supply. Therefore do you propose that our MOSFETS's are no longer functional.
At least, it seems, she is now acknowledging as "fact" that the FIG3 scope shot does indeed show +12volts being applied to the gate of Q1 during the positive portion of the FG cycle. As she has denied this many times, it is refreshing to finally see this admission.
She also, apparently, agrees that applying +12 volts to the gate of Q1 should cause Q1 to pass current.
As well, she agrees that there is no current flow observed by the CSR during the application of the +12 volts to the gate of Q1.
So, to rephrase, she has _fiinally_ admitted that with regard to FIG3, during the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a positive voltage, +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1. As well, she agrees, as would most everyone, that +12 volts applied to the gate of Q1 should turn Q1 fully on, and yet, during that same portion of the cycle, no current flow is observed at the CSR trace, which can only mean that Q1 is not turning on.
As I have stated many, many times, there are only three possible explanations for Q1 not turning on when it should in FIG3. During the FIG3 tests, Q1 was either defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.
Although TK has made a very good case towards Q1 being defective (as in damaged) during the FIG3 test, based soley on what can be gleaned from looking at FIG3, it cannot be known for certain which of the three possible explanations for Q1 not turning on is the correct explanation. However, it is for certain, that during the FIG3 test, Q1 was either defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.
If she (or her "team") has another possible explanation as to why Q1 is not turning on as it should in FIG3, she should state her case. But for now, she at least admits that there is indeed +12volts being applied to the Q1 gate and that Q1 should be turning on and that it is not.
So, great news, she is finally in agreement that there is something amiss with Q1 in FIG3!!
Unfortunately, there is more...
Quote
The question that we suggest you should be asking yourself is HOW it is possible for those transistors to pass any current at ALL - IF, as you propose - those MOSFETs have been so degraded? Because, self-evidently - there is a great deal of current passing both to and from that battery during the 'off' period of that switching cycle. We would be MOST intrigued to see your answer to this. If you take the trouble to explain it then that would be considered appropriate as we are now going to some CONSIDERABLE lengths to show you that indeed we DO what you claim is IMPOSSIBLE.
Q1 is NOT passing current in FIG3 when +12 volts is applied to its gate because Q1 was either defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic during the FIG3 test. There are no other possible explanations. FIG5, which does show current flow during that similar portion of the cycle, depicts the correct waveform as one would expect from looking at the schematic in the first paper.
The fact that there IS current flow observed during the portion of the cycle when Q1 is turned OFF and Q2 is turned ON is totally unremarkable. Would not she, or any one else, expect that there would be current flow observed during the time when Q2 is turned on? Why would there not be? Q1 is a minor player during the portion of the cycle when Q2 is turned on (i.e., during the oscillations).
When the FG output is a negative voltage, Q2 is biased on and Q2 oscillates. DC current flows thru Q2, the FG, and to the CSR or battery negative (dependent upon where the FG signal common is connected). AC current during the Q2 oscillations flows primarily thru the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances to the CSR.
There is no mystery here. It has all been explained many, many times, to those who actually listen and learn.
She apparently thinks that the oscillations are strictly ringdown from Q1 turning off and the inductance at the drains discharging. This is not the case. She apparently does not recognize that there are TWO simple circuits contained in her schematic. The first is Q1 which is being used as a simple switch. The second is the Q2 portion of the circuit which is configured as an oscillator.
And of course, as she believes herself qualified to even discuss electronics, she adds a little condescending tripe that only further demonstrates that she, and whatever team is behind her, have no skills whatsoever in the field of electronics.
Quote
Meanwhile we would also like to thank you for your contribution to the cause. You have set us a remarkably easy test to disprove your rather noisy dismissal of our evidence - and we trust that you'll 'enjoy the show' - so to speak. Please understand that this demonstration is ONLY for your benefit. And we trust that once you've seen the evidence that you will then be silent on this matter. But I am well used to disappointment in such things - and rather expect that you'll probably need to do a lot of hand waving - as is your wont - in order to trivialise our results. I, in turn, look forward to the entertainment THAT will offer.
Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
The fact that Q2 oscillates normally in FIG3 is in no way a "test" with regard to Q1 that proves anything about Q1.
Q1 is not turning on in FIG3 because Q1 was either defective, disconnected, or not-connected as per the schematic during the FIG3 test. There are no other possible explanations.
FIG3 should look similar to FIG5 with regard to the CSR trace depicting current flow when the gate of Q1 is made positive.
However, from the above paragraph, it looks as though she continues to state that she will indeed duplicate FIG3 with a properly functioning Q1 connected as per her schematic that demonstrates no current flow when +12volts is applied to the Q1 gate.
As this cannot be done, she apparently is promising to commit deception and/or trickery...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 17, 2013, 12:52:51 PM
After reading her recent posts, it is obvious that continued attempts to discuss anything with her regarding electronics would be fruitless, and a complete waste of time. She continues to demonstrate her unwillingness, or inability, to learn and actually understand her circuit's operation.
As she claims that she is supported by a team of intelligent people, she should be required to present at least one person, sufficiently skilled in electronics, that is willing to support her assertions and engage in dialog regarding the electronic operation of her circuit.
If her "team" actually believes that +12volts to the gate of Q1 will not cause Q1 to pass current, or that a negative voltage applied from the FG to the source terminal of Q2 will not bias Q2 partially on into a linear region of operation, or that the Q2 DC bias current cannot flow thru the FG, or that the AC currents of the Q2 oscillations cannot flow thru the intrinsic capacitances of all 5 MOSFETS's, then the onus should be upon her to present at least one knowledgable person that supports those beliefs and is willing to engage in dialog.
Until she can find even that one supporter, sufficiently skilled in electronics and willing to discuss her circuit, I have to agree with MH, this just needs to end...
PW
Yes, it needs to end. That is why this Figure 3 scopeshot is so important. She's strung it out for over two years now, ever since promising to perform tests after the March 2011 demonstration and the questions it raised. She's missed the June 1 announced demonstration, and she's given an utterly bogus excuse for missing it. She will miss the demonstration she has scheduled to occur in five days, too, I predict. If she does manage somehow to show something on Saturday, it won't be what we've been asking for, and it won't be a repeat of Figure 3, "bringing water to boil" as claimed in the paper.
How does Ainslie intend to demonstrate that all the mosfets are "in tact" before and after the making of the Figure 3 scopeshot while bringing water to boil? This is an important question. She's supposed to be doing this demonstration live, right? Am I going to wait around while she unbolts and unsolders a bunch of mosfets, somehow proves that they are OK, then solders them back up? Does she think the "transistor check" function on her DMM is going to test an IRFPG50 mosfet?
On the issue of the qualifications of the people who might be working with Ainslie: two of her alleged co-authors are supposed to be engineers of some kind. Donovan Martin and Alan Macey. But nobody has ever heard from either of these people. FuzzyTomCat has tried to contact Donovan Martin several times and I don't think he has ever gotten an answer.
@PW: yes, it is remarkable that she still repeats the same errors.
As I've said before, she thinks that mosfets can only be ON with zero resistance (she ignores the Rdss) or OFF with infinite resistance. She does not grasp the linear operation response region of a mosfet at all. Thus she does not understand that the Q2 oscillations _are_ indeed turning Q2 slightly on and slightly off at the oscillation frequency, hence passing a small amount of power to the load, as well as dissipating some power internally. (Actually since it is impossible to balance the parallel mosfets in Ainslie's circuit, only one of the Q2s will be carrying most of the oscillation current, and so only this one Q2 will generally get warm during oscillations, but even this current is small so the Q2s are never in danger.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2013, 05:22:23 PM
@PW: yes, it is remarkable that she still repeats the same errors.
As I've said before, she thinks that mosfets can only be ON with zero resistance (she ignores the Rdss) or OFF with infinite resistance. She does not grasp the linear operation response region of a mosfet at all. Thus she does not understand that the Q2 oscillations _are_ indeed turning Q2 slightly on and slightly off at the oscillation frequency, hence passing a small amount of power to the load, as well as dissipating some power internally. (Actually since it is impossible to balance the parallel mosfets in Ainslie's circuit, only one of the Q2s will be carrying most of the oscillation current, and so only this one Q2 will generally get warm during oscillations, but even this current is small so the Q2s are never in danger.)
TK,
She "thinks" a lot of things. But that does not make them true...
PW
TK,
Didn't you do a video in the past where only Q2 was installed and oscillating (i.e., with Q1 pulled)?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 17, 2013, 05:28:42 PM
TK,
Didn't you do a video in the past where only Q2 was installed and oscillating (i.e., with Q1 pulled)?
PW
Several times.
Here's the most recent one, from last week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 17, 2013, 06:17:16 PM
Several times.
Here's the most recent one, from last week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I
TK,
So, in your video, even with Q1 removed from the circuit entirely, at around 9:34, one can see that the Q2 portion of the circuit continues to oscillate. Moreover, the degree of clamping on the positive portion of the oscillation waveform on the CSR trace looks closer to FIG3 than it did when Q1 was installed.
With Q1 installed correctly and functioning properly, your waveforms look very much like FIG 5.
Point being, merely showing that the Q2 portion of the circuit continues oscillating when there is no observed current flow thru Q1 is no proof whatsoever that Q1 is functional or connected properly.
In her upcoming video, she must show that +12 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 as she now agrees that FIG3 indicates. She must also show that Q1 is connected properly as per the schematic. She must also show that during the time that +12volts is being applied to the gate of the properly connected Q1 that there is no current flow observed via the CSR trace.
Short of attempts at trickery such as using AC coupling, use of a faulty MOSFET, or connecting Q1 not as depicted in the schematic (reversing the Q1 source and drain legs, intentionally not connecting a terminal, etc), she cannot duplicate FIG3.
Applying +12 volts to the gate of a functioning Q1, connected as per the schematic, MUST turn Q1 on and produce a waveform similar to FIG5, wherein current flow is indicated by the CSR trace when a positive voltage is applied to the gate of Q1.
At least, for now, she has finally agreed that we are reading her scope capture correctly and that +12 volts is indeed being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3 and that Q1 is not turning on.
If she believes FIG3 is correct, I wonder how she would then explain the observed current flow thru Q1 in FIG5 when only +6volts or so is applied to the gate of Q1...
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 17, 2013, 01:24:33 PM
Her latest layout.
.99,
When do you expect to have your replication of her circuit up and runnig?
It would be interesting to see if there is any observed difference in the clamping of the waveform at the CSR when Q1 is/is not in the circuit as in TK's video. That may offer an additional clue as to whether Q1 is installed properly in her upcoming attempt to duplicate FIG3.
PW
Hopefully she has changed her mind about doing a "live only" demo this Saturday. Posting it on YT would allow her "evidence" to reach a much greater audience in differing time zones.
Does anyone know when the show is supposed to begin?
PW
Wouldn't it be hilarious if her heating element, which appears to be something like an RV water heater element, had a thermal limit fuse in it?
Now she's putting words into PicoWatt's mouth again. Another favourite tactic of the mendacious and willfully ignorant Ainslie: she doesn't understand a given explanation, so she makes up something that she thinks someone else said, then proceeds to twist and tangle and err along, sticking her feet further and further down her throat.
With every single post she makes, she reveals her abysmal ignorance. She does not understand the linear operation of mosfets. She thinks they are either fully ON or fully OFF and she doesn't understand that a gate signal that fluctuates around 4 volts or so will cause some conduction and will support oscillations in an amplifier that is feeding back. She does not understand how the Q2s are biased into the linear operation region or even that voltages are _relative_. Her only mental model of a mosfet is that it is a simple switch. In spite of demonstration after demonstration, explanation after explanation, she still fails to understand this simple fact. And she still believes that she can attain heat in the load without measurable current flow, even though her own data show otherwise.
How will Ainslie prove that her mosfets are "in tact" before and after the demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot, coming up in four days on June 22, live streaming over the net? She doesn't even understand _how_ they work, so how will she show that they do?
Why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? It is a vital part of the demonstration. After all, I've shown unequivocally how easy it is to make the Figure 3 scopeshot with a missing mosfet.... suppose I heat up some water, then allow the mosfet to overheat and fail. Then I show the oil temperature of my load, and show the cool (failed) mosfet and the scopeshot.... and stop there. What then? Should I write a paper? Or do I still need to demonstrate to you that my mosfet is still "in tact"? We know that I can demonstrate this in 30 seconds.... because I've shown how to do it in a video. Several times. But how is Ainslie going to do it? She doesn't know how! How can she demonstrate something she doesn't even believe in or understand ?
Quote from: picowatt on June 17, 2013, 07:09:40 PM
.99,
When do you expect to have your replication of her circuit up and runnig?
It would be interesting to see if there is any observed difference in the clamping of the waveform at the CSR when Q1 is/is not in the circuit as in TK's video. That may offer an additional clue as to whether Q1 is installed properly in her upcoming attempt to duplicate FIG3.
PW
I hope to have it running by Friday, if not sooner.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 18, 2013, 07:18:54 AM
Now she's putting words into PicoWatt's mouth again. Another favourite tactic of the mendacious and willfully ignorant Ainslie: she doesn't understand a given explanation, so she makes up something that she thinks someone else said, then proceeds to twist and tangle and err along, sticking her feet further and further down her throat.
With every single post she makes, she reveals her abysmal ignorance. She does not understand the linear operation of mosfets. She thinks they are either fully ON or fully OFF and she doesn't understand that a gate signal that fluctuates around 4 volts or so will cause some conduction and will support oscillations in an amplifier that is feeding back. She does not understand how the Q2s are biased into the linear operation region or even that voltages are _relative_. Her only mental model of a mosfet is that it is a simple switch. In spite of demonstration after demonstration, explanation after explanation, she still fails to understand this simple fact. And she still believes that she can attain heat in the load without measurable current flow, even though her own data show otherwise.
How will Ainslie prove that her mosfets are "in tact" before and after the demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot, coming up in four days on June 22, live streaming over the net? She doesn't even understand _how_ they work, so how will she show that they do?
Why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? It is a vital part of the demonstration. After all, I've shown unequivocally how easy it is to make the Figure 3 scopeshot with a missing mosfet.... suppose I heat up some water, then allow the mosfet to overheat and fail. Then I show the oil temperature of my load, and show the cool (failed) mosfet and the scopeshot.... and stop there. What then? Should I write a paper? Or do I still need to demonstrate to you that my mosfet is still "in tact"? We know that I can demonstrate this in 30 seconds.... because I've shown how to do it in a video. Several times. But how is Ainslie going to do it? She doesn't know how! How can she demonstrate something she doesn't even believe in or understand ?
TK,
I see she has bumped her demo to the 29th.
If any of the engineers she claims will be present at her upcoming demo read my response to her and then her interpretation of it, they will likely come up with an excuse to bow out. I did not bother to read her entire response, but as far as I read the nonsense she was spewing, it is more than obvious that she has issues. It is no wonder she cannot produce even one supporter willing to discuss her circuit intelligently. Although she will cling to paranoid theories involving suppression or conspiracy, deep down inside, she must realize that everyone who was ever willing to look at her technology over the years has walked away, and that the only common denominator throughout was herself.
As for testing Q1 before and after, the only way she can duplicate FIG3, that is, apply the +12 volts she has now acknowledged as "fact" in FIG3 to the gate of Q1 and show that no current flows thru Q1 via the CSR, is to commit a Mylow. Recall how he was willing to commit an outright fraud in an attempt to save his reputation or stay in the lime light.
She has painted herself into a corner regarding Q1 not turning on in FIG3. Had she actually listened to and learned from all the people that discussed her circuits with her over so many years, she would not be in the position she now finds herself.
Possibly .99 will have better luck getting thru, but I have my doubts.
PW
Ah.... somehow I missed her announcement of her latest postponement. Remember, I predicted this.
QuoteOk Guys, We're getting there. The broadcast links and whatever is required will be published on Wednesday - 17th June - here on this thread. Sadly the test 'presenter' cannot make it for the afternoon of Saturday 22nd. But he's firmed up on the date for Saturday 29th June. We need to keep it to our afternoon - our time 4.pm which equates to 10 am East coast time... I think? If this is wrong PLEASE get back to me. My advices are that America East coast is running 6 hours behind us.
Really? Wednesday, the 17th of June?
Quote
We will be showing Fig 3 from paper 1. It should be a short 1 hour demo. We will have at least 3 qualified engineers/physicists at that meeting - who are NOT related to our team. Which means that there should be not less than 6 qualified engineers there.
Let's hope so. It will be interesting to see what they all have to say. Since Ainslie is so adamant about identities, of course they will be telling us their identities and academic/industrial affiliations. Otherwise, if they don't reveal their true identities, according to Ainslie, their opinions are worthless.
QuoteAfter that test we will then show that the transistors are still in tact.
HOW WILL THIS BE DONE? I have asked this question over and over and NOBODY seems to be able to tell me. It will take some time for Ainslie to remove her transistors for testing, before and after the Figure 1 scopeshot is attempted. Will this be included in the hour allotted for the demonstration?
Quote
Typically - because our 'trolls' are largely bereft of principle - they are now demanding that we show them EVERY claim in our paper. That is NOT going to happen because we intend doing those long tests under the supervision of a FAR more principled audience - being our academics. For final proof we need to run those battery comparative analyses under their adjudication and guidance.
That's a baldfaced lie. We are asking for
the conditions claimed for the Figure 3 scopeshot to be reproduced. We already know that the rest of the claims, like batteries not discharging, are bogus!
The claims in the paper RELATING TO THE FIGURE 3 SCOPESHOT are as follows:
Six batteries supplying over 72 volts.
Small heatsink on Q1, as shown in all her photos of that apparatus.
A 160 second period with a 10 percent ON duty cycle, with the gate drive voltages as shown in the scopeshot. No fiddling! You set the apparatus and leave it alone until:
it brings 700-800 mL "water to boil".
And of course, demonstrating.... somehow..... all "in tact" mosfets, before and after the scopeshot is made.
These are the conditions claimed in the paper for the Figure 3 scopeshot. Any deviation from these conditions will indicate Ainslie's failure and/or attempts to deceive.
But really, all this is moot, because there won't be any demonstration on the 29th of June either.
QuoteSadly the test 'presenter' cannot make it for the afternoon of Saturday 22nd. But he's firmed up on the date for Saturday 29th June.
Can't Ainslie present her own work? Apparently not, since she doesn't understand basic electronics terminology or even how to operate her apparatus.
Will the test 'presenter' be the same person who 'presented' the last demonstration, from March of 2011? Where he lies to his audience over and over, twice during the first thirty seconds alone? (Gestures towards a diagram with a single mosfet and no "black" FG lead shown saying that this is the schematic, then claims that all five mosfets are in parallel....)
Ainslie has attempted to remove this lying video from the internet, to cover up the mendacity and ignorance it shows, along with the smoking gun of the use of only 4 batteries in the "high heat" second part of the demonstration..... a feature which has _never been explained_ by Ainslie, but which is clearly being done to avoid overheating and blowing the Q1 mosfet. In other words, Yet Another Lie is contained in the demo video and is perpetrated by its 'presenter'.
Ainslie has attempted to remove and suppress this mendacious video from the internet. But she has failed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k)
She has apparently resorted to either outright lies, or her ability to read and comprehend is sorely lacking:
QuoteGuys - I'm not sure that this is clear. But let me see if I can explain this. What picowat is ACKNOWLEDGING is that the current from the battery supply CAN'T move through the source leg of Q2. But he's proposing it doesn't need to. He CLAIMS that it simply bypasses that drain/source thing - and moves through the function generators terminal - and then comes OUT at the probe - which, in turn is on the GATE of Q1. Then it IGNORES the negative signal AT THAT GATE OF Q1 and continues - merrily - down to the negative terminal of the battery.
Picowatt actually states that when Q2 is turned on, current from the battery supply DOES pass thru the source of Q2 and thru the function generator.
What picowatt (two "t"'s), as well as many others, has actually "acknowledged" and stated, over and over, is the following:
Referring to the schematic in the first paper, when the function generator output is a positive voltage, Q2 is turned off, and if the function generator output is above the threshold voltage of Q1, Q1 turns on and conducts current. Current flows from the battery positive, thru Rload, thru Q1, thru the CSR, and returns to the battery negative.
When the function generator output is a negative voltage, Q1 is turned off and Q2 is turned partially on. When Q2 is turned on, DC current flow is from the battery, thru Rload, thru Q2, thru the function generator, and returns to the battery either directly or thru the CSR, depending upon whether the function generator signal common is connected to the CSR or the battery minus termnal.
Q2, configured as a common gate amplifier, is only partially turned on (biased on) by the negative voltage applied to the Q2 source terminal due to the FG's 50 ohm output impedance. Q2 is therefore biased into a region of linear operation.
When Q2 oscillates, the bulk of the AC currents flow primarily thru the intrinsic capacitances of all 5 MOSFET's (a smaller amount of AC current also passes thru the function generator).
Now, from this simplified explanation, how could anyone arrive at the nonsense she writes? Mark E., in a recent post at PESN, even drew her a nice shematic showing the DC current flow thru Q2, as has .99 and others as well. There is no mystery regarding her circuit's operation to anyone but her.
Her posts read like an act of desparation. She should simply admit the error regarding Q1 not turning on when it should in FIG3 and at least retain some degree of personal integrity and honor.
It is all becoming very sad...
PW
PW said,
QuoteShe has apparently resorted to either outright lies, or her ability to read and comprehend is sorely lacking.
These are not exclusive. She has "resorted to" outright lying many times before, AND her ability to read and comprehend "EE speak" is sorely lacking.
She does not understand that a mosfet can function as a linear amplifier! She thinks they must be ON with zero resistance (she neglects Rdss, doesn't understand what it means nor does she understand power dissipation in this resistance) or they must be OFF with infinite resistance. So how can she ever even begin to understand the oscillations in Q2s or the current paths?
She is willfully ignorant and overweeningly arrogant. Her statements prove this, because NOBODY HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE Q2 MOSFETS BEING DEGRADED IN ANY WAY. (I'm shouting for the benefit of the willfully ignorant and mendacious person who wants to pretend that we have.)
It is only the Q1 mosfet that is put in stress by her arrangement including 6 batteries at 72 volts plus (ironically indeed, because the "rejected" schematic diagram that originally appeared in the second paper, first version, would not have done so) and it is ONLY THE Q1 MOSFET's FAILURE to perform that is indicated in the Fig 3 scopeshot.
QuoteIt seems that you are proposing that our IRFPG50's have degraded to the point that they cannot pass any current coming from the battery supply source. Your evidence is based on the fact that the applied signal from the function generator is at 12 volts. Which under all other circumstances should then enable the flow of current from the battery supply. Yet we clearly do not have the flow of current during this 'on' period of the duty cycle - coming from that supply. Therefore do you propose that our MOSFETS's are no longer functional.
The question that we suggest you should be asking yourself is HOW it is possible for those transistors to pass any current at ALL - IF, as you propose - those MOSFETs have been so degraded? Because, self-evidently - there is a great deal of current passing both to and from that battery during the 'off' period of that switching cycle. We would be MOST intrigued to see your answer to this. If you take the trouble to explain it then that would be considered appropriate as we are now going to some CONSIDERABLE lengths to show you that indeed we DO what you claim is IMPOSSIBLE.
Liar. Ainslie is a sarcastic insulting ignorant liar.
Only the Q1 mosfet is in question. Picowatt has never said or implied otherwise and neither have I.
"Considerable lengths." It took me less than fifteen minutes to make my demonstration of the problem, including showing what correct and blown traces look like, and even including testing the mosfet. But all Ainslie can do is insult, whine, lie and make excuses.... and further postpone what she says is "easy" to demonstrate.
@Tinman:
I see that you have asked about mosfet types. I have tested the previous single-mosfet circuit with many mosfets; I found that the 2sk1548 worked the very best of any I tried in that circuit, much better than the IRFPG50, and it was about 1/3 the cost and was carried in stock by my local supplier. Great fast HV collapse spikes due to much cleaner switching than the PG50.
For the present circuit with 5 mosfets, I don't have any k1548s any more but I've got a handful of PG50s, and I did a long comparison using IRF830 and a shorter one using IRF530ns. The smaller mosfets have greatly reduced gate charges and so will make the circuit oscillate at a higher frequency-- and that's the only difference, as long as current and heat dissipation limits are respected. The 830s oscillated at around 4MHz, iirc, whereas the PG50s in exactly the same config (wirelengths, etc) oscillated at 1.2-1.4 MHz. I even got a version to work with 2n7000s.
The key is the long lead wires to the mosfets to make and sustain the oscs, and increased inductance in the battery wiring to increase the amplitude of the oscillations. If you use "conventional" tight layout, buswires and short jumpers, you may not be able to get spontaneous oscs at all. I didn't with my first version, with all mosfets on buswires and in a circuitboard space about the size of a business card.
@PW:
I hope you didn't miss my post about the heating element and the possibility that it might contain an overtemp thermal fuse. It's just barely possible that an RV water heater element might be designed with a bimetal thermo-fuse that will trip open when the max temp is exceeded and close again after things cool off. (Many kinds of equipment have such fuses, like microwave ovens and even my old Tek RM503 scope has one mounted to its chassis.A RV water heater element might be a very logical place to have one.)
Obviously, we need some assurance that the heater element does not have any kind of temperature-sensitive switch built into it -- or formed inadvertently somehow -- that could open its circuit when it gets really hot.
I'm not sure what an open load will do to the rest of the scope traces, though.... I'll have to check quickly to see if the idea of an open circuit at the load is even viable, given the presence of the oscillations.
Later...:
OK.... I've just tested TarBaby, and with the load disconnected it won't oscillate. So for my build, at least, the presence of the oscillations indicates that the circuit through the load is not open. So I suppose that eliminates a thermal cutoff switch as an explanation for the Ainslie Figure 3 trace.
TK,
The reason I have not responded with regard to a method for testing Q1 is that if she duplicates FIG3, it will immediately reveal that she has resorted to deception. She no longer argues that the FIG3 scope capture is being read incorrectly and agrees that +12volts is indeed being applied to the gate of Q1.
She knows that she cannot apply +12volts to the gate of a functioning Q1 connected as per her schematic without Q1 turning on and passing current. To show otherwise would require an act of deception. So why would some test of Q1 after the fact not be part of that deception as well?
I agree with your prediction that the FIG3 demo will never happen.
If she has her circuit all set up and ready to run, why doesn't she just admit there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and repeat her tests? Doing so would at least allow her to retain some degree of dignity and honor.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 18, 2013, 12:40:30 PM
@PW:
I hope you didn't miss my post about the heating element and the possibility that it might contain an overtemp thermal fuse. It's just barely possible that an RV water heater element might be designed with a bimetal thermo-fuse that will trip open when the max temp is exceeded and close again after things cool off. (Many kinds of equipment have such fuses, like microwave ovens and even my old Tek RM503 scope has one mounted to its chassis.A RV water heater element might be a very logical place to have one.)
Obviously, we need some assurance that the heater element does not have any kind of temperature-sensitive switch built into it -- or formed inadvertently somehow -- that could open its circuit when it gets really hot.
TK,
I doubt that there would be a resettable thermal fuse in the element. If that were so, the hysteresis in its response time would surely have shown up in the captures.
But, if Rload was actually being turned on and off by a thermal fuse, Q1 would not be connected "as per the schematic" anyway.
PW
"If she has her circuit all set up and ready to run, why doesn't she just admit there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and repeat her tests? Doing so would at least allow her to retain some degree of dignity and honor. "
The reason, of course, is that the claims about Fig 3 are fundamental to her "thesis" and all the rest of both papers. We've already demolished her bogus mathematics that caused her to claim that the circuit provided vastly more energy to the load than the batteries contained. The other fundamental claim is that she can produce high heat in the load without measurable current from the battery-- and the evidence for that is the Figure 3 shot and a couple more like it (that I've posted earlier but aren't in the papers.) So if the Fig 3 shot falls, so does her entire house of cards. She will have to retract both papers, and since we know she can't support any of her claims with real, proper experiments.... that will be that, for a while anyway, until she finds a new group of hopeful experimenters who haven't yet heard all her lies.
She has no dignity, no honor to retain. Just read her threads, you'll see that she has none of either.
Quote from: picowatt on June 18, 2013, 12:55:49 PM
TK,
I doubt that there would be a resettable thermal fuse in the element. If that were so, the hysteresis in its response time would surely have shown up in the captures.
But, if Rload was actually being turned on and off by a thermal fuse, Q1 would not be connected "as per the schematic" anyway.
PW
Agreed, and also I confirmed by experiment that the Q2 oscillations don't happen if the load circuit is open, at least not in my TarBaby.
Quote from: picowatt on June 18, 2013, 12:47:47 PM
TK,
The reason I have not responded with regard to a method for testing Q1 is that if she duplicates FIG3, it will immediately reveal that she has resorted to deception. She no longer argues that the FIG3 scope capture is being read incorrectly and agrees that +12volts is indeed being applied to the gate of Q1.
She knows that she cannot apply +12volts to the gate of a functioning Q1 connected as per her schematic without Q1 turning on and passing current. To show otherwise would require an act of deception. So why would some test of Q1 after the fact not be part of that deception as well?
Right.... but if she does perform a blatant deception with the production and then the testing, and if she has other "qualified engineers" there with her...... the implications of that are rather staggering. I know and agree that the Fig3 scopeshot is "impossible" under the conditions stated, but I'm willing to accept that there is a tiny chance that I'm missing something somehow or that there is some peculiarity of the equipment, or whatever. Thus I want to see the full Monty, as she has promised and as any real scientific demonstration demands: test to confirm integrity before the duplication run, and also immediately after the duplication run. And this testing should be something quick and unequivocal. Therefore, it would be "nice" to know and understand, and possibly critique, the intended method beforehand. Of course now we have another whole week to think something up, due to the most recent "postponement".
Quote
I agree with your prediction that the FIG3 demo will never happen.
If she has her circuit all set up and ready to run, why doesn't she just admit there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3 and repeat her tests? Doing so would at least allow her to retain some degree of dignity and honor.
PW
She finally did manage to pull off the demo of March 2011, so it's not impossible that she might do it again. But just like that demo, which contained obvious lies and deceptions, if she does do another one it won't be properly done and it won't resolve the issues.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 18, 2013, 01:10:33 PM
I know and agree that the Fig3 scopeshot is "impossible" under the conditions stated, but I'm willing to accept that there is a tiny chance that I'm missing something somehow or that there is some peculiarity of the equipment, or whatever.
But then, of course, one would have to ask why Q1 was operating just as it should the month prior in FIG5.
She knows that applying +12 volts to the gate of a functioning Q1, connected as per her schematic, must turn on Q1. "Even a child could understand that", as she would say.
And she has never debated that point. That mode of MOSFET operation is the only one that she somewhat understands. She has always instead argued that we are not reading the FIG3 capture correctly and that it does not show +12volts being applied to the gate of Q1. Even to the point that I finally contacted LeCroy to confirm I was indeed reading the capture correctly, and suggested that she contact LeCroy as well.
Now that she agrees as "fact", that there is indeed +12volts being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, there is no place left to go but admit to the error in FIG3 regarding Q1 not turning on as it should.
PW
That's what you think. Ainslie has shown over and over that she is willing to go far beyond any logical stopping point.
QuoteIn the final analysis - as has been pointed out - IF there was any genuine and scientific interest in our claim - then FRANKLY - even a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy.
She claims to be talking to her "team"..... and now the idea of a blown mosfet has entered her claims. Just wait.... in a couple of days, she'll be claiming that they've discovered that having a blown mosfet at Q1 will be _necessary_ for the magic to occur.
Notice how she still claims "incontrovertible proof" of her bogosity. The "incontrovertible proof" she claims to have is the bogus calculation that we have shown here many times !! And she claims that she has qualified engineers on her team. Engineers that can't even tell her how HUGE a unit a Farad is.
(At least she finally figured out that "intact" is one word in English. But how is she going to do this miraculous feat? She has no clue.)
Is a "trillionth" the same thing as "two thousand six hundred trillionths"? If you put four mosfets in parallel you wind up with 10,400 trillionths of a Farad. Is that the same as a "trillionth"? Or is it actually ten point four nanoFarads? And what does the capacity of a capacitor have to do with how much power it can transfer anyway? Nothing at all. Look at my videos showing 200 and 400 trillionths of a Farad passing the power from a flyback transformer. Look at my videos showing a 10,000 pF capacitor... chosen why?..... passing the signal and power from my Function Generator at 1.5 MHz like the cap was a straight piece of wire.
But she won't. Claim after claim of hers I've refuted in my videos, which she has promised to refute point by point but CANNOT. HEY AINSLIE ENGINEERS: you really should take a look at my videos which refute Ainslie's absurd and ignorant claims, and educate yourselves as to the true issues.
QuoteMeanwhile - here's the consensus. Our evidence is that we can generate EXTRAORDINARY gains from harvesting back, or counter electromotive force. This advantage has been grossly overlooked. And the evidence that we measure is absolutely NOT permissible under the strange and varied reasons that have been put forward by them. From what was discussed - and I'm open to correction - but I believe that the capacitance in those MOSFETs is measured in the picofarad range. Which is MINUTE. One trillionth of a farad? Is that right? It's something like that. Way too small to account for that rather robust oscillation - no matter WHAT is assumed to be amplification - and no matter how this is proposed to take place. In the final analysis - as has been pointed out - IF there was any genuine and scientific interest in our claim - then FRANKLY - even a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy. It should not be DISMISSED as reasons to also dismiss the claim. And our claims PERSIST. Especially as it relates to our claims detailed in Figure 3 PAPER 1. We have the incontrovertible and repeated proof that there is MORE energy being returned to the battery supply than was EVER delivered. AND - more to the point - we will show that our MOSFETs are INTACT after than demonstration. And IF as is now being intimated - we are falsifying that data - then there are an AWFUL LOT OF US involved in this fraud. That would be reckless INDEED.
The amount of capacitance in the IRFPG50 is not at all an insignificant amount. This was discussed long ago. Most high voltage MOSFET's have inherently large capacitances. And though typically measured in picofarads, with regard to the IRFPG50 they are in the _thousands_ of picofarads.
The 4 Q2 MOSFETs in parallel have a combined Ciss that varies from 10,000pF to 28,000pF as the drain to source voltage varies. That represents a very significant reactance at frequencies between 1 and 3MHz for current to flow thru. This is why the bulk of the AC currents during the Q2 oscillations flow thru the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances, as the reactance of the MOSFET capacitances is typically much lower than the 50 ohms of the function generator at the oscillation frequency. For example, at 1.5MHz, the reactance of the lower 10,000pF value is only 10.6 ohms. As well, the Ciss of Q1 is also in parallel with and must be added to the Q2 capacitances. As the voltage at the drains of the MOSFET's approaches zero during the Q2 oscillations, the value of the combined MOSFET capacitances rapidly increases and can readily approach 30,000pF or more, which is no small amount.
As far as her now seeming to say that her circuit shows merit regardless of whether Q1 was functioning or not in FIG3, I attempted long ago to suggest that as an out. I specifically stated that having Q1 not functioning in FIG3 might, in the end, prove serendipitous (and then she bit my head off for suggesting that, and all the love was lost...). Had she repeated her tests back then, with and without Q1 installed, she would have known by now whether this was true or not.
Because Q1 was not functioning properly during the tests related to FIG3, retractions and/or corrections are in order. If she truly believes in her technology, she would admit the error, repeat her tests, and collect new data.
With regard to her negative power measurement, I am sure .99's upcoming replication will enlighten us even further than he already has on that subject.
PW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAfK3WxMoo)
A video I posted nearly a year ago.
Note how many of Ainslie's claims and misconceptions are debunked in this video.
The function generator acts as a power source. She has claimed that is impossible.
The function generator can be placed in series with a battery and "pass current from its terminal to its probe from an external battery to a load." Again, impossible according to Ainslie.
The 10000 trillionths of a Farad capacitor... chosen because it approximates the value of some paralleled IRFPG50s.... passes current with only a small attenuation at 1.5 MHz. Ainslie calls this impossible.
And further: The functioning of the AC vs. DC coupling feature of oscilloscopes is explained and illustrated.
PW said,
QuoteWith regard to her negative power measurement, I am sure .99's upcoming replication will enlighten us even further than he already has on the subject.
I'm looking forward to hearing about .99's testing too, but I'm wondering why this measurement is still even an issue. Tar Baby reproduced it well over a year ago, the Altoid pocket demonstrator was specifically designed by .99 to reproduce it and it does so on demand, and both of them reproduce it when running solely on capacitors. (Which, by the way, demolishes Yet Another absurd assertion of Ainslie's: that there is something special about batteries that capacitors don't share. She hasn't explained why capacitors can make the IDENTICAL negative power measurement, but still not "work". Because when she's confronted by inconsistencies like that she just insults someone and repeats the same silly claims only louder.)
And if Ainslie tested her circuit using an appropriately sized capacitor bank she will find the identical negative power waveforms she's getting now, until the caps run down. The ONLY difference between capacitors and batteries in her circuit is that you cannot reasonably make a cap bank big enough to run for more than a few minutes. In the Ainslie circuit, caps run down, and batteries do too, and they do it at the same _current_, that is, charge per time. There is no other difference, and I can prove it (and have already done so, in another video that she won't watch.) Ainslie claims there is a difference.... but can prove nothing.
I have to jump in to point this out.
Guess who:
QuoteGuys, I've spent an exhausting afternoon/evening in discussion with the team. It is a source of continual comfort that I have them 'at my back' so to speak. And more to the point - that I can count on their input when and as required. For the record - we have a policy in place. They do not engage in these forums. They're professionals and - to a man - rely on their skills to earn their living. It would be suicidal to those interests for any of them to come forward on these forums and enter into a discussion with the likes of picowat et al. Their aggression is too untrammeled - too unprofessional and WAY TOO UNSCIENTIFIC to merit the risk of engagement. They'd be 'sullied' by association.
Oh my God the sleaze factor is so gross. How things can get so topsy-turvy in the creepy little world of Rosie Posie is beyond me. I have seen her trash good skilled people over and over again. It's simply disgusting.
Then we have a kind of concession juxtaposed with Club Wackadoo oozing more woo:
Quoteeven a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy.
And this woman claims that she has a "team" behind her backing her up, "They're professionals and - to a man - rely on their skills to earn their living."
Well, I hope that they are reading here. I hope over the next few weeks this nonsense gets
swatted like a bug and never comes back. I am so sick of it.
MileHigh
Quoting Genesis (the musical group):
There's something solid forming in the air,
The wall of death is lowered in Times Square.
No-one seems to care,
They carry on as if nothing was there.
The wind is blowing harder now,
Blowing dust into my eyes.
The dust settles on my skin,
Making a crust I cannot move in
And I'm hovering like a fly............. waiting for the windshield on the freeway.
Here are some real numbers:
Frequency of oscillations in the NERD circuit: around 1.43 MHz
reference: Ainslie Paper 1, Figure 4
Intrinsic input capacitance of a _single_ IRFPG50 mosfet: 2800 pF to well over 4000 pF depending on D-S voltage, but at Ainslie voltages 2800 pF
reference: IRFPG50 data sheet, Figure 5: Typical Capacitance vs. Drain-to-Source voltage
Capacitances in parallel _add_, so 4 mosfets in parallel could easily have 16000 pF, or 16nF, or 0.016 uF, input capacitance or even more if the supply voltage is low, but at the Ainslie voltages it will be 2800 pF x 4 or a little over 11000 pF.
reference: any bright tenth-grader
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/capacitor/cap_6.html (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/capacitor/cap_6.html)
Quote from: MileHigh on June 18, 2013, 08:00:12 PM
I have to jump in to point this out.
Guess who:
Oh my God the sleaze factor is so gross. How things can get so topsy-turvy in the creepy little world of Rosie Posie is beyond me. I have seen her trash good skilled people over and over again. It's simply disgusting.
Then we have a kind of concession juxtaposed with Club Wackadoo oozing more woo:
Quoteeven a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy.
And this woman claims that she has a "team" behind her backing her up, "They're professionals and - to a man - rely on their skills to earn their living."
She's apparently amazed that people actually do earn their living by relying on their skills, rather than by sitting on their asses spouting ignorant BS all day like she does.
Quote
Well, I hope that they are reading here. I hope over the next few weeks this nonsense gets swatted like a bug and never comes back. I am so sick of it.
Unlikely.... non-existent people don't read forums or blogs, they are too busy relying on their skills to earn a living.
Quote
MileHigh
Quoting Genesis (the musical group):
There's something solid forming in the air,
The wall of death is lowered in Times Square.
No-one seems to care,
They carry on as if nothing was there.
The wind is blowing harder now,
Blowing dust into my eyes.
The dust settles on my skin,
Making a crust I cannot move in
And I'm hovering like a fly............. waiting for the windshield on the freeway.
Where does she find these "professionals" who "to a man - rely on their skills to earn their living"? Could anyone else find a single knowledgeable person who could read her daft manuscripts and not see all the problems, even without knowing the history and the "back story" told in her blog and forum posts?
It's hilarious the way she demands to know personal identities of people like me, PW and so on, when she's so afraid of anyone finding out who "her professionals" are.
She still cannot produce a single qualified individual to stand beside her and state that her experimental results, like Figure 3, are correct and valid.
------------------------------------
"A Joule is a Watt, the terms are interchangeable."
"There is no such animal as inductive reactance."
"Even a blown MOSFET at Q1 should be investigated as a possible source of energy." -- Rosemary Ainslie
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 18, 2013, 08:51:04 PM
Here are some real numbers:
Frequency of oscillations in the NERD circuit: around 1.43 MHz
reference: Ainslie Paper 1, Figure 4
Intrinsic input capacitance of a _single_ IRFPG50 mosfet: 2800 pF to well over 4000 pF depending on D-S voltage, but at Ainslie voltages 2800 pF
reference: IRFPG50 data sheet, Figure 5: Typical Capacitance vs. Drain-to-Source voltage
Capacitances in parallel _add_, so 4 mosfets in parallel could easily have 16000 pF, or 16nF, or 0.016 uF, input capacitance or even more if the supply voltage is low, but at the Ainslie voltages it will be 2800 pF x 4 or a little over 11000 pF.
reference: any bright tenth-grader
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/capacitor/cap_6.html (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/capacitor/cap_6.html)
TK,
Keep in mind that the 1.43MHz you cite is merely the trigger frequency. The waveforms are not pure sine waves and therefore contain additional harmonics. This was brought up when the proper correction factors for the CSR inductance were being discussed. Recall that I mentioned that she could switch her scope to an FFT display of her waveforms to show their true frequency content when she scoffed at the idea that there was energy contained within the waveforms out to several megacycles or more.
Also keep in mind that the MOSFET capacitances are dynamic and vary with Vds. When Vds approaches zero during the oscillations,which it does, the MOSFET capacitances increase dramatically. As well, when Vgs is at its greatest, the MOSFET capacitances are at their lowest.
The values you cite are likely a fair average. But just as your video and the math involved shows, there is a sufficiently low impedance path through the MOSFET capacitances at the frequencies involved to pass the observed AC current.
PW
Have finished the build and ran a few preliminary tests. Will post results over the next several days.
Here are a few pics of the setup. It ain't pretty, but that's what makes it work so good. :P
Quote from: poynt99 on June 18, 2013, 10:02:16 PM
Have finished the build and ran a few preliminary tests. Will post results over the next several days.
Here are a few pics of the setup. It ain't pretty, but that's what makes it work so good. :P
Looking good. I can still smell the "new" on your scope!
PW
Yes, very nice indeed.
But.... with only one Q2 you have, of course, only 1/4 the total Ciss capacitance, so your oscillation frequency (the fundamental or "base" frequency, thanks PW) will likely be a bit higher than Ainslie's.
Also... with both your Q1 and Q2 on the same heatsink, it will be more difficult for you to monitor the mosfet temperatures to see, for example, that in the high heat mode of the conditions leading up to the Figure 3 failure, the Q1 mosfet heats rapidly and the Q2 heats much less.
What kind of container are you going to use when you "bring water to boil"? And ..... How Are You Going To Demonstrate that your mosfets are still completely functional after you reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot? ;)
Your pulse generator is worth more than my house. Or at least it was when it was new. And your scope is worth more than my car and my housemate's car combined. :-[
ETA: I see that the 8161A has an output of -5 v to +5 v. Or is that an 8160A? How do you intend to manage the offset range that Ainslie's circuit requires?
You've got Ainslie all hot and excited now, "poynty poynt". But tell me something, please..... not to detract from your present work of course but other than your use of fewer mosfets and a digital scope, just how exactly is your present construction different from the work I did with Tar Baby over the past two years? What will you be able to do with it that I haven't already done, and demonstrated on a video? Please tell me, so I can try to keep up. I have Tar Baby set up on my bench right now, just waiting for something new to do with it.
Oh.... yes.... I see now. Your batteries are 7 A-H and mine are only 5. And you are using a pulse generator instead of a function generator. Well, I do have the DP-101.....
:-[
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 19, 2013, 12:30:42 AM
ETA: I see that the 8161A has an output of -5 v to +5 v. Or is that an 8160A? How do you intend to manage the offset range that Ainslie's circuit requires?
I have a few 8160A's. The output spec is into 50 Ohms, so the output is actually +/- 10V.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2013, 08:55:25 AM
I have a few 8160A's. The output spec is into 50 Ohms, so the output is actually +/- 10V.
That's good..... you may need them. Because it is possible (just barely) to experience a failure mode involving the Q2(s) that will pop the final output stage of your generator. Mark E has warned about this in his circuit analysis, and both Ainslie and I have experienced it. I was able to repair the discrete components in the output of my F43, and Ainslie simply replaced the cheapo FG that she was using. I've not seen the inside of an 8160A but other HP instruments of that vintage are.... shall we say..... rather tightly constructed inside.
Have you managed the negative-going integral yet?
(Scopeshot below is unrelated to the failure mode)
With a 38V supply, I am not too concerned, as the output devices should tolerate a dead short of Q2 in such case. However, I am concerned to go higher, and therefore plan on building an external drive to buffer the 8160A.
.99,
TK's warning about a Q2 failure damaging your pulse generator's output is a valid one. As well, a stray cliplead inadvertantly contacting the drain or +rail could do similar damage. You might want to at least slip a piece of heat shrink over that 'gator clip on the FG out lead.
A couple of back to back 10V zeners directly across the PG output and a 100-150ma inline fuse between the PG output and circuit would offer some degree of protection. At the very least, even without the zeners, the use of the inline fuse at the PG output might be better than nothing!
Using that very nice PG in this application is kind of like using a sports car to haul wood...
It appears your Q1 is turning on and passing current similar to FIG5. Hopefully it will be OK with TK to just remove Q1 or swap its gate and source leads to duplicate FIG3, as opposed to actually having to blow a MOSFET!
However, I am assuming your primary investigation is with regard to the neg pwr measurement.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2013, 11:58:02 AM
With a 38V supply, I am not too concerned, as the output devices should tolerate a dead short of Q2 in such case. However, I am concerned to go higher, and therefore plan on building an external drive to buffer the 8160A.
.99,
I would not count on the 8160A being able to handle a Q2 short at 38V.
The buffer is a good idea but sounds like a bit more work. No old FG's laying around?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2013, 12:27:57 PM
.99,
I would not count on the 8160A being able to handle a Q2 short at 38V.
The buffer is a good idea but sounds like a bit more work. No old FG's laying around?
PW
I don't have anything cheap and/or old that has duty cycle adjust.
I'll be looking at a whole lot more than just the negative battery power.
@.99:
Ainslie said, on the 3rd of June, sixteen days ago:
QuoteAnd while you're at it PLEASE, make that waveform for our 'ickle pickle'. I'll post it hereunder. It's no good my demonstrating this - even in a live broadcast. He'll somehow find cause to contradict it. And it's very easy to replicate. If you struggle - then get hold of me. I'll guide you through the required settings. But they're simple enough.
As I've demonstrated, it is indeed very easy to replicate.
But not in the way she has claimed. That's a bit more of a struggle. Has she guided you through the required settings yet?
After all, they are simple enough. The only settings available are on the Function Generator (once you've got your 72 volt source hooked up.) The period of 160 seconds with a 10 percent duty cycle is very plain to see. I don't know if the 8160A can match that but I've got the manual here so I'll check.
All that's left is the FG amplitude and offset settings. It should be possible to specify those in a sentence or two, or a scopetrace of the FG alone with nothing else hooked up.
On second thought, I think a 250mA fuse will be a lot easier.
TK, I'm not particularly interested in performing the long period tests, so I won't be pursuing that, at least not right now.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2013, 02:33:48 PM
On second thought, I think a 250mA fuse will be a lot easier.
TK, I'm not particularly interested in performing the long period tests, so I won't be pursuing that, at least not right now.
.99,
At -10volts open circuit, you are probably only going to see 120-150ma of DC current thru Q2, which is why I suggested a 150ma fuse. I'd size the fuse with the smallest ma. rating you can reliably get away with (fast blow of course).
If you have a couple 10-15volt zeners, a pair of them in series "back to back" at the PG output would help to clamp any overvoltage until the fuse blows or during the fuses brief arc currents.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2013, 02:33:48 PM
On second thought, I think a 250mA fuse will be a lot easier.
TK, I'm not particularly interested in performing the long period tests, so I won't be pursuing that, at least not right now.
By "the long period tests" you can only mean the Figure 3 scopeshot. You aren't interested in pursuing that? Not even after Ainslie has offered to guide you through the settings necessary?
I am flabbergasted. If anyone could reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot, with or without Ainslie's help, under the conditions claimed, that would be a highly significant result, much more important than a "measured negative wattage" which we already know the reason for and the cure for.
But you aren't particularly interested. At least not right now. It would take you all of five minutes, probably, with her "guiding you through" the settings necessary.
OK, fine, whatever.
She's offered to do it live for Sterling. On Skype for Mark Dansie. On June 1st, then on June 22nd, and now on June 29 --- right. She's offered to show you how, and it's supposed to be _easy_. But nobody will actually do it or have her show it to them. Are you just teasing me, trying to string this all out, or is there some other reason why you all are avoiding producing the PROOF that Ainslie is either FOS as I maintain, or the greatest inventor since Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla combined........
Oh... by the way, this is what I get when I click on the link she provided for the demo on the 29th. Do you suppose I'll be on the invited guest list?
It's really rather important for .99 to reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot under Ainslie's instruction.
If she does it somehow, during the upcoming promised demonstration, she is right about one thing: it will be hard for anyone to believe her, since she's engaged in deliberate, blatant, and severe deception in the past (remember the month-long discussion, over 400 forum posts, when she kept hidden the true schematic used in the March 2011 demo and even expressed the desire to .99 that it remain hidden even longer).
However, we have no such doubts about .99's integrity or skills or knowledge. Therefore, Ainslie should strive with all possible effort to show .99 the settings (while he's still in her good graces) and have _him_ reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot (including all of the conditions attached to it). That will be much more believable by everyone concerned than any "live" demo that Ainslie herself undertakes.
As far as I am concerned, this is the very most important test that could possibly be performed with any replication of Ainslie's device. Why? Because all the rest has already been done, many times, by everyone who has actually built the circuit, and there is no new knowledge to be gained _other than_ how to make the Fig. 3 scopeshot as Ainslie claimed-- or to have her admit that it's impossible. And of course that would require that she retract her claims and her papers.
If .99 thinks that adopting a slow and patient pedagogical approach is worthwhile for some reason...... I can only remind him of the last two years of discussion between him and her. It is clearly evident, just from her last few posts, that absolutely no progress has been made in explaining to her the operation of her circuit, and one big key to this is her failure to understand or even accept something that is so basic we can't even believe she misses it: the linear operation region of the mosfet, where it can act as an amplifier and produce classical feedback oscillations.
I have some pearls of wisdom. Let Poynt do exactly what he wants to do exactly when he wants to do it. He built the circuit and he will set up the testing and it will "flow" as per his wishes. Let him go into "The Zone" and do his thing. It's a creative and technical process and let him enjoy it. I think lots of us have been there and know how it feels.
No backseat driving, you know he is going to present good clear and professional data.
Any period can be used to demonstrate Fig. 3, but I have no intention of blowing any MOSFETs so I won't let it burn at 72V for x number of minutes. At that range of period, there's almost no need for any switching; just tie the Gate to +12V and wait till it pops.
I showed Fig. 3 in the simulation, and I didn't use a "minutes" period. Same can be done on the bench. The point in my mind for that test is to determine whether it is possible to achieve that wave form with a functioning and properly-connected Q1. One doesn't need a "minutes" period to do that.
I know TK you want to prove that Q1 is going to pop under such conditions and that the wave forms of Fig. 3 will appear by default. But I'm not interested in pushing the tests to the point of destruction. I'll try to show Fig. 3 with a much shorter period and a 10% duty cycle.
At some point later I might just connect the Gate to +12V with a 72V supply and monitor the FET temperature. I'll let it get to maybe 120ºC or so then stop the test (unless it pops before that point).
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2013, 03:10:15 PM
.99,
At -10volts open circuit, you are probably only going to see 120-150ma of DC current thru Q2, which is why I suggested a 150ma fuse. I'd size the fuse with the smallest ma. rating you can reliably get away with (fast blow of course).
If you have a couple 10-15volt zeners, a pair of them in series "back to back" at the PG output would help to clamp any overvoltage until the fuse blows or during the fuses brief arc currents.
PW
PW, 10V into 50 Ohms is 200mA, so we know it can handle that forever. I'm quite sure it will handle 250mA as well without a problem. The other thing to remember is that the FG current when connected in the circuit can be well over 200mA. At least that is what I see in the sims.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2013, 07:44:22 PM
PW, 10V into 50 Ohms is 200mA, so we know it can handle that forever. I'm quite sure it will handle 250mA as well without a problem. The other thing to remember is that the FG current when connected in the circuit can be well over 200mA. At least that is what I see in the sims.
.99,
I was using 3.5V to 4V as Vgs(on). At the lower 3.5V:
(10-3.5)/50=130ma
In any event, I would be as much or moreso concerned about an overvoltage spike as I would be an overcurrent event.
Looking forward to your tests!
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2013, 07:37:04 PM
Any period can be used to demonstrate Fig. 3, but I have no intention of blowing any MOSFETs so I won't let it burn at 72V for x number of minutes. At that range of period, there's almost no need for any switching; just tie the Gate to +12V and wait till it pops.
I showed Fig. 3 in the simulation, and I didn't use a "minutes" period. Same can be done on the bench. The point in my mind for that test is to determine whether it is possible to achieve that wave form with a functioning and properly-connected Q1. One doesn't need a "minutes" period to do that.
I know TK you want to prove that Q1 is going to pop under such conditions and that the wave forms of Fig. 3 will appear by default. But I'm not interested in pushing the tests to the point of destruction. I'll try to show Fig. 3 with a much shorter period and a 10% duty cycle.
Yes, that's right, because Ainslie has claimed that it won't even get warm, and every one of her bogus claims needs to be refuted whenever possible.
But fine, of course it is possible to make the waveform at shorter periods. I've posted Ainslie's scopeshots that show it, and.... it appears that you mean.... you'll do the same thing I did, in my last 2 videos, which is to show both the Figure 5 traces (current flowing in a working mosfet) and the Figure 3 traces when the Q1 is pulled, at another "usual" operating frequency of around 1 or 1.5 kHz. Plus as a bonus I also showed how to test the mosfets quickly afterwards. The long period is, as you say, to show that the Q1 mosfet will indeed heat significantly (as long as it is actually working). If you are happy to acknowledge that without actually testing it, that is fine with me. But will Ainslie agree with that and also then acknowledge the same thing? I doubt it.
Quote
At some point later I might just connect the Gate to +12V with a 72V supply and monitor the FET temperature. I'll let it get to maybe 120ºC or so then stop the test (unless it pops before that point).
Are you going to "bring water to boil" while duplicating the Figure 3 scopeshot, or do you agree that that is also impossible and not worth demonstrating.... or do you have some other opinion about that?
@MileHigh: When I was testing Tar Baby, people made all kinds of suggestions to me. Remember?
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2013, 08:48:15 PM
.99,
I was using 3.5V to 4V as Vgs(on). At the lower 3.5V:
(10-3.5)/50=130ma
PW
I'm curious why I would need to protect it to a level well below its output capability? It might just start blowing fuses left and right.
But what circuit is she actually using? Is .99 even working with the right circuit?
QuoteThanks for this Poynty. It's not quite right because that waveform hardly varies from yours and we have all those FETs paralleled. The math here is just WAY beyond me. But it's all going to be very well referenced in that demo. What I DO know is that there's very little variation to the amplitude of that waveform regardless of the input. This speaks to the fact that it's some property in the FET's that organises that oscillation - whatever it's cause. BUT. In the final analysis - it's like picowat's claim that the FET is blown. So what? It promotes efficiencies.
You must always remember that we duplicate that waveform from a single supply and without the use of the function generator. This is the proof that there's no alternate power supply to the circuit - needed for the oscillation. In the final analysis we're probably taking a first look at the real benefit behind those oscillations.
Not with the circuit she claims to be using. As we know, for the oscillations to happen there has to be a source of negative bias current. This can indeed come from the running batteries.... but requires additional circuitry, none of which Ainslie has ever posted.
But I have.
"So What?"
Do you see? She is now preparing to admit that the Q1 is indeed failed in the Figure 3 scopeshot... but she is claiming THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2013, 08:54:50 PM
I'm curious why I would need to protect it to a level well below its output capability?
.99,
Is the PG spec'ed to drive the ouput shorted to ground indefinitely at that 10volt level or is it only spec'ed into a 50R load?
I would want a fault to blow the fuse as quickly as possible to limit voltage rise as well as current.
As I added in my previous post, I would be as much or moreso concerned about overvoltage spikes than overcurrent. Even the fuse arc voltage would concern me.
Hi speed output designs (fast rise times) of that era (Tek gear at least) were often a bit fragile concerning overvoltages. I have not seen your HP's schematic/manual, but I know it is often a pain when any of my Tek gear goes down regarding finding parts or crossing to newer ones (and Tek liked using custom hybrids). So if I was using one of my older Tek PG's or FG's to test this circuit, I'd want to do as much to protect it as possible. I would also check the output section to see what the wattage on the internal 50R is and take a quick look at the output devices thermal management setup (heatsinks).
If you have the schematic for your HP, you could look at the output circuit and see if there are two diodes from the output to the supply rails to clamp overvoltages. This is common on lower speed designs, but often omitted on fast rise time circuits due to their capacitance slowing things down a few ns. If the diodes are there, you'll likely be OK with just a fuse. If not, I'd add the zeners I suggested. I'd mount the zeners and the fuse in the smallest diecast Bud box (abut 1.5X1.5X1") with a BNC mounted at each end and use a double ended BNC adapter to plug the box directly into the PG output (to minimize inductance between the zener clamps/fuse and the PG output).
Either way, you'll be better off with just a 250ma fuse than no fuse! Just take your time, insulate your PG connections and the supply rail connections reasonably to minimize accidental contacts, and keep an eye on device temps.
Looking forward to seeing your test results!
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 19, 2013, 08:59:06 PM
"So What?"
Do you see? She is now preparing to admit that the Q1 is indeed failed in the Figure 3 scopeshot... but she is claiming THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER.
What really matters is how long it has taken her to even come close to admitting that there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3. Her team of "engineers" should have been able to recognize this immediately, particularly when it was first brought to her attention a very long time ago. She should have immediately redone her tests and retracted/corrected her papers with the new data.
As well, the time wasted attempting to teach her how to read her scopes and her schematic, her constant argumentative attitude and misquotes, and her subsequent character assassanations matter.
If all her new demo is going to show is how easy it is to produce the neg mean pwr figure, or produce oscillations, I have little interest in watching it. The fact that the oscillations and neg pwr measurement can be produced has never been in dispute and both .99's simulations and TK's replications have readily confirmed this.
If she was going to show how easy it is to apply +12volts to the gate of Q1 and not have Q1 flow any current, that would be quite interesting, as the challenge would then be to discover the required trickery used to do so.
I am, however, quite interested to watch .99's work as his time permits.
PW
PW,
This model at least has a current output (common base) amplifier, not voltage. So the 50 Ohms looking back into the output port is a resistor to ground, not in series.
Since it is a current output, surely the generator can tolerate a dead short on its output, otherwise it wouldn't be worth a damn to the professionals using it. Any FG for that matter that can not tolerate a dead short indefinitely at full output should be tossed in the garbage imo.
It does have output voltage protection as well. They call it "Excessive Voltage Protection" using a few diodes and a transistor for each half.
I have some 15V TVS diodes at work; I will install them as well as the 250mA fuse as a precaution.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2013, 10:32:57 PM
PW,
This model at least has a current output (common base) amplifier, not voltage. So the 50 Ohms looking back into the output port is a resistor to ground, not in series.
Since it is a current output, surely the generator can tolerate a dead short on its output, otherwise it wouldn't be worth a damn to the professionals using it. Any FG for that matter that can not tolerate a dead short indefinitely at full output should be tossed in the garbage imo.
It does have output voltage protection as well. They call it "Excessive Voltage Protection" using a few diodes and a transistor for each half.
I have some 15V TVS diodes at work; I will install them as well as the 250mA fuse as a precaution.
.99,
As it states that it has "EVP", you'd likely be fine with just a fuse, but the TVS diodes might add a bit more protection.
Looking forward to seeing your experiments...
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 19, 2013, 10:32:57 PM
PW,
This model at least has a current output (common base) amplifier, not voltage. So the 50 Ohms looking back into the output port is a resistor to ground, not in series.
Since it is a current output, surely the generator can tolerate a dead short on its output, otherwise it wouldn't be worth a damn to the professionals using it. Any FG for that matter that can not tolerate a dead short indefinitely at full output should be tossed in the garbage imo.
It does have output voltage protection as well. They call it "Excessive Voltage Protection" using a few diodes and a transistor for each half.
I have some 15V TVS diodes at work; I will install them as well as the 250mA fuse as a precaution.
.99,
If your PG does not have a 50R in series with its output what is limiting the Q2 current when you apply the PG's open circuit -10V to the Q2 source?
With -10V at the source, Q2 would turn fully on. In a traditional FG wth a series 50R and an open curcuit voltage of -10V, the 50R and Vgs(on) determines the Q2 bias current. If there was no 50R in the FG, Q2 would attempt to turn fully on and current would be limited by Rload, RDSon, and the FG's output stage output impedance (until its output likely popped).
I'll see if I can dig up an 8160A manual when I have the time.
Anyone have a link?
PW
Just whose circuit is it anyway? It appears more and more that Ainslie doesn't know how to operate her own apparatus, she can't explain the circuit and not only that... .she doesn't even know the actual operating parameters. Look at her latest.
QuoteHere's the problem. We show a 12 volt applied at the gate when the coupling is DC. And I'm not sure that this setting is correct. That's what I've tried to explain before when I said that voltage relates to that coupling. But right now the apparatus is with a highly skilled member of our team and he's going to show the zero relationship throughout the whole circuit. Frankly I don't think we ever apply more than 6 volts ... IF. But nor am I competent to prove this. What I do know is that MANY really skilled people - INCLUDING academics - have never turned at hair at this fact. They're all skilled. And YET? It seems to entirely MONOPOLISE picowat's attention. In truth it was an academic who SHOWED me that the 'off set' could entirely restrict the flow from the battery supply. I assumed that this fact was well known. NOR has there been ANY objection from any of the reviewers - on this point. IF it were impossible then I'm reasonably sure that the IEEE reviewers would have thrown that document back at us.
What is she talking about in that last bit? The IEEE editors rejected her submission every time she submitted it.
Google is your friend.
http://www.ko4bb.com/Manuals/11%29_Stuff_Not_Sorted/4_Miscelaneous/PULSE/8160/8160Aopm.pdf (http://www.ko4bb.com/Manuals/11%29_Stuff_Not_Sorted/4_Miscelaneous/PULSE/8160/8160Aopm.pdf)
http://www.ko4bb.com/Manuals/11%29_Stuff_Not_Sorted/4_Miscelaneous/PULSE/8160/8160AsmV1.pdf
And please let's not lose sight of the claim. Ainslie's claim is that she can produce high heat in the load, including "bringing water to boil", using the circuit operating as shown in Figure 3 or other similar scopeshots that show no current in Q1 even though it is receiving enough gate drive to turn on.
Simply reproducing the shot isn't enough! I did that already! It must be shown that the circuit does what she says it does, when it's operating like that, regardless of the reason!
I say that the mosfet is inoperative for some reason, probably blown open due to heat stress. But as Ainslie says.... that doesn't matter, IF it can be shown to be a "benefit" which results in more heat at the load than there should be. So any test reproducing that scopeshot has also got to reproduce, or attempt to reproduce, the high load heat, the "steam evident", the tiny bubbles, the "bringing water to boil" -- all the claims about that condition that are listed in the paper. If those _effects_ cannot be produced with the Figure 3 -type scopetraces NO MATTER HOW THE TRACES WERE MADE.... then once again, the claims in the paper are bogus and must be retracted.
Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2013, 11:36:57 PM
.99,
If your PG does not have a 50R in series with its output what is limiting the Q2 current when you apply the PG's open circuit -10V to the Q2 source?
With -10V at the source, Q2 would turn fully on. In a traditional FG wth a series 50R and an open curcuit voltage of -10V, the 50R and Vgs(on) determines the Q2 bias current. If there was no 50R in the FG, Q2 would attempt to turn fully on and current would be limited by Rload, RDSon, and the FG's output stage output impedance (until its output likely popped).
I'll see if I can dig up an 8160A manual when I have the time.
Anyone have a link?
PW
PW,
It is a current output, so for a setting of plus or minus 10V, the current is limited to 200mA. If you attach a 50 Ohm load across the PG, the output voltage will drop in half, and the output current (from the transistors) will still be 200mA. So the maximum current that can be contributed by the PG would be 200mA.
Now if you tie the PG output to +72V, there would be 1.44A, +/- 200mA flowing through its internal 50 Ohm resistor (but at least it won't flow through the output transistors). The EVP circuit however should quickly detect the over voltage and disconnect the PG output.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 20, 2013, 12:10:15 AM
PW,
It is a current output, so for a setting of plus or minus 10V, the current is limited to 200mA. If you attach a 50 Ohm load across the PG, the output voltage will drop in half, and the output current (from the transistors) will still be 200mA. So the maximum current that can be contributed by the PG would be 200mA.
Now if you tie the PG output to +72V, there would be 1.44A, +/- 200mA flowing through its internal 50 Ohm resistor (but at least it won't flow through the output transistors). The EVP circuit however should quickly detect the over voltage and disconnect the PG output.
.99,
Thanks, I see that from the manual/schematics. (Thanks for the links TK)
So, if the PG output were to be set to a fixed negative voltage, Q2 is biased on and there is a 50R from the Q2 source to BATT- (or the CSR), with a highly compliant current source in parallel with the 50R whose current is determined by the setting of the PG's output amplitude. I wonder what effect, if any, this might have on Q2's AC performance over simply having a 50R at its source...
PW
Now she's squawking that her papers weren't rejected, every time she submitted them to IEEE journals. If her papers haven't been rejected.... then one simply must ask two questions:
1. Why did she say that they were? (Answer: because they were REJECTED.)
2. Where are the IEEE journals that contain the non-rejected papers? (Answer: Nowhere... because they WERE REJECTED.)
Some items of interest:
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2013, 01:57:29 AM
Now she's squawking that her papers weren't rejected, every time she submitted them to IEEE journals. If her papers haven't been rejected.... then one simply must ask two questions:
1. Why did she say that they were? (Answer: because they were REJECTED.)
2. Where are the IEEE journals that contain the non-rejected papers? (Answer: Nowhere... because they WERE REJECTED.)
Some items of interest:
TK,
Honestly, I can't make any sense from anything she has written lately. Surely she could at least have one of her "engineers" put together a coherent paragraph explaining how Q1 in FIG3 can have +12 volts applied to its gate and not cause current to flow thru the CSR and post it, if that is truly what she believes. No names needed, just a coherent paragraph or two.
Other than that, I see it is just business as usual with her insulting overtones.
It is not my fault there is an error in FIG3, yet it seems she only wants to shoot the messenger instead of actually addressing the issue. And that has been the case from the beginning.
I also recall the time when she was a real stickler with regard to spelling...
PW
And again, for the record, I have never claimed that Q1 _must_ be damaged. That is only but one possibllity. During the capture of FIG3, Q1 was either damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic. Those are the only three possible reasons for Q1 not turning on as it should in FIG3 that can be determined by looking only at FIG3 and the schematic. As she only quotes the damaged scenario, possibly she knows which of the three is the correct one.
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2013, 02:35:51 AM
TK,
Honestly, I can't make any sense from anything she has written lately.
That is because she makes no sense. She can't even remember all her own lies any more.
Quote
Surely she could at least have one of her "engineers" put together a coherent paragraph explaining how Q1 in FIG3 can have +12 volts applied to its gate and not cause current to flow thru the CSR and post it, if that is truly what she believes. No names needed, just a coherent paragraph or two.
Her engineers are imaginary. You won't be hearing anything coherent from them, or her.
Quote
Other than that, I see it is just business as usual with her insulting overtones.
I've been looking at my archive.... it's amazing how insulting she has been to .99 at various times over the years. Not to mention to you or to me. Anybody reading those things coming from her would think twice about dealing with her at all, the issue of the veracity of her claims notwithstanding. She has attacked all of her former "open source" collaborators with acid-dripping fangs.
Quote
It is not my fault there is an error in FIG3, yet it seems she only wants to shoot the messenger instead of actually addressing the issue. And that has been the case from the beginning.
Indeed. I well recall the trouble over her bogus 555 timer circuit in the Quantum magazine.
Quote
I also recall the time when she was a real stickler with regard to spelling...
I think it's appropriate to call her Ains-lie from now on, since she lies in one way or another with every post she makes.
Quote
PW
And again, for the record, I have never claimed that Q1 _must_ be damaged. That is only but one possibllity. During the capture related to FIG3, Q1 was either damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic. Those are the only three possible reasons for Q1 not turning on as it should in FIG3 that can be determined by looking only at FIG3 and the schematic. As she only quotes the damaged scenario, possibly she knows which of the three is the correct one.
But we have .99's acknowledgement that running at the long period depicted in Figure 3 will likely blow a mosfet, so he won't even do it.
We also have this forum post from Ains-lie, where she describes the _very same_ experimental trial but couples it with SCRN 0342. This shows the mosfet is wired in and working.... at that time.
Note that she once again refers to the
temperature of the water: 104 degrees C.
QuotepicowaT has dismissed our claims related to unity breaches based on the fact that we could not possibly have generated the waveform shown in Fig 3 - Paper 1. I'll take the trouble to include that waveform hereunder. This is based on the fact that our waveform across the gate shows that the function generator is applying a full 12 volts. Which is more than enough to turn that MOSFET 'ON' and to allow a current discharge from the battery supply. Yet no current flows. Therefore the MOSFET must have been blown - so that the circuit remains open. Because what is also evident in that waveform is that NO ENERGY - no CURRENT has been delivered by the battery.
This is totally untrue. It is her credibility and integrity that I have dismissed because of this issue. Particularly with regard to her continuous denials that FIG3 shows +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 and her barrage of insults from the time this issue was first raised.
But now that she does agree that +12 volts IS being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, I am sure she will soon be offering apologies for all the insults and denigrations she has directed my way over this... and possibly even thank me for taking the time to try to teach her how to read her scope.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 20, 2013, 03:32:23 AM
That is because she makes no sense. She can't even remember all her own lies any more.Her engineers are imaginary. You won't be hearing anything coherent from them, or her.I've been looking at my archive.... it's amazing how insulting she has been to .99 at various times over the years. Not to mention to you or to me. Anybody reading those things coming from her would think twice about dealing with her at all, the issue of the veracity of her claims notwithstanding. She has attacked all of her former "open source" collaborators with acid-dripping fangs.Indeed. I well recall the trouble over her bogus 555 timer circuit in the Quantum magazine.
I think it's appropriate to call her Ains-lie from now on, since she lies in one way or another with every post she makes.
But we have .99's acknowledgement that running at the long period depicted in Figure 3 will likely blow a mosfet, so he won't even do it.
We also have this forum post from Ains-lie, where she describes the _very same_ experimental trial but couples it with SCRN 0342. This shows the mosfet is wired in and working.... at that time.
Note that she once again refers to the temperature of the water: 104 degrees C.
TK,
I fully agree that a damaged MOSFET is a very real possibility, but strictly speaking, if only FIG3 and the schematic are in evidence, we can only know that Q1 was either damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.
However, as you have shown, there is a very good case in support of Q1 being damaged prior to the FIG3 capture.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2013, 03:45:22 AM
This is totally untrue. It is her credibility and integrity that I have dismissed because of this issue. Particularly with regard to her continuous denials that FIG3 shows +12 volts being applied to the gate of Q1 and her barrage of insults from the time this issue was first raised.
But now that she does agree that +12 volts IS being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3, I am sure she will soon be offering apologies for all the insults and denigrations she has directed my way over this... and possibly even thank me for taking the time to try to teach her how to read her scope.
PW
Don't hold your breath, waiting for that to happen. Give her time, she'll twist it around to where _she_ has been telling _you_ that the mosfet is blown and _that_ is why she's getting COP > infinity.
Quote from: picowatt on June 20, 2013, 03:57:12 AM
TK,
I fully agree that a damaged MOSFET is a very real possibility, but strictly speaking, if only FIG3 and the schematic are in evidence, we can only know that Q1 was either damaged, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.
However, as you have shown, there is a very good case in support of Q1 being damaged prior to the FIG3 capture.
PW
Also... don't forget that she has _never again_, after those April trials, shown any long Q1 on times or high heat in the load with all six batteries connected. Even the Figure 7 trial on April 30 2011 only used 5 batteries. The latest photos on PESN show only three of the six connected (and some mysterious wires going over to something concealed behind her oscilloscope under a suspiciously-placed bit of bunched up cloth in her neat-as-a-pin home.) She knows the mosfet will blow if she tries to use all six batteries! There is no other reason for her not to do what she has always claimed: use all six batteries to make high heat in the load by having Q1 on for significant time.
"Strictly speaking"... .we have a lot more evidence than just the Figure 3 shot and the schematic.
I really REALLY want to see this apparatus raise 700 mL of Cape Town tap water to 104 degrees C, as Ains-lie has repeatedly claimed it will do.... somehow..... in an open container at near sea level. At 0.12 Watts of energy, yet.
Don't you?
Please do not shoot the messenger, I want to bring this to some sort of conclusion. PS you get an honorable mention TK
http://revolution-green.com/ (http://revolution-green.com/)
Please comment , there will not be any moderation apart from personal abuse.
What the good lady from the tip of Africa desires is attention. And one seems to give her just that.
Her circuit is the least important aspect of this strange story. Totally unimportant for her and as it seems also for her admirers and critics.
Greetings, Conrad
I was in two minds regarding to publish for that very reason, however I thought it would be a way to bring it to a conclusion.
I willfollow up after the live test
Mark
Mark, in your article you say
QuotePerhaps her biggest Nemesis has been a poster who goes under the name of TinselKoala. He has challenged both the testing methodology and technical aspects of her circuit design. Many others over the years have failed to successfully replicate he design and results. I would welcome those who have had successful replications to come forward and share their results.
Let me clarify something for you.
Everyone who has built the circuits described by Ainslie has had no trouble at all replicating her _actual_ results. The mean negative power product, the scope traces, the heating of the load.... all of the REAL results are easy to reproduce.
Her claims of overunity come from two features: the bad calculation and measurements that led her to believe that more energy is being dissipated than can be delivered by her batteries, and the subject of the present discussion here: the Figure 3 scopeshot, which she believes indicates high heat in the load without any current being drawn from the battery.
The bad math has been shown and explained many times, but still has not been retracted and corrected by Ainslie. I'll attach an image showing the "calculation" below. The issue of the Figure 3 scopeshot is as you see: pending her demonstration or her guiding .99 through the settings required. Or her failure to do so.
Note once again that the _real data_ is easy to reproduce, and is a combination of naive measurements and misuse of apparatus. Her interpretations of what she is seeing are completely in error because of her ignorance of her topic and her arrogant unwillingness to learn.
The complete operation of her circuit has even been simulated in ordinary circuit sim software by several people, most poyntedly by .99, and the features that she claims are special are in fact ordinary and fully capable of being modelled and understood by conventional circuit theory. In fact .99 designed a single mosfet oscillator in the sim that produces the single feature that Ainslie still depends upon for her claims: the measured negative wattage. I built this in hardware and I power it from its built in capacitors only, and it makes the identical measurements that Ainslie cites as evidence. On demand, on anyone's oscilloscope, running only on capacitors.
In short, it's simply not true that "Many others over the years have failed to successfully replicate (t)he design and results." Many others have indeed successfully replicated ALL of the REAL results that Ainslie has ever actually demonstrated. In addition, many of the claims she has made have been soundly and unequivocally refuted by several very competent people.... and also by me, incidentally. As you know, all of my work is fully documented in YouTube videos and is fully repeatable by anyone with very simple equipment, no fancy expensive digital kit needed.
I'm not going to be commenting on your site; I have enough to do just watching the several forums where I am active. But if I see something that's just wrong, like your statement above, I'll have to correct it somehow. Please feel free to copy-paste any or all of this comment.
Mark.... why don't you ask her for the report from the Independent Laboratory in the USA to which she sent her actual apparatus, last year, for testing.
Not having the apparatus available bought her some weeks of time during which she continued to delay doing any promised testing, and when the apparatus came back, the laboratory suggested some tests for her to perform and even included some special resistors (according to her). Ainslie has told us that this lab found that the batteries DO discharge.... surprise surprise.... but very little else. Surely this report is important and should be shared completely and openly.... and any honest researcher would have done so by now.
In the "math" she is describing the same trial that we have been talking about here.
First she claims 900 mL of water, but we know now that there were only 700 mL. So, to go from 16 C to 104 C (sic) is a temperature rise of 88 degrees C.
To raise 700 mL of water by 88 degrees C requires (4.18 Joules per gram per degree x 700 grams x 88 degrees) = 257,488 Joules. The time does not enter into this calculation at all. However, the uninsulated container will leak heat over the course of the trial, so the true amount of energy provided will be greater. How much greater? Say your heating efficiency is only 50 percent due to this leakage, so it might take over 500,000 Joules to heat the water to "104 degrees".
(That is assuming all the while that the water was actually heated to 104 degrees. But Ainslie has told us now that they never actually measured the temperature of the water, and indeed it is impossible for water to exist as a liquid in an unpressurised container at 104 degrees at the altitude of Cape Town. Therefore the true energy provided will likely be much less than even 500,000 Joules.)
Yet a 12 volt, 60 amp-hour battery (which is what she used) contains (12 V x 60 A-h x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min) = 2,592,000 Joules and six of them together contain over 15 megaJoules. Six batteries were used in the trial, not five as she claimed in the calculation.
So.... "doing the math" we see that not only did Ainslie's trial NOT use more than the batteries contained, but rather, as many as 30 such trials could have been performed before the battery pack was depleted of its stored energy.
This is not a small error, people! This calculation of Ainslie's is the reason she thinks she is exceeding her battery capacity! This one right here! And the Figure 3 scopetrace, indicating no current when she knows Q1 is needed to heat her load, is the basis for her claim that something unusual is happening in her circuit. Here is the whole house of cards laid out before you: a huge bogus math calculation, brought on by ignorance and arrogance and mendacity, combined with another ignorant failure to understand what oscilloscope traces mean. There is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OU BEHAVIOUR in Ainslie's OWN DATA. Sorry to shout, but these calls for "replication" and claims that replications have failed are entirely inappropriate. What has failed is AINSLIE HERSELF, since her own data do not support her claims, due to these ridiculous errors she made and continues to make.
@PW, .99, MH: I think it's pretty clear by now that Ainslie didn't even actually write the papers herself. Comparing her writing and expository style from what we see in these pages, with what is in the paper, one clearly sees that someone else wrote the paper. Perhaps under her guidance; certainly the cartoons depicting her idea of current flow are her own inimitable style. Particularly since they don't even have the mosfets shown as they are in the circuit!! She has the Q1 and Q2 gates connected together, their sources connected together, and their drains connected together, in the cartoons that explain how the circuit is supposed to work!
It is to laugh. The cartoons were made before her silly wiring error was discovered and explained, and she is so arrogant that she won't even correct the drawings but rather makes up some silly explanation for them.
So she doesn't know how to operate the apparatus, she doesn't know how to interpret the scope traces, she doesn't know the actual FG or scope settings, she doesn't know what is actually in the papers, she doesn't know how to calculate energy, or even the difference between two numbers ...... but she knows she's right. Right.
.
Quote from: conradelektro on June 20, 2013, 11:12:51 AM
What the good lady from the tip of Africa desires is attention. And one seems to give her just that.
Her circuit is the least important aspect of this strange story. Totally unimportant for her and as it seems also for her admirers and critics.
Greetings, Conrad
Not quite totally unimportant..... because the circuit gives one something to grab onto.
It is simple and not too expensive to construct and anyone who does construct it, or simulate it, discovers the same things about it, over and over and over.
Since Ainslie won't cooperate in performing correct and definitive tests of her silly claims, it is up to others to call her bluffs, confront her mendacity, and correct the misrepresentations that she has been putting over on people for well over a decade now. And the circuit itself is the tool with which we can do this.
There is nothing ambiguous about the circuit and its behaviour, and testing it reveals the truth. Even her former admirers at Energetic Forum finally discovered the truth, using the circuit itself.
Thanks TK
I understand your not wanting to post which makes me sad. I will cut and paste thanks for that.
Many people wanted me to start a news or web page that did not declare everything as real, and to cover a broader range of topics.
I will not sensor posts, as you know everyone except MarkE has been banned on free energy news
I do hope people will post in the future
Mark
Don't be sad, Mark.... just look at what she has posted! I really think you should put this on your site too, just under her "plea to academics", so that they can all see just how she responds to real substantive criticisms of her report.
Ainslie said,
QuoteAnd guys, YET ANOTHER - also for our sweet little gherkin who uses a bastardised version of Nicola Tesla's name - to pretend to an equivalent genius. God help us all - and who DENIES that he's actually Bryan Little. But who does claim, notwithstanding, to have a unique GRE count standardised against the size of your average pickle.
Hello my sweet 'ickle pickle'
SO, so much more. And all of it more of the same. But you're also beginning to sound increasingly desperate. Especially with your need to also ransack Glen Lettenmaier's archives. They reach just as deep into your own agenda. And - sadly they're just as inappropriate.
I understand from Professor Khan that Glen wrote to him explaining that he was an owner/moderator of Energetic forum. Which is a bit of a porkie pie. And. Had he known that Glen was just 'Glen' - so to speak - he would not have bothered to answer him. Perhaps the trick is for you, yourself, to write to Professor Khan - and establish the 'truth' about this matter. Perhaps, at it's least, he'll take the trouble to answer you. I know that I would. Especially when I see how READY you are to PUBLISH PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE. It speaks to the very real evidence that you are ENTIRELY UNTRAMMELED BY MATTERS OF PRINCIPLE. I think, in your case, that's probably a genetic attribute - and increasingly more evident on these forums.
Anyway. That's NOT what I want to write about. It's an ENTIRELY different issue. I have a tip for you. We all KNOW that you're somewhat vertically challenged. WELL Here's a thought. Try your hand at telling the truth. Because that way - no matter how LITTLE you are - it will give us all the general impression that you're actually quite BIG. How about it ... my sweet little pickle? It might just work?
Anyway - I'll leave the thought with you - while you 'slink under a rock' as you put it with your 'tail' up - or down - or anywhere in front or behind you. I just earnestly hope and pray that the space under that rock can accommodate your GRE count. Take really good care of it. It's something of a national and global treasure.
With as much as ever of my regard that I can still manage now that I'm so very, very old,
Rosie Pose.
Let Ains-lie speak for herself.
Every time she refers to "Brian (or Bryan) Little", or refers to a pickle or the letters GRE, she reveals her abysmal ignorance, amazing arrogance and utter stupidity. She has been told over and over how wrong she is, and she cannot present a single shred of evidence supporting her contention that I am someone with that name. Yet she persists in her insanity. The world should see this in its entirety. Whenever she makes her polite-sounding pleas to academics, they should be published right alongside the innumerable examples of this kind of crap that she spews.
Ainslie should also realize that when a recipient of an email decides to share it by posting it on the internet.... from that time forward it is no longer "private correspondence". She should also realize that she shouldn't lie so glibly about things that are so easily checked.
QuoteMy task is to prove Fig 3 Paper 1 - which picowaT claims is IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS the transistor Q1 is BLOWN. Or unless, of course, that his allegations of FRAUD and TRICKERY are supported by the evidence in that video. Can't wait to show him.
Note once again she refuses to quote me correctly. She again states that I claim that Q1 must be "BLOWN" in FIG3.
What I have actually stated over and over is that in FIG3, Q1 must be defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.
While it is possible that she may attempt something as simple as AC coupling a scope channel to produce a waveform display that only "appears" similar to FIG3, from her continued refusal to mention "disconnected" or "not connected as per the schematic" in quoting me, one might consider this to be an important clue as to how she might be planning to commit an act of deception in the upcoming live demo.
For example, it would be quite easy to swap the gate and source connections of Q1, as they run under the perfboard. This would place that MOSFET in parallel with all the other Q2 MOSFET's, effectively removing Q1 from the circuit. Alternately, one could sereptitiously leave Q1 disconnected by not stripping its connecting wires prior to their insertion into a crimp terminal or in some other hidden fashion.
Either way, Q1 would be "disconnected" or "not connected as per the schematic", and FIG3 could be readily duplicated and Q1 tested as not being "blown" afterwards. Possibly, to her, it might only be a game of semantics, but to all others, it would be considered an outright act of deception.
As she has in the past demonstrated that she would rather be known as having committed an act of deceit than admit to an error, it is well within the realm of the possible that she would consider doing so in the upcoming live broadcast.
Were it not for her posting her March demo video to YouTube, .99 would not have been able to analyze still frames from that video and arrive at the correct schematic used during that demo. When presented with the discoverd errors in her schematic, rather than admit to making an error, she preferred, instead, to admit that it was all an intentional act of deception.
Is it possible that her insistence on performing only a live broadcast is moreso related to .99's analysis of still frames from her March YouTube video than from her excuse that TK can somehow modify a YT video?
One can also appreciate why TK insists that she demonstrate the "high heat" mode, which requires Q1 to actually function as expected per the schematic and her FIG5, and why she refuses to show anything but replication of FIG3 in this upcomimg demo. Having to demonstrate that Q1 both DOES and DOES NOT turn on when +12volts is applied to its gate would both complicate an attempt at deception and be proof thereof. She cannot have it both ways, and most everyone but her would agree that +12volts applied to the gate of Q1 in her schematic should turn Q1 on as in FIG5.
In short, duplicating FIG3 while claiming that Q1 is connected as per the schematic is quite easy, if one is moreso willing to commit fraud than admit to an error.
PW
She is well known for distorting and taking out of context and even outright fabricating the words of others.
The points you raise emphasize why I insist that all the claims in the papers concerning the trial which produced the Figure 3 scopeshot be supported by evidence.
The shot must be produced as claimed in the papers! Not only with the circuit claimed and with a known and provably functioning mosfet, but also with the settings and parameters as shown on the shot: the long period, the six batteries in series, Q1 sitting on the small heatsink visible in the photographs of the apparatus at that time, and also _most importantly_ doing the things she claims it does: heating 700 mL of water to 104 degrees C. Add in the "no measurable current flow from the battery" or however she puts it, as a bonus.
After all, she continues to claim that her evidence is "proof incontrovertible" and reliable and repeatable. Let her, or anyone else, repeat the main item of her "incontrovertible" evidence, then.
She cannot.
QuoteTherefore is the proof incontrovertible, based as it is on experimental evidence and carefully measured results. It has been widely replicated on open source. And it is certainly repeatable and demonstrably so. ..... Therefore we ask you, yet again, to engage in evaluating the evidence that is detailed in the attached papers. And thereafter we would be very glad to give you a demonstration of this that you can evaluate the evidence itself. We trust to the integrity of yourselves and the scientific principles that you uphold to merit this evaluation. The more so as you yourselves have taught us that science can ONLY be progressed by experimental evidence. We have that evidence.
So, you see that she claims that the evidence as detailed in the papers is incontrovertible, repeatable, and demonstrably so.
And I claim that it is not, it is a fabrication compounded by error, and she cannot even do it herself. She cannot reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot, with a functioning, wired-as-schematic, fully present and accounted for Q1 mosfet, while heating 700 mL of water to 104 degrees C as claimed in the papers.
As far as video analysis goes.... does she believe, perhaps, that recordings of her "live" webcast will not be made and gone over with a fine tooth comb?
I, for one, certainly hope someone records it, because I am not going to beg for an "invitation" to her open-source webcast, nor will I disrupt my schedule to match hers. Especially since I doubt strongly that anything will be shown at all anyway, or will be of any significance even if it is.
I would just like to point out here that I have made many video demonstrations of the various points I have talked about concerning Ainslie's circuit performance and other things she has said.
I am happy to answer questions, give complete experimental details, and even repeat the demonstrations with suggested modifications, or to perform new tests that I haven't yet covered, in response to input from interested viewers.
My demonstrations do not rely on expensive and sometimes confusing digital test equipment, with the rare exception of the occasional play-date with Tex the Tektronix DPSO or a frequency measurement against my Philips counter's calibrated standard. And they are deliberately pitched at an elementary level, as the primary target for them is not to the average experienced electronic hobbyist or professional EE, but rather to the lowest possible common denominator.
Since I use YouTube as my "lab notebook" of sorts, much of what I demonstrate and document is actually my "raw data" and many of my demonstrations are entirely unrehearsed except for setting up the equipment to make the measurements. All are "unscripted" and off the cuff as far as narration is concerned. You are not usually looking at some polished presentation with blemishes removed or covered up when you view one of my videos, you are looking at my lab notebook, with all its blotches and stains intact.
@PW: concerning the issue of the possible AC-coupling of the Current trace: It's clear from the screenshots that the scope channel was set to DC-coupled. So for the trace to be an AC-coupled trace would require one of several possibilities.
1) The scope's internal relay is stuck and the scope thinks the connection is direct but it isn't, due to the internal coupling cap being in series. This is a scope malfunction, clearly. The scope has been sent out for repair/calibration since the trace was made and so this fault, if present then, should no longer be there.
2) The probe's voltage-divider is open and the connection to the circuit itself is being made through the probe's capacitance. Thus the probe is acting like a DC-decoupling cap and the resulting trace is AC-coupled in spite of the scope's internal setting being correctly set to direct. This is also unlikely in my opinion as it would result in waveform distortion elsewhere in the trace signal, not just baseline averaging.
3) Ainslie or someone handling her has inserted a capacitor, deliberately, in series with the probe connection to the circuit. This is unlikely for several reasons, not the least being that she herself is too ignorant, apparently, to understand how to do this. None of the photos show an obvious series capacitor, but of course we don't have a photograph of the apparatus as it is making the Fig 3 trace or anything similar. The "high heat" scopeshots that can be discerned in the 2011 demo video all show current flowing normally in Q1.... and they only use four batteries in series.
In addition, examination of known traces where Q1 is carrying current always show the current rising from the baseline level during the first part of the ON period. If a current-indicating trace were simply moved down by AC coupling, you would still see this rising edge, rather than the perfectly straight trace that results from an open circuit at the Q1 D-S position.
So I personally discount the AC-coupled hypothesis as an explanation for the Figure 3 scopeshot.
Is there any truth at all in this?
Quote
It seems that the MarkE's and Tinsel Koala's of this mad aethernet world - are clamorously demanding that all further work on this project of ours STOP.
Oh, really? What part of PROVE YOUR CLAIMS BY DEMONSTRATING THEIR VALIDITY is a clamorous demand that all further work STOP? Only when Ainslie fails miserably to do that, in public, for all to see, should all further work stop. Except for her cleaning up after her mess, that is, by retracting the papers and apologizing for the years of insults and wasted time.
Quote
Then it appears that MarkE is writing on behalf of all the academics at the University of Cape Town when he advises us that they have NO INTEREST in this project because they have studied Tinsel Koala's presentations. And - from all that hard work - from what is written they're now ENTIRELY satisfied that we have no basis for a claim. My question is WHERE is that written mandate from those esteemed and revered - that authorises MarkE to speak on their behalf? Unless he can produce this he is culpable of a fraudulent misrepresentation that is FAR more alarming than even his claims of our own 'trickery' and 'fraud'.
My question is from WHERE does she get this fraudulent misrepresentation of what Mark E has said? It comes out of her own mad mind. WHERE is the written mandate that allows Ains-lie to put words into people's mouths, then attack the words that she has put there? Unless she can produce that, she is culpable of an entire trainload of utter and fraudulent BS... as usual.
Quote
And regarding Tinsel Koala's youtube work - if such it is - I no longer visit his site. I gave up after he posted a video where he showed his penguin hand puppet copulating with a MOSFET. Somewhat distasteful. But there again, there is no-one can accuse him of being a person of high principle. Or indeed, of having any principles at all.
There is no such video on my channel and there never has been. Once again, Ains-lie sees what she wants to see and believes whatever she likes, without regard for truth or evidence. My own principles, or lack of them, have nothing at all to do with the constant string of distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies that proceed from Ains-lie with every utterance she makes, and even less to do with the fact that SHE CANNOT REPRODUCE HER OWN CLAIMED EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 21, 2013, 04:32:47 PM
I, for one, certainly hope someone records it, because I am not going to beg for an "invitation" to her open-source webcast, nor will I disrupt my schedule to match hers. Especially since I doubt strongly that anything will be shown at all anyway, or will be of any significance even if it is.
TK,
As well, I will not be watching live. If it were to show up on YouTube I might have a look...
From what she has written recently, I thought she was preparing to plead ignorance and just throw her team "under the bus", blaming the errors and her arguments on them and their bad advice.
Personally, I hope she does duplicate FIG3 with the scope set to DC showing +12 volts to the gate of Q1 with no current flowing thru the CSR all the while claiming everything is connected as per the schematic. To do so will require deception and will only demonstrate just how far she is willing to go rather than admit to an error.
Although she does not understand how Q2 is turned on, she is well aware that applying +12volts to the gate of Q1 should indeed turn Q1 on. One only needs to look thru the locked threads to see that she fully understands this mode of operation (it is about the only one that she does).
Again, SHE KNOWS that +12volts applied to the gate of Q1 must turn Q1 on and cause current to flow thru the CSR, unless Q1 is defective, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic.
To present FIG3 without realizing the error it contained the first time around was one thing, but to purposely present a similar waveform and claim it accurately reflects the schematic would stoop to a whole new level of shame.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 21, 2013, 05:06:13 PM
So I personally discount the AC-coupled hypothesis as an explanation for the Figure 3 scopeshot.
TK,
Apparently you misunderstood me.
I was not saying that AC coupling in some way explains FIG3. Due to her insistance at one time that FIG3 was not correct because the scope needed to be AC coupled, I thought she might try AC coupling one or more scope channels and play with the FG settings a bit until the waveforms "appeared" similar to FIG3, even though they would of course not be.
She has to decide if she believes FIG5 is correct, which does show current flow when the gate of Q1 is made positive, or if she actually believes that FIG3 is correct, which does not show current flow even with +12volts applied to Q1.
She already knows which figure is correct. Many times in the locked threads she acknowledged and reiterated that when the FG output was a positive voltage, Q1 is turned on. During all the futile attempts to teach her how Q2 is turned on, she never once had a problem understanding how Q1 is turned on.
One can only guess as to why she cannot admit to so obvious an error as Q1 not turning on in FIG3.
PW
I just posted in the comments a reply from Rosemary to some of the issues you been raising here, not sure why she does not post reply's herself.
Mark
http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/)
Quote from: markdansie on June 21, 2013, 10:13:09 PM
... not sure why she does not post reply's herself.
I know why. In the true spirit of 'open source', she doesn't like an open discourse with critics. She's above that. Like her peers Einstein and Feynman, she simply doesn't post comments on those blogsites. She delegates that task.
Quote from: markdansie on June 21, 2013, 10:13:09 PM
I just posted in the comments a reply from Rosemary to some of the issues you been raising here, not sure why she does not post reply's herself.
Mark
http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/)
She can't post comments here because Stefan has banned her. More than once, actually. If you want to see why, look at her last few posts on the old locked Tar Baby thread.
And none of her critics will post on her forum because of her censorship, her harvesting of IP addresses and her habit of going back to old posts and removing them or editing them to change their meaning. This habit of hers is why I always take screenshots of the posts she makes that contain important Little bits of information. She can't alter those, and if she accuses me of altering them the burden of proof is upon her.... as usual.
Poynt 99 can post there but.... shall we say..... Ainslie and "poynty poynt" have a special relationship.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on June 21, 2013, 10:41:26 PM
I know why. In the true spirit of 'open source', she doesn't like an open discourse with critics. She's above that. Like her peers Einstein and Feynman, she simply doesn't post comments on those blogsites. She delegates that task.
Well, if you look at what she does post, you can see for yourself that she doesn't address actual issues or give references or support of any kind for her absurd claims and allegations. She just slings insult after snide insult.
Note that in her present pasted comment she says this:
QuoteSadly – neither MarkE Nor TinselKoala have ever done any satisfactory work on our circuit.
This, of course, is another bald-faced lie coming from Ains-lie.
I have made many many videos concerning my work on "their" circuit and she has NEVER refuted a single one of them, and she cannot do so. As anyone can see for themselves, in the latest two videos I clearly show reproductions of the important features of the Figure 3 and Figure 5 scopeshots with full explanations. How is it possible for me to do this, if my apparatus or technique is not "satisfactory?"
In previous videos and analyses I have demonstrated the EXACT SAME negative power product that she claims is her evidence, and ALL other effects that she has ever produced any evidence for. It's another blood-boiling insult for her to claim that I haven't produced "satisfactory" work when she herself CANNOT EVEN OPERATE HER OWN APPARATUS, nor has she produced any work at all in the past two years to correct her bogus patchwork of errors and mendacity that she calls a "paper".
By her own admission she doesn't even know what my videos contain. For that reason alone she is unqualified to hold an opinion about my work.
What EXACTLY is not "satisfactory" about this work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I)
Quote from: markdansie on June 21, 2013, 10:13:09 PM
I just posted in the comments a reply from Rosemary to some of the issues you been raising here, not sure why she does not post reply's herself.
Mark
http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/)
I challenge her to explain and demonstrate, with examples and references, just how my work is not "satisfactory". She will not do it. The very worst thing she can say against me is that my hand-held videos are shaky and sometimes not well enough lit for her taste. In fact, my work is far and away more "satisfactory" than hers is, in every respect, and I'll freely stand up and argue that in front of a panel of her "academics" any time she brings them forward. Unlike her, I will have references, examples and demonstrations to back up my points.
Please feel free to post links to any or all of my many videos explaining and demonstrating various aspects of my work with reference to Ainslie and "their" circuitry.
ETA: I have also done a lot of analysis that is not in video form, like my analysis of her mathematical flight of fantasy as given above. It certainly isn't "satisfactory" to her, to have her ignorance demonstrated so forcefully as that.
Quote from: orbut 3000 on June 21, 2013, 10:41:26 PM
snip.... Like her peers Einstein and Feynman .... snip
ROFLMAO - What the Fu.. You put her on the same ticket as those named above. What planet are you from?
I've started a new thread in the "Problems and Solutions for Accurate Measurements" board for my testing. As this will end up being more of a tutorial/documentation type thread than anything else, I am keeping it locked. As such, we can continue discussing the circuit and measurements here in this thread.
One thing PW noticed already, is the Tek scope does not seem to display what the offset setting is. I have already used the offset setting for the simple DC circuit, and I intend on using it throughout my tests wherever possible. It seems to allow for more accuracy and to display two or 3 traces spread vertically on the scope display without sacrificing accuracy.
The downside to using the offset is you can't really count divisions to determine DC levels. You now have to rely more on "numbers in boxes". But that's ok, I like numbers in boxes when they are accurate. ;D
Quote from: poynt99 on June 22, 2013, 09:46:47 PM
I've started a new thread in the "Problems and Solutions for Accurate Measurements" board for my testing. As this will end up being more of a tutorial/documentation type thread than anything else, I am keeping it locked. As such, we can continue discussing the circuit and measurements here in this thread.
One thing PW noticed already, is the Tek scope does not seem to display what the offset setting is. I have already used the offset setting for the simple DC circuit, and I intend on using it throughout my tests wherever possible. It seems to allow for more accuracy and to display two or 3 traces spread vertically on the scope display without sacrificing accuracy.
The downside to using the offset is you can't really count divisions to determine DC levels. You now have to rely more on "numbers in boxes". But that's ok, I like numbers in boxes when they are accurate. ;D
.99,
I have just given your scope's manual a quick look. Unless it is buried in a menu I have not yet seen, you are apparently correct in that the applied offset value is not displayed (which seems VERY unhandy).
To avoid confusion, I would suggest that you keep the applied offset set to zero until you actually need more precise measurements.
And yes, the newer models of LeCroy scopes do have this function as well, but on the older model LeCroy scope that she has, the offset values displayed only indicate a channel's vertical position setting (as per LeCroy tech support).
The Tek scope used at the March demo also had this function. Oddly, I seem to recall that model Tek scope did display the applied offset values. You would think, therefore, that your Tek scope could do so as well. You might have to start a list of questions for Tek support...
PW
The LeCroy WaveSurfer 103Xi that I used for a while certainly did have its math affected by the trace vertical positioning offset, and it did display the offset value in the trace settings box just like Ainslie's 324. To get accurate math with this scope you had to either put all the baselines at the center vertical graticule marker or add/subtract the offset in the math, like .99 shows. I made a comment to this effect on .99's YT vid.
I am a bit surprised about the trace displacement/offset issue. I note that you are supposed to let DSOs warm up before making measurements but this seems unusual to me.
Sometimes if you change the amount of brightness on a monitor it can affect other analog components in a device. I doubt it applies to LCD displays. I am talking about analog CRT monitors. From the YT clips it looks like the DSO has a colour bit-mapped analog RGB CRT display. I am assuming the possible analog affects are due to the analog RGB display drawing more power when the display is bright, which then affects the power supply rail voltages. The slight voltage change can affect other parts of a given device.
It's a real mystery, the power draw of the CRT is not changing, only the display timing is changing slightly. How could the A/D conversion get affected? When Poynt displaces the trace on the screen the processor is doing extra work to update the bit map in the video frame buffer. That represents a very small increase in power draw but I really doubt it could affect anything. Unless there is some kind of hysteresis type affect coming into play at the A/D conversion level itself or in the post-A/D software filtering.
I just don't see any logical feedback mechanism that might be causing this problem.
Also, there may be an issue with compensating for trace displacement on the screen changing the voltage reading with a settable offset value. I suggest that you check what voltage reading you are getting when you short the probe. If you are seeing an offset voltage and not zero volts then that's a problem. That will skew all low-level voltage measurements. I suppose the work-around is to export the data and then apply a gain compensation factor to the data with a spreadsheet formula.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 22, 2013, 11:19:03 PM
The LeCroy WaveSurfer 103Xi that I used for a while certainly did have its math affected by the trace vertical positioning offset, and it did display the offset value in the trace settings box just like Ainslie's 324. To get accurate math with this scope you had to either put all the baselines at the center vertical graticule marker or add/subtract the offset in the math, like .99 shows. I made a comment to this effect on .99's YT vid.
TK,
On her scope, the offset numbers only indicate vertical position.
"Offset", as used on .99's scope, injects a DC voltage into the analog preamp input prior to the ADC.
On a DSO with a true offset function like .99's, where the offset signal is injected into the analog front end (preamp), the offset value must be subtracted from readings made when visually reading the displayed traces using the graticule.
As well, it looks like .99's scope automatically subtracts the applied offset from the values displayed in the "boxes", as his Vbatt and math product displays were unaffected by the applied offset (other than the accuracy improvement).
I am surprised, however, that the offset values are not able to be displayed on .99's scope. Perhaps that function is buried in a yet to be found menu. Otherwise, one would have to always recall the values from the offset function or just remember the offet values in order to directly read values from the display (without using cursors or the numbers in the "boxes").
I wonder how the voltage cursors on .99's scope handle the applied offset...
PW
PW:
Quote"Offset", as used on .99's scope, injects a DC voltage into the analog preamp input prior to the ADC.
I was also wondering where the offset was being done. That suggests a possible explanation. By playing with the offset you are moving the "digitizing window" up and down in the full sweep of the A/D converter range (I am assuming.) So it's possible that the upper range of the A/D conversion window will have a slightly different conversion slope than the lower range of the A/D conversion window. That slight nonlinearity in the A/D conversion gets quasi-amplified when you start playing with the offsets and doing all of your digitizing and processing in a narrower digitizing window.
If I am right about the architecture, then the issue of how many bits you are working with for the full A/D conversion range and how many effective bits your "digitizing window" has also comes into play. If your digitizing window is less than 8-bits wide then you start playing with the granularity issues and how the software filters and processes the data.
Just my $0.02.
MileHigh
PW,
I need the increased accuracy, and hopefully I will be able to demonstrate why later.
"0" is at the zero ref line on the display, "+255" is the top graticule, and "-255" is the bottom graticule. If you use bits (either from a DC level at your input, or DC shift with vertical position), you effectively lose resolution.
Hey.... Poynt99..... perhaps you could poynt out to Ainslie that she should stop making statements like this one, which reveal not only that she doesn't understand her own apparatus, but that she doesn't do her homework.
Please explain to her that I have "replicated" and explained the Figure 3 Paper 1 scopeshot quite well, several times, and further, the issue is NOT that I do it, but that SHE do it, under the conditions she has claimed in her paper.
AInslie said,
Quote
By the same token – IF you are claiming that TinselKoala has replicated our experimental evidence – he needs to be able to replicate Fig3 Paper 1. IF he cannot replicate this then he also CANNOT replicate our experimental evidence.
Again, Tar Baby is constructed of the same components that Ainslie uses, according to the same schematic that she CLAIMS to use, and produces the same waveforms and all of the same phenomena that Ainslie has actually demonstrated. In other words, I HAVE INDEED replicated ALL of the actual evidence and phenomena actually demonstrated or supported by real data by Ainslie.
What I have not done, and what SHE HAS NOT DONE, and what nobody can do, is to produce any experimental evidence that support her outrageous claims.
I have offered many times for Tar Baby to be tested side-by-side with Ainslie's apparatus to PROVE THIS POINT. Her feeble protests to avoid doing this are on record. She fears any real comparison because she knows that I have already proven her claims wrong with Tar Baby and she knows that Tar Baby and her circuit will perform identically when tested identically. Tar Baby is ready to travel TODAY and has been for the past year.
Here, once again, are my videos demonstrating that I can and do "replicate" the Figure 3 and Figure 5 features that we have been discussing. And I show how it is done, simply by removing the mosfet, AND I prove that my mosfet is functional. Let Ainslie do the same, before she has the absolute arrogant effrontery to claim that my work is "unsatisfactory". SHE CANNOT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5svsFA8XRg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5svsFA8XRg)
Notice the twisted reasoning she uses, anyway. We say that the Figure 3 scopeshot is impossible to make under the conditions she claims, with an intact mosfet in place wired correctly etc etc. And then she says that my work is not a replication unless I make the Figure 3 scopeshot, presumably under the conditions she claims..... but she CANNOT DO IT HERSELF !!
The woman is a one-person vaudeville sketch, still stumbling around on stage long after most of the audience has given up and gone home.
"There can be NO OTHER EXPLANATION."
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
:-* :-*
Quote from: poynt99 on June 23, 2013, 01:30:16 AM
PW,
I need the increased accuracy, and hopefully I will be able to demonstrate why later.
"0" is at the zero ref line on the display, "+255" is the top graticule, and "-255" is the bottom graticule. If you use bits (either from a DC level at your input, or DC shift with vertical position), you effectively lose resolution.
.99,
Then I guess "numbers in boxes" it is.
Still hard to believe offset values are not displayed on such a pricey scope...
PW
As anyone can see, Ainslie's posts have made it through to Mark's website.... and somehow neither I nor The Boss seem to have been told. Heads Will Roll!
So we have Yet Another Website where Ainslie has been permitted to insult, misrepresent, distort and lie about me and my work, not to mention her own, without even being challenged at all to provide proof of her assertions or support for her claims by checkable references or solid demonstrations of her own.
-several of her abandoned blogs
-her four YouTube accounts
-this forum
-Energetic Forum
-PESN
-and now Mark Dansie's site.
Quote from: picowatt on June 23, 2013, 02:30:20 AM
.99,
Then I guess "numbers in boxes" it is.
Still hard to believe offset values are not displayed on such a pricey scope...
PW
I think I can compromise. I'll use the offset only for the testing where I require it.
Hi TK
You have the right to reply, just like anyone else, but I am going to put a cap on the number of reply's including hers.
One reason for doing our site was not to have extreme censorship of views, but abuse will not be tolerated. I made it clear where I stood, but I was surprised how many private emails I got that actually supported her but did not post as they were afraid of being cut down. They may be wrong, but they are also entitled to their view.
The proposed test if cancelled or fails to live up to something credible then its game all over, I want this brought to a conclusion.
Do not shoot the messenger.
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on June 23, 2013, 11:26:19 AM
Hi TK
You have the right to reply, just like anyone else, but I am going to put a cap on the number of reply's including hers.
One reason for doing our site was not to have extreme censorship of views, but abuse will not be tolerated. I made it clear where I stood, but I was surprised how many private emails I got that actually supported her but did not post as they were afraid of being cut down. They may be wrong, but they are also entitled to their view.
The proposed test if cancelled or fails to live up to something credible then its game all over, I want this brought to a conclusion.
Do not shoot the messenger.
Mark
I may have "right to reply" on your site, if I register, but so what? She doesn't care about the truth! She will wind up being banned or having the thread closed on your site, just as she has done so many times before, and she'll move on to some other website with her false claims, error-filled daft manuscripts, and insults and lies about me. She was doing just fine here, in the Tar Baby thread, but when the challenges became too tough for her she acted more and more outrageously until Stefan had to ban her, in spite of several of us trying to prevent her from getting banned here! Should I register and post on every website where she carries out her campaigns? As I told you earlier, I have enough to do already without having her popping up with her lies and misrepresentations on site after site. This thread here would not even exist if she hadn't popped up on PESN with Yet Another set of false claims and broken promises and insults.
How is it that people who are utterly wrong about some factual matter, but are still "entitled to their view"? If I claim that my "thesis requires" that the Moon be made of Play-Dough with bits of Styrofoam, and I start insulting and lying about you when you point out that experimental evidence shows that it is not Play-Dough and Styrofoam at all -- I say your work as a NASA astronaut is not satisfactory and you haven't repeated the evidence I present for the Play-Dough "thesis" ....... do you still think I am entitled to my view? Because that is just what is happening here. Ainslie is lying to everyone about a lot of things, and I can illustrate them one by one, and she has NEVER been able to refute my pointing out her lies. The most recent ones, which you have posted on your site, are that my work is not "satisfactory" and that I have not repeated the Figure 3 scopeshot.
Her papers claim that the temperature of the water was 104 degrees C. Yet we now know she _never measured the temperature of the water_. Her papers claim that no measurable power is coming from the batteries. Yet analysis of her scopeshots (not Figure 3!) indicate plenty of power coming from the batteries. And on and on.
People are "entitled to their views" when they can actually support them with facts, checkable outside references, and experimental demonstrations of their own. A private email "in support" of Ainslie that does not provide you with actual support is worthless. Have these emailers actually built and tested Ainslie's circuit for themselves? Have they "done the math" to see just where her claims come from? Do they confirm her claims? I'll bet that they have not built and tested, they have not actually gone through the calculations and they do not confirm her claims experimentally. Please correct me here if I am wrong about your private emails in "support" of Ainslie.
Do you have any questions about the things I've said concerning Ainslie and her "work"? Ask and I will answer them with references, repeatable experimental demonstrations and FACTS. Ask her to provide references and demonstrations for ANYTHING that she has claimed. She cannot, and will not. Ask her to prove her contention that my work is not "satisfactory". Ask her to prove her contention that I have not repeated her ACTUAL experimental results. She cannot. Ask her to prove anything at all!
When the demonstration she has "scheduled" for six days from now doesn't happen or doesn't provide satisfactory demonstration of her major claims, what then? You don't actually think she will admit defeat and retract her nonsense and start apologizing, do you? We have all been here before, several times. The only cure for the disease that is Rosemary Ainslie is for _everyone_ that she encounters to demand that she prove her claims _before_ they give her the publicity and the forum to continue the spread.
If any "messenger" is being "shot at" around here, it is I. I am the one who has worked for _years_ at my own expense, informing people about the truth concerning Ainslie and her history and her bogus claims. And I am the one who has been most severely insulted by her, over and over, from website to website ... .yet she cannot refute anything I've said, with references, facts or demonstrations of her own. She has even taken her campaign of slander and libel against me "on the road" by contacting people who may have employed me or may do so in the future, trying to find out my real identity and trying to drag down my reputation. Yet she cannot refute me, because _she is wrong_, and anyone who actually does the work to find out, finds out the same thing.
Note the date on the screenshot below.
Notice anything interesting about the images below?
This is an image of her Paper 2 blog posting. The claim is clearly made that the circuit recharges the batteries. But there is something else.
Next is an image from the Paper 2 "official publication" on Rossi's JNP. Examine the schematics carefully and think a bit about the implications of this little "mistake".
Mark, not only does Ainslie herself lie about what she has done, but she actually gets other people to lie for her, as well.
(In case you missed the point: the first image below is the moment in the previous Video Demo when the narrator gestures to the paper schematic and the apparatus and says that this is the schematic in use and that all five mosfets are in parallel-- both lies. The second image below is the screenshot of the schematic claimed in the video -- a lie, carefully drawn by someone not Ainslie and put into the video by someone not Ainslie. The third image below is the "corrected" schematic posted by Ainslie after her deception was revealed by .99.... and it STILL contains the lie about where the FG "negative" lead is positioned. In the video and in EVERY other photo available, Ainslie has the Black ("negative") FG lead positioned at the common circuit ground where all the other probe references are connected.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k)
Tk you do not have to convince me, I clearly stated that her claims were against my belief system, I agree with you, Mark E , Milehigh etc. However there has been an event where its going to be tested, and that should be the end of it.
I and many others have been banned from expressing our views on sites like Free Energy News, which really sucs, and I believe people should have the right to express their view (politely). You are correct technically, so your preaching to the choir here. But to critisize me for allowing her to reply to posts, provided its not abusive would be an abuse of free speech. No one who might think she has something would be game to post anything here because they would be mowed down,
I do not think she has anything, but I am happy to give her the opportunity to demonstrate it. Everyone then can draw their own conclusions.
So as I said do not shoot the messenger,
"Freedom of Speech" does not entitle a person to promulgate falsehoods under the guise of science. I'm not "shooting" at you, Mark, I am pointing out that Ainslie is not telling the truth and that she can also produce other people who will lie for her. Since you are hosting her present set of claims I do think that you, yourself, have some responsibility to make sure that what you are being told is the truth, and that what people are being told through your website is the truth. Ainslie is not telling the truth, in many small matters and in some very large ones.
Her continuing insults to me are just amusing, and her threats are laughable. But she has indeed tried to do me real harm by her back-channel communications, her letter-writing and phone-calling to everyone she can think of that might make use of the talents of a person like me.
She offered to give you a personal demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot, didn't she? Why didn't you call her bluff at that point? I don't think anyone believes she is going to manage any kind of live, streaming demonstration in six days from now.
Interesting point TK about Freedom of speak, if we had a responsability to make sure people are telling the truth the newspapers would have nothing to report (imagine imposing that rule on a journalist reporting politics)
People like sterling Alan could not report anything.
In reality telling Rosemary's story allowed many others to express their view like Magnetic man etc outside of of forum. I really struggled as I feel people like this should perhaps not be given publicity, but there again the stage is set for a demonstration. i just want a conclusion.
Have you ever heard the term give them enough rope
In 6 days we see a demo, if we do not watch my next article.
Mark
Fair enough, Mark, we shall see what we shall see, in six short days.
Meanwhile, our analysis and further research continues.
Here's some more background information for you:
When I first encountered her claims the very first thing I found was that she claimed to have a patent on the original one-mosfet circuit. While I found that wasn't true and struggled with her to change her language and admit that a WIPO application is very different from a patent, legally and morally, I was also building and testing.
I put the apparatus together as she described, hooked it up to supply, load, and scope-- my Tek 2213a analog scope-- and turned it on. Lo and behold.... a 3 percent ON duty cycle and _massive_ heating in the load! I reproduced her effect, her data and even appeared to support her major claim!
Amazed by this I started examining my construction and scoposcopy... and what did I find? I found that I accidentally had the "trace invert" button pressed IN on my oscilloscope and in fact, the Ainslie published circuit actually produced a 96-97 percent ON duty cycle-- the exact inverse of her claim-- and the load was consequently receiving full battery power nearly all the time. The circuit published by Ainslie as the Quantum magazine circuit _cannot possibly_ produce the short ON duty cycles that she claimed, it makes the exact inverse..... and it is this exact inverse and the heat profile it produces that proves that the published circuit isn't a simple "typo" or mistake, but in fact IS the circuit Ainslie actually used. Again, anyone can check this for themselves with a few dollars worth of common parts and an oscilloscope.... IF they know what they are doing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18raNyVTL6g)
(Posted almost exactly four years ago!)
How could a person make such an elementary mistake and carry it through to claiming COP>17? It is because Ainslie did not then and probably still does not understand that in her circuit, when the mosfet is OFF, the voltage at the mosfet Drain pin will be HIGH, at battery voltage, and when the mosfet turns ON, supplying power to the load, the voltage at the Drain pin drops to near zero. Hence she thought that a Drain voltage that showed a 3 percent HIGH duty cycle meant a 3 percent ON power-to-load, when in fact it means the exact inverse.
In short, I reproduced her experimental results very accurately during that early work, using the circuit she published and under the conditions she claimed. And I showed exactly where the major error was in her work and how it lead to her false conclusions about the heating performance of the circuit. I also tested different mosfets and found one that worked better than the IRFPG50 for both heating and the "reverse current" that she claimed, and cost about 1/3 as much.
Please ask her about the results from the Independent Laboratory to which she sent her entire apparatus, last year. Why has she not provided the report, or even the Name, of this laboratory?
QuoteI thought we were going to be ENTIRELY transparent in this exercise.
If its any comfort I have upset her and she is not very happy with me. I have tried to plead with her to listen and address many of the questions asked. Even if not you TK for personnel reasons, but Mark E and others. I pointed out academics will ask the same questions.
I wll have to be patient and bite my tongue for a little longer,
Thanks for the background
mark
Quote from: markdansie on June 23, 2013, 11:17:26 PM
If its any comfort I have upset her and she is not very happy with me. I have tried to plead with her to listen and address many of the questions asked. Even if not you TK for personnel reasons, but Mark E and others. I pointed out academics will ask the same questions.
I wll have to be patient and bite my tongue for a little longer,
Thanks for the background
mark
Heh... no, there's no comfort to be had there. (But maybe you now understand better why I named my replication "Tar Baby".) She turns against everyone eventually. She'll even start making snide remarks against people on her forum while still talking sweetly and sending her "best regards" to them out front. She's spun around on .99 so many times it's hard to count, and is getting ready to spin on him again.
She often blames her critics for her not performing any tests that really test her claims.
But here's the real reason she hasn't been able to perform any real testing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQ498owHYE
Great video, you have the best collection.
I will be featuring some in my April 1 addition of breakthrough energy news next year.
Mark
Thanks, Mark, I'm glad you are still having fun.
I just want to point out a few things here as we go along.
First and foremost, Ainslie, as anyone can see, has not been able to respond with any substance, references, facts or demonstrations to any of the criticisms from anyone leveled at her here or especially in the comments to the postings on PESN and Revolution-Green.
Second, she appears to have abandoned the PESN page and Sterling, as well as any plans for him to host her webcast demo. This is of course because Sterling permitted the critical comments from Mark E and myself and others to be posted. And, ironically, he only permitted those because she had already rubbed him the wrong way.
Third, there is nothing especially critical in the main articles on PESN or Rev-Green; the criticisms are only seen if one bothers to scroll down and read the comments.... and Ainslie, when she deigns to reply there, never produces any facts or evidence, she just produces words and insults.
I think this is a deliberate tactic on her part. She makes an announcement and convinces some website or forum to start talking about her, and at the top she gets to post her daft manuscripts, her bogus OU claims, her claims about all the engineers and companies and "declined bursary awards" and all the rest, without having to provide any evidence. Then when the criticisms start, in the comments, she winds up either abandoning the site, like she has with PESN, or getting herself deliberately banned, like she did here.
But the sites remain, like the PESN page. So when some naive innocent person learns about Ainslie and searches for information, these sites come up.... but one has to look especially hard for the critical information buried down in the comments, and Ainslie never actually addresses the critical points.
Is this going to happen at Revolution-Green? The first steps have begun; there is nothing particularly critical in the head article, it only highlights her claims, while mentioning the "controversy". Criticisms are found only down in the comments, and in those comments Ainslie is not providing evidence for her contentions, she is just providing more words.
But really, there is no "controversy". There is only Ainslie making claims on the one side, against everyone who has built and tested her device and her claims or analyzed them in circuit theory on the other side. Ainslie's "side" can produce no empirical evidence in support of her claims. There really isn't any controversy, there is just a noisy and ignorant claimant sucking up time and energy with her silly "thesis" and the malignant comedy of errors that she pretends are "experiments".
TK:
I agree with you that all of the talk of her "team" of knowledgeable "experts" is probably all a lie. If any of these alleged people were real they could have posted anonymously at any time on a multitude of forums and made their presence known without "sullying" their alleged reputations.
Many people are not fooled by the psychology of Rosemary Ainslie. Look at the example of the bad MOSFET as shown in her own scope traces. Her first reaction was to deny that there was any issue. She seemingly can't accept the idea that some mistakes were made when she did her tests. The tests have to be "perfect" in her mind and this "perfection" is important to hold up the overall structure of her proposition. Therefore any suggestion that there is imperfection is fought tooth and nail. This refusal to accept that there were any problems will then be defended by her to absurd and extreme lengths of irrationality. It's a kind of child psychology, irrationally resisting ideas contrary to your own without seeing how ridiculous and irrational you look to others in your opposition.
So as Poynt does his testing and reporting of results, Rosemary will get more and more defensive and upset. She will challenge Poynt's logic and measurement techniques. When she finally "flips" on Poynt you can imagine that the challenges will go to irrational extremes and stop making any sense at all. Poynt will keep a cool head and simply do his testing and the reporting of his results. Rosemary will soon not be able to follow the logic and will get confused and start to make statements that reveal (again) how little she actually understands. We have already seen an incident like this where she completely missed or misunderstood one of Poynt's preliminary postings and video clips from just the other day.
So you will end up with good solid irrefutable data presented by Poynt and Rosemary as a menacing and screeching and whining and completely lost and unhappy person. There will be lots of vim and vigor and cantankerous ugliness, but Rosie will be shooting blanks. Her "arguments" and pleadings and complaints about Poynt's measurements and data will get her nothing and go nowhere, she just can't argue against the truth as shown by the measurements as made by an expert (Poynt) from her position of abject ignorance.
It's gunna be a really big sheww, and then let's hopefully put this one to bed forever.
MileHigh
Just as has happened at least three times before. She won't stop, she'll just move on to another bunch of hopeful experimenters.
Are you having difficulties getting that waveform Poynty?
QuoteDo you want our settings? We set the duty cycle to MAX 'OFF' MIN 'ON'. And the offset on the function generator to its most extreme negative value. Then the waveform gets generated - as day follows night.
That's all there is to it, as day follows night.
Of course, you have to wait until the mosfet blows:
QuoteBut I doubt that we'll be doing more than that fig3 because we'll run out of time. It takes almost 26 minutes for that setting to resolve itself.
There has STILL been no discussion about how Ainslie is going to show that her mosfets are still fully "in tact" after "that setting resolves itself". And time is drawing short. But that's OK because the first re-postponement of the twice-postponed demo has already been announced:
QuoteThe team member doing the demo is away in Namibia until Saturday morning. So we're cutting a fine line for the demo and it may be as well to delay this until our time 18.00 hours - 6.00 pm.
The Team Member doing the demo? She's not sure "what all" HE wants to show you?
WHOSE CIRCUIT IS THIS, ANYWAY? Ainslie didn't build it, can't explain it, can't understand it, can't operate the apparatus and can't operate the test equipment...... but she is critical of us.
Do you see? She has absolutely no clue, and can't even try the thing for herself because she doesn't even know how to set up or operate the equipment. WHO IS PULLING HER STRINGS, and why?
And let's not forget, since a "Team Member" is going to be "doing the demo"..... that Ainslie has gotten other people to lie for her, blatantly and on camera, before this. As I have illustrated several times.
I don't much care what "HE" might "want" to show us. Here's what MUST be shown, in order for Ainslie to have any credibility:
700 mL of water, "brought to boil" at a temperature of 104 degrees C, using the waveform shown in Figure 3, Paper 1 and the Paper 1 schematic. Six batteries in series, the small original heatsink on Q1. Before and after accomplishing this, all mosfets must be shown to be fully functional.
This is what is claimed in the paper. If this cannot be accomplished, then the papers must be withdrawn, errata issued, and apologies made by Ainslie. It is as simple as that.
Now note this very well. I can boil water using the Ainslie circuit, with MY OWN chosen waveforms, then when the water is boiling, I can set the apparatus to make the Figure 3 waveforms, very easily. The water will be boiling and the Figure 3 waveform will be presented. Then I can prove that all my mosfets are indeed "in tact".... even the one I unplugged to make the Fig 3 waveform. And the water is still boiling from the residual heat.
Is this legitimate? Would this procedure vindicate Ainslie? No, of course not.
well the main question that should be asked by anybody is..'has any one single human being that knows what they r doing succesfuly replicated one single ainslie circuit before to a point of overunity'..if not why not.reproduceability is absolute numero uno in substantiating such claims
again im going to write here,the sudden split-second drop in temperature on each oscillatory cycle offcut will result in a INCREASE of order in magnetic dipoles that will result in a INCREASE of magnetic field strength while it collapses thus in theory a 2nd law breach is possible but whos circuit is going to be efficient enough to make use of or even register this extra bit of energy?alas we wait and see.
Are you not paying attention? How is it possible for anyone to reproduce the claims contained in the calculation attached below? Have you "Done The Math" (tm Rosemary Ainslie)?
(That 25 million Joules figure comes up a lot in Ainslie's claims, and this calculation is the source of that figure.)
Well. We have a lot of bloviating TALK TALK from Little Miss MOSFET, but we still have NO REPRODUCTION of that Figure 3 scopeshot, by anyone except ME.
IF IT IS SO BORINGLY EASY, then why doesn't somebody DO IT ?
I can do it in three minutes. It takes longer to upload the video than it does to do it. Where is ANYONE ELSE's demonstration? Where is AINSLIE's?
Oh.... that's right, I nearly forgot. She can't operate her own apparatus, so she has to wait for someone ELSE to come back from Namibia, so that HE can demonstrate something -- nobody is sure just what -- with the apparatus on Saturday evening.
It's my considered opinion, with considerable support from her own words, that Ainslie is an incompetent bloviating slapper.
And once again... she can provide no support whatsoever for her continuing idiotic contention that I am someone named Bryan Little. Nor can she demonstrate in any way that I "have no aptitudes". Contrariwise, I am highly apt, and can prove it. I will happily submit to aptitude testing alongside Ainslie herself. Let's start with math, shall we?
I even know the difference between "in tact" and "intact", between "et al" and "et al." and between "doggeral" and "doggerel".
@PicoWatt, .99, MileHigh:
Here's a bit more information. I've just done a few more experiments with Tar Baby, and I've examined, again, _all_ of Ainslie's scopeshots that I can find.
The Figure 3 scopeshot and some others that do not show any current during the Q1 ON times definitely show an applied Gate signal of +12 volts. And.... these are also the only ones that show Gate signal voltages over about +8 or +9 volts positive. All Ainslie's scopeshots that show current flow in the Q1 ON periods, also show lower gate drive voltages. NONE appear to reach even as high as 10 volts.
Please take a look:
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/ (http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/)
In line with my experimental results, when the Q1 is "in tact", in place and operating properly, along with all the Q2s, even my Interstate doesn't produce a Gate voltage signal that goes over about 8-10 volts. Only after I pull the Q1 mosfet out of its socket, or place a known bad one in there, can I get the gate voltage signal to go over +10 volts. And in Ainslie's own data we see the same thing. The Gate drive signal does not go over 7-8 volts positive when the Q1 is operating properly. Only the suspicious shots that show no current in the Q1 ON times, also show Gate signals over 10 volts.
This fact also supports the conclusion that the Q1 mosfet is missing or blown or miswired in the Figure 3 scopeshot.
However.... that scopeshot made its first public appearance here:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011_03_02_archive.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011_03_02_archive.html)
on the 2nd of March 2011.
And the Demo Video was shot, apparently, only ten days later, on the 12th of March, and clearly all mosfets were functional then... and clearly it was known, by someone, that the Q1 was stressed, because they removed one battery and only used four for the second part of the demonstration.
And yet they claimed all mosfets in parallel at the March 12 demonstration... but they weren't.
Then later, in April, Ainslie reports blowing several mosfets and damaging the Function Generator and getting a new one.
There is something extremely fishy going on here.
Can Rosemary read the datasheet for a MOSFET? ;D
I think all parties have staked out their respective territories. Some amazing trash talk has been produced also! lol Perhaps a moratorium on all fronts could be declared?
We have two big and exciting new events happening. Like many I won't sign up to see the video but something is telling me it will end up online. World saved or nothing exciting, stay tuned. I wonder how the companies that make MOSFETs are trading these days? ha ha
There is the fantasy of the Zip-o-resistor reactor. Giant coiled up tubes, the insides lined with thousands of pulsing resistors. The super-heated steam output drives a turbine generator. So you self-loop and also export power. They ended up calling them Zippos as we entered the Age of Aquarius. Minor side effect, they predict that by 2019 all terrestrial radio traffic will be drowned out by the Zippos.
TK,
When the voltage at the gate of Q1 exceeds Vgs(on), Q1 turns on and the voltage at the drains of the MOSFET's is pulled low.
The gate of Q1 is also connected to the source of Q2 and the body diode of Q2 conducts when the voltage applied to the gate of Q1 exceeds the drain voltage plus the Vfwd of the Q2 body diode. As the Q2 body diode turns on, the voltage at the Q1 gate is clamped at (Vdrain+Q2 Body diode Vfwd).
At a Vbatt of 72 volts, Rload of 11R, an Rds(on) of 2R and a CSR of 0R25, the voltage at the drains will be about 12.2 volts when Q1 is on [(72/13.25)X(2.25)]. The Q2 body diode would then begin to conduct and clamp if the Q1 gate voltage were to attempt to exceed (12.2volts+Vfwd), or about 12.8 to 13 volts.
So at Vbatt=72 volts, even if Q1 is operating properly, one would expect to be able to apply +12volts to the gate of Q1.
However, if Vbatt is 48volts, the drains will pull down to about 8.1 volts and the Q1 gate will be clamped by the Q2 body diode at about 8.7 to 8.9 volts.
If Vbatt is 36volts, the Q1 gate will be clamped at about 6.7 to 6.9 volts.
The niumbers are not exact, as they are dependent on the Vfwd of the body diode which is current and temperature dependent, but in these instances is likely close to the .6 to .8 volts used. As well, the Rds(on) of Q1 is dependent on both its gate voltage and temperature and may not always be the 2R used in the above examples.
PW
I am with you Milehigh lets wait a few days in peace lol
Kind Regards
PS your welcome on my new site Mile you will never get censored
Thanks for that clear explanation, PW. I knew that was the case but I never before actually examined Ainslie's traces for the gate voltage clamping before. My rough measurements agree with your calculations.
So we appear to have further evidence that the Figure 3 scopeshot is _not_ simply the result of some special FG settings, but rather does reflect something not quite kosher in the circuit.
What is your opinion of the time course of events? Whatever the problem was on the 2nd of March when Fig. 3 was taken, seems to have been fixed by March 12.... and they do _not_ demonstrate a Figure-3-like scopeshot during that demonstration. Then by March 26 she is saying that there is something badly wrong with the apparatus, then on march 31 she reports 2 blown mosfets. All this is happening while everybody still believes that there are all 5 mosfets in parallel: the true schematic wasn't revealed until the 19th of April. April 7-- still down, replaced FG. April 8, finally up again. Still ten days before the "reveal" of the true schematic used.
So there is all this work done on the circuit, replacing blown mosfets and the function generator, _after_ the March 12 demo and _before_ .99 discovers and reveals the true schematic: the Q1-Q2 difference.
How can this be? This is looking more and more like outright fraud to me, the more I look at it. Somebody knew the true state of the circuit and the true nature of the stress to the Q1 mosfet well before the demo video of March 12. Yet the narration, the schematics and all the forum posts until April 19th..... all claimed all five mosfets in parallel.
Unlike .99, I find it extremely improbable that people could work on the apparatus, troubleshoot and repair it after a disastrous failure, and _not_ notice that the Q2s were in "backwards" or not conforming to the claimed schematic.
@ markdansie
You have already been warned about Rosemary's deception and twisting of the truth, but I don't think you've been warned about the team of lawyers that she has, that will take legal action against you should you say anything against her or allow anything to be posted, from what I remember you will receive an e-mail from these so called lawyers demanding you remove certain items that Rosemary finds offensive, this happened a few years ago on this site, luckily it didn't take Stefan two long to figure out it was all a big bluff, anyway I'm sure TK can give you more details on these fantasy lawyers.
If you get any letters purporting to be from Ainslie's "lawyers", examine them very carefully.... you might be able to tell that she writes them herself. Regardless, though, if you get a letter from a real lawyer on her behalf, all you have to do is to send them, by return mail registered letter, some links that I will give you. These links are to a database full of images of posts of Ainslie's own words. Any lawyer who reads those posts will back off and leave you alone, while he (or she) gives Ainslie a good talking to.
Don't forget.... I can document and prove
1) her deception concerning her claim of "patenting" her first circuit
2) her deception and outright lies contained in the March 2011 video demonstration
3) her continuing deception concerning the true schematic in use, from March 12 through April 19 2011, and her desire to continue it beyond that date
4) her attempt to gain monetary awards by applying for various OverUnity Prizes using false claims about the circuit's performance
and more.
These are not "allegations", they are documented events and all the proof is available right there on the internet in her own words.
All of this is not even touching on all the libels she has delivered against just about everybody who she has ever dealt with on these forums, most of which are preserved in my database by images.
Well lawyers have never intimidated me, I actually work with a few and have given depositions for court cases. I also might point out that they are also not part of any academic peer review process. If any legal threats are made its game all over.
i will make sure I stick to the technology and not do personal remarks.
Anyway test day is soon should be fun, I think there is a bad post about me already on her forum
Mark
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 25, 2013, 02:00:27 AM
The Figure 3 scopeshot and some others that do not show any current during the Q1 ON times definitely show an applied Gate signal of +12 volts. And.... these are also the only ones that show Gate signal voltages over about +8 or +9 volts positive. All Ainslie's scopeshots that show current flow in the Q1 ON periods, also show lower gate drive voltages. NONE appear to reach even as high as 10 volts.
Yes, I noticed this also in my sims and most recently with my test setup. The FG trace never exceeds about +8V or so (Vbat=36V).
Here are some results from a sim:
Vbat = 38V, FG peak measurement is +6.6V.
Vbat = 72V, FG peak measurement is +11.2V
Measurements are with Q1 installed and functioning.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 25, 2013, 09:29:37 AM
Here are some results from a sim:
Vbat = 38V, FG peak measurement is +6.6V.
Vbat = 72V, FG peak measurement is +11.2V
Measurements are with Q1 installed and functioning.
And of course when you get that slightly over eleven volts maximum to the Gate, your current trace is nowhere near "flatlined", is it.
This reminds me a lot of the early days in 2009 when I first started working on the Quantum schematic. I immediately found and reported that the 555 timer was making the exact inverse duty cycle from what Ainslie claimed.... and I had to argue about that for literally _weeks_ before the point got across, and in some cases it still hasn't. Three dollars worth of parts, anyone could build and see for themselves in thirty minutes .... but they wanted to argue and insult and all the rest, instead of simply doing it and finding out for themselves. Then to see Gmeast get suckered in just a few months ago, trying to build her _still uncorrected_ schematic and crying out "It doesn't work" !! I really LOLed on that one.
cantankery vs markdansie lol
The flipped duty cycle story has an interesting chapter. There was one person who actually did build the 555 timer according to the Quantum schematic, and he found that it did NOT flip the duty cycle, and he argued with me for several days to that effect. But, to his credit, since I was so positive with my arguments and demonstrations, he checked his work..... and this is what he found: His original data was taken using a sound-card oscilloscope program, and his HP sound card was inverting.... that is, re-inverting.... the input signal! When he checked his build using a real oscilloscope he found that I was correct and that his first measurements -- through no real fault of his own -- were wrong. So the timer +was+ in fact making the flipped duty cycle just as I said. To his great credit he came onto my YT channel and apologized and confirmed my findings re the Quantum 555 timer circuit.
Awww .... look, isn't that cute?
GMeast, who asked not to be referred to in any more Ainslie discussions, has decided to chime in with his considered and constructive opinion. Which, of course, makes him fair game, once again, for inclusion in this thread.
Here's a suggestion, GMyeasty-ass...... why don't YOU use your vaunted experimental skills and your amazing apparatus to reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot YOURSELF, and show us all how great a Knight you are, defending your damsel Ains-lie.
YOU CANNOT.
She is just gonna have to show you how it's done, .99.
Weird, isn't it? With an intact mosfet in the circuit she claims to be using, the sim can't do it, you can't do it, I can't do it, PW can't do it.... nobody anywhere can do it, but Ainslie claims that she can do it easily, with three different function generators, simply by turning a knob.
She could show this in five minutes, if it were true. BUT SHE CANNOT.
(One thing is certainly true in her post: She simply CANNOT understand.)
(THREE different FGs? Where is the evidence for that? We know about at least two of them, one damaged during one mosfet-blowing event and replaced with a new one. But the Fig 3 shot was made before that happened. And I say NO FG can produce the Figure 3 shot.)
I've tried all kinds of simulated glitches to the circuit, too, like leaving off the Red FG output lead, or mixing up the Red and Black, or disconnecting the Load, or using different waveforms, offsets, pulse widths, frequencies, and so forth.... the only way to get 12 volts on the Gate signal at all is to have an open circuit at the Q1 D-S position, and the only way to get zero current in the CVR during Gate HI times and oscillations during Gate LO times is to have a faulty or disconnected or missing Q1.
Off topic, but this is something TK you can look at each day why eating your cornflakes.
It not overunity , but has some great stories, its actually a daily round up.
I know blatant plug but its my wife and and nephew work quite hard at putting it together.
We will sneak in some over unity stories
PS i get no financial benefit, actually the opposite. i get he server bill lol
http://www.breakthroughenergynews.com/ (http://www.breakthroughenergynews.com/)
Mark
I just found the new Rosemary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKrL4VCjSXU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKrL4VCjSXU)
Kind reagrds
test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKrL4VCjSXU)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 25, 2013, 10:40:36 AM
I've tried all kinds of simulated glitches to the circuit, too, like leaving off the Red FG output lead, or mixing up the Red and Black, or disconnecting the Load, or using different waveforms, offsets, pulse widths, frequencies, and so forth.... the only way to get 12 volts on the Gate signal at all is to have an open circuit at the Q1 D-S position, and the only way to get zero current in the CVR during Gate HI times and oscillations during Gate LO times is to have a faulty or disconnected or missing Q1.
TK,
It is apparent that she only plans to adjust the FG output so that Q1 does not turn on and then proclaim that a replication of FIG3.
Of course, that will not be a replication of FIG3, because the FG output will no longer be the +12 volts shown in FIG3.
PW
@rosemary ainslie..you speak of a general dislike of higher powers of overunities yet you take this to their mouthpieces,academics.you,l find one or two rebellious acedemics yes maam but believe me they wont go against the general grain in public even if you have something there.the best way to bomb the establishmentos is to co-operate with this bunch of electromaniacs here because if they see the thing working in front of their eyes word will spread like fire and no establementos can controll that.plz co-operate with these guys mrs ainslie,help them to get it right,guide them,put all egos aside even if one or two get out of hand,these guys stand much much to gain from a working circuit.establimentos cannot block anything here but acedemics?they,l tell you,mm mayb you have something there,then you,l hear crickets,even if youre a success.
@rosemary ainslie..in other words you can start a real hectic revolution up there from down here and certainly not from up there down here.
@MarkD: Thanks, that looks like an interesting news site. Already I learned a couple of things! And it's great that it's not swamped with obvious woo the way PESN is. I had to laugh at the one link to PESN on the front page though.... the device mentioned immediately gets a flag because it shows one of TK's Woo Indicators: The device is named after, is an acronym of, or contains the inventor's name in it somehow. ;)
@PW: I imagine that's what will happen (if anything happens) too. However, that setting won't produce the high heat in the load that she claims. She knows perfectly well that a functioning Q1, showing current flow in the CVR, is necessary to obtain the high load heating. It's also not legitimate, as I tried to point out, for her to use a different waveform to make high heat, then switch to something like Fig 3 (but without the 12 volt gate drive) and then claim that she's replicated it, showing residual heat in the load. The device needs to be set at the Fig.3 values, then allowed to sit at those values long enough to see how the load heating responds.
No, this is not "moving goalposts".... it is simply what Ainslie has claimed, but has never demonstrated.
Quote from: markdansie on June 25, 2013, 11:48:02 AM
I just found the new Rosemary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKrL4VCjSXU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKrL4VCjSXU)
Kind reagrds
test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKrL4VCjSXU)
What??? No electric iron, no big bank of 500 Watt light bulbs? Can't be real if it doesn't have at least an electric space heater going on.
The hammer drill is very impressive. I kept imaging her in jungle camouflage, carrying an assault rifle, though.
A refreshing absence of colored clipleads, and of course none of those confusing meters or sillyscope thingies. This gal will go far, I can tell.
She's gonna need to, in order to pay her electric bills for that nice modern office/home she's got.
I love the clunky sound of the thing. That's left in to impress the yearning masses. A silent box full of batteries and a big inverter isn't nearly as impressive as some rotating machinery that goes "clunk whirrrrr clunk whirrrrr" while it's _not running your home and office_ but instead running a hammer drill.
Quote from: profitis on June 25, 2013, 01:54:35 PM
@rosemary ainslie..you speak of a general dislike of higher powers of overunities yet you take this to their mouthpieces,academics.you,l find one or two rebellious acedemics yes maam but believe me they wont go against the general grain in public even if you have something there.the best way to bomb the establishmentos is to co-operate with this bunch of electromaniacs here because if they see the thing working in front of their eyes word will spread like fire and no establementos can controll that.plz co-operate with these guys mrs ainslie,help them to get it right,guide them,put all egos aside even if one or two get out of hand,these guys stand much much to gain from a working circuit.establimentos cannot block anything here but acedemics?they,l tell you,mm mayb you have something there,then you,l hear crickets,even if youre a success.
We definitely need a ROFL animated smiley here.
The Paper 1, Figure 6 scopeshot was taken with a timebase setting of 100 ms/division, a fairly slow timebase. Do you think I can't handle this with an analog oscilloscope?
(Note that the Figure 6 caption refers to a water temperature of 104 degrees C. Yet we know that Ainslie never measured the temperature of the water.)
The Figure 7 scopeshot also presented no problems. It takes longer to annotate the photos and upload them, than it does to make the shots.
Note the claim of "steam" evident at temperatures far below the temperature of steam. Steam, of course, is water vapor at over 100 degrees C and is transparent. Ainslie uses "steam" in a purely colloquial sense, like a "steaming teacup".... which is a far cry from a boiling, steaming tea KETTLE whistling away with real steam coming out the whistle.
(sorry about the confusion... I think I've got the uploads straightened out now.)
Hi TK I was happy to see you were impressed with the video. What is really impressive is the clunky wheel do not even load down when the electric drill and light bulb is turned on. They have obviously used the flux capacitor noble gas balancer that is in tune with the harmonics of cosmos.
I am not sure has it made number 1 on PESWIKI yet?
Mark
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 25, 2013, 04:09:28 PM
What??? No electric iron, no big bank of 500 Watt light bulbs? Can't be real if it doesn't have at least an electric space heater going on.
The hammer drill is very impressive. I kept imaging her in jungle camouflage, carrying an assault rifle, though.
A refreshing absence of colored clipleads, and of course none of those confusing meters or sillyscope thingies. This gal will go far, I can tell.
She's gonna need to, in order to pay her electric bills for that nice modern office/home she's got.
I love the clunky sound of the thing. That's left in to impress the yearning masses. A silent box full of batteries and a big inverter isn't nearly as impressive as some rotating machinery that goes "clunk whirrrrr clunk whirrrrr" while it's _not running your home and office_ but instead running a hammer drill.
My main concern with this device is what happens when the hamsters no longer want to run the wheel? I guess the lights go out and....no drill. The hamster poop can be compressed into nuggets that can be burned to get even more free energy.
Bill
I wonder what happened to Tinman. Four or five days ago he reported that it only took him a few minutes to fry his Q1 mosfet in his build of the NERD circuit. But he said he understood why and fixed the problem.... and that was the last we've heard from him about it.
I hope he hasn't fried his new scope or melted his cables ! Ainslie had some little difficulties in that quarter, istr.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2013, 12:21:09 AM
I wonder what happened to Tinman. Four or five days ago he reported that it only took him a few minutes to fry his Q1 mosfet in his build of the NERD circuit. But he said he understood why and fixed the problem.... and that was the last we've heard from him about it.
I hope he hasn't fried his new scope or melted his cables ! Ainslie had some little difficulties in that quarter, istr.
Lol TK
You have been reading elsewhere. No- the scope is fine !sofar!.I did explain to Poynt how i felt about this situation,and decided not to persue it further. I fried the Q1 mosfet because when i set the SG to a 5% duty cycle,i some how set it to invert the signal aswell. So now we had a 95% on time. Im claiming the !!its a new SG !! excuse for this one lol.
But anyway,i took the time to go read some of her post on her forum.Man this woman has a very disrespectful attitude toward others. Whats with the pointy Poynt crap-thats just pure disrespect. And then she ask's Poynt what P/in is?.This was ofcourse after Poynt explained quite clearly what P/in was. So here we have some one claiming to have an OU device,but dosnt know what P/in is. I have watch all your video's on how she got the scope shot 3 ,and it is quite clearly shown and explained by yourself. But she says on Marks forum that you havnt shown the figure 3 scope shot,or how it was achieved?.
Here is what i see happening.Poynt will show very clearlywhat was happening and why(just like yourself),but even then she will continue to present her circuit as an OU circuit-she just wont take no,or you were wrong Rose for an answer. I just dont have the time to waste on rubbish like this. I have just started takeing an interest in the TPU-yes i know,late start lol. But tomorrow i will be casting the core,and i have some other unfinished projects i wish to keep working on aswell. But anyway,you have shown that she has nothing,and i feel Poynt will show the same thing.But i feel the heads will still be banging against a brick wall.
Quote from: tinman on June 26, 2013, 09:51:12 AM
Here is what i see happening.Poynt will show very clearlywhat was happening and why(just like yourself),but even then she will continue to present her circuit as an OU circuit-she just wont take no,or you were wrong Rose for an answer. I just dont have the time to waste on rubbish like this. I have just started takeing an interest in the TPU-yes i know,late start lol. But tomorrow i will be casting the core,and i have some other unfinished projects i wish to keep working on aswell. But anyway,you have shown that she has nothing,and i feel Poynt will show the same thing.But i feel the heads will still be banging against a brick wall.
Tinman,
You are spot on. She even says it herself - from her own forum
IF there is nothing in our thesis - which is the REAL REASON THAT MY NAME AND ABILITIES ARE BEING TRASHED - then the easiest thing to do is to IGNORE IT. IT WILL COME TO NOTHING.
She has nothing here and cannot accept it. I don't know why she keeps on - probably for attention. When I first saw her posts I thought I would visit her as I live in SA. However on reading some of the previous threads I saw a pattern repeated. First, pleasant engagement followed by evasive and sometimes provocative responses to questions then eventually outright rudeness and abuse. I analysed her circuit and modeled it. I came up with pretty much the same as TK , .99, Picowatt et al. Since then I've just sat and watched the soap opera. Quite honestly, if her upcoming test is not timeous, transparent and correct (which I do not believe is possible) then it is time to simply ignore her.
Tseak
The problem is, as I have noted before, that she cannot be ignored. She moves from site to site with her initial set of claims (large COPs, a patent, publication, replications, vettings, discrimination, etc. none of which are true) and the site owners give her publicity, and she attracts a new set of hopeful experimenters each time.
She was being ignored here, effectively, until _after_ she snivelled on the June 1st demonstration that she trumpeted on PESN. She badgers people, makes false accusations and dispenses insults left and right, all the while failing to produce what she claims. It is no more possible to ignore her than it is to ignore a screaming 8-year-old child in a restaurant.
Several of her own blogs
Rossi's JNP
Her own "energy&shiftingparadigms" forum
four separate YouTube accounts
Naked Scientists
Energetic Forum
overunity.com
OUR
PESN
and most recently Revolution-Green
and these are just the ones I know about.
@tk one good thing that has come from the screaming child is she is not only drawing attention to herself but to the whole shabang of circuitry in general,particularly the inductor core,where a 2nd law breach is supposed to be happening.perhaps the screaming child will catalyse somebody else,s success?who knows.
@tk.out of curiosity.what mode of action would you take if you were to successfuly build a overunity circuit?would you run away?would you go backdoors and not say a word?
I see there is some confusion about what voltages to use for the Figure 1 and Figure 5 scopeshots. And no wonder! Once again we are confronted with rampant error and/or misrepresentation of the true state of affairs.
Maybe these images will help clear some things up. Or maybe not. These are taken from the most recent edit I could find, of Ainslie's Paper 1, found on her forum.
My annotations display some interesting features. Note first that the Figure 5 shot, with a clearly functioning Q1, was made _before_ the Figure 3 shot. This is important. Also note the difference in gate drive voltages. As we have noted in hardware and in simulation, the lower gate voltage is consistent with clipping and the Vbatt actually displayed by the scope. The higher gate voltage attained in Figure 3, combined with no current in Q1, is another symptom of something wrong.
Quote from: profitis on June 26, 2013, 01:53:35 PM
@tk.out of curiosity.what mode of action would you take if you were to successfuly build a overunity circuit?would you run away?would you go backdoors and not say a word?
It would depend on where it came from. If it was my own work, which I have not discussed here or in other open source forums, I would behave differently than if, say, you presented me with your design and I found that it worked as you claimed. Do you expect otherwise?
If I find something on my own, say with my antigravity or reactionless propulsion work, then I will take it and demonstrate it to some people I know, and if they cannot find anything wrong with it, I'll sell it to Boeing and retire to a private island without any internet hookups at all, and live out my days in peace and quiet. I haven't talked much here about my gyroscopic inertialess antigravity device, have I? Forget I said that.
If it's some open source project that happens to work, and I've helped in some way, I'll help the inventor take it to some of those same people I know, and the inventor can go through the same process, and hopefully some of the great pile of money that descends from Heaven will flow downhill to me.
This is one of the reasons why people like Ainslie and Wayne Travis bug me so much. They make these great claims, and try to cloak themselves with some kind of legitimacy, but when push comes to shove, they CANNOT demonstrate the validity of their claims at all. If they only could, I could help them out a lot. And myself at the same time, as the bringer of good news to people who desperately want to hear about it. But they cannot. Yet they continue to bloviate, make claims they cannot support, insult their critics and cynically laugh all the way to the bank with their gullible investor's dollars. Or Rand or Lira or Pounds or whatever.
Quote from: profitis on June 26, 2013, 01:41:34 PM
@tk one good thing that has come from the screaming child is she is not only drawing attention to herself but to the whole shabang of circuitry in general,particularly the inductor core,where a 2nd law breach is supposed to be happening.perhaps the screaming child will catalyse somebody else,s success?who knows.
What she is doing is bringing discredit and disrespect onto the "whole shabang" as you call it. By attempting to cloak herself in the trappings of Science, she is causing legitimate mainstream scientists to glance briefly her way, and what they see makes them recoil in disgust. This makes them _less_ likely to give credence to further unusual or nonconformist ideas from other researchers, some of whom might actually have something worth looking at (unlike Ainslie).
I don't think you can cite any solid evidence of "2nd Law breaches" in inductor cores, but if you can, I'll be happy to tell you what I think.
Are the images I am posting coming through all right? I mean, I see them here, and I see the download links and they appear to work.... but from some of the things I'm reading it appears that "some people" are blind to these images.
:-\
:-* :-*
@tk i have to disagree.she cant bring any more discredit to 'alternative' science than there was to begin with.in fact quite the opposite in reality because nowdays instead of one or two guys fiddling with alternative science we have a hundred thousand fiddlers trying to 'be the ones',the frauds,the selfdeceptives,the moronics etc actualy opening portals for the real mcoys because now the attention is 'there' eg.this website whereas before the attention was nowhere.this website wouldnt exist if we didnt have a million selfdeceptives,frauds,try-their-luckers,curiositers etc. In other words the crapsters are creating security for the realmcoys which wouldve otherwise been invisible.the crapsters open attention corridors.
@tk and a working overunity device splashed out to the public in detail would take a life of its own,its own momentum, as people replicate en masse.this would bypass instantly any crapstodamage that ainslie or any1 might have caused,assuming she has crap there
@tk i wouldnt be surprized if with all these myriads of variations of circuitries centred around cores some guys have gotten overunities perfected but they would be few and far between and wouldve gone out the backdoors for a fast quiet buck for sure.i very much doubt that the establishment will change its permitted views regardless of who brings them an overunity device.its simply not in their intrests to blow the horn and mass promote free energy to peasants,however,let me see if i can find a working example somewhere and bring it to you.have you chekd out paul lawrence,s circuits?one of the few guys ive seen who knew what was going on in the core and adjusted his circuitry accordingly.
The Ainslie Circuit is not without flaw.
But the complications brought about
by the unorthodox connections are
rather easily corrected and that
process of modification (improvement)
would obviate the inconvenience for the
dual polarity Signal Generator input. ::)
Some of you have already demonstrated
that you are more than capable of reasoning
these things out. ;)
Think "Floating MOSFET Switch" or even
"Transformer Coupling." 8)
All of the energy expended upon Rosemary
herself is wasted effort. Although, for some
it seems to be a source of almost addictive
"fun." :o
Rosemary may come across as being disrespectful
and rude at times; but it must be admitted that
her pronouncements are always made affectionately. :-*
The LEDs of DOOM have become the DSO of DOOM. lol
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 26, 2013, 02:37:36 PM
This is one of the reasons why people like Ainslie and Wayne Travis bug me so much. They make these great claims, and try to cloak themselves with some kind of legitimacy, but when push comes to shove, they CANNOT demonstrate the validity of their claims at all. If they only could, I could help them out a lot. And myself at the same time, as the bringer of good news to people who desperately want to hear about it. But they cannot. Yet they continue to bloviate, make claims they cannot support, insult their critics and cynically laugh all the way to the bank with their gullible investor's dollars. Or Rand or Lira or Pounds or whatever.
I have to agree, and always be on my guard that I am not used to bring any legitimacy to any of these people. I am happy to bring their projects to the attention of others for assessment. In the case of Wayne, after many visits , not only me but many others, it is really time to have the proof of concept running so the claims can be confirmed or not confirmed. I have put a September 1 deadline on that.
It is a fine line and that is why 95% of the work I do is under NDA, which works both ways they can not use my name.
Sadly as you know most of these projects I look at (well 99.9%) never pan out for a variety of reasons.
Kind Regards
Mark
Sigh.
@profitis:
Yes, I am familiar with Paul Lowrance. Some people I know call him PLOL. He has never managed to demonstrate anything unusual, as far as I am aware. If you know of something different, please let me know.
@seamonkey:
I've run Ainslie's circuit with no function generator, using a selfcontained 555 timer powered by the main batteries. I have also tried driving the gates through simple optoisolators (doesn't work properly, due to the need for a current source for oscillations to happen, and is in fact proof of this.) I have not tried transformer coupling in the Ainslie circuit, although I have used it to great effect to drive the mosfet gates in my TinselKoil 2. But I don't think it would work in the Ainslie circuit because the oscillations need a constant source of DC bias current in order to proceed, and the transformer gate drive scheme can't really provide a DC current.
The oscillations can be produced quite easily and continuously for as long as you like, with no external components other than a 9volt battery and a rheostat, but with that setup you get oscillations only and no Q1 "on" times, so you cannot produce high load heating. However, according to Ainslie the batteries should be not discharging, or should be recharging, or something, during the oscillations. (Any action during Q1 ON times is purely conventional; the magic allegedly must happen during the oscillations.)
But of course, real experimentation with proper measurements disproves Ainslie's claims wrt the oscillations too. We will get to those; right now we are dealing with the absence of current in the Q1 mosfet even though it is clearly getting sufficient gate drive to turn on, as shown in Ainslie's Figure 3 scopeshot.
Do you have anything specifically to say about that topic?
I forgot to note Yet Another discrepancy in the Figure 5 shot from the most recent edit of Ainslie's Paper 1 that I downloaded from her forum site.
The description says the "switching period was set to 684 ms" that is, 684 milliseconds .... but the scope's horizontal timebase is set to 500 microseconds per horizontal division. A look at the traces shows that they might be showing a period of 684 microseconds, abbreviated μs or us. This is excusable as a typo, maybe ..... in a first draft of the manuscript. It is not excusable in the most recent edit (of many) or the "official publication" which is really just a posting on Rossi's JNP blog.
I=V/R.
Voltage drop across "shunt" during Q1 ON times-- essentially DC--- is about 0.75 V, and the "shunt" is 0.25 Ohms. Therefore, the current flowing in the system is 0.75V/0.25Ohm == 3.0 Amperes.
Hardly what I would call a "limited amount of current flow", since it is near the maximum that can be attained with a battery voltage of 49.5 volts and a total circuit DC resistance of a bit over 14 Ohms.
P=I2R.
With 3 amps going through the Q1 mosfet at a duty cycle of about 20 percent, the mosfet will be dissipating _at least_ (0.20) x (3 amps) x (3 amps) x 2 ohms Rdss == 3.6 Watts average. It will warm perceptibly but won't be stressed, even on the tiny original heatsink. And this is why they always limit the batteries to four or less when demonstrating the "high heat" mode: to keep the current in Q1 low so it doesn't overheat.
With 74 volts the mosfet should be conducting I = V/R = 74V/14 Ohms == 5.28 amps. At a 20 percent duty cycle it will be dissipating _at least_ (0.20) x (5.28 A) x (5.28 A) x 2 ohms Rdss == a bit over 11 Watts average. It will get hot but not in danger of failing completely if the run is short. If the frequency is lowered so that the mosfet doesn't have a chance to cool, as in the 160 second period used in Figure 1 with 16 or 18 seconds ON, the mosfet will have to dissipate over 50 Watts during that long ON time.... and will likely fail. Ever put your finger on an operating 50 Watt light bulb? Now imagine that power in a package the size of a TO247 device package.
All this is without considering the oscillations, which do warm the Q2 mosfets a small amount but don't affect the Q1.
QuoteGood luck for those tests. We'll probably be doing our demo at 6.00 pm on Saturday. But I'll firm up on this later this evening and will post it in my 'debunking troll spin' thread.
"this evening" being yesterday, Tuesday evening. So where's the "firmed up" date and time posting, today, almost Thursday morning? Nowhere, that's where.
Of course, this is what she posted there on June 24th:
QuoteWe are doing this demonstration for the EXCLUSIVE PURPOSE OF PROVING FIG 3 PAPER 1. That demonstration is intended for 4.pm Central African Time - Saturday 29th JUNE. If I am hospitalised - or if our presenter is hospitalised or for various reasons is unable to attend - then - under all reasonable circumstances - we reserve the right to delay that demonstration. BUT - no such delay is envisaged - God willing.
That's the same thing she said at an earlier promised demo date that she snivelled on: "God willing". And apparently he wasn't then, so why should he be willing this time?
Of course, if she is hospitalized....... maybe I'll send her some flowers.
NOT.
Quote from: TinselKoala
...right now we are dealing with the absence of current in the Q1 mosfet even though it is clearly getting sufficient gate drive to turn on, as shown in Ainslie's Figure 3 scopeshot.
Do you have anything specifically to say about that topic?
Whenever possible, rather than replicating an
exact duplicate of whatever circuit is being
investigated, I prefer to focus on the characteristics
of the circuit which may prove beneficial. Then I
set out to accomplish whatever switching may be
necessary to produce the desired "waveforms"
in the most efficient and least complicated fashion.
In many cases the original circuit contains fatal
flaws which compromise device reliability. In those
cases I'll improvise liberally to find necessary
corrections/solutions.
Once the desired operational parameters are gleaned
then it is possible to duplicate those, with any needed
"tuning," to optimize the effects.
For those reasons I avoid exact replications.
Right. That's a "no", then. You are not qualified to comment on Ainslie's circuit because you have not built it nor explored its various aspects in simulations or circuit theory analysis.
OK, then.... do you have some of your OWN work to talk about, that demonstrates anything at all valid or relevant to this discussion of Ainslie's upcoming alleged demo of the Figure 3 scopeshot?
Allegedly upcoming, that is. I will be very surprised if she -- or rather, "her presenter"..... actually pulls it off on Saturday.
@tk meantime heres a hint on how to largely eliminate most of the effort and crap that one has to go through to build an entire circuit just to be disapointed at the end: take one small cap of known total power fully charged eg.3v/25uF,discharge it in ONE shot-pulse into the inductor coil direct,then measure totality of kickback power on that one pulse.if its overunity then proceed to build circuit to adapt to that.useful to cut back on time and expenses i imagine.
bingo!.to all electromaniacs out there,shove a variable oscillator machine onto one side of a sample test-inductor core and a measure machine on the other side for kickbacks,then you can play with variables around the most important thing,the fucking core! Ideas are flowing...
Meantime..... Ainslie the bloviating idiot has apparently decided to NOT EVEN READ the posts she criticises. Of course that is standard Ains-lie behaviour these days.
Quote
WELL. He's right of course. But ONLY and PROVIDED that you don't ALSO apply our standard measurement protocols. In point of fact he's OUT by a small factor of 90% because he's forgotten to factor in the duty cycle.
Oh REALLY? Well, I don't expect someone who dropped out of school at age 12 to be able to follow where I FACTOR IN THE DUTY CYCLE in the post. Keep it up, AINS-LIE, you are on a roll. Go ahead.... step through the calculation for me, show me how to do it "correctly" according to you. I need a good laugh this morning.
It is true that in my Fig 5 analysis I slightly overestimated the peak current during Q1 ON time. I had the CVR voltage drop indication as 750mV but it is really closer to 650 mV. None of my conclusions change from this: it is still near the maximum current possible under the battery voltage _actually supplied_ rather than that which is mendaciously claimed in Ainslie's description.
QuoteBut that's TYPICAL. And it's DELIBERATE.
That's right: it's typical and DELIBERATE for me to be correct in a calculation and for AINS-LIE to be absurdly wrong.
Quote
And NOTA BENE - NONE OF HIS COLLEAGUES? FELLOW CONSPIRATORS? TROLLS? have drawn attention to this LATEST DISTORTION.
Distortion? No, it's not a distortion, AINSLIE, unless YOU CAN CORRECT IT AND SHOW YOUR CORRECTION IS PROPER. But you cannot. Your scope trace description claims six batteries in parallel. The trace itself shows that's a lie. Your description says other things that are shown to be lies by the trace itself. You cannot counter these "distortions" because they are not distortions: they are FACTS that anyone can see just by looking at the page in your "paper".
QuoteAnd here's the kicker. He also ASSUMES that we, on this side of the argument, will none of us notice this? Clearly he entirely believes his spin that we're all of us IDIOTS. Not that I, personally, mind this description - one little bit. He's right.
You said it, Ainslie, you are "all of you " IDIOTS, because you STILL CANNOT SUPPORT YOUR ABSURD CLAIMS with facts and demonstrations and CORRECT CALCULATIONS of your own, yet you have no qualms whatsoever about insulting your critics without meeting their criticisms with substance. BECAUSE YOU CANNOT.
Quote
It's rather idiotic to STILL depend on the benefits of reporting on open source. But I have my reasons - which are to keep this technology alive and well - until we can turn it over to competent authorities to validate.
You had better get busy then because you have NOTHING TO "VALIDATE" at all and anyone who examines the issue discovers the same thing. And Saturday is only two days away.
Quote
Meanwhile it would be as well to remember something that they're DESPERATELY trying to TRIVIALISE. Here's the thing. Under all known standard protocols of energy measurement it is ENTIRELY impossible to reach a NEGATIVE PRODUCT in the supply of energy. It SIMPLY CANNOT HAPPEN.
Yet it is MODELLED EXACTLY IN SIMULATION SOFTWARE. Which makes your claim that "it cannot happen" a bad joke and another baldfaced AINS-
LIE, since entirely conventional circuit theory SHOWS HOW AND WHEN IT
DOES HAPPEN and fully explains it...... as a measurement artefact that Ainslie simply doesn't understand.
Quote
And yet even our 'little gherkin' REPEATEDLY gives us this value and says words to the effect ....'SO WHAT'?
Someday, AINSLIE, your lies and insults will catch up to you and you will suffer consequences. I will continue to do all I can to make that day come as soon as possible, and every time you insult me in this manner.... you strengthen my resolve and you display your true nature.
Quote
THAT attitude. That question - is itself PURE SPIN. Because whichever way you want to cut this argument - THAT NUMBER POINTS TO ANOMALIES. It's that simple. And our PRIMARY MISSION is to show PRECISELY THAT ANOMALY - which is REPEATABLE - REPLICABLE - AND HAS BEEN SHOWN EVERYWHERE ON OPEN SOURCE. It's HUGE. It categorically DEFEATS Kirchoff's UNITY PRINCIPLE - UNLESS it can be shown to be a measurement error.
Which, of course, it has been. Over and over, repeatably, in hardware, in circuit analysis and in simulation, and the error is tracked down precisely to the poor circuit layout and the bad scoposcopy and misinterpretations and misrepresentations that Ainslie performs.
QuoteIt speaks to the FACT of an alternate energy supply source. And it speaks to the INEVITABLE consequence of an energy potential that has also been GROSSLY overlooked.
No it doesn't, it speaks to the FACT that ignorant people will get wrong answers when they try to do something that they don't understand. You are crazy. Your "anomaly" is nothing more than a bunch of amateurish errors and bogus calculations and this has been demonstrated to you OVER AND OVER and nobody, NOBODY, has found otherwise. NOT EVEN YOU! Your own data show how idiotic you are.
Quote
MEANWHILE all that they can do is to DENY the authority of our evidence by systematically plugging further irrelevant criticisms of our presentation of that evidence. It's been done to death. And I think we're all a little tired of it. We ALWAYS show a negative wattage. Correctly they should be arguing JUST THIS. NOTHING ELSE.
On the contrary, AINS-LIE: we have done much more than you say. We have PROVEN that you are completely bogus, a bloviating liar, who will even get other people to lie for you, and your "negative wattage" is meaningless! Correctly "we" are arguing that your entire "thesis" is crap, your "data" is largely made up and totally misrepresented, and you STILL DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE between a Watt and a Joule.
Where's your demonstration of the Figure 3 scopeshot? YOU CANNOT PRODUCE IT. Where is the promised "firm schedule" for your demonstration that is supposed to take place THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW? YOU HAVE NOT POSTED IT AS PROMISED.
Quote from: profitis on June 27, 2013, 09:03:03 AM
bingo!.to all electromaniacs out there,shove a variable oscillator machine onto one side of a sample test-inductor core and a measure machine on the other side for kickbacks,then you can play with variables around the most important thing,the fucking core! Ideas are flowing...
Your "ideas" might be flowing, but your "demonstrations" are all clogged up. I would rather see you support some of your words with deeds, than to hear more of your "ideas" which are irrelevant to the present discussion. Can YOU make the Ainslie Figure 3 scopeshot traces, with YOUR apparatus?
Of course you cannot.
Kirchoff's UNITY PRINCIPLE? What's that?
Nothing, just more ignorant parroting of big words from Polly Parrot Ains-lie.
@tk lol.i just made things about ten times easier for you and evry single electrofreak here man.you dont have to build any more circuits BEFORE you,re disapointed,cant you see this.maybe you knew this idono.apologies if im wrong.
Quote from: TinselKoala
You are not qualified to comment on Ainslie's circuit because you have not built it nor explored its various aspects in simulations or circuit theory analysis.
Whether or not anyone is "qualified" to
carry out any task is dependent upon
one's abilities. I would not build the circuit
as it is now configured due to its instability
and unorthodox nature. It is a novel circuit
to be sure; but one which is capable of
performing the beneficial functions with
efficiency and stability would be much
preferred. Therefore, I'd isolate the specific
functions which have proven beneficial and
design a circuit to accomplish those functions
effectively and with the ability to respond to
"tuning."
The circuit as it exists has been explored and
found to be unstable. The flaws which it
exhibits are correctable. Exact replication
will not accomplish the desired outcome.
Quote from: TinselKoala
Someday, AINSLIE, your lies and insults will catch up to you and you will suffer consequences. I will continue to do all I can to make that day come as soon as possible, and every time you insult me in this manner.... you strengthen my resolve and you display your true nature.
I guess that explains everything...
Quote from: profitis on June 27, 2013, 09:46:52 AM
@tk lol.i just made things about ten times easier for you and evry single electrofreak here man.you dont have to build any more circuits BEFORE you,re disapointed,cant you see this.maybe you knew this idono.apologies if im wrong.
Do you really want to make things easier? Then do some actual work of your own, produce some kind of significant result of your own that demonstrates your point. Otherwise you are just emitting words.
Some people don't have to build, they can just use simulations or superior knowledge and experience with circuit theory to tell what's going on in a circuit. I'm not that good; I have to build.
But I have confidence in my knowledge, my skills and abilities....especially when I have some comparisons to go by..... and I know BS when I see it. When I start examining an issue and immediately uncover lies, huge errors, distortions and misrepresentations.... my BS meter pegs out. When I first examined the Ainslie performance claims by building and testing the first, Quantum magazine circuit back in 2009, I already knew that the claims were most probably bogus, due to errors and misinterpretations, but I wanted to find out why and how. And I did.... and instead of getting appreciation for my work, I was vilified for it and even banned from EF...... but as they ultimately found out for themselves and had to acknowledge, I was 100 percent right in everything I said about Ainslie and her circuit and her claims.
And I still am, and she cannot refute me with facts, checkable outside references or demonstrations of her own. Nor can you.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 27, 2013, 10:12:59 AM
Whether or not anyone is "qualified" to
carry out any task is dependent upon
one's abilities.
And just what are your abilities? Got any YouTube demonstrations of your abilities? Anything you've built yourself to show off? Why should anyone believe your purely qualitative hand-waving analysis, without some sample of your actual work to go by?
Quote
I would not build the circuit
as it is now configured due to its instability
and unorthodox nature. It is a novel circuit
to be sure; but one which is capable of
performing the beneficial functions with
efficiency and stability would be much
preferred. Therefore, I'd isolate the specific
functions which have proven beneficial and
design a circuit to accomplish those functions
effectively and with the ability to respond to
"tuning."
THEN DO IT.Quote
The circuit as it exists has been explored and
found to be unstable. The flaws which it
exhibits are correctable.
THEN CORRECT THEM yourself, or show Ainslie how to do it. I have the feeling, though.... that YOU CANNOT. Go ahead and prove me wrong.
Quote
Exact replication
will not accomplish the desired outcome.
You should be talking to Ainslie, then, shouldn't you?
Because what we are doing here is pointing out those flaws and trying to get AINSLIE to correct them herself. But she cannot, because her claims are untenable and she has no clue about what she is doing. She is trying to PROVE HER "THESIS".... and that right there should tell you pretty much all you need to know about Ainslie and her approach to Science... or rather, her distorted view of what Science is.
The desired outcome is to get her to retract her error-filled mendacious manuscripts, issue errata and apologies, and either repeat the experiments and analyses properly or.... STFU.
QuoteI guess that explains everything...
No, Sea Monkey. That does not explain everything. That explains my response to how Ainslie has made this issue a personal one, by continuing her outrageous insults towards me and others, when she is so manifestly and provably WRONG about so many things. You might think it's funny for her to continually call me "Bryan Little" when she has no support at all for her false contention, or to continue repeating her sexual slur "ickle pickle", but I do not. It pisses me off, and if she had any sense of decency or integrity she would not do it, and every time she does I will come back with PROOF of her ignorance, her mendacity, her overweening arrogance, her errors and her idiocy.
(And it also explains that you are a sock puppet Ainslie sycophant, without analytical skills of your own.)
It looks like I have to repeat this post for the benefit of the blind.
I=V/R.
Voltage drop across "shunt" during Q1 ON times-- essentially DC--- is about 0.75 V, and the "shunt" is 0.25 Ohms. Therefore, the current flowing in the system is 0.75V/0.25Ohm == 3.0 Amperes.
(Correction: the drop is more like 0.65 V, so the current is around 2.6 amps.)
Hardly what I would call a "limited amount of current flow", since it is near the maximum that can be attained with a battery voltage of 49.5 volts and a total circuit DC resistance of a bit over 14 Ohms.
P=I2R.
With 3 amps going through the Q1 mosfet
at a duty cycle of about 20 percent, the mosfet will be dissipating _at least_
(0.20) x (3 amps) x (3 amps) x 2 ohms Rdss == 3.6 Watts average. (Correction: with 2.6 amps current the average power dissipation in the mosfet will be around 2.7 Watts.) It will warm perceptibly but won't be stressed, even on the tiny original heatsink. And this is why they always limit the batteries to four or less when demonstrating the "high heat" mode: to keep the current in Q1 low so it doesn't overheat.
With 74 volts the mosfet should be conducting I = V/R = 74V/14 Ohms == 5.28 amps.
At a 20 percent duty cycle it will be dissipating _at least_
(0.20) x (5.28 A) x (5.28 A) x 2 ohms Rdss == a bit over 11 Watts average. It will get hot but not in danger of failing completely if the run is short. If the frequency is lowered so that the mosfet doesn't have a chance to cool, as in the 160 second period used in Figure 1 with
16 or 18 seconds ON, the mosfet will have to dissipate over 50 Watts
during that long ON time.... and will likely fail. Ever put your finger on an operating 50 Watt light bulb? Now imagine that power in a package the size of a TO247 device package.
All this is without considering the oscillations, which do warm the Q2 mosfets a small amount but don't affect the Q1.
QuoteWELL. He's right of course. But ONLY and PROVIDED that you don't ALSO apply our standard measurement protocols. In point of fact he's OUT by a small factor of 90% because he's forgotten to factor in the duty cycle. But that's TYPICAL. And it's DELIBERATE. And NOTA BENE - NONE OF HIS COLLEAGUES? FELLOW CONSPIRATORS? TROLLS? have drawn attention to this LATEST DISTORTION. And here's the kicker. He also ASSUMES that we, on this side of the argument, will none of us notice this? Clearly he entirely believes his spin that we're all of us IDIOTS. Not that I, personally, mind this description - one little bit. He's right.
Uh-huh. Another clear statement of mendacious distortion from Ainslie.... then she proceeds to rant and rave about her ERROR AND LIE, rather than the true facts of the matter. I don't apply "their Standard measurement protocols"? But... I am using AINSLIE'S OWN MEASURED DATA. It is to laugh.
My interest in the concept is to
isolate any phenomena which
demonstrate beneficial cababilities.
The circuit in question is neither complicated
nor is it complex; at least, not from the
standpoint of what it is intended to achieve.
I have no interest in either correcting or
educating Rosemary. She is a very clever
and intelligent woman who will, when she
decides the time is right, pursue those actions
on her own. :)
Presently it seems that Rosemary is engaged in
a psychological operation to counteract efforts
to "take her down." She has proven to be a very
skillful adversary in this drama. When the conflict
is evaluated in terms of stimulus/response one can
only conclude that hers is the superior strategy. ::)
When one enters a psychological fray with a woman
one must accept that the "rules" will be very flexible
and that the "goalposts" may be moved as necessary. :o
Women are exceedingly good at getting men to obsess
over them. If the men fall into the trap, that is... :-*
That being said, it is hoped that you'll live happily
ever after!
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 27, 2013, 10:43:12 AM
My interest in the concept is to
isolate any phenomena which
demonstrate beneficial cababilities.
The circuit in question is neither complicated
nor is it complex; at least, not from the
standpoint of what it is intended to achieve.
I have no interest in either correcting or
educating Rosemary. She is a very clever
and intelligent woman who will, when she
decides the time is right, pursue those actions
on her own. :)
Why are you bothering to comment here, then? You DO have an interest in "educating or correcting" me? PicoWatt? .99?
I am afraid you are going to have to establish some credentials if you intend to teach me something. And I don't believe that you have been able to show that I am wrong about anything, so how do you intend to correct me?
Quote
Presently it seems that Rosemary is engaged in
a psychological operation to counteract efforts
to "take her down." She has proven to be a very
skillful adversary in this drama.
She is persistent, nothing more. Her "skill" consists in standing outside the arena, shouting "I can do that".... but of course she cannot. She cannot and has not ever provided proof for any of her claims.
(And what she is engaging in is called "STALLING" and "SNIVELLING". It is not a psychological operation, it is the neurotic meandering of a person who knows she hasn't got proof of her claims.)
Quote
When the conflict
is evaluated in terms of stimulus/response one can
only conclude that hers is the superior strategy. ::)
I laugh at you. The superior strategy would be to PROVE ONE'S CLAIMS, instead of insulting one's critics with false accusations, mendacious misrepresentations and continuing empty bloviation.
Quote
When one enters a psychological fray with a woman
one must accept that the "rules" will be very flexible
and that the "goalposts" may be moved as necessary. :o
Women are exceedingly good at getting men to obsess
over them. If the men fall into the trap, that is... :-*
That being said, it is hoped that you'll live happily
ever after!
This matter has nothing to do with Ainslie's gender or her age, no matter how much she... and you.... try to make it so. She wants to play Science.... then here it is, in all its glory. "It doesn't matter how smart you are or how beautiful your theory is... .if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." And Ainslie's "theory" is not only not beautiful or smart, it doesn't agree with experiment, therefore it is wrong, and her own experimental data demonstrate this nicely.
Nobody has moved any goalposts, either. (Except of course Ainslie's mendacious editing of her manuscripts and forum posts to remove incriminating statements and bogus calculations.) The goalposts are still firmly in the ground: Ainslie has made claims, and she must support them with experiments and demonstrations, or she must retract them and issue errata and apologies. It is as simple as that and nothing about that has changed in thirteen years of Ains-lies.
Quote from: TinselKoala
And just what are your abilities? Got any YouTube demonstrations of your abilities? Anything you've built yourself to show off? Why should anyone believe your purely qualitative hand-waving analysis, without some sample of your actual work to go by?
YouTube has proven to be quite the
phenom. There is much available there
which has educational merit.
I'd put the bulk of what you've offered
in this category.
Sadly, most of the "technical" product
put up by many of the aspiring technicians
leaves much to be desired. But, it does
represent a beginning and one can only
hope that their education and abilities will
progress as they continue their quests.
No, I'm Old School. In fact, I may be nothing
more than a figment of your imagination.
I mean; C'mon! What is a SeaMonkey anyway?
A sea monkey is something one used to find advertised in the back of pulp SF magazines. They are brine shrimp. You send off for them, and wait in eager anticipation for them to arrive in the mail. You put them in water and they wriggle around for a while and then they die. And you are ever afterwards wary of things you find advertised in the back of pulp magazines.
@tk ok ok.hey at least we can agree on one thing here without the need for me or you to run and fetch model demos and that is: any overunity circuit must challenge the 2nd law thermodynamics right?and its gotta happen in the core right?these two statements are at least what we do know without needing to run for backup.let these 2 facts guide the energyseekeryouths of the future then.now back to channel ainslie..
Keep it up, Ainslie.... you are doing fine.
Perhaps you'd like to show your calculation yourself, demonstrating the "delta time" you think I left out.
No... how silly of me, you NEVER HAVE and NEVER WILL support your claims with your own demonstrations, especially if they involve actual mathematics or even simple arithmetic like an average power calculation. Unlike you, I SHOW MY WORKINGS.
Don't forget, though.... I will send these little messages of yours to everyone you contact in your attempt to gain publicity, so they can see just who you really are.
Quote from: TinselKoala
Why are you bothering to comment here, then? You DO have an interest in "educating or correcting" me? PicoWatt? .99?
I am afraid you are going to have to establish some credentials if you intend to teach me something. And I don't believe that you have been able to show that I am wrong about anything, so how do you intend to correct me?
Nope. No intent or desire to educate,
correct or teach anything. Simply to
provide a little feedback which may be
done with as you desire. No obligation
of any sort is implied.
Technically you're on solid ground and
have made very few errors much to your
credit; and you've graciously made correction
to resolve any misunderstandings. On
technical issues that is.
Regarding your efforts to stimulate some
sort of "behavior modification" on the part
of Rosemary, it could be argued that your
tactics have been, shall we say, ineffective?
Women do not respond well to displays of
weakness; what they crave is men with
strength. Who uplift with tenderness.
The drama has been both amusing and
edifying. Something good may come of it
yet!
Ainslie repeatedly accuses me of "cowardice" because I protect my real identity. Yet she won't reveal the names of these "Academics" of "hers"! And she has threatened me several times and has attempted to contact potential employers to try to find out who I am and also to try to denigrate me and my abilities. And the world is full of stalkers and trolls; at least one person who used to post here and who actually DID have an address for me actually threatened to show up on my doorstep.
Yet, in spite of this, I have offered to reveal my identity to responsible persons under strict NDA with penalty clause. And several people on this forum know exactly who I am and where I live. There is a difference between "cowardice" and "caution". Ainslie has shown over and over that she has no regard for truth or actual facts.... and every time she refers to me as "Bryan Little" she demonstrates this again.
She never DID drop out of school? Then she can show us her degree or diploma. Can't she? SURELY?
Applying her own "reasoning", if she doesn't show her diploma she is admitting... nay, CONFESSING..... that she did in fact drop out and not complete her course of study. Or perhaps she simply flunked out.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 27, 2013, 11:24:29 AM
Nope. No intent or desire to educate,
correct or teach anything. Simply to
provide a little feedback which may be
done with as you desire. No obligation
of any sort is implied.
Technically you're on solid ground and
have made very few errors much to your
credit; and you've graciously made correction
to resolve any misunderstandings. On
technical issues that is.
And I would be happy to correct any other technical errors that you might be able to demonstrate in my work. Just let me know. In all fairness, though..... you should do the same for Ainslie, don't you think?
Quote
Regarding your efforts to stimulate some
sort of "behavior modification" on the part
of Rosemary, it could be argued that your
tactics have been, shall we say, ineffective?
Women do not respond well to displays of
weakness; what they crave is men with
strength. Who uplift with tenderness.
The drama has been both amusing and
edifying. Something good may come of it
yet!
I would be acting exactly the same if I had no idea of Ainslie's gender. She chooses to reveal herself more than most people do on the internet; that is her choice and she may accept the consequences willingly. I do not care what Ainslie may or may not crave, nor why. She could be a pimply teenage male with a computer and an oscilloscope, or a venerable old Professor Emeritus at MIT or CPUT, I do not care in the least. Nor will I "cut her slack" because she claims to be old, infirm, stupid, and blind. If she makes a claim that she cannot support with facts and data, and insults me and a whole community of people while she is doing it..... I don't give a flying mosfet who or what she is, I will demand the same degree of proof, and I will react in the same manner to her continuing insults and disrespect, with demonstrations of her own stupidity, mendacity and willfull ignorance, in her own words and data.
@SeaMonkey
It is very suspicious that post 5 from the time you joined this site indicates that you know Rosemary, it is also obvious you are a blind believer in her work, we can now see yet again you're efforts at trying to make this out to be an attack on women, is completely without merit. http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315496/#msg315496 (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315496/#msg315496)
You sound so much like Rosemary, all you seem to do is try and divert people away from the real issue that Rosemary's circuit does not work as she claims.
lol.seamonkey,s english etiquete sounds identical to rosemary.omg
SeaMonkey has pretty much the same MO on the OUR forum as "Dumped".
Into the sea of negative ions it
is necessary to inject, from time
to time, some positive ions in
order to restore nature's balance.
Of course the circuit doesn't work as
it was thought; that is rather well
established at the moment. On that
point it is "Mission Accomplished."
Could it be made to work?
Absolutely. By means of creative
re-design.
Is there any possibility of seeing
some amount of excess energy?
That possibility yet exists.
When I said that women do not respond
well to displays of weakness I should have
said something like this:
Women do not respond well to tactics which
mimic their own. It is a given that in a cat
fight women will be strongly tempted to seize
the low ground. What they admire is an opponent
who will seize the high ground to give them
something to look up to.
Joining a woman on the low ground is always a
great recipe for disaster. It's very much akin to
pickin' a fight (argument) with a stupid person;
they'll wear you down with their stupidity.
Like Maverick said: You've gotta know when to
hold 'em or fold 'em.
This thread is proof of OU.
Input = 1 woman blowing hot air. Output = >20 men blowing off steam.
COP> 2000%
@seamonkey,gimme some tips on how to pick-up random chiks in the mall sometime yeah? Err,that aside,yeah thers ways to improve circuits sure,but i insist it must begin at the inductor,for therein lyes the key.
The secret is in Body Language.
Become proficient at both "speaking"
and reading body language.
Regarding Inductors. That may indeed
be the key.
@.99, PicoWatt: Can I ask you to try something in your sims and builds and theoretical analyses, please?
Simply move the Current channel's probe to the other side of the "shunt". Not the common ground point where the probe reference is connected, but rather immediately next to the resistor itself, just on the other side from where it is normally connected. This point is "naively" at the same potential as the common ground so one would "guess" that this simply shorts the probe.... but that would be neglecting to consider the inductance of the connecting wires between the "shunt" and the common ground reference point -- and also neglecting the ability of the probe to pick up the oscillations by RF pickup alone.
Now.... do you have any more difficulty producing the Figure 3 scopeshot with a fully functioning Q1, wired as shown in the schematic, and carrying its full current on to the load?
Sea Monkey is not Ainslie, I am reasonably sure of that. She's tried personal sock puppets before and they are completely obvious. Sea Monkey is an individual all right, but with what agenda? Certainly it isn't to have the Truth be known about Ainslie and her claims.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2013, 08:53:35 PM
@.99, PicoWatt: Can I ask you to try something in your sims and builds and theoretical analyses, please?
Simply move the Current channel's probe to the other side of the "shunt". Not the common ground point where the probe reference is connected, but rather immediately next to the resistor itself, just on the other side from where it is normally connected. This point is "naively" at the same potential as the common ground so one would "guess" that this simply shorts the probe.... but that would be neglecting to consider the inductance of the connecting wires between the "shunt" and the common ground reference point -- and also neglecting the ability of the probe to pick up the oscillations by RF pickup alone.
Now.... do you have any more difficulty producing the Figure 3 scopeshot with a fully functioning Q1, wired as shown in the schematic, and carrying its full current on to the load?
TK,
I see where you are going with this, and it is a possibility. Particularly if the Q2 body diodes clamp closer to the levels I estimated. However, if the the Q2 body diodes clamp closer to what .99's sim predicted, than an issue regarding Q1 or its connections remains more likely.
As well, the oscillation amplitude on the current trace is greater in FIG3 than in FIG5 and one would think it would be less on the battery side of the CSR.
Your "probe on the wrong side" theory might explain the very small amount of current that appears to be flowing during the Q1 on time in FIG6.
Of course, if the probe were on the battery side of the CSR, all data from captures made that way are pretty much meaningless and not as per the schematic.
Possibly you could find .99's video captures he used to decipher the "real" schematic from the March demo and see if the probe position is visible.
If .99 is going to be watching the demo, hopefully he will let us know how it went. Possibly a video of the demo will be posted for those of us who will not be around on Saturday AM to watch it live.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 27, 2013, 10:50:21 PM
TK,
I see where you are going with this, and it is a possibility. Particularly if the Q2 body diodes clamp closer to the levels I estimated. However, if the the Q2 body diodes clamp closer to what .99's sim predicted, than an issue regarding Q1 or its connections remains more likely.
As well, the oscillation amplitude on the current trace is greater in FIG3 than in FIG5 and one would think it would be less on the battery side of the CSR.
Yes, it is somewhat less on the battery side of the CVR but the oscillation amplitude is very dependent on probe position, as it is a combination of actual sensed voltage and also RF pickup by the probe.
Quote
Your "probe on the wrong side" theory might explain the very small amount of current that appears to be flowing during the Q1 on time in FIG6.
Of course, if the probe were on the battery side of the CSR, all data from captures made that way are pretty much meaningless and not as per the schematic.
Yes, of course, but very importantly it _does_ allow the Q1 to be turned fully on and conduct power to the load normally, while not showing any current in the CVR.
It still would invalidate the data, the conclusions and the claims, of course, and would require either a conscious cheat or... .perhaps just a sloppy hookup, with the probe's spring clip coming off the actual tip, for example. Yes... a completely disconnected probe tip can also produce a similar set of traces, due to the RF pickup of the oscillations!
Did you notice? In my last two videos I don't use a probe for the Gate signal at all, I have it T-connected directly from the FG to the scope's input with a BNC patch cable.... but the oscillations show up on the Gate trace anyway.
Quote
Possibly you could find .99's video captures he used to decipher the "real" schematic from the March demo and see if the probe position is visible.
As far as I am aware, .99's analysis came directly from the video of the March 2011 demo (which Ainslie claimed she did not post).
I don't think that there are any scopeshots resembling Figure 3 included, and the probe is apparently on the correct side of the "shunt" for that video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k)
Quote
If .99 is going to be watching the demo, hopefully he will let us know how it went. Possibly a video of the demo will be posted for those of us who will not be around on Saturday AM to watch it live.
PW
Who knows? I still don't think she's even going to manage to show anything at all, in spite of her announcement earlier today. I do hope somebody records it IF it actually happens, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdZAPZG6Fyo
Z-Day is coming. I am going to get a big solenoid and a new car battery and energize and hide inside my personal magnetic bubble during the demo. No truant sub-light Zipons are going to rip through my DNA, I tell ya.
I just hope we will still be here...
In the spirit of fair play, and to show that I'm not such a bad guy.... I've turned off my Scalar Longitudinal NERD Preventer, the device which has prevented Ainslie from performing any tests for the past two years. So if she doesn't manage to put on her show the day after tomorrow..... you can't blame it on me, it won't be my fault.
:-* :-*
Note now that she has posted my calculation concerning FIGURE 5.
But she responds to it as if it were FIGURE 3.
Where are her "engineers"? Can't THEY read?
Do we REALLY have to go through this again?
The post she is falsely criticizing is talking about FIGURE 5, not Figure 3 !! My calculations are correct, for FIGURE 5!! (with the revision of about .65 volts instead of .75 as I at first said.)
What a bloviating and overweeningly arrogant fool she is. And anyone can see for themselves that I used the superscript for I2R and squared the value in the calculation. Of course, you have to be able to read an equation to see that.... and Ainslie evidently cannot.
She makes an idiot of herself without even any help from me at all! And she doesn't even address the false claim in the paper that six batteries in series were used FOR FIGURE 5, when the scopeshot clearly shows that only four were used.
The incredibly insulting and arrogant way she delivers her total load of BS really makes my blood boil. She can't even get her ERRORS right.
Just for that.... I'm turning the NERD Preventer back on.
:-* :-*
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2013, 02:02:55 AM
In the spirit of fair play, and to show that I'm not such a bad guy.... I've turned off my Scalar Longitudinal NERD Preventer, the device which has prevented Ainslie from performing any tests for the past two years. So if she doesn't manage to put on her show the day after tomorrow..... you can't blame it on me, it won't be my fault.
:-* :-*
TK,
Nice of you to turn your gizmo off...
That second video was quite interesting.
If Q2's body diode clamps high enough at Vbatt=72volts to allow 12volts at the gate, you may be on to very real possibility.
If the probes used had removeable hooks, I had considered one of them slipping out of its connector and cap coupling the CSR signal. But that would likely have passed a visible, AC coupled version the Q1 on/off signal and just tipped the trailing edge of Q1's on period. But, as no hint of Q1 turning on is visible in FIG3, I dismissed that possibility.
But I have to admit, I did not consider placement of the probe on the wrong side of the CSR. You have been thinking about this way too much!!
Do you have a way to safely test the gate signal clamp level at 72 volts? (regulated bench supply, short on times)
As I said in an earlier post, I think a bit over 12volts of gate signal is possible at Vbatt=72 volts. I am not sure why .99's figures were a bit lower.
PW
Figure 5 "refers".
Period given by Ainslie is 684 ms. Actual period read from scope is about 680 MICROseconds.... call it a typo on her part and give it 684 microseconds (not ms). The Q1 ON time, measured by my calipers, appears to be around 130 microseconds. 130/684= a bit over 0.19, or approximately 20 percent.
Spin on that.
@PW: I do not have a bench supply that will do 72 volts with current regulation, unfortunately. I can use batteries and a fuse, but for obvious reasons I am hesitant. I don't have any spare IRFPG50 mosfets, and I sure don't want to damage my F43 again. But as I've seen, the gate clamping voltage behaves just as you have said. The clamped vs. missing mosfet gate signals do differ in another way, though: in the clamped signal with Q1 present and on duty, the rise and fall portions have a little bump where the diode switches, (I think) and this is absent from the trace when the mosfet is out of circuit.
I may try it with six batteries anyhow.
I never considered the probe misplacement before either, until someone on another forum suggested a shorted CVR as the explanation. When I simply shorted my CVR with a standard cliplead jumper, though, I got almost the same trace as without the "shorted shunt".... because a standard cliplead just isn't really much of a short, compared to a 0.3 ohm CVR, I guess. But moving the probe really did the trick.
Popcorn at the ready I am not sure what I will be viewing ?
Taming of the Shrew, Mission Impossible or The Nutty Professor?
However I will behave I said I would remain in the corner till it is over.
I wish Rosemary well, I think we would all secretly want to be proved wrong one day. The odds ar against it
I read an interesting blog today that illustrates that point
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html)
I wonder if PESWIKI will cover it???
PS when you turned your device of all the sexy blonde women put thick glasses on and school mistress clothes, any explanation TK
Scope data from the March 2011 video:
The first scopeshots that are clear enough to discuss are at 2:46. It can be seen that there is no current indicated on the current trace on the LeCroy scope.... but it is difficult to see the Gate signal on this scope. Fortunately.... for us..... a Tek scope was being used simultaneously, and its trace appears at 2:48. Here it is easy to see the Gate signal trace, and easy to see that there is _no_ positive voltage being applied. The signal only goes from the zero baseline, down to the negative fuzz at -4 volts. The way it is displayed on the Tek screen is deliberately mendacious, because you have to know how to read a scope and look carefully at the image to see that it has no positive voltage component.... hence is not expected to turn Q1 on at all, and it doesn't.
The period here is 100 ms (cursors on the Tek, FG set to 10 Hz) and the duty cycle is 50 percent or very close to it. Too bad they aren't turning Q1 on, with that five batteries.
At 5:00 you can see the raggedyness of the traces displayed during the oscillations on the LeCroy. This is a symptom of massive undersampling and/or aliasing, and there is no guarantee of math accuracy under those conditions.
And notice the howling lie in the narration at this point: "If we put these values in the simulator, we obviously cannot get the same results." What say you about THAT, .99!
At 5:37 we see the temperature display on the Fluke meter. Fluctuating! And we know from my videos that a similar Fluke meter, with an identical thermocouple, but using an external thermocouple adapter, is susceptible to RF from the circuit and may not be giving accurate results if read during oscillations. So this reading is questionable and should be repeated.... plus there is no guarantee that the water temperature is what is measured, nor that it was raised to its temperature using the displayed settings.
In the second part of the video the narrator points out proudly that there are now only four batteries, giving about 49.5 volts... .but he doesn't explain why this was done.... a _glaring omission_.
Now... at 7:50 you see a clear shot of the Tek screen displaying the Gate signal..... and you see the mendacity. It is displayed to look just like the gate trace in the first Tek screenshot.... but look where the zero baseline marker is. The Gate trace is now showing about 6 volts positive during the "on" times, whereas before it never went positive at all. And the Current trace is not displayed. Then the camera seems to _carefully avoid_ the LeCroy, as it swings over to the again unstable temperature indication on the Fluke. At last, at 8:35 we see the LeCroy's current display, showing just what we expect: massive current flowing during the Q1 ON times, consistent with high heat in the load. Too bad they didn't do this with SIX BATTERIES...... or monitor the Q1 temperature.
But again... the camera work at this time seems to be quite deliberately avoiding showing the Current Trace !!
In short, there is never anything like the Figure 3 scopeshot shown in the March 2011 video, and what IS shown is rather damning. Is it any wonder she recently removed this video from her YT accounts, in a belated attempt to cover up the truths it reveals?
Quote from: markdansie on June 28, 2013, 03:28:06 AM
Popcorn at the ready I am not sure what I will be viewing ?
Taming of the Shrew, Mission Impossible or The Nutty Professor?
However I will behave I said I would remain in the corner till it is over.
I wish Rosemary well, I think we would all secretly want to be proved wrong one day. The odds ar against it
I read an interesting blog today that illustrates that point
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html)
I wonder if PESWIKI will cover it???
PS when you turned your device of all the sexy blonde women put thick glasses on and school mistress clothes, any explanation TK
You're lucky you aren't closer. Within a hundred miles or so, it makes them all gain about forty pounds, too.
(Colonel Alexander is a scary dude.)
QuoteFor perfect clarity - 3 Amps are NOT going through Q1 MOSFET and the applied duty cycle is NOT 20%. And since the actual voltage is NEGATIVE it is not possible to determine WHAT is likely to be dissipated across Q1.
Well.... for perfect clarity.... I was talking about
FIGURE 5, as anyone with eyes and a brain can see, not Figure 3, and YOU are talking bollocks. As usual.
QuoteThe more so as Q1 is NOT conducting ANY CURRENT AT ALL during that 'on' time - during that 10% of the time while there's a positive signal applied to is gate. OR. Correctly I should state that the MEASURED EVIDENCE is that it's NOT conducting any current at all during this time.
Now you want to talk about Figure 3? Going soft on your claims now, losing confidence? Ok, then. Correctly.... shouldn't that be that "
Ainslie's measured evidence shows that it's NOT conducting any current at all ...."? Because everyone else's measured evidence DOES show that it IS conducting lots of current during those times.
Unless it's missing, blown, miswired.... or some mistake in probe positioning has happened. Any of which invalidate the claims.
@PW: Ok... I took a deep breath and tried it with all six batteries. The Gate drive clamping is a bit over 12 volts, maybe 13 volts. The system definitely acts wild..... while ramping up the gate signal to its full value, my computer monitor speakers start screaming! And of course the Fluke goes wild. But I can get the full 12 volts Gate signal, with plenty current in the Q1. And when the probe is moved to the other side of the CVR, I see the Figure 3 trace.... and of course the mosfet is still carrying full current.
The figures below "refer". The battery voltage from all six batteries in series is 75.4 volts (Simpson 464).
In both shots below, the Gate channel (lower) is set to 5 V/Div , direct hookup to the FG with the BNC patch cord and the T-fitting. The Current channel is set to 2 volts/div, 10x atten probe. The baselines are exactly on the graticule markers; parallax causes my rough dots to appear a bit off. Horizontal timebase is 200 microseconds/division and the FG is set to about 1.5 kHz.
First is the "normal" probe position. The Gate drive reaches 12 volts no problem, and the Current trace shows about 1.9 volts drop across the 0.3 Ohm CVR during the Q1 ON times. "Do the math". It's a good thing I monitored the temperature on this mosfet and only ran for short times.
Second is the "misplaced" probe position. I made no other changes, just moved the probe. Of course the mosfet is still carrying nearly six amperes of current during the ON times...... and the load is heating nicely.... and so is the mosfet.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 27, 2013, 08:53:35 PM
@.99, PicoWatt: Can I ask you to try something in your sims and builds and theoretical analyses, please?
Simply move the Current channel's probe to the other side of the "shunt". Not the common ground point where the probe reference is connected, but rather immediately next to the resistor itself, just on the other side from where it is normally connected. This point is "naively" at the same potential as the common ground so one would "guess" that this simply shorts the probe.... but that would be neglecting to consider the inductance of the connecting wires between the "shunt" and the common ground reference point -- and also neglecting the ability of the probe to pick up the oscillations by RF pickup alone.
Now.... do you have any more difficulty producing the Figure 3 scopeshot with a fully functioning Q1, wired as shown in the schematic, and carrying its full current on to the load?
TK,
Well it certainly appears to give the "correct" results for Fig. 3 (based on your recent scope shots), but I would be surprised if they had the current probe connected there. Then again, it is possible of course.
In the upcoming demo, hopefully all shall become clear.
Quote from: markdansie on June 28, 2013, 03:28:06 AM
Popcorn at the ready I am not sure what I will be viewing ?
Taming of the Shrew, Mission Impossible or The Nutty Professor?
However I will behave I said I would remain in the corner till it is over.
I wish Rosemary well, I think we would all secretly want to be proved wrong one day. The odds ar against it
I read an interesting blog today that illustrates that point
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html)
I wonder if PESWIKI will cover it???
PS when you turned your device of all the sexy blonde women put thick glasses on and school mistress clothes, any explanation TK
I would like the opportunity to talk confidentially with Physics Professor Dr. Hal Puthoff. He sounds like he would honestly consider real discoveries.
Quote from: Liberty on June 28, 2013, 09:40:28 AM
I would like the opportunity to talk confidentially with Physics Professor Dr. Hal Puthoff. He sounds like he would honestly consider real discoveries.
http://www.earthtech.org/index.php/about
Be aware that he gets calls and submissions from ....er..... ah...... crackpots...... all the time, and if you want to be taken seriously, you had better be serious when you approach him.
Quote from: webby1 on June 28, 2013, 10:11:23 AM
TK,
Since it looks like you are trying to cover all possible things that can be wrong, is it possible that the test equipment is in error itself?
Of course, that is always a possibility. In this case, however, the fact that other people with different sorts of equipment are able to reproduce the Ainslie measurements indicates that it isn't the instruments themselves that are responsible for the measurements obtained.
If you watch my videos you can see that the RF from the circuit causes the DMM reading the thermocouple to give false readings, and this is almost certainly happening to Ainslie's thermocouple DMM system too. The scopes themselves also are subject to artefacts; much of the oscillation amplitude is probably actually artefact in the sense that it is RF rather than direct pickup.
Quote
I ask this from first hand experience with metes being weird. I built this thing and was playing with it, and in my usual way of "what the heck" I placed a single wire secondary within my device,, connected on side of my device up to a battery and used the other side to hand pulse the unit,, with my Fluke 77 on 300ma I connected the leads to each end of the single wire, I registered an AC output,, not a good one but something,, but on DC I could only register the first strike of the battery.
Now, with this meter and on these slow pulses it will show me a reading, except for this device, I attribute that to a messed up meter. I used another meter and in the first testing with it it did not behave in the same way,, it gave a much smaller reading for starters, but after using it for some time it started to give the same result,, as in RA saying that it takes "time" and this could either be blowing Q1 or messing up the test equipment.
I assure you, if the settings displayed in the Figure 3 scopeshot are used with a properly functioning mosfet in place, it will take less than 26 minutes for it to blow from heat stress. In my experiment above, with the six batteries in series, the mosfet carries over six amps! This is actually over its maximum current rating right there and the only thing that saves it is that the ON time is short.
In addition..... "Ainslie says" is probably the least reliable source of information on the entire internet.
Quote
I also run into jumper lead and test lead breakage that when in one position seem to work just fine, but move them a little and "poof".
This happens all the time and is one of the first things to look for when you get strange or unexpected... or even _expected_ readings from instruments. The actual wire in the cable of a good scope probe is a strand of very fine NiChrome resistance wire, which is brittle and easily broken.
Quote from: webby1 on June 28, 2013, 12:05:29 PM
And this is why verification by independent replication is always a good thing.
Yes, and there are replications, and then there are "replications". I'm getting to where I hate that word. It's a matter of the philosophical approach to doing science, and the nature of proof and valid inference.
A lot of times you might see a skeptic or a True Believer "replicate" a claim of an OU device or effect, get a null result, and call failure or fake and just walk away. But that, in my opinion, is neither helpful nor truly scientific. What I personally try to do is to follow the "cookbook" or design recipe as best I can, and if it fails, then I keep trying until I can at least get the same or similar _data_ that produced the original claim. Then I try to understand how that data arose. This is done by perturbing the system in various ways: varying an "independent variable" and watching for its effect on some "dependent variable", and then attempting to draw inferences from the data obtained that way. This is what an experiment really is. The inferences drawn will either support or fail to support one's hypothesis, and may generate new hypotheses that hadn't been considered before the _real_ experimental data came in.... as in the present case. Now here's the clincher: a real scientist tries as hard as possible to _falsify_, that is, to generate data that _fails to support_ the pet hypothesis. When she "fails to fail", so to speak..... at that point one can consider that the hypothesis has experimental support. Proven? Hardly. NOT DISPROVEN is usually the best that a real scientist can say.
But if one _disproves_, that is, falsifies or fails to find support, in a properly performed true experiment, then one can be confident that the hypothesis is wrong.... as in this case.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 28, 2013, 11:48:27 AM
http://www.earthtech.org/index.php/about (http://www.earthtech.org/index.php/about)
Be aware that he gets calls and submissions from ....er..... ah...... crackpots...... all the time, and if you want to be taken seriously, you had better be serious when you approach him.
I'm sure he does get a lot of calls from people that don't really know what they are talking about, but think they do. In my opinion, an inventor either has something or he doesn't. I feel the same way, that the physicist to be taken seriously by the inventor, must also be serious when working with an inventor. It's a two way street, not a one way street.
Quote from: Liberty on June 28, 2013, 01:26:41 PM
I'm sure he does get a lot of calls from people that don't really know what they are talking about, but think they do. In my opinion, an inventor either has something or he doesn't. I feel the same way, that the physicist to be taken seriously by the inventor, must also be serious when working with an inventor. It's a two way street, not a one way street.
That is perhaps true if the Inventor and the Physicist are at the same level of experience and knowledge. In the case of Hal Puthoff, his experience and knowledge and credentials, some of them, are on public record and are very impressive.
In the case of the random person on an internet free energy forum who can't even google Dr Puthoff's website and contact info for himself.....perhaps the experience and knowledge level isn't quite enough to make the lanes of that "two-way street" exactly equal in size.
@seamonkey..the core isnt 'may be the key'.the core fantastically and fanatically is the key,this is what im trying to teach these electromaniacs.im the thermodynamicist who crosses the path of the electrician and says,hey,what the fuck are you doing,do you even know what you are doing and why you are doing what you are doing.im learning a lot of stuff from them and i hope they learn something from me.
Quote from: profitis on June 28, 2013, 02:55:49 PM
@seamonkey..the core isnt 'may be the key'.the core fantastically and fanatically is the key,this is what im trying to teach these electromaniacs.im the thermodynamicist who crosses the path of the electrician and says,hey,what the fuck are you doing,do you even know what you are doing and why you are doing what you are doing.im learning a lot of stuff from them and i hope they learn something from me.
It would be a lot easier to "learn" something from people like you and SeaMonkey if you would only show something that you have actually DONE, rather than talking trash all the time.
Showing what one has done has the
potential to be hazardous to one's
lifestyle/existence.
It is far less hazardous to offer clues
and hints which those who are skilled
in the art may exploit (or at least pursue)
with thought and discernment.
Let us not become too dependent upon
the "show and tell" disinfo which is far
too abundant on youtube and many of
the forums.
The circuit in question has proven to be
flawed and its dissection into bits of
meticulously detailed minutia has not
accomplished much more than honing
the technical and analytical skills of those
who delve into exact replication. While
that can be said to be a positive development,
there is more to be found "outside the box."
In other words, you aren't showing anything, you aren't going to show anything, and you can't show anything because you don't have anything to show.
Your posts have only done one thing: they have moved significant information about real work and real discoveries, further back in the thread. And they have done it at twice the normal rate because of your hard-return text formatting.
This "cover the real information with piles of bloviation" is a typical Ainslie tactic, much indulged in in the old Tar Baby thread. I or someone else would post some bit of real information that revealed some flaw or mendacity on Ainslie's part, and she and/or her sock puppets would immediately post page upon page of useless ranting and insults, wrong statements and just general nonsense in order to bury and hide what they wanted to cover up.
And you are doing the same thing. You won't discuss the actual issues in Ainslie's work, you won't present any of your own in support of your claims and ideas, you just want to play psychologist, apparently to stimulate a response from me. And of course I am happy to do so, to point out what it is you are doing and why. They say "don't feed trolls" and they are right. However..... maybe if I feed them something that gives them a bellyache, they'll think twice about trolling under this bridge.
@ tk..im not here to show.im here to point. your circuits and everybody elses circuits will yield zilch and be a complete waist of time if they dont violate the 2nd law of THERMODYNAMICS,the only part of any circuit that involves induction that has any hope of doing this is the inductor itself,case closed.this pointer is for those who dont know it.
You can point all you like, but if you are pointing at nothing (as you are) everybody is just going to be looking at your finger.
@seamonkey.youre a master of the art i see.viewing from up there instead of down here.these kids should listen to your advice if they want to grow.
@tk..im pointing at the direction,the right direction.that is not nothing.
Well, it's so nice to be comfortably numb. lol I haven't even been able to look at the schematic this time round. I can't go there. Sitting on the dock of the bay, watching the blinking lights fade away.
T@Profitis and Sea monkey
"I like to be under the sea in an octopus's garden in the shade"
Having said that do I qualify and meet your rhetoric standards? I am learning the words of Kum Ba Ya.
@ everyone else
Some interesting statistics that really uplifted me today.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/28/energy-revolution/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/28/energy-revolution/)
@markdansie..oh no,here we go again,wheres domichi,domichiiii!?
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 28, 2013, 04:47:23 PM
Let us not become too dependent upon
the "show and tell" disinfo which is far
too abundant on youtube and many of
the forums.
The circuit in question has proven to be
flawed and its dissection into bits of
meticulously detailed minutia has not
accomplished much more than honing
the technical and analytical skills of those
who delve into exact replication. While
that can be said to be a positive development,
there is more to be found "outside the box."
Absolute BS, this is how people cop out and the scam artists keep stringing people along. It is also for those wit ha discontent with reality and accepting their belief systems may be flawed. Without a foundation of truth and solid evidence you are building a house of cards with no foundation.
@Profitis, I am not sure why you did not volunteer and assist Rosemary with your skill set, what you do is called fence sitting. I rather deal with people who may have different views to mine but are solid where they stand. I piss a lot of people of but I stand true to my convictions.
Kind Regards
Quote from: TinselKoala
You won't discuss the actual issues in Ainslie's work, you won't present any of your own in support of your claims and ideas, you just want to play psychologist, apparently to stimulate a response from me. And of course I am happy to do so, to point out what it is you are doing and why. They say "don't feed trolls" and they are right.
I'm really not too much interested in
quabbling about Rosemary's work per
se; rather, what can be done to improve
upon the concept by modifying certain
operational parameters?
For example: The heating element which
functions as both a resistor and an inductor
may not be ideal for the experimentation as
it exists. What could be done to increase the
inductance optimally to possibly enhance the
energy exchange? You have the answer to that
question tucked away in your cranium if you'd
contemplate the matter for several microseconds.
Then, should one apply continuous or discontinuous
techniques to the critical elements? Low frequency
or high frequency; low duty cycle or high duty cycle?
For some the drama which takes place here is their
cup of tea and they participate with relish. Frankly,
the drama is not my bag - I'd prefer the discussion
to focus on technical matters without the efforts
to diminish someone's character. Sure, a little good
natured banter is one thing, but descending too far
into the lower realms to hurl the smelly muck doesn't
do much to favorably impress the reading audience.
It is fashionable in the forums these days to refer to
anyone who disagrees in some manner as a "Troll."
I understand the need for such in the minds of those
who are being scrutinized and take no offense.
Yes, something good may come of this yet!
Looks like the demo has been moved up to 08:00 MDT.
Whatever else profitis might be, he's smart enough not to touch a Tar Baby and hug her to his breast.
Now, can we please get back on topic, instead of doing exactly what Ainslie wants, which is to bury hard facts under post after post of useless blather?
Interested parties will please note that Tar Baby uses the exact circuit posted in Ainslie's "paper" 1, with the same IRFPG50 mosfets, and an inductive-resistive load that measures 10.2 Ohms. When I applied the full six batteries in series, at an applied voltage of 75.4 V, and gave the mosfet gate a verified input signal of +12 volts, the mosfet turned ON as expected and the scope trace of the Current Viewing Resistor ("shunt") indicated a voltage drop of 1.8-1.9 volts. During this ON period, no oscillations happen and the current flow is DC for as long as the mosfet is ON, so AC impedance is irrelevant and the resistive elements and wires are just that: resistors and wires, not inductors. So a straight DC Ohm's Law calculation is valid, for the ON times of the mosfet. The Current Viewing Resistor I am using is a Dale precision power resistor, 0.3 Ohms 2 Watts. It is not marketed as a "low inductance" resistor.... but I am concerned with the DC current here so its inductance is irrelevant.
So.... doing the math, we find that a voltage drop V of 1.8 Volts, across a resistance of 0.3 Ohms, I = V/R, so I = 1.8 / 0.3 == 6.0 Amperes. During the ON times, as driven by the verified 12 volt Gate signal and with the six batteries in series, the Q1 mosfet was observed, measured and verified to be carrying 6.0 amperes, AT LEAST. Working this backwards to find the total circuit resistance in the ON state, we get R = V / I or 75.4 / 6.0 == 12.57 Ohms. Adding the known resistances of the circuit components as a check gives 10.2 (load) + 0.3 (CVR) + 2.0 (Minimum Rdss of the mosfet) == 12.5 Ohms.
The rated Rdss (drain-source resistance) of the IRFPG50 mosfet is 2.0 ohms but can be higher. Power dissipation in a resistive element is given by P = I2R, that is, Power in Watts is equal to the Current SQUARED, times the Resistance of the element. So the mosfet, during its ON times, will be dissipating AS HEAT a power of 6 x 6 x 2 == 72 Watts. If it has a 10 percent duty cycle it will average a bit over 7 Watts..... but if the _frequency is low_ it will still overheat because it is inadequately heat-sunk. To dissipate 72 Watts a TO-247 package needs active cooling: a fan and a proper heatsink.
Is it Saturday yet? Can I get a witness?
:-* :-*
Quote from: poynt99 on June 28, 2013, 11:46:30 PM
Looks like the demo has been moved up to 08:00 MDT.
Where did you see that announcement?
And how are people supposed to watch it, without an invitation?
And, as an aside, it appears that the ignorant insulting wench STILL CANNOT READ what is printed in black and white, nor interpret her own oscilloscope traces.... but she is extremely adept at casting the juvenile and puerile insults.
The last announcement I can find says 6:00 PM, 1800 hours, Central African Time on Saturday.
For me, in Central US Daylight time, that means 11 am.
http://www.happyzebra.com/timezones-worldclock/difference.php (http://www.happyzebra.com/timezones-worldclock/difference.php)
This site tells me that at 6 PM in Cape Town it will be 10 am in Denver and the rest of MDT. Much of the Mountain time zone does not observe Daylight time though.
SO when is it really, and where is the official announcement, and how does one actually WATCH it, since the Google site is locked and needs an invitation?
I received emails that updated me on the "event". 4pm SAST, and 8am MDT.
Mark Dansie and Grounloop are also confirmed.
So she announces one time publicly on her forum, then secretly emails people with a different time and some kind of "invitation" or "confirmation".
A STEALTH DEMO. Well, of course.
This forum _really really_ needs more smileys.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 28, 2013, 11:42:06 PM
*Rambling self-serving hyperbole*
If you'd bothered to follow the topic you'd know duty cycles etc have been extensively covered and experimented with. Stop using up bandwidth.
That may be true, but were those trials
conducted with creative improvisation
in order to enhance the inductive
properties? In order for inductive
discharge to produce adequate energy
there must be sufficient optimal inductance.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 29, 2013, 01:45:16 AM
That may be true, but were those trials
conducted with creative improvisation
in order to enhance the inductive
properties? In order for inductive
discharge to produce adequate energy
there must be sufficient optimal inductance.
Are you trying for a technobabble award?
Let us know when the Turbo Encabulator is up and running.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2013, 01:17:09 AM
So she announces one time publicly on her forum, then secretly emails people with a different time and some kind of "invitation" or "confirmation".
A STEALTH DEMO. Well, of course.
This forum _really really_ needs more smileys.
Quote from Rose: The team member doing the demo is away in Namibia until Saturday morning. So we're cutting a fine line for the demo and it may be as well to delay this until our time 18.00 hours - 6.00 pm. But I'll check with him. But he'll most CERTAINLY guide you in how to get this setting. I'll post the time on WEDNESDAY - as I undertook - and when I've had some feed back. The downside of the 6.00 time is that it's dark here by then - as we're in mid winter. And my study is not really that well lit. But we could do the demo in the living room. Anyway. That's a detail.
Who knows where this is leading?.
Quote from: tinman on June 29, 2013, 06:21:19 AM
Quote from Rose: The team member doing the demo is away in Namibia until Saturday morning. So we're cutting a fine line for the demo and it may be as well to delay this until our time 18.00 hours - 6.00 pm. But I'll check with him. But he'll most CERTAINLY guide you in how to get this setting. I'll post the time on WEDNESDAY - as I undertook - and when I've had some feed back. The downside of the 6.00 time is that it's dark here by then - as we're in mid winter. And my study is not really that well lit. But we could do the demo in the living room. Anyway. That's a detail.
Who knows where this is leading?.
What, you didn't get the email, informing you that the time is actually going to be 4 pm (her time), not 6 pm like she announced publicly? You must not be on her short list, I guess.
Imagine all those people who planned their weekend around the announced 6 pm time.... they tune in and find what? They missed it?
And I wonder how she's going to fit all her academics into her parlour. Oh... wait...... she needed academics for the June 1 demo, not for this one.
So let me get this straight. Her "presenter".... apparently the only person who actually knows how to operate the apparatus and the test equipment... has been in Namibia during all this Figure 3 discussion and is going to be arriving back in CT just before the re-re-scheduled start of the demo. And we STILL have not had any coherent explanation from Ainslie as to how the Figure 3 scopetraces can be made, without cheating or miswiring or using a bad mosfet.
"Who knows where this is leading?."
I know.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on June 29, 2013, 01:45:16 AM
That may be true, but were those trials
conducted with creative improvisation
in order to enhance the inductive
properties? In order for inductive
discharge to produce adequate energy
there must be sufficient optimal inductance.
No, they were done with systematic variation to explore the problem space in an organized and coherent manner. Not some handwaving illspecified fingerpointing at imaginary constructs of an under-educated imagination.
What has this to do with Ainslie's demonstration, which either is, or is not, scheduled to begin in two hours?
Do you think that she will be creatively improvising in order to enhance the inductive properties?
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Of course you don't.
@markdansie..i can hardly call repeatedly pointing to the core of an inductor circuit and its direct role in a attempted 2nd law violation fencesitting.ive sent rosemary all the help i can possibly give her via email,basicly the same info as i gave on this thread to all electromaniacs and what they do with this invaluable info i cannot controll.im not the electrogenius here,just the thermodynamicist.i could be shot for pointing such things out in public you know,putting my ass on the line here,or the fence as you like to call it while you sit there nice and cumfy behind your computer skepticizing evrything that crosses your path.
@seamonkey.its funny you should mention that.i also have my doubts about the inductor coil having a double use as a heater in the ainslie circuit as it could compromise the all-too-important thermodynamic oscillatory temperature drops in the core material,whatever it is in this case.i can only hope that the necessary assymetrical heat exchanges with the environment dont get too screwed up.
I'd love to hear about how your theory exactly dovetails with Ainslie's "thesis" as found in her various daft manuscripts. Why don't you write up twenty pages or so, and include the thermodynamic modelling math that you are using to support your finger-pointing, non-fence-sitting thermodynamics. I've had the advanced math thru differential equations and boundary value problems, along with the standard physics thermodynamics courses, so I may be able to follow your equations and model. I'd especially like to see the part where your equations show excess energy coming out of inductor cores. Why don't you go and work on that, now.
@tk,no need for maths,documents,papers etc.just pure logic.what happens when the temperature of a paramagnet drops,especially when it drops below the curie point?bingbadabing increased order,increased magnetism.thus your core has stronger magnetism at the moment just before collapse than during its creation.gotta play with core parameters and circuit parameters to MATCH core parameters.not the other way round.steven j.smith has already got a beautiful papers on it online.
@tk..rosemarie,s zero point relativity theories are the looooong way round to point at the thermodynamics,she might aswell just point straight to the thermodynamics,i dont know why she doesnt,i gues shes not trained enough in physics or perhaps shes smart and knows that its a no-no to mention 2lot breach in public and maybe wants to confuse camoflauge,i got a feeling shes a puppet for some hidden mastermind,perhaps the namibian,who knows.the magnetic particle theory is unfounded.
Looks like it is back to 6pm.
@profitis:
IOW you got nothing but words, and a pointing finger, and it's safe to ignore you. OK, fine. Rather disappointing, but fine.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 29, 2013, 09:30:18 AM
Looks like it is back to 6pm.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U
Do you think they might be having a little trouble with that Figure 3 scopeshot? I can't even begin to imagine all the things that could be going wrong. It would be _really really_ interesting to have a live feed of what is happening right now in Ainslie's parlour.
sigh..
A message was sent out stating that a youtube channel will be available to view the demo. I will post that link when I get it.
Can anybody watch the demo or is it invitation only ?
Quote from: elecar on June 29, 2013, 11:23:19 AM
Can anybody watch the demo or is it invitation only ?
If there is a Youtube link it will be for public viewing.
I'm told that the YT feed will be live, and that Rose and Donny will be presenting.
Thank you Poynt99
http://energy-shiftingparadigms.com/demo.html
Thank God or just thank, for that army of nerds out there in cyberspace.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/hola/
http://energy-shiftingparadigms.com/demo.html (http://energy-shiftingparadigms.com/demo.html)
Do you have me on ignore Mark? I just posted that link two posts up.
while your waiting
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.6364.pdf (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.6364.pdf)
sorry Ponty I had too many screens open
My apologies
Live Youtube link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zDsc-UAHHAQ
No live chatting? What the hell? I see a familiar looking breadboard. It's all very dramatic.
What's with the portrait of that dude that keeps popping up? Some sort of subliminal brainwashing? lol
Those four non-inductive current sensing resistors should all be soldered together into a tight little ball.
P.S.: I bet you Google+ is going to die. Facebook had critical mass eons ago.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 29, 2013, 01:32:12 PM
Those four non-inductive current sensing resistors should all be soldered together into a tight little ball.
I thought we were going to see FIG3.
So far, the FG output has not even come close to the +12volts shown in FIG3.
PW
They should put the camera on a tripod because they don't have the video bandwidth for a moving hand-held camera.
The use of a tripod would have been a very good thing.
Bill
Not really following but it feels like somebody missed the dress rehearsal! ;D
Quote from: TinselKolala
What has this to do with Ainslie's demonstration, which either is, or is not, scheduled to begin in two hours?
This knowledge would enable an observer
to provide meaningful feedback to the
demonstrators in the event the demonstration
should produce disappointing results. This
sort of cooperative assistance was once
quite common within the professional
environment.
Quote from: TinselKoalaDo you think that she will be creatively improvising in order to enhance the inductive properties?
One would hope that Rosemary would be
open to the possibilities of making certain
adjustments to her circuitry when it doesn't
produce the result she's wanting to see.
Quote from: TinselKoalaDo you even know what you are talking about?
Of course you don't.
I recognize your appeal for spoon feeding but
will let it pass. Within the professional environment
spoon feeding and whining are much eschewed.
We do our utmost to assist our peers to think
with some independence. Too much reliance
upon the work of others stifles mental
development and leads to emotional issues.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on June 29, 2013, 01:56:14 PM
The use of a tripod would have been a very good thing.
Bill
Focusing the camera would also have been a very good thing.
Oh look, unlike in FIG3, Q1 turns on when they apply +12 volts to its gate...
Feels like a train heading down the tracks....
Or like watching a rerun of NYPD Blue...
Quote from: Profitis
@seamonkey.its funny you should mention that.i also have my doubts about the inductor coil having a double use as a heater in the ainslie circuit as it could compromise the all-too-important thermodynamic oscillatory temperature drops in the core material,whatever it is in this case.i can only hope that the necessary assymetrical heat exchanges with the environment dont get too screwed up.
Good point. The pitfall of exact replication
which discourages thoughtful improvisation
is that the path often leads to frustration.
The replicator thus being overwhelmed will
be tempted to vilify the author of the circuit
being replicated rather than expending
independent thought in search of solutions.
The replicator will then proceed to make
himself look like a crybaby and will demand
that any interested observers spoon feed
him or he'll throw a tantrum.
'Tis a shame when those who have the
potential to be truly professional deviate
from decorum.
But then perhaps it is all just play acting
to stroke the ego...
Well, OK, I am seeing the YouTube video at something like 1 hour and 35 minutes and she is FLAILING about and not able to show the Figure 3 scopeshot.
That is right, Ainslie: YOU CLAIMED YOU COULD DO IT, YOU CLAIMED IT WAS EASY... but you cannot do it.
YOU FAIL.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
What a load of crap. Listen to her flail !!
All of the protestations, etc. happening now are just more crap from her. Repeats of the same old claims without any evidence, and SHE CANNOT DO WHAT SHE SET OUT TO DO: to reproduce HER OWN CLAIMS....which she cannot do.
And put that Q1 back on its original heatsink that was used to make the original shot, and then turn it on with 12 volts to the gate !!! With a 160 second duty cycle ! Go ahead !!!
Listen to her! What a laugh!
Ask them these two questions: WHY, in the March 2011 video, did they remove one battery leaving only 4 for the "High heat" demo?
And also WHY is the Q1 NOW on a larger heatsink than it was then?
The Q1 overheat test MUST BE DONE ON THE ORIGINAL HEATSINK.
These people are clowns of the first magnitude. Now they are apparently just pointing the camera at the floor.
Wow! .99 is doing a great job trying to get her to match what was in the paper. I am impressed at his respectful efforts to get her to show this. Good job Darren. We will see what happens.
Bill
The Bridge on the River Kwai!
Well, did they just bail, or what? I am seeing nothing and hearing nothing now.
LOL.... that is the funniest thing I've seen on YT in ages. Here's a typical image from Ainslie's flail:
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2013, 02:42:53 PM
Well, did they just bail, or what? I am seeing nothing and hearing nothing now.
Same here as well. Possibly the MIB blocked the transmission as she was about to reveal too much? (as good a reason as any, ha ha)
Bill
Thanks Bill.
I'm satisfied with what I saw, and decided to leave the demo.
They are setting up for another test. They will be back.
At 1:10:51 in the video, we have a brief shot at something approaching 10 to 12 volts at the gate of Q1, and lo and behold, there is current flow thru Q1 just as one would expect.
Peanuts, popcorn, and "screen captures"... get them while there hot!
.
Yes, a significant current in fact.
So what happened? It looks like they just pulled the plug, at 1:53:14 about. Without even saying goodbye?
Pirate, you are absolutely right, that guy Darren was extremely respectful and its a shame everyone else can not be.
Lots of complaining about video quality etc, when all I could see was people trying to do the best they could with the resources at hand.
It appears the fig3 scope shot was not replicated so those who claimed that would be the case have had their ego's stroked and been proven correct.
Still I doubt many of them can now return to being gentlemen.
Whether or not the ladies circuit works or not is beyond my basic education, but I for one give her credit for her willingness to do a demo.
Those fancy educations may have cost many £s, $s, Yen etc but manners are free.
So.
Apparently Ainslie's Figure 3 scopeshot isn't all that easy and simple for HER to reproduce either. I detected much consternation on the part of the "presenter" and it was very amusing to hear Ainslie's flailing protestations.
Now the insults from her will proceed apace, along with all kinds of hand-waving, reiteration of the usual tired false claims..... and the promise of "another demonstration"..... in other words, business as usual from the mendacious, failed Polly Parrot who cannot even operate her own apparatus.
Hey Ainslie: Here's a tip: REHEARSE, and make sure you can actually demonstrate what you claim you can demonstrate, before you involve other people in your great Foot-In-Mouth Show.
And don't you DARE ever again criticize my shaky camera, out of focus or non-use of a tripod, Ainslie. You make me laugh out loud.
This "demo" was the most hilarious and worst-presented, muttering out-of-focus blurry sick-making excretion I've seen in a long long time.
And it didn't even do what it said "on the box" , wasting nearly two hours in the process.
Quote from: elecar on June 29, 2013, 02:55:55 PM
Pirate, you are absolutely right, that guy Darren was extremely respectful and its a shame everyone else can not be.
Lots of complaining about video quality etc, when all I could see was people trying to do the best they could with the resources at hand.
What you see are people flailing about with no clue as to what they are actually doing.
Quote
It appears the fig3 scope shot was not replicated so those who claimed that would be the case have had their ego's stroked and been proven correct.
You really are missing the point, but that's not surprising since you are a newcomer to this fray. It's not a matter of having OUR egos stroked, it is a matter of soundly refuting the false claims of a liar.
Quote
Still I doubt many of them can now return to being gentlemen.
Whether or not the ladies circuit works or not is beyond my basic education, but I for one give her credit for her willingness to do a demo.
The ONLY reason she even attempted this demo was her overweening arrogance and confidence that she could put me, .99 and PicoWatt "in our place" by refuting us and demonstrating her Figure 3 scopeshot. Her arrogance prevented her from EVEN TRYING IT before she made the utter fool of herself, live on camera, which she has just done.
Quote
Those fancy educations may have cost many £s, $s, Yen etc but manners are free.
I suggest you spend a little time browsing on Ainslie's forum, and then you can come back here and lecture me about manners.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 29, 2013, 02:49:51 PM
Yes, a significant current in fact.
Max current thru Q1 looks to be at 1:11:03
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2013, 02:06:17 PM
Oh look, unlike in FIG3, Q1 turns on when they apply +12 volts to its gate...
It certainly does.
Now.... do you _really_ get more information from a DSO than you do from, say, an old analog HP180A?
I guess it all depends on how the scope is used and how its data is presented.
Note that in the second shot above, the white Cursor is positioned at a 12 volt level for the Gate trace.... and they aren't even up to it yet, but are showing the same current I showed in my demonstrations.... and it only took me a few minutes to do it, explain it, and I even give you interpretable scope traces, unlike what you see in this "demo" of failure from Ainslie.
QuoteWhat you see are people flailing about with no clue as to what they are actually doing.
I was obviously talking about the camera work, which appeared to be being done as well as can be expected by non professional film makers.
QuoteYou really are missing the point, but that's not surprising since you are a newcomer to this fray. It's not a matter of having OUR egos stroked, it is a matter of soundly refuting the false claims of a liar.
So I should not have an opinion because my post count is low ? At what post count does my contribution become valid ?
You could just as easily said "soundly refuting false claims" no real need to add liar to the sentence as it becomes an oxymoron.
QuoteI suggest you spend a little time browsing on Ainslie's forum, and then you can come back here and lecture me about manners.
The first thing you should note is my post opened with the name "Pirate" who I was addressing, there is no lecture here for you and never was. You may be able to bully some people, unfortunately I am not among them. And just because you type in uppercase letters does not make you right.
I really don't care to go looking through the ladies forum, and if your advice was to show me that she can be just as rude then you are wasting your time because you have the right to rise above the insults and name calling, or stoop to the same level.
Respectfully Elecar.
Quote from: Pirate88179
Wow! .99 is doing a great job trying to get her to match what was in the paper. I am impressed at his respectful efforts to get her to show this. Good job Darren. We will see what happens.
Well said Pirate.
Quote from: Elecar
Pirate, you are absolutely right, that guy Darren was extremely respectful and its a shame everyone else can not be.
Aye, and so it is...
Unfortunately I am not as highly evolved as Darren. You disrespect me, I disrespect you right back. You make claims and spout nonsense, I want to see your evidence and your credentials. If you can't produce them, but continue to disrespect me anyway, then I have no qualms about letting you and everyone else know how I feel about that. IN CAPS IF NECESSARY, since some of the people who seem to try to read here are legally blind.
AND ANOTHER THING: This issue has been "live" for over TWO YEARS now. If Ainslie had shown RESPECT for her respectful critics and actually tried to demonstrate her claims, before this, at any time during those two years.... we would not be having this conversation now, it would be long in the past.
TK:
I almost fell over laughing when I looked at your updated suite of screen cap pictures!
MileHigh
QuoteYou make claims and spout nonsense, I want to see your evidence and your credentials.
OK I get it now, you are the self appointed sheriff of the FE forums. The problem is if you were never elected into that role by your peers then your stance is a self serving one. On the other hand if you have been duly elected, then when I submit my own experiments/work to the forums, you might consider this. I would not respond to anyone typing in uppercase letters especially anyone I had put on prior notice that I am not legally blind.
Respectfully Elecar
Livestream is back up...
What's with the crazy video switching? (Who is talking now?)
Wow it looks like it is audio-triggered video feed switching so we are mostly getting the circuit diagram when the guest is speaking. The perils of technology.
1:16:27: "Be careful, careful, yeah it's hot!" LOL.
Then.... the "best" they could do is to show the 8.43 volts gate signal measured by the cursor.... BUT it can clearly be seen that this DOES cause current to flow in the Q1 mosfet.
Quote from: elecar on June 29, 2013, 04:14:53 PM
OK I get it now, you are the self appointed sheriff of the FE forums. The problem is if you were never elected into that role by your peers then your stance is a self serving one. On the other hand if you have been duly elected, then when I submit my own experiments/work to the forums, you might consider this. I would not respond to anyone typing in uppercase letters especially anyone I had put on prior notice that I am not legally blind.
Respectfully Elecar
You are making me laugh. STOP IT !!!
3:55:59 and on: She's lying.
Figure 6.
Notice that she refers to the temperature of the water. Ask her about that, and how you get 104 degrees C in liquid water at Cape Town.
Also... and this is very important.... ask her about the DATES of the Figure 3, Figure 5 and Figures 6&7 scopeshots.
In the ongoing (on and off) livestream, FIG3 was just replicated by placing the CSR probe on the wrong side of the CSR.
(Similar to TK's recent videos)
Watch/listen from 3:48 on...
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2013, 04:55:16 PM
In the ongoing (on and off) livestream, FIG3 was just replicated by placing the CSR probe on the wrong side of the CSR.
(Similar to TK's recent videos)
Watch/listen from 3:48 on...
Absolutely. It seems that Weir has seen my demonstrations.... and that Ainslie hasn't. You may note in my last video that I also can reproduce the high-amplitude oscillations in Q1 that happen when ramping up the FG. I didn't emphasize this at the time but I can demonstrate it specifically, on demand, and it won't take me four hours to do it either.
But look.... I guess you only get 4 hours of "hangout", it just went down ... and just when it was _finally_ getting interesting too.
Listen to her flailing about. She doesn't even have her paper in front of her to see what she claimed! And now she's trying as hard as possible to divert attention from the FACT that they could not reproduce Figure 3 without moving the probe or otherwise tricking the circuit. Heat or not.... no Figure 3 means NO VALID DATA OR CLAIMS IN THE PAPERS and they must be retracted, errata issued, and apologies made.
But am I going to hold my breath waiting? No. She will never admit to what she has just demonstrated live on camera.
Figure 6 Gate drive is under 10 volts. I make it to be about the same as the 8.5 or so that they were so happy about.
Not sure who the new voice was, but at 3:48 or so he had them adjust for +12 at the Q1 gate and perform a capture with the CSR showing Q1 passing current and then had them make another capture with the CSR probe moved to te wrong side of the CSR, which made a pretty good replication of FIG3. It is hard to tell from the video, but even with the CSR probe on the wrong side, it looks as though a bit of current flow continues to be indicated (which would be the Vdrop across the wiring resistance).
They then began discussing FIG6. In FIG6, during the Q1 on time, there is a very small amount of current being indicated. This would be consistent with having the probe on the wrong side of the CSR, as the "CSR" would now actually be the wiring resistance between the batt- side of the CSR and the ground point used as the reference for all the probe grounds, which would be much less than the 0R25 of the CSR.
Note that in FIG3, there does not appear to be the slightest hint of Q1 current.
And then the feed went down again...
Are they actually doing scope internal screencaptures, or is somebody just taking a still photo of the screens with a cellphone or something? I didn't see any fingers near scope buttons when the "snaps" were supposed to be taken.
TK,
See if you can get a decent screen capture of the waveforms at 3:49:14 or so.
This is with the CSR probe on the wrong side of the CSR (and with Q1 passing current).
Look at the current trace, does it look to you as if the current trace is still a bit above zero during the Q1 on times?
PW.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2013, 05:27:23 PM
Are they actually doing scope internal screencaptures, or is somebody just taking a still photo of the screens with a cellphone or something? I didn't see any fingers near scope buttons when the "snaps" were supposed to be taken.
He directed them to make a snapshot...
@seamonkey..true,so true.i concur sir but let us watch at a distance,perhaps the children will oneday realize that the easteregg is pinned onto their backs and not hidden in the house.perhaps they will stand in front the mirror oneday and see a surprize.wisdom grows from self-reflection they say
As I have tried to document with my blog post captures and scopeshot collection, the sequence of events that Ainslie describes in the paper is different from that which she reported, live, on the days of the actual experiments. She made lots of blog postings at the time the scopeshots were taken and it's clear that the extreme heat in the load was made using substantial current in the Q1 mosfet, that some of the scopeshots taken in the sequence show this current, and the Figure 3 and the SCRN0355 shots do not.
1. If the Figure 3 shot is indicative of the true state of the circuit with proper probe connections, then the mosfet must be blown or missing or miswired and there cannot be substantial heat in the load. This is what I have always maintained, and it appears that that is also what Ainslie is now admitting.
2. If the Figure 3 shot is done WITH a functioning mosfet in the Q1 position, then High Heat in the load is perfectly reasonable and expected, but in order to make the scopeshot without showing current, the probe has to be misplaced.
3. If there is a functioning mosfet and proper probe positioning, the high load heat is found without difficulty, but the current trace indicates substantial current.
These three things are what we have noted about the Figure 3 scopeshot, and these three things have been confirmed, in spades, by Ainslie's demonstration.
Further, I have predicted that the Q1 mosfet cannot hold up for very long, under the _actual_ current produced by a 12 volt gate signal and a full six batteries in series, and with the original small heatsink and long ON times as shown in the Figure 3 shot. Obviously this was not tested by Ainslie in the demonstration.
What is the battery stack voltage? What is the expected voltage from a stack of six fully charged 12V 50 AH SLAs?
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2013, 05:29:40 PM
TK,
See if you can get a decent screen capture of the waveforms at 3:49:14 or so.
This is with the CSR probe on the wrong side of the CSR (and with Q1 passing current).
Look at the current trace, does it look to you as if the current trace is still a bit above zero during the Q1 on times?
PW.
It's impossible to tell where the zero baseline marker is.
These people are not making it easy to interpret the scope traces, but what do you expect from people who only can read numbers in boxes.
And it is also impossible to be certain just where they are moving the probes to, without evidence. They are the Keystone Kops of scoposcopy.
And she has the nerve to criticize my demonstrations. I had to take a beta-blocker a while ago to settle my blood pressure down, and I am not kidding.
It's a good thing the dog barked when he did or you would never even have seen this much.
ETA: At one point Weir says to capture to flash, so maybe they are using the scope to make actual screenshots. Of course who knows when we will be allowed to see _those_ smoking guns.
TK,
I gave you an incorrect time stamp.
If you would, try to capture the waveforms at 3:45:49 or 3:46:52. These are shots of Q1 conducting made with the CSR probe on the correct side of the CSR. You'll have to catch it when the camera snaps into focus.
Then capture the waveform at 3:47:49 or so, which is under the same circuit conditions but with the CSR probe on the wrong side of the CSR.
PW
@PW: the use of crimped connectors, bolts and cliplead connections means that the wiring is going to be of .... shall we say.... somewhat higher resistance than we might ourselves encounter, with soldered connections. So perhaps a small amount of voltage-drop in the CVR trace would show up even if the probe is on the wrong side of the row of crimp-connected "shunts" on Ainslie's board, if the mosfet is fully turned on and carrying six amps. But I don't think the gate signal is sufficient in Figure 6 to do that; I think it is only about 8.5 volts, just as the "best attempt" of Ainslie's was in the demo.
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2013, 05:53:41 PM
TK,
I gave you an incorrect time stamp.
If you would, try to capture the waveforms at 3:45:49 or 3:46:52. These are shots of Q1 conducting made with the CSR probe on the correct side of the CSR. You'll have to catch it when the camera snaps into focus.
Then capture the waveform at 3:47:49 or so, which is under the same circuit conditions but with the CSR probe on the wrong side of the CSR.
PW
OK, I'll try. The metoprolol is kicking in and I'm feeling a little better. Give me a couple of minutes.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2013, 05:48:30 PM
It's impossible to tell where the zero baseline marker is.
These people are not making it easy to interpret the scope traces, but what do you expect from people who only can read numbers in boxes.
And it is also impossible to be certain just where they are moving the probes to, without evidence. They are the Keystone Kops of scoposcopy.
And she has the nerve to criticize my demonstrations. I had to take a beta-blocker a while ago to settle my blood pressure down, and I am not kidding.
It's a good thing the dog barked when he did or you would never even have seen this much.
ETA: At one point Weir says to capture to flash, so maybe they are using the scope to make actual screenshots. Of course who knows when we will be allowed to see _those_ smoking guns.
TK,
Having looked at the screen captures again, you are correct, it is impossible to tell. I was thinking the ref lines were below the channel numbers but I see that the ref lines are above the numbers when the ref marker is positioned above center graticule.
Maybe the captures will be released at some point.
PW
Hai dozo.
But the soundtrack narration doesn't agree with your description of that last grab?
This one shows the "capture" of the trace with the probe on the wrong side.
This is the very best I can do in that region. The instant before they switch the probe back to the correct position.
It would be a whole lot easier to follow this if the viewpoint didn't automatically switch to the noisiest participant's camera. If anyone does this again, please configure to remain on the _subject of interest_ instead of blindly following whoever is speaking.
TK,
Wierd...
At 3:47:48 (and 49), on my computer the capture still depicts the probe on the wrong side of the CSR (no Q1 current).
Does your video switch back an forth between the live demo and a shot of her paper during this time?
I only get a one second or so view of the scope between images of her paper.
PW
I can see where the zero baseline marker is in that last one.
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2013, 06:29:29 PM
TK,
At 3:47:48 (and 49), on my computer thecapture still depicts the probe is still on the wrong side of the CSR.
Does your video switch back an forth between the live demo and a shot of her paper during this time?
I only get a one second or so view of the scope between images of her paper.
PW
Yes, it switches. On my viewer the probe is already back to the correct side at the indicated time, as the image shows. No matter though.... please look at my last post. I don't think there is any current indicated, with the probe on the wrong side.
Do we know Weir? It certainly seems like he knows exactly what the circuit will do, and when. I've explained all these points in my videos, but I hope he attained his knowledge independently.
"Let's not worry about _explanations_ yet ... let's make sure that we share the same _observations_".
That deserves being chiselled in stone, or tattooed on the foreheads of the NERDs, or something.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 29, 2013, 06:32:36 PM
Yes, it switches. On my viewer the probe is already back to the correct side at the indicated time, as the image shows. No matter though.... please look at my last post. I don't think there is any current indicated, with the probe on the wrong side.
TK,
Look at FIG3 compared to FIG6. One could argue that FIG6 shows a hint of current flow while FIG3 shows none. I would think FIG6 to be consistent with the probe being on the wrong side of the CSR, with the CSR trace showing the Vdrop in the wiring between the CSR and common ground point.
One would have to wait for clear captures to be certain, but even your annotated screen capture looks a bit more like FIG6 than FIG3 to me.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 29, 2013, 06:50:31 PM
TK,
Look at FIG3 compared to FIG6. One could argue that FIG6 shows a hint of current flow while FIG3 shows none. I would think FIG6 to be consistent with the probe being on the wrong side of the CSR, with the CSR trace showing the Vdrop in the wiring between the CSR and common ground point.
One would have to wait for clear captures to be certain, but even your annotated screen capture looks a bit more like FIG6 than FIG3 to me.
PW
Fig 6 is ambiguous. It was taken about an hour before Figure 7 which does not show current flow, I believe.
In the Figure 6 shot the Gate signal is about 8.5 volts. In the Fig 7 shot it is not possible to read the Gate trace because the channel is set to 50 V/div!!
Note that, for once, the Figure 6 baseline is almost exactly on the center reference graticule marker and the settings box indicates a slight positive offset of 20 mV. The Fig 7 shot's current trace is offset by 2.2 volts or more.
I will bet that we are looking at a DC bias issue here on Fig 6 and not an indication of current flow.
Fig 6 is SCRN0351, and I've attached her original upload of this shot below. It might be a little clearer than the repro in the paper.
This shot is associated with her blog post 117:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/117-this-test-took-water-to-boil-with.html)
The Figure 3 shot first made its appearance in blog post 84:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/84-10-days-to-go-and-yet-more-surprises.html (http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/84-10-days-to-go-and-yet-more-surprises.html)
(You have to be careful with these LeCroy screens. They are the only scopes I have ever seen that have five minor divisions per major, horizontally, but only four minor divisions per major vertically. I'd like to shake the hand of the engineer responsible for that little "feature".)
So what happened?
Is there a discussion going on or not?
Is Weir doing what no man before has ever managed to do: penetrate Ainslie's ego defenses and make her see reason?
ETA: Sometime in the past week or so, in her discussions with .99, she mentioned moving the probes around the CVR. I thought she was talking about the ground reference lead, which is wrong on her boards and right on the schematic, but with her habit of garbling things, maybe she _has_ been deliberately moving the probe itself to the other side of the CVR, because she likes the waveforms better on that side!
She has been known to discard data that she didn't like, before.
Now that Ainslie has shown that she cannot obtain the Figure 3 scopeshot as claimed in the paper, unless she moves the probe or has a failed mosfet in place, let's go ahead and look at the Figure 6 and Figure 7 claims.
The text of the paper says that these settings allowed her to raise the temperature of the water to 104 degrees C, "bringing to boil", and producing steam at all temperatures over 62 degrees C.
And I say these claims are specious.
She cannot produce water at 104 degrees C in an unpressurised container at the elevation of Cape Town (near sea level).
Steam is water vapor at over 100 degrees C and is invisible. Whatever she saw it was not steam.
Zero current in the Q1 mosfet will not result in this large heating. A tiny current, as is perhaps shown in Figure 6, could easily be accounted for by the improper probe position and the slight resistances of her crimped and cliplead connectors. The conclusion is that the mosfet is conducting but the trace is under-indicating the true current because of the malpositioned probe, OR that the mosfet is blown and the reported heat is residual, from just before the mosfet blew.
Contrary to what Weir says in the video, the Gate signal for Figure 6 is only about 8.5 volts, according to my calipers.
Further, she claims to do this heating without measurable depletion of the battery source.... yet her own evidence shows otherwise. Examination of the scopeshots in chronological sequence shows a steady decline in battery voltage over her whole series of testing. The batteries DO discharge measurably and it is her own fault for not knowing, and ignoring, the proper way to measure this discharge.
The last fall back position, as you heard in the demonstration, was for her to claim that the batteries exceeded their maximum discharge potential, or that the load dissipated far more power than the batteries could have contained, or that they "exceeded their Watt-hour rating".
This too is a specious claim..... if only because she has never actually tested this!
But further, the _only_ source of this claim is her "25 megaJoules in one this test alone" calculation. There is no other support for this claim of batteries exceeding their ratings.... anywhere in the Ainslie data or anecdotes, except the Quantum report from thirteen years ago. And we have seen how that dataset was produced and the math that went into that claim. This calculation as presented in the forum post, you will note, is the experiment described in the paper and was produced according to her at the time by the Figure 3and 6 and 7 waveforms, but another shot that did not make it into the paper also shows the Figure 3 "anomalous" feature.
Just another comment for what it's worth. I didn't get the sense that the gentleman that started the demo, the person ostensibly on Rosemary's "team," was really familiar with what was going on or was in control of the setup. He seemed to be very tentative and unsure. I wasn't following closely and only listened to five minute stretches here and there but that was my impression. So that didn't help with the overall vibe at all.
Even so, you gents picked out the cherries from the morass and got the verification that you were looking for about the infamous Figure 3 issue.
From a bird's eye view, this is just more of the "Bizarro Universe" aspect that we often see in the ongoing drama in the realm of free energy. This was all a "big battle" over whether or not an N-channel MOSFET should switch on if the gate-to-source voltage goes high. In reality, by definition there is no debate. It's like you can imagine a two-hour film covering the last five years worth of the ups and downs in the realm of free energy where it's just an endless chain of two-minute "docudramas" strung together one after the other. Mylow, South African trip, Rosie drama, RomeroUK, Ferris Wheel, giant Brazilian bread slicer, Inteligentry, 2H2 + O2 guys blowing themselves up, Tesla obsession, Imhotep one-hit-wonder, Wayne's brain, the list goes on and on. Now that would be an eye-opener. Let's start a crowd funding project!!!!
So what happened to the "post-game show"? The discussion was just starting to get interesting, down to the meat of the matter, when it was cut off, literally in mid sentence.
I am not sure what happened as I was in the end watching the you-tube feed. I got cut of at 4 hours just as it got real interesting with Mr Weir was starting to make some good points and obviously was trying to get to the bottom of the claim.
It was a shame he was not there from hour 1 and directing operations.
I am going to suggest that they do another demonstration with a real camera and Mr Weir directing them. But with a 1 hour time limit.
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on June 29, 2013, 10:08:14 PM
I am not sure what happened as I was in the end watching the you-tube feed. I got cut of at 4 hours just as it got real interesting with Mr Weir was starting to make some good points and obviously was trying to get to the bottom of the claim.
It was a shame he was not there from hour 1 and directing operations.
I am going to suggest that they do another demonstration with a real camera and Mr Weir directing them. But with a 1 hour time limit.
Mark
Yes Mark, and also suggest that they use the tripod that, as TK has shown in one of his screenshots, was there in the room but not in use. That would have helped a lot to keep the auto focus from running all over the map like it did.
Bill
Their intent was clearly not to display data in a usable form, it was to obfuscate and dazzle with irrelevant detail. Just as always.
Why display two irrelevant traces on the screen during the Fig 3 trials? Why configure the webcast to follow the speaker instead of remaining on the subject of interest? Who needs to see minute after minute of a blue head silhouette, or a page from Ainslie's paper, when the action is happening somewhere else?
I will be very surprised if we are allowed to see the scope captures that Weir guided them to take.
And Mark wants _another_ demonstration? It took her over two years of stalling to get around to doing this one, stalling, insulting, free publicity, the posting of her error-filled daft manuscripts to Rossi's JNP blog.... all of that while we have been waiting for her to do _this_ demo.
But it's fine with me if she does another demo. This one should have been enough for any masochist with a weird sense of humor, though..... but I'd love to see another one, there are lots of my videos she claims she can refute ..... just be sure to have her raise 850 mL, or 700 mL or whatever the most recent edit says, of water to 104 degrees C using the waveform (verified) shown in Figs 6 and 7. The paper says the Water Temperature was that hot, it is right there. She has told us, though that "they" never actually measured the temperature of the water. But the paper clearly refers to the water temperature, and the temperature of the water, in several places. So, just like the Figure 3 scopeshot.... make her do it, or throw her out of the tavern on her ear when she cannot.
So, Is there some discussion happening right now that we peons are not privy to? I find it remarkable that the thing was cut off at 4 hours, not so much because of the time limit... .but because it wasn't restarted immediately since the analysis was just beginning.
Quote from: profitis on June 29, 2013, 05:32:57 PM
@seamonkey..true,so true.i concur sir but let us watch at a distance,perhaps the children will oneday realize that the easteregg is pinned onto their backs and not hidden in the house.perhaps they will stand in front the mirror oneday and see a surprize.wisdom grows from self-reflection they say
Aye, this strikes me as being very sage and
sound advice/counsel. What could have been
a productive discussion has been greatly
overshadowed by the vendetta. ;D
Hi TK
The reason I want another demo is Mr Weir brought a level of expertise and analytic skills which was useful for the purposes of the demonstration. Other than those in the Google Hangout, the rest of us got cut of from the remainder of the demonstration and discussion on YouTube. I followed up with Rosemary informing her of this. Rosemary gave me a brief update of what followed. As a result of his intervention, Rosemary is issuing some modifications to some of her claims. Mr Wear also suggested some further tests that may make things more definitive.
My intention is to draw some conclusion to this and I have suggested another test takes place, as a lot of information was missed by many of us. I hope Mr Weir and others will do such a test.
I respect you analysis, and skills but I really believe Mr Weir did help Rosemary and others see this in a new light, perhaps not overunity but at least something people can reach consensus on.
Mark
I don't think that "Rosemary says" can be considered a reliable source of information, especially not now. I would like to hear an account of the post-game discussion from somebody _other_ than Ainslie, because we have all seen many times how she garbles and misrepresents the words of others, and even her own words, from moment to moment. She is simply not credible, least of all when speaking of her critics.
I hope somebody recorded the conversation, or that Weir can give us his recollection. That, I would believe. Ainslie's.... not so much.
I have the entire four hours of the YT demo recorded, though, and if I can stand to watch it _yet again_ I'll edit out all the dead air and post it somewhere for a permanent record. You can bet the existing YT posting will disappear quickly.
And "Some modification of her claims" is not going to cut it. The very basis of her claims has been cut out: the apparatus was either rigged or malfing during several of the reported trials, invalidating them and the conclusions drawn from them, and even that notwithstanding..... much of what is reported is simply impossible under the conditions stated, like the "104 degrees water temperature". These ridiculous exercises in mendacity that she pretends are scientific reports _must be retracted completely_, errata issued and apologies made by Ainslie to everybody she has slighted.
There is also no experimental support for her "outlasting the watthour rating" claim, because as I have shown that claim comes from her bogus calculations and is completely wrong. She has never actually tested her batteries properly, and the chemistry laboratory she sent her entire apparatus to last year for independent testing, did not support her claims and in fact found that the batteries discharged normally. (Why does no one ever ask her about this laboratory and its findings? Why does she fail to mention this test when she's talking about all the replications and tests that she claims have been done? I know why.)
man..i hope somebody will oneday build one of these circuits around a watchbattery,make things a lot easier to scrutinize.
Would a 9v battery do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hl4YWlU0i4
Altoid also runs on a 2F capacitor only, as well, and makes the negative mean power product while doing it.
@tk negative power product? Translate pls.do you mean overunity
Quote from: profitis on June 30, 2013, 10:34:12 AM
@tk negative power product? Translate pls.do you mean overunity
Since the time Rosemary began measuring the battery power and obtaining a negative (polarity) mean (average) result, she has claimed this is an indication that some energy is going back into the battery.
The scope computes p(t) from the Vbat and Vcsr probes by multiplying them and producing a MATH trace. Then the resulting math trace has a "mean" measurement applied by the scope to several displayed cycles, and it is this measurement that is indicating a "negative" polarity.
With the probe configuration used, a true negative result would indicate a net energy going back into the battery, but on this apparatus the results are not "true" in the technical sense. Even a 100nH inductance between the CSR probes can and will skew the p(t) measurement to the degree that the resulting average Pbat becomes negative in polarity (due to the resulting negative average current). When a single low-inductance CSR is utilized (Rose's circuit uses four 1 Ohm resistors in parallel using significant wiring in between) and the CSR probes placed tightly against the resistor body, the average current changes polarity from negative (previous CSR and probe placement) to positive.
With a positive net average current, and the positive average Vbat, the Pbat average will of course be positive as well, and I have already established by experiment with a simple DC circuit with identical probe placement, that this will indicate the batteries' energy is depleting, not increasing.
This will be clearly demonstrated in some upcoming tests with my setup of the circuit.
Right on Poynt!
If Rosie is listening:
Simply define 12 or so steps that you want to take to demonstrate your setup. Find a place to position your camera + tripod so the camera can be pointed at either the setup or the DSO display as you make your measurements. I am assuming that your camera has a zoom lens so every time you move the camera you also change the zoom to properly set the frame. Do an extra close up zoom of the DSO display. Do a rehearsal of the 12 steps and the camera sequencing and then when you are ready go live.
We don't need a tour of the setup, just a step by step walk through of your measurements about the Figure 3 issue with a nice narration on top of that. That might take 30 minutes max, and then you can open up the question and answer session.
MileHigh
@poynt 99..thus perpetual confusion as opposed to perpetual motion.the more complexities inbetween the battery and the measurements the less certainty.it seems even breathing on probes can effect them thus the need for microsystems which require micro sized,definite quantified power supplies.my huge emphasis on cup-of-oil calorimetry alongside a controll being the prefered indisputable way to prove anything beyond doubt.
by the way guys,if you are going to do calorometry with your circuits never EVER throw the inductors in the tank.the inductors MUST remain outside the tank for thermodynamic reasons,they are supposed to suck in extra heat from the environment and spit it out on your load thus they will cancel if both are in the tank.
Did Ainslie, or did she not, just demonstrate that she and her team could NOT repeat the Figure 3 scopeshot? I think it is clear that they could NOT repeat the shot, that the mosfet gets +hot+ when they try, and that the shot in the paper must have been made with either the misplaced probe or a blown mosfet.
Do you want to give her another opportunity to make the Figure 3 scopeshot, and to "bring water to boil 700 mL, 104 degrees C" with traces like Figure 6 and 7? Fine, let her demonstrate her failures as many times as she likes. Do you think she'll take MH's advice, to bring her video up to _at least_ the standard of my videos? Do you think profitis will ever notice that I _do_ use "oil-cup calorimetry" when I test Tar Baby, and Ainslie does not, not even "water cup" calorimetry?
At some point, though, the endless series of postponed demos that fail to demonstrate her claims has got to stop, don't you think? She had four hours and more, she had her "team", she had advice from several people she apparently trusted over the 'net. Yet she still could not reproduce her major claim, in spite of her previous overweening arrogance and unjustified confidence. Will we learn anything more from doing more demonstrations of the same thing? It will be like watching the same Keystone Kops feature, again and again. The "NERD" team, after all this time, still does not even know how to operate their own test equipment to best advantage, nor how to display data coherently. At 1:10:00, roughly, the "presenter" can be heard to ask just what it is they are supposed to be replicating !! Even he has no clue, to this day. Ainslie herself apparently cannot even operate the apparatus -- else why did she not herself try to make the traces before yesterday?
The Ainslie failure to produce the Figure 3 scopeshot means that her "thesis" is not supported, actually, and that the data upon which her conclusions are based are bogus. The papers, in their entirety, must be withdrawn, errata issued, and apologies made by her to everyone she has slighted and insulted over the years.
Are these things the right and proper and honest things for her to do? Yes, they are, since her data has been proven, by Ainslie herself, to be bogus. Do I think she will do these things? Of course not.
@tk i want to ask you a very very important question: was ainslie,s inductor inside the calorometer tank or not.
I think you make some good points TK
lets see if they can do another demo with Mr Weir's help and address them
It not a matter of who was right or wrong in the past its what is the status of the methodology and data that is generated today.
Mark
@tk.was ainslies inductor ever submerged in water to boil it..
Quote from: profitis on June 30, 2013, 01:42:15 PM
@tk.was ainslies inductor ever submerged in water to boil it..
Well... you mean you can't tell from reading her scientific papers?
The answer is, as far as I can tell, no, not really.
You or I might do the experiment like this:
We would prepare a container that was fairly well insulated and could hold a known quantity of water. (Ainslie did this.)
We would arrange a thermocouple to monitor the temperature of the _water_. We might have one attached directly to some part of the load itself but the primary data would come from the _water temperature_ and we would want all the water to be at the same temp when we took a reading. We would immerse the load completely in the liquid. (Ainslie did NOT do this. In spite of the claim in the paper, she now tells us that they never monitored the water temperature, only some unknown combo of the load and water. Actually it was the load that they monitored, because the thermocouple is "over" as she puts it, or "attached to" as I put it, the load.)
We would then carefully record the settings used and we would make a time-temperature plot of the insulated container's water temperature, at a constant setting of the apparatus, as the water warmed up. (Ainslie did not do this.)
We would know what "steam" is, we would understand that water can't exist as liquid at 104 degrees C, etc etc and we wouldn't claim to have "brought water to boil 700 mL" unless the water was actually boiling.
Right? Some details might change but that is the way in general that the problem would be approached by someone interested in determining energy balances.
I have linked several times to the blog posts where she describes her actual procedure. Compare, contrast, discuss.
The graph below is from my work in 2009 with the Quantum magazine single-mosfet circuit, and is the temperature of the water in a small double insulated calorimeter containing a fully submerged Ainslie load. I was the first person actually to credibly demonstrate boiling water... actually boiling it.... with this circuit, but not by using Ainslie's claimed duty cycle.
Quote from: markdansie on June 30, 2013, 01:29:13 PM
I think you make some good points TK
lets see if they can do another demo with Mr Weir's help and address them
It not a matter of who was right or wrong in the past its what is the status of the methodology and data that is generated today.
Mark
It is indeed a matter of _what_ was wrong in the past. Not who.....
Anyone who has published or attempted to publish _known false data_ should be treated the same way: with demands for retraction, correction and apology. It was rather definitely proven yesterday that her data concerning the Figure 3 scopeshot is false, for whatever reason. If she wants to repeat the original experiment _properly_ that is all well and good, let her go for it. But before that happens, the old, bad data has got to be removed. Out with the bad, as soon as it is recognized to be bad, before you can come in with the new.
When she does repeat the experiment properly.... there will be nothing to publish, because there is no special effect, as many people have already proven who _have_ done the experiments properly.
Ainslie has been pushing those mendacious and error-filled manuscripts for over two years, has posted them all over the internet, has made her various claims and is even claiming that they have been peer-reviewed (due to the IEEE submissions and the Rossi JNP postings.) However this demo yesterday and the hard work of .99 and others is really the only peer review that the manuscripts and claims have had -- and I for one reject them.
@tk ok but what we will NOT do is submerge any inductor section into water,oil,or any calorometer.if ainslies 'load' includes the inductor core then we have a potential problem.the load must be seperate from inductor to properly work any circuit(well at least to register excess heat in a calormeter)the ideal circuit will suck in environmental heat through the core and spit it back out through a well seperated load(the load resistor to be dunked in the calormeter,ie.to do work for us)
Quote from: profitis on June 30, 2013, 02:41:48 PM
@tk ok but what we will NOT do is submerge any inductor section into water,oil,or any calorometer.if ainslies 'load' includes the inductor core then we have a potential problem.the load must be seperate from inductor to properly work any circuit(well at least to register excess heat in a calormeter)the ideal circuit will suck in environmental heat through the core and spit it back out through a well seperated load(the load resistor to be dunked in the calormeter,ie.to do work for us)
Then you are talking about a different experiment altogether. Please feel free to open your own thread, build and test your own apparatus, whatever. What is going on here is something completely different and you are not contributing anything helpful.
You are even local to Ainslie, as I understand it. So get with her, help her improve her apparatus if that is what you think is useful. Where were you yesterday?
Never mind, I don't really want to know.
@tk ..you have a point there.ima get off my ass and chek the diagrams now in detail and suss it out...
I am in the process of going over the 4 hour video demonstration, trying to find the absolute blank spots and edit them out. In the process I thought I would make a few "highlights" clips for those who might not want to watch four hours of .... that. Here are the first two: Scoposcopy 1, and Determining Frequency with a Digital Oscilloscope. I find the second one particularly amusing.
I have NOT edited these, beyond clipping them out of the original longer segment. This is what Ainslie presents to the public.
(Note the Camera Tripod that you can see in the background of the first video.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9IRONEArVU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9IRONEArVU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6659TrVblYE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6659TrVblYE)
And the excuses and misinterpretations begin.
QuoteHi Guys,
I've been able to log into the forum - but have not been able to post. Gi has just corrected the problem. Hopefully it's the same problem you've had Chess.
The demo was fraught. The presenter had just flown in from Namibia. He was EXHAUSTED - not having had any sleep in the last 42 hours. Then my camera simply WOULD NOT upload? I'm not sure if that's the term. To manage things Gi simply used his cell camera. And that was hardly ideal viewing. Then the presenter had no direct way to gauge the reception he was getting as the video was too far away - to accommodate plug points. I thought there were only 10 or so viewers. Which left me feeling a little more relaxed in the face of the problems we were having - but according to Mark Dansie it was actually in the thousands. If any readers here were watching - abject apologies. I think we were afflicted by a marginal revision to Murphy's Law - If EVERYTHING can go wrong ... it WILL.
That is what REHEARSALS are for, Ainslie. Isn't it funny how everyone but you predicted that things would "go wrong"? It is a miracle you got off what you did, and without your "team" you would never have done it at all.
Quote
Our demo itself was inconclusive.
NO IT WAS NOT!! It soundly demonstrated that YOU CANNOT REPEAT YOUR OWN DATA unless you fiddle with the probe position or have a blown mosfet.
Quote
We intended replicating Fig 3 Paper 1. The closest we could get was at 8 volts applied from the Gate Q1 - and NOT 10.
AND NOT 12, you mean. Tell the truth, now, child. The Fig 3 scopeshot, as everyone agrees, shows 12 volts at the gate. And you COULD IN FACT apply 12 volts... but then you showed massive current flow. Until of course Weir had you repeat MY DEMONSTRATION: moving the PROBE, not the reference, to the other side of the "shunt". Tell the truth, child.
Quote
THEN to compound the problem somewhere deeper into the demo - our Function Generator itself picked up a glitch that extended the oscillation into the ON period of the duty cycle. Thankfully this only applied to one particular setting during the sweep of the offset but we have no way of knowing how this effected the balance of the FG operation.
This is also simply WRONG. The oscillations in the Q1 that you saw are also perfectly repeatable and are NOT due to some "glitch" in the FG. Unless you want to argue that my old Interstate F43 has the same glitch... but I don't think even YOU are crazy enough for that.
Quote
BUT - and this is the really WONDERFUL part - a certain gentleman by the name of Weir - stepped up to the plate and did some welcome and BRILLIANT analyses of the evidence with a competence that I have never seen equaled - not even by our own academics. What is now ABSOLUTELY clear - is that our Fig 7 & 8 were the result of positioning the ground reference of the probe away from the common negative.
Are you quite sure about that? I don't think so.... I think that it was the PROBE that was mispositioned. But if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Quote
We have to reset the scope and rerun this to make absolutely sure. And we also need to access a more dependable function generator. Then subject to the availability of this gentleman - we will include him in ALL further tests. But I'll give you more on this in due course. My only concern is to the extent that it'll effect our paper. But he's explained the procedure to correct this and we'll be following his advices. Thankfully it IS correctable as our essential claim holds.
Your essential claim DOES NOT HOLD! Your data is invalid and this demonstration proved it!
Quote
Now. That demo was intended as my swan song. Sadly not. Mark Dansie has persuaded me to do a rerun but with a dependable camera and under the guidance of Weir. Weir is not keen on publicity - but he IS keen of getting to the heart of the matter. And I'm reasonably certain that he'll be prepared to come on board for these tests. And I see now that Mark is most CERTAINLY batting in the court of our over unity drive. PRECISELY because he recommended this. I MUST admit to having had considerable doubts about his commitments here. Clearly they were baseless. The only hold ups are this. The equipment is to be set up in a new laboratory - that is NOT yet finished. But it should be - in a couple of weeks time. Thereafter we'll be in a position to do that rerun.
The questions that still need to be answered are related to the measurements which are reflected in the scope's math trace values. We need to find out IF these are dependable or if they're result of RF or any other artifacts in the equipment. What Weir has acknowledged - unequivocally - is that with an AC waveform as is generated from that oscillation - then one can most certainly argue for battery recharge in terms of standard analysis.
Really? Can we have that from Weir himself, please? Because we all know how you distort and garble and even invert what people are actually telling you. So let us PLEASE hear from Weir on this matter.
After all, I have lots of devices here that "have an AC waveform as generated from that oscillation"... and I can assure you that they do not recharge their batteries... in terms of ACTUAL MEASUREMENT, not your misconceived "standard analysis".
Quote
BUT. The anomaly may then be that there is NO recharge - notwithstanding this waveform. THAT's likely to involve CONSIDERABLY more rather costly research and investigation than I can manage.
You make me laugh! DO A DIM BULB TEST. Get your genius team to explain to you what that is. You could do it in a day, if you knew what you were doing and actually wanted to test your claims.
ETA: If pigs had wings they could fly. The anomaly may then be that there are NO flying pigs! Notwithstanding the wings (and lipstick) on this here pig. THAT's likely to involve CONSIDERABLY more effort to explain with handwaving nonsense and parroted big words.
Quote
Which is all the more reason to get this to campus. But there are less costly tests which we'll certainly do - which will, at it's least give 'indications'. And the battery draw down is one. This based on the final argument that IF application of switches increases the battery efficiency - then this would encourage its use. But I don't want to close this long argument on merely 'evidence of efficiency' IF I can help it. I'd FAR rather get to conclusive evidence of unity breaches. Because that is the ONLY thing that will help the cause.
I'll keep you informed as to our ongoing tests. But there's likely to be a further 2 week delay before we get back to that equipment.
Kindest regards
Rosie
Yak yak. I told you so. The demonstration was Keystone Kops, the only thing it DID definitively show is that Ainslie cannot repeat her own data without fiddling with the probe positioning or having a blown mosfet, and it was done using MY suggested test, which I illustrated here days ago. And look at how she spins it!
I would say this was utterly unbelievable ... except that I predicted it.
Profits:
Quotenductors MUST remain outside the tank for thermodynamic reasons,they are supposed to suck in extra heat from the environment and spit it out on your load thus they will cancel if both are in the tank.
Inductors don't "suck in heat from the environment," that's nonsense just like Sterling Allen always muses about the "clockwork of Nature."
Inductors can store electrical energy in the form of a magnetic field. The electrical energy comes from an external electrical power source. It has nothing to do with heat at all.
MileHigh
@tk well i sussed out her diagram and come to the conclusion that no matter what calorimetric measurements are made with that inductive resistor it will yield underunity for the following reason: environmental heat will flow into and out of the same spot ie.the inductance resistor, cancelling out the ability to register excess heat joules in a calormetric way.thus unfortunately in this particular case we rely entirely on scopeshots and instrumental interpretations.unless my analysis is wrong.
Ainslie says,
QuoteTHEN to compound the problem somewhere deeper into the demo - our Function Generator itself picked up a glitch that extended the oscillation into the ON period of the duty cycle. Thankfully this only applied to one particular setting during the sweep of the offset but we have no way of knowing how this effected the balance of the FG operation.
Well. THEN to compound Ainslie's problems .... what this particular event and post actually demonstrate is that Ainslie and the rest of her team STILL HAVE NO CLUE about how or why the circuit operates the way it does. Further, it demonstrates YET ANOTHER smoking gun: they none of them have operated the device with all six batteries connected in series, any time during the past two years since the last demonstration. Because if they had done, they would have noticed this FULLY REPEATABLE and EXPECTED feature of the operation of the NERD, and TAR BABY, devices. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the FG and absolutely does NOT indicate any problem with the FG.
Keystone Kops play at electronics? No.... I do believe the KKs would have done a much better job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA
Quote from: profitis on June 30, 2013, 08:35:52 PM
@tk well i sussed out her diagram and come to the conclusion that no matter what calorimetric measurements are made with that inductive resistor it will yield underunity for the following reason: environmental heat will flow into and out of the same spot ie.the inductance resistor, cancelling out the ability to register excess heat joules in a calormetric way.thus unfortunately in this particular case we rely entirely on scopeshots and instrumental interpretations. even though my analysis is wrong.
There, I fixed that for you.
@milehigh..oh really?nothing to do with heat ehh. Then i suppose you can explain to us what inductive heating is? Or what happens to the entropy of the magnetic dipoles after they jolt into same direction?or what happens to the entropy of the dipoles after they snap back into their original positions?you need to go back to school my friend.
@milehigh..ever heard of the magnetocaloric effect? Nothing to do with heat ehh..
YOU need to go start your own thread my friend, so you can discuss whatever ideas you like with whomever might actually be interested. This thread is about Ainslie's bogus claims, her Keystone Kops demonstration, and the need for proper measurments and a smattering of basic knowledge before one pretends to be a scientist. You have not contributed to understanding Ainslie at all, you are only distracting.
@tk..i disagree.the friggen crux of the matter is wether a 2nd law violation has taken place in ainslie,s circuit or not.we are still inconclusive..
Quote from: profitis on June 30, 2013, 09:15:21 PM
@tk..i disagree.the friggen crux of the matter is wether a 2nd law violation has taken place in ainslie,s circuit or not.we are still inconclusive..
NO IT IS NOT. The "friggen" crux of the matter is that Ainslie's DATA IS GARBAGE because her apparatus was malfunctioning or she deliberately had the probe in the wrong place. Therefore she has been insulting and bloviating and disrespecting people for YEARS based on a pile of crap. Yesterday's demonstration PROVED this beyond any reasonable doubt, with Ainslie and her "presenter" themselves collecting and displaying the necessary data for that determination to be made.
There is absolutely no theoretical basis for expecting any kind of 2LoT violation in Ainslie's circuit! The behaviour is 100 percent understood and 100 percent modellable in PSpice and other circuit sims. The only reason anyone thinks it isn't, is because of Ainslie's misrepresentations and bad data!
And there is absolutely no empirical support for any kind of 2LoT violation in Ainslie's circuit: see above. THIS IS NOT INCONCLUSIVE !!
And if you think it is, PLEASE go work in your laboratory and demonstrate your experimental evidence for your beliefs.
@tk the behaviour of a core is not 100% understood and definitely not 100% predictable on a computer.trial and error is the order of the day when it comes to cores,there is a gap of activity that deviates from predictability, even with cores stamped and manufactured with set parameters out of the factory.we are dealing with ainslies laboratory now not mine,case closed.
Quote from: profitis on June 30, 2013, 09:44:18 PM
@tk the behaviour of a core is not 100% understood and definitely not 100% predictable on a computer.trial and error is the order of the day when it comes to cores,there is a gap of activity that deviates from predictability, even with cores stamped and manufactured with set parameters out of the factory.we are dealing with ainslies laboratory now not mine,case closed.
And of course... Ainslie's device does not even use a core at all. So I don't know what you are dealing with, but it's not Ainslie's circuit, and Ainslie has no laboratory.
You are doing a great job of covering up the real work I've done today, though.
@tk..covering your work?ya your cantankering maybe.yes she does use a core,an air core,steel core,ferrite core whatever it is,its a coil i see there.
Bump.
::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6659TrVblYE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6659TrVblYE)
:-* :-*
Quote from: profitis on June 30, 2013, 10:35:41 PM
yes she does use a core,(insert space here)an air core
Since when was an "air" core something mystical?
Why are you here man? Trolling it would seem.
Oh, and try using some "spaces" after your punctuation.
@pointypoint is she using an air core?trolling?if im wrong i,l untroll mr puntuation pointer pointy
An air core means "no" core. ::)
You're just doing what trolls do...yes, please untroll.
Oh, and don't call me "pointypoint".
Just posted today by someone who knows Mr Weir, and someone who I total trust.
I am not technically qualified so will not comment.
They had a lot of trouble just operating an oscilloscope. They went off the air for more than an hour apparently because they were shocked and awed that biasing Q1 in its linear region resulted in oscillations. The demonstration completely refuted her claims concerning Figure 3 from Paper 1. When a functioning Q1 gate was biased Q1 indisputably conducted as shown by waveforms both early in the demonstration and collected near the end of the video.[/font]
[/font]
http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/#comments (http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/#comments)
@point99..(you see im a good troll)..are you telling me she,s got no ferrite or iron bars,rods wrapped round in coils there in that latest circuit
Quote from: profitis on June 30, 2013, 11:18:20 PM
are you telling me she,s got no ferrite or iron bars,rods wrapped round in coils there in that latest circuit
That is correct.
Quote from: markdansie on June 30, 2013, 11:16:48 PM
Just posted today by someone who knows Mr Weir, and someone who I total trust.
I am not technically qualified so will not comment.
They had a lot of trouble just operating an oscilloscope. They went off the air for more than an hour apparently because they were shocked and awed that biasing Q1 in its linear region resulted in oscillations. The demonstration completely refuted her claims concerning Figure 3 from Paper 1. When a functioning Q1 gate was biased Q1 indisputably conducted as shown by waveforms both early in the demonstration and collected near the end of the video.[/font]
[/font]
http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/#comments (http://revolution-green.com/2013/06/20/rosemary-ainslie-overunity/#comments)
Thanks, Mark.
Is that a statement from Mr. Weir himself?
What does he say about what Ainslie said he said?
I hope everyone enjoys my video demonstrating what they found so stunning. Their consternation at seeing Q1 oscillate proves that nobody ever operated that circuit with the full six batteries in the over two years since the last demonstration, and further, that not a one of them knows their topic well enough to be interpreting data, much less trying to describe and demonstrate it. Note my highlight clip linked above, showing that the presenter cannot even find a simple frequency, in over five minutes of fumbling around with a five thousand dollar oscilloscope.
Profits:
Yes I know what inductive heating is. It would appear that you are drawing a connection between your false belief about inductors allegedly drawing in heat from the environment and inductive heating. In fact there is no connection at all between the two. I will go out on a limb and state that it's ironic when you suggest that I need to go to school when I assume that you haven't been to school yourself.
QuoteOr what happens to the entropy of the magnetic dipoles after they jolt into same direction?or what happens to the entropy of the dipoles after they snap back into their original positions?
The above is pseudoscience talk and I can't make any sense of it at all. Like TK stated, feel free to start a thread with your ideas and perhaps they will be debated on that thread.
We are dealing with Rosemary's proposition which in itself is pseudoscience derived from an amateur trying to make very difficult-to-make measurements and then leading herself down a garden path and bolstering it with her amateur theories about the nature of the magnetic field. The real participants in this thread want to finally close the door on this one and move on and we should stay focused on that task.
Another comment for Rosie: Write down the 12 steps in a notebook and reference the notebook as you make your next clip to keep yourself focused on the task at hand.
MileHigh
@milehigh well if somebody had told me earlier that theres no magnetic cores involved in the ainslie circuit i wouldve shut up ages ago because then theres no way for a 2nd law breach to occur in her latest circuit.however,now that you,ve gone and challenged me on my thermodynamics lets just say that im perfectly aware of the heat exhaust cycle from the battery channelled straight out a paramagnetic inductor core after alignment of dipoles,followed straight afterward by the sudden instantaneous drop in temperature as the dipoles get a sudden rude awakening to the departure of current in the coil and proceed to undergo even more alignment and give off a brief 2nd puff of heat to the environment and then suck back in the 1st(from the battery)and 2nd(from the dipoles themselves)waves of exhausted heat as they return to the prior random equilibrium state.you see,its two heat cycles going on here concurrently.not one.
We are dealing with Rosemary's proposition which in itself is pseudoscience derived from an amateur trying to make very difficult-to-make measurements and then leading herself down a [color=rgb(27, 142, 222) !important]garden path[/color] and bolstering it with her amateur theories about the nature of the magnetic field. The real participants in this thread want to finally close the door on this one and move on and we should stay focused on that task.
Thanks mile high
I think as you stated says it all.
I have been informed that test was her swansong and although what you say is true, I do admire her spirit.
I am very ill at the moment and have not been able to do the follow up story, will do in next few days.
would still like to see We are dealing with Rosemary's proposition which in itself is pseudoscience derived from an amateur trying to make very difficult-to-make measurements and then leading herself down a [color=rgb(27, 142, 222) !important]garden path[/color] and bolstering it with her amateur theories about the nature of the magnetic field. The real participants in this thread want to finally close the door on this one and move on and we should stay focused on that task. demo as it would be a god exercise on measuring and making assumptions.
Rosemary will be making some correctionst o her paper, we will have to see what they are and what conclusions she draws.
Kind Regards
Mark
@milehigh...google 'steven j.smith magnetothermodynamics' for a more classy descript of what i just said.its 2 concurrent heat cycles going on in a core.heat energy from the battery expelled via core and heat energy from the core itself expelled via the core(from quantum transition to more orderly state when temp drops)
Q1 and Q2 oscillations, how to tell them apart, how to make them continuously, who cares.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE
Mark, take it easy, I hope you get to feeling better soon. Don't worry about RA... she'll still be around when you are back in the pink.
Next
Quote Rosie: Or I need to develop our magnetic monopole so that we can show the proof of 'perpetual motion' - which I believe is doable through an exotic construct of some magnets. The first requires some considerable research and strong co-operation with a chemistry lab. The second is doable - provided that I can find someone to work with me on constructing those magnets. And a condition to both is that the information is open sourced. FULLY. Which means that it may be difficult to find that collaborator. For any readers who may know of anyone who could assist in either regard or who may themselves be able to assist - PLEASE email me at
Look out Yildiz-Rosie is coming.
Watch out for the new rosini pulse motor's-hitting stores near you soon.
@markdansie.take zinc for that flu if it it is flu,worx evrytime for me
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2013, 02:21:32 AM
Q1 and Q2 oscillations, how to tell them apart, how to make them continuously, who cares.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE)
I've been able to do this in the sim in the past (and I've posted results of it), but the present circuit Q1 will not go into osc. for some reason. I think it is due to the placement of inductances; i.e. I'm missing one. Anyway, that is not so interesting and is known. I was hoping to see the larger amplitude osc. on Q1 as you adjusted the bias, did I miss it? The amplitude seemed about the same as Q2's. When you use the FG, isn't the Q1 osc. amplitude quite a bit higher than Q2's? Also, this may not make a huge difference, but I was using a 50 Ohm in series with my DC bias supply to emulate the FG.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 01, 2013, 09:55:21 AM
I've been able to do this in the sim in the past (and I've posted results of it), but the present circuit Q1 will not go into osc. for some reason. I think it is due to the placement of inductances; i.e. I'm missing one. Anyway, that is not so interesting and is known. I was hoping to see the larger amplitude osc. on Q1 as you adjusted the bias, did I miss it? The amplitude seemed about the same as Q2's. When you use the FG, isn't the Q1 osc. amplitude quite a bit higher than Q2's? Also, this may not make a huge difference, but I was using a 50 Ohm in series with my DC bias supply to emulate the FG.
.99,
If you want Q1 oscillations, then put a 100nF capacitor over Q1 drain/source. The Q2 (and three other MOSFETS) do
more easily go into oscillation because of the paralleled drain/source capacitance. Also, as you said, it helps with
long wires (or simulated inductance) on the MOSFET.
GL.
Hi GL.
The extra capacitance isn't required. I have several different simulation versions of this circuit, and I've been able to demonstrate Q1 oscillation in the past as mentioned, without adding any extra capacitance. I''m fairly certain I'm missing some inductance is all, but this is territory I've already been through and it does not really interest me nor pertain so much to the test results and claims.
TK's insight into an incorrect positioning of the Fig. 3 CSR probe seems a very real possibility now that I've seen the recent demo and how they had the CSR probe connected. Not only that and more importantly, the demo on Saturday clearly showed that it is not possible to reproduce the Fig. 3 scope shot with a functioning Q1 and "proper" probe placement.
S. Weir,
Please contact me. I think we have much to discuss.
poynt99 @ overunityresearch.com
Quote from: poynt99 on July 01, 2013, 09:55:21 AM
I've been able to do this in the sim in the past (and I've posted results of it), but the present circuit Q1 will not go into osc. for some reason. I think it is due to the placement of inductances; i.e. I'm missing one. Anyway, that is not so interesting and is known. I was hoping to see the larger amplitude osc. on Q1 as you adjusted the bias, did I miss it? The amplitude seemed about the same as Q2's. When you use the FG, isn't the Q1 osc. amplitude quite a bit higher than Q2's? Also, this may not make a huge difference, but I was using a 50 Ohm in series with my DC bias supply to emulate the FG.
You might have noticed that the very first time I hit the oscs, the Fluke started chirping and the waveform looked ragged (it was untriggered), and I quickly backed down a bit to silence the Fluke and display a clean block of oscs. So the amplitude is there, I believe. That HP721A PS is current-limited at 225 mA, and the Interstate F43 can actually source more than that !!
I'll try again with a series 50R and let you know later on this afternoon. I could also set the FG to a very slow period, essentially emulating the PS but with a bit more power available.
I took the zinc should be back on deck tomorrow.
I will write up the conclusion to these tests and that will be the end of this story.
I wanted some closure as do many people I see with technology....to know the truth.
i was on a suicide mission to get involved , but many lesson have been learned and some knowledge gained.
Is there any over unity....no, but there are some interesting things to explore.
I ask people not to be judgmental, I though the exercise of putting up some theories building something to test them was great, hey its what we all like to do. The failure was the lacking of the technical expertise needed to measure and interpret what was being seen. Simple mistakes needed up being the foundations to support the theory, something I have seen often in Universities.
Add to this some personality clashes.
Anyway many thanks to everyone and read my write up before end of week
Kind Regards
Mark
A quick post for the link to the "negative mean power" demonstration. I'll do a proper post tomorrow if I can.
It's pretty much self-explanatory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnZLwA2Uohs
of topic but was thinking of you TK lol plus we need a break from this
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/02/magnetic-advanced-generation-jet-electric-turbine/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/02/magnetic-advanced-generation-jet-electric-turbine/)
From her...
QuoteAnd that was screwed due to the incorrect positioning of the zero reference of the signal probe. It's an error. God did not create us to be free from error. The most RESPECTABLE OF ALL SCIENTISTS are prone to error. Very few papers are EVER submitted without needing amendment for error. There is NOTHING SHAMEFUL in this. More as as I've now been assured that these errors can be corrected PROVIDED ONLY THAT IT DOES NOT EFFECT THE CLAIM. And ours most certainly doesn't.]
No one but she herself has ever claimed to be "free from error", even though numerous people have pointed out many errors to her. It is her constant denial, arguing, and insulting attitude toward those that pointed out these errors that is "shameful", particularly when such errors are so obvious to most.
So now, she is apparently admitting that all but the FIG5 tests were performed with the CSR probe on the wrong side of the CSR making all current and power measurements related to those tests completely invalid.
As well, from the demo we can see that when the CSR probe is on the wrong side of the CSR, there is little if any change in the Q2 oscillation amplitude observed by the CSR probe. Ths indicates that the CSR resistance is an insignificant value compared to the amount of inductive reactance in the CSR lead wiring between the CSR probe and probe reference. As such, even if the CSR probe would have been placed on the correct side of the CSR, all measurements made of the Q2 oscillation AC currents are invalid due to the observed lead and wiring inductance.
There is little that can be salvaged from the papers with the only possible way to correct them being to re-perform all tests with more attention to proper measurement.
As .99's recent video demonstrates, the elimination of measurement errors due to wiring and lead inductance would most likely confirm that her circuit does not produce a negative mean power product and that her batteries are discharging just as one would expect, and as she herself has confirmed.
PW
.
When you say that "there is little that can be salvaged from the papers" I am wondering just what it is that you think _can_ be salvaged from them.
I mean, they aren't even printed on real paper, so that can't be recycled.
Seriously... just what is there of any value that you see in those documents?
The only way that anything could be "salvaged" would be for Donny to withdraw his co-authorship. He might be able to salvage some professional reputation if he did that.
If a technician applied for a job with your firm, and did what Donny did for the first four hours on the job.... would you keep him around? Donny needs to disassociate himself from his childhood friend, professionally at least, before he shoots himself in the foot. Because the information about his involvement is now public and associated with his name, with video evidence. Before it was just an obscure daft manuscript that had his name on it, no real harm there, nobody will read it anyway. But now, anyone searching Google for "Donovan Martin" will eventually encounter the video record of his performance.
Also note that she is talking about the "zero reference" of the probe being moved, when it is the probe "tip" itself that is the cause of the problem. She completely does not even grasp what was demonstrated in her own demonstration.
And she completely forgets that she cannot reproduce her own claimed data without making this "error". Will she issue an errata sheet? I predict that she will not. She has never even corrected the bogus math calculation that I keep posting, which is her only basis for the "exceeds capacity" claim, other than the confabulation of the "BP" test years ago, for which there is absolutely no corroborating evidence at all, zero zip nada not even an email. Surely an offer of a "bursary award" would have left a public paper trail. If it had ever existed, it certainly would have done. Will she retract? Of course not. Will she even "publish" the correct schematic (again) that she is actually using, as Weir told her to? I even doubt that.
Where are the screen captures that were made under Weir's guidance? Will we ever be allowed to see those.... and analyze them for her?
Poynt:
That was a great clip. I look forward to seeing your full sequence of tests. This one cut the to chase and showed the end result - an explanation for and correction to the issue of the negative average power measurement. That kills Rosemary's premise right there. So I found it flabbergasting to see her comment, "Thanks Poynty, That was very clear." What??? That might be a shock/denial reaction.
Just a technical question or two. In all of your CSR current measurements we know that you have a 'compromised' ground reference that is bouncing up and down relative to the true battery ground. I also assume that all four channels of the scope share a common ground. So that bouncing ground reference will compromise your measurement of the battery voltage, no? You left the ground reference of the Vbatt channel floating, which is understood, but you still have a compromised battery voltage measurement.
My thought process is that since you know in fact that you do have a stable battery voltage the easiest thing to make the DSO 'happy' would be to emulate that battery voltage. Have a separate stand-alone battery that is tied to the bouncing ground reference and measure that voltage for Vbatt. Does that make sense?
Thanks,
MileHigh
PW and TK:
Well, you have won the 'battle' of the Figure 3 issue and Rosemary has conceded defeat. More appropriately, the simple truth was verified with experimentation. It was exhausting and arguably there was no point to it at all. I don't have any answers.
It's up to you Rosemary to do some soul searching and look back over this bizarre situation where you refused to acknowledge that there was an issue. Try to learn something from it.
MileHigh
Quote from: markdansie on July 02, 2013, 01:04:40 AM
of topic but was thinking of you TK lol plus we need a break from this
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/02/magnetic-advanced-generation-jet-electric-turbine/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/02/magnetic-advanced-generation-jet-electric-turbine/)
That one's a LOL all right.
I'll believe it when I see the YouTube video of the Superconducting Ring Turbine.
Quote
The Sonic Blue vision is the development of revolutionary engine design to fundamentally change the way aero gas-turbine engines operate in order to significantly improve the performance of aircraft systems.
- Hybrid engine technology developed to offer a highly efficient, supersonic, variable bypass fan ratio engine design.
- The engine operates electrically by generating a large amount of on-board electric power through its superconducting electric turbine ring generator system.
- Engine produces sufficient power to operate the multi-stage counter rotating, superconducting, dual ring motor electric bypass fans and superconducting electric ring motor axial compressor, power generation and thrust comes from 5-stage superconducting axial turbine.
- The 54,700 thrust class S-MAGJET engine (two engines) described is optimized to fly the HyperMach SonicStar aircraft at 62,000 ft, at a specific fuel consumption below 1.05 at Mach 3.3, this performance will be unprecedented and will welcome in a new era of the future of aerospace transport.
- Electrical generation is provided by superconducting ring generators that are powered by the high velocity exhaust thrust from the combustor section of the engine.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 02, 2013, 03:40:57 AM
PW and TK:
Well, you have won the 'battle' of the Figure 3 issue and Rosemary has conceded defeat. More appropriately, the simple truth was verified with experimentation. It was exhausting and arguably there was no point to it at all. I don't have any answers.
It's up to you Rosemary to do some soul searching and look back over this bizarre situation where you refused to acknowledge that there was an issue. Try to learn something from it.
MileHigh
Just where is this concession of defeat? As far as I can tell she is still arguing about it as being insignificant or nit-picking and not affecting her claims.
At this point I think that Donovan Martin has revealed that he is far more involved in all this than we previously realized. We have never seen Ainslie operating her own equipment, and in the demonstration she actually says that she is afraid of it !
He bears as much responsibility as Ainslie does for the bad data. Even more, because he has the education to know better. If he allows his name to remain on the Ainslie manuscripts he is committing an even graver error than simply misplacing a probe: he is engaging in pseudoscientific misconduct of the smelliest kind.
I will be writing up my final story and report and hopefully getting closure on this in the next couple of days.
I appreciate everyone's comments , analysis and observation in this thread. I am not technically qualified to join in those observations but I do have the ability to grasp the gravity of what is being said.
I have one question for all of you, although you may have felt you already answered. (especially you TK lol)
There is no evidence of overunity that can not be accounted for without reasonable doubt by error measurements or setup, is there anything or any anomaly worth investigating further with this?
I will be wishing Rosemary all the best with her magnetic monopole project.
Kind regards
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on July 02, 2013, 04:43:59 AM
I will be writing up my final story and report and hopefully getting closure on this in the next couple of days.
I appreciate everyone's comments , analysis and observation in this thread. I am not technically qualified to join in those observations but I do have the ability to grasp the gravity of what is being said.
I have one question for all of you, although you may have felt you already answered. (especially you TK lol)
There is no evidence of overunity that can not be accounted for without reasonable doubt by error measurements or setup, is there anything or any anomaly worth investigating further with this?
I will be wishing Rosemary all the best with her magnetic monopole project.
Kind regards
Mark
Hi Mark
I'm glad you are feeling better, I hope it was the zinc and not just ...er.... time and rest that cured you. ;)
I know what you mean about Ainslie's project, I know what you are asking.... and I think yes, there is something interesting and anomalous going on, but not in the sense you mean. But the information might still be useful for you someday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y
Your humor is sick TK, your one sick puppy.
However I guess I am guilty for laughing at it , as always.
You know my role is one of the worst in the world. Its akin to being the one who tells the parents their child just died, In my case it is the inventor , the investor or an engineer who really screwed up. The only time I do take a little pleasure is when I stop a scam artist in their tracks, but sometimes it is genuine delusion. Its often a process everyone gets pissed of, the engineer, the investors and the inventor.
When embarking on another project to test the validity of something as well as making sure the right team and engineers and scientists can assist, its often more like. detective work trying to understand motivation. Often is seeking recognition, sometimes its greed and in some cases its honesty mixed with a skill set that is not adequate for the task being undertaken.
I have reached a few conclusions overt he years, although there is always a new frontier to investigate.
Cheers mate
Mark
Quote from: MileHigh on July 02, 2013, 03:22:09 AM
Poynt:
Just a technical question or two. In all of your CSR current measurements we know that you have a 'compromised' ground reference that is bouncing up and down relative to the true battery ground. I also assume that all four channels of the scope share a common ground. So that bouncing ground reference will compromise your measurement of the battery voltage, no?
Yes.
Quote
You left the ground reference of the Vbatt channel floating, which is understood, but you still have a compromised battery voltage measurement.
My thought process is that since you know in fact that you do have a stable battery voltage the easiest thing to make the DSO 'happy' would be to emulate that battery voltage. Have a separate stand-alone battery that is tied to the bouncing ground reference and measure that voltage for Vbatt. Does that make sense?
Makes sense. And my demos are heading in a similar direction, although using an isolated battery as you suggest is not necessary.
Hint: Look at the MEAN value measurements of both the CSR and Vbat traces shown on the scope. They are very close to correct, and they do not vary much with the change of probe positioning. Rose ought to think about that...
Mark:
To answer your question, no, there is no anomaly or anything worth investigating here. I have always found it strange in this case how some people will speculate how this setup might make for a more "efficient" heater. Arguably, all heaters are 100% efficient. It's somewhat similar to all of the pulse motor builders talking about how their setups are "efficient" when their devices are 0% efficient because they just spin and don't do anything useful.
What this really became was a test of principle. Should claims of over unity or getting more energy out of your batteries or "COP infinity" be accepted just because someone says so and and believes that they have valid data to back up their claim?
As we have clearly seen from this example, the principle of properly vetting claims is of utmost importance for the entire community.
MileHigh
P.S.: I think of the claims made by that group in South America that Sterling is so enamoured with that sells the equivalent of a $19.95 Walmart fan for $250. In my opinion everything about that story is so wrong. Sterling believes that they are making efficient fans and there is a new version being worked on that "might demonstrate over unity" or something like that. What a croc that whole story is, the whole deal and its quasi cult-like aspects give me the heebie-jeebies. That's another example of a case where the claims should be properly vetted.
@markdansie..a circuit has to violate the 2lot to be overunity.it has no choice but to violate 2lot to get overunity.there is no vehicle in this circuit for this to happen,no ferrite or iron core inductor,its lights-out for this particular circuit in my opinion.
Not to mention that you are confusing the changes in temperature in a ferrite or iron core in an inductor as a possible second law of thermodynamics violation when in fact what they are is a demonstration of the law of conservation of energy. Where you think there might be a vehicle there is none.
@milehigh... the law of conservation of energy? Why do you confuse this law with the 2nd law.did i say anything about the law of conservation of energy.who is confused now mr mileyourhighness.
Profits:
Quotedid i say anything about the law of conservation of energy.who is confused now mr mileyourhighness.
You are the one that's confused. Did I say you said anything about the law of conservation of energy? Please go back and look a my posting.
A core inside a coil will heat up if there is AC current flowing through the coil. That's because of the hysteresis loop associated with the BH curve for the core material. That's a manifestation of the conservation of energy.
If I recall correctly from a good read a long time ago, a core can also cool down under certain conditions. When large magnetic domains spontaneously break down into a random set of domains, small amounts of thermal energy are drawn from the mass of the core to flip the domains as they randomize. That's another manifestation of the conservation of energy.
All that you have to do is some searching and you will find the information for the mechanism for magnetic core material to "self cool." I am under the impression that that's what you are talking about.
To repeat for the sake of completeness: You are alleging that a coil with some kind of core material can act as a transformer transforming external thermal energy into electrical output energy and that simply is not true.
MileHigh
@milehigh..lets assume we have a core of gadolinium at room temp and do one single d.c. oscillation pulse.what is going to happen if the cooling part of the thermodynamic cycle drops the core temp to below its curie point. Im going to take your hand and guide you through this milehigh.dont be afraid.
Feel free to start a thread and I will respond because this is the wrong place.
okdoke,done
My brief (non technical) report
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/04/rosemary-ainslie-live-demo-analysis/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/04/rosemary-ainslie-live-demo-analysis/)
Kind Regards
Great article Mark. I think it's worth stating that TK and Poynt99 actually did a lot of the work and arrived at the same conclusions in the 2009-2011 time frame. They deserve credit for their efforts as the original group that analyzed Rosemary's setup.
That was quite a politico-technical manifesto! Waiting for the Great Leap Forward Rosie! lol
I notice that now that we are talking bench work that Rosie is back to not being able to hit the side of a barn wall from three feet away as she tries to understand Poynt's clips. It's a transition from someone that has the intelligence to display a very good mastery for written prose to someone with three brain cells. It can be very frustrating and exhausting. That's part of the reason I cried uncle and just add some colour commentary and no more than that!
I tried to register on your site but I may have had a typo in my email address. I will try again I just hope I can still use my same handle.
MileHigh
I agree MH regards TK and Ponty99 I will modify the story latter today
Mark
Mark, please check your PMs. Cheers!
--TK