The NERDs actually managed.... sort of.... to put something up on the 29th. I was able to record the four hour demonstration stream on YouTube... but the quality was very very poor. They actually used a _cellphone_ to video and stream the demonstration, and there were many audio and video dropouts and glitches. Plus, they simply bailed, put down the phone and then hung up for over an hour, about 2/3 the way through, then just when it was getting really interesting again.... they stopped, literally in mid-sentence.
So I went through the four hours and excerpted the tasty bits. I think I got all of the actual action that actually was actually sent out on the YT, but there must have been more, because it seems like they kept on talking after the YT feed stopped. Of course I have no idea what went on then.
So anyway... this thread will hopefully discuss the video, the demonstration, the results, what it means for Ainslie's claims, and etc.
There is a lot of comedy here.... you will see what I mean when you watch the videos.
I have NOT edited these clips other than clipping them out of the main 4-hour video. The quality is as you see, and is not my fault. The audio sucks and you might have to turn up your volume, but on the very last one, the Weir episode, you will need to turn it down again. (Weir episode coming in a few hours.)
First a few of my videos for background, illustrating the Figure 3 problem and my guesses as to what is up with that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5svsFA8XRg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkpQQvuP2I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdZAPZG6Fyo
The last one is particularly important as it shows the test Weir used at the end of the Ainslie demo.
Next we start the Highlights Reel from the Ainslie demonstration itself. I have tried to restrain my ...er.... editorializing but these first two... I just could not resist.
Scoposcopy 1: The Ainslie presenter Donny Martin doing something... I don't know what.... to the oscilloscope. don't feel like you have to watch this one to the end.... only her live audience was forced to do that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9IRONEArVU
Next: Frequency Determination using the Digital Oscilloscope. This is the funniest thing I've seen in quite some time. Definitely you must watch this entire clip. Turn up the volume.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6659TrVblYE
A Little more background from me, so that you will be a Little more prepared... much more prepared than the NERDs... for the Little surprise coming up ahead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE)
Now, at last, we start getting into the meat of the demonstration: the attempts to produce the Figure 3 scopeshot, and Donny's Rap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAYeW0PBfLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4bxAobjN98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgZsOqEihkg
That is all I have ready for now. The rest are longer: Rosemary's Swan Song, and Mister Weir Takes Charge. These will be up sometime later this afternoon, if I can manage to stay awake.
Please: comment, discuss, laugh, poke fun, analyze, tell your friends, ask questions, whatever.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 01, 2013, 08:21:01 AM
First a few of my videos for background, illustrating the Figure 3 problem and my guesses as to what is up with that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdZAPZG6Fyo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdZAPZG6Fyo)
The last one is particularly important as it shows the test Weir used at the end of the Ainslie demo.
This is actually a brilliant find TK, hat's off to you for thinking of this. I know I said I doubted they would have connected the CSR probe that way, but after seeing the recent demonstration, I was absolutely horrified when I saw the ref of the CSR probe sitting way over on the common ground point instead of directly across the CSR's. After seeing that, I realized they could very easily have placed (by mistake) the probe tip on the wrong side of the CSR when they did the Fig. 3 measurement.
Looks very plausible TK, great work. It makes me think of the classic case were a circuit has HV-HF oscillations (typically with an "inverted" ground connection) and the experimenter probes the circuit holding a neon in their hand. They can touch the circuit almost anywhere, even on the battery cases, and the neon will light up. A fascinating "discovery," possibly even "cold electricity."
Quote from: TinselKoala
Please: comment, discuss, laugh, poke fun, analyze, tell your friends, ask questions, whatever.
Questions:
Presently we have available mass produced
Synchronously Driven Buck Converters which
are able to deliver more than 90% of their
input power to a load; all while producing
considerable heat as a by-product.
Has anyone noticed the similarities to Rosemary
Ainslie Circuit and pondered how its (the
Rosemary Ainslie Circuit) shortcomings might
be remedied?
In most switching applications the heat
produced is undesirable so it is drawn
away to avoid damage to the devices.
Might it not be interesting to determine
how much power as heat is produced to
compare against the electrical efficiency
of the Buck Converters?
Would it not be possible to apply the
Synchronous Driver technology to the
Rosemary Ainslie Circuit?
Would additional optimized inductance
in the circuit prove beneficial to the
production of heat where it is desired?
Has anyone any commentary to offer
regarding the
Steven J. Smith paperlinked to by Profitis? Particularly as
it may have application in the Rosemary
Ainslie Circuit?
The final three excerpts from the Ainslie demo of 29 June 2013.
These are the ones that contain the real "meat" of the demonstration. We hear from Ainslie herself, and then finally we hear Mr Weir take firm control as he guides the NERDs through making some captures of critical scope displays.
Then, after the five or six captures are made, the discussion begins, and is barely into the first sentences when.... the feed ends. Literally in mid-sentence, not a how-do-you-do or good-bye, just _click_ and the demo is history. How's that for respecting your audience?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miOXBOx4Kso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7z57NXVlXM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY
Fail, flail and bail. That is what you have just seen.
Quote from: SeaMonkey on July 01, 2013, 01:52:58 PM
Questions:
Presently we have available mass produced
Synchronously Driven Buck Converters which
are able to deliver more than 90% of their
input power to a load; all while producing
considerable heat as a by-product.
So? By "considerable heat" you clearly mean less than ten percent of their input power.
Quote
Has anyone noticed the similarities to Rosemary
Ainslie Circuit and pondered how its (the
Rosemary Ainslie Circuit) shortcomings might
be remedied?
Noticed the similarities? Sure, the circuit is the "inductive clamp test" circuit that is found in the back of just about every power mosfet's application notes. But of course one would have to actually locate and read these notes to know that.
Pondered how to improve Ainslie's circuit shortcomings? Of course. Get rid of the wasteful oscillations, that would be a good start. Use the schematic that was originally in Paper 2, with the Q1 and Q2 roles reversed, that would be a vast improvement. But Ainslie is not receptive to correction, due to her overweening arrogance, which you can see displayed quite well in the "Swan Song" video above.
Quote
In most switching applications the heat
produced is undesirable so it is drawn
away to avoid damage to the devices.
That is right, and that is why there is now a much larger heatsink on Ainslie's Q1. Did you see the version used in the March 2011 demo? Somebody knew about the heat stress on Q1 and is covering it up by not talking about it. For the Paper 1 schematic to work for any length of time the Q1 would need active cooling: a proper heatsink and a fan. "Do the math"... dissipate 50 Watts in the mosfet itself, if you can.
Quote
Might it not be interesting to determine
how much power as heat is produced to
compare against the electrical efficiency
of the Buck Converters?
Do you seriously believe that mosfet and power supply designers have not already done this? You can find graphs in every mosfet data sheet that tell you exactly how much heat is dissipated in the mosfet under operating conditions, how much power gets to the load and how much is wasted. Please do your homework... because the designers have done theirs.
Quote
Would it not be possible to apply the
Synchronous Driver technology to the
Rosemary Ainslie Circuit?
Sure, if you know what that is. You could apply the 18-wheeler driver technology to it if you like, it won't make any difference.
Quote
Would additional optimized inductance
in the circuit prove beneficial to the
production of heat where it is desired?
Why don't you and Gmeast get together and design an experimental program to explore that issue? Report back when you've got some results to discuss.
Quote
Has anyone any commentary to offer
regarding the Steven J. Smith paper (http://whale.to/b/magneto_thermodynamics3.html)
linked to by Profitis? Particularly as
it may have application in the Rosemary
Ainslie Circuit?
Why don't you start a thread on Smith and see if you get anyone who wants to discuss that? And while you are at it, strip those hard returns from your posts so that they don't take up three times the page length that they should be taking.
You just cannot resist, can you, Ainslie troll.
Even after you got whipped like a redheaded stepchild, you still pretend righteousness.
When will you retract your bogus manuscripts and start apologizing to all those people you have slighted, mislead and lied to over the years?
You will do a demo, you won't do a demo, you will do a demo..... make up your mind, if you have one. But if you do decide to do another demonstration, please demonstrate something other than your and your team's incompetence. See if you can get Donny to read the manual for the oscilloscope, for example.
If you like, I could teach him how to find the frequency of a sinusoidal oscillation on a digital oscilloscope. Since he plainly cannot do it unless it is displayed for him as a number in a box.
Oh, and by the way.... that thing with the three legs, standing against your back wall? That is called a "camera tripod" and its function is to make it easier for your audience to see what is happening in your demonstration, by holding the camera steady.
Oh, wait.... cellphones generally don't have tripod screw mounts do they. Well, there is always duct tape.....
Quote from: poynt99 on July 01, 2013, 10:11:42 AM
This is actually a brilliant find TK, hat's off to you for thinking of this. I know I said I doubted they would have connected the CSR probe that way, but after seeing the recent demonstration, I was absolutely horrified when I saw the ref of the CSR probe sitting way over on the common ground point instead of directly across the CSR's. After seeing that, I realized they could very easily have placed (by mistake) the probe tip on the wrong side of the CSR when they did the Fig. 3 measurement.
There are some shots in the early part of the demonstration, before you or Weir came in, where you can actually see that the probe IS connected on the wrong side of the "shunt". They move it around a lot, and the way they have their resistors mounted it seems very easy to hook it in wrongly. I think I even see a terminal hanging off that end where they clip into.
The idea wasn't completely mine though. A poster on another forum suggested I try simply shorting the CVR. When I tried this it gave nearly the same signal as the correct signal, because I used a standard cliplead jumper and its resistance might have been even higher than my 0.3 ohm Dale cvr. Putting the probe on the other end of the shunt was a simple step from there, and produced the exact desired result, and is very plausible considering the layout of Ainslie's board and her protestations that the mosfet was indeed "in tact".
Of course this is such a basic "blunder" or cheat that none of us experienced types even considered that it was possible.... but now we know better, I guess.
It's amusing to hear Ainslie trying to argue with you that a Gate signal of 8 volts with "some" current in the shunt is somehow "close enough" to the Figure 3 shot that shows 12 volts at the Gate and absolutely Zero current in the shunt. In her mind the issue is dead, since she got "close enough" and in her mind it doesn't matter anyway. Amazing. But I got the impression that not everyone that was there on-scene fully agreed with her.
Mmmm yes,
I am going to have to include this in a demo, just for fun. :D
Arrgh.
I have located the segment where they are flipping the probe for the first time. The IDIOT with the cellphone is holding his thumb over the microphone or something; the audio is active but blocked just as if the mike is covered by his hand. Is this deliberate, to conceal the conversation and "narration"? Probably not, they aren't smart enough to do this deliberately, if they aren't smart enough to avoid doing it accidentally.
And they are fumbling around, and of course they don't have the gate drive turned up enough!
If you look at the four hour version on YouTube this part starts at around 00:40:00 or so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDsc-UAHHAQ
I am extracting the segment now, but it will take a while.
I cannot believe the incompetence of these people. By 0:52:00, they have managed to take one screen shot and they STILL HAVE NOT turned up the gate voltage! I was going to extract the segment where they put the probe on one side, apply 12 volts, take a screen shot, move the probe to the other side, take a screenshot, and move on. This would have taken three minutes at the very most, if they were interested in testing the facts instead of avoiding them.
But after almost 14 minutes of fiddling with probes and scope buttons they still have not done that simple thing.
Fortunately for the cause of Science, at the end of the four hours Weir has them do the right thing, and it really _does_ only take about three minutes to do and would have taken less time if the NERDs would have just shut up and listened.
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
OK, here is the really last one, I hope. This is the segment from about 0:40:00 on where they are trying to answer the request to do the simple probe swap from one side of the current sensing shunt to the other side, with current flowing in the mosfet. The end of this video should segue into the "First Attempt" at Fig 3 video, which is Highlights 3, I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIB-_dL-unA
And as usual Ainslie does not understand what is in front of her nose.
QuoteGuys - I need to explain something. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. The question at issue is this. Figure 3 Paper 1 shows a zero input of current from the battery supply source. BUT. The voltage at the gate is shown to be 12 volts. What picowaT stated is that IF there was 12 volts at the gate of Q1 then there's a signal that is MORE than strong enough to enable current flow. Therefore - the MOSFET has been blown... OR there is a deliberate attempt to 'fudge' the results.
Well - from what we've tested it appears that he is right. The most voltage that could be applied to the Gate at Q1 WITHOUT generating flow from the battery was 8 or possibly 9 volts. Thereafter - as day followed night - there was CLEAR evidence of energy flowing from the battery during the ON time of the switching circuit.
HOWEVER. We DO replicate that waveform VERY EASILY - as can and has been shown repeatedly - and at the demo - by APPLYING less than 4 volts to the gate. Then we get PRECISELY the same effect. We get a ROBUST OSCILLATION. Which essentially means that the claim holds. The voltage remains negative. Which means that the wattage will also give a negative product. AND. THEREIN LIES THE ANOMALY.
The waveform in question has nothing to do with the oscillations or 4 volts to the Gate of Q1. YOU DID NOT REPLICATE YOUR WAVEFORM at all, so quit lying about it.
THE CLAIM DOES NOT HOLD and there is no anomaly.
QuoteThe issue has NOTHING to do with the claim. It has to do with my own REPRESENTATION of that claim.
You are amazing! This is like the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" claim from two years ago. Your "REPRESENTATION"
IS YOUR CLAIM. And Donny's claim as well, since his name is on the papers too.
QuoteAnd that was screwed due to the incorrect positioning of the zero reference of the signal probe.
And even here you get it wrong. It was NOT the zero reference that was "incorrectly" positioned to result in the Figure3 scopeshot, it is the probe TIP, the actual signal. You have garbled the two different demonstrations in your own presentation.
QuoteIt'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.
There is plenty of shame in what you did and are doing though. You have drawn other people into lying for you, as I have demonstrated. You are persisting in your errors long after they have been pointed out conclusively over and over. You do not check your own work at all. You do not have the prerequisite knowledge and education in your topic to discuss it coherently or to understand the explanations you have been given. You distort and lie about what other people say and you even get your WIKI references wrong. A Joule is NOT a Watt and the terms are NOT interchangeable. You most certainly should be ashamed of yourself, not the least because of the way you behave, insulting and whining and threatening and lying.
QuoteMore 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.
Of course it affects your claim! You claimed to get load heating with no current flow, and that is wrong. You claimed that your batteries do not discharge and that is wrong. You claimed COP INFINITY ! And that is not only wrong it is stupid and ridiculous.
QuoteI hope that's clarified things.
Oh, it does that, all right. It clarifies once again that you have no regard whatsoever for the truth.
QuoteBUT. Our signal generator was picking up errors which could be shown during the offset sweep. We need to attend to that first.
HA HA HA. You and your genius Donovan Martin are EVEN WRONG ABOUT THAT, and if you had only done your homework or even understood the bias current making oscillations, you would know that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR FG AT ALL. There are no errors and your "offset sweep" is another Polly Parrot phrase that you don't understand. And there is clearly no point in explaining it to you AGAIN. But I'll try anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE)
QuoteThereafter we'll be doing a repeat of that demo. And hopefully under better camera conditions. Then we'll be able to conclusively prove what and how much is required. Frankly - I'm reasonably satisfied that picowaT is RIGHT and that I was WRONG. BUT. SO WHAT? IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE WATTAGE. WE DO. We just need to put that zero reference on the correct point during the measurement of that waveform. And then we need to submit the revisions to our paper.
First you need to understand what the issues are, because you clearly do not. As usual, what follows after your first mistake-- the "zero reference" instead of the probe TIP-- is complete BS and irrelevant.
And as .99 has shown, your MEASUREMENT of a "negative wattage" is an artefact of your ignorant construction and measurement techniques. IT IS AN ERROR, nothing more, and a textbook one at that, fully explained, fully understood, fully repeatable and fully preventable, and there is NO ADVANTAGE, in fact the oscillations are wasteful of energy.
QuoteWhat was CONCLUSIVELY shown by Weir - is this. Our figure 6 and figure 7 - ALBEIT ANOMALOUS - as the negative wattage PERSISTS - showed the erroneous level of current flow during the 'on' period of the switching cycle. And this due to PRECISELY the same fault as we showed in Figure 3 of that same paper 1.
And that was CONCLUSIVELY shown by me, days ago. Why don't you ask Weir where he got the idea from? Your negative wattage means nothing.
QuoteSo. PLEASE. I see that Mark Dansie is now using this as an excuse to say that that he's DEBUNKED? Or that our claim has been DEBUNKED? Absolutely NOT. Not even close. They are trying to MISGUIDE you all into thinking this. It can ONLY be debunked when we can get those negative voltages into positive territory.
Now you are flailing about like a fish in a boat, just as I predicted you would. You most certainly HAVE been debunked and soundly too, by your very own demonstration, and to his detriment, so has Donovan Martin, whose name will now forever be associated with your DEMONSTRATION of incompetence.
QuoteAnd frankly I do not believe that we have to prove this. We should simply allow the technical experts at LeCroy and Tektronics to argue that one. They've put their reputations on their instruments. Let them prove it correct.
No, Ainslie. You are making the claims, you have to prove their correctness. So far you are batting a solid zero.... and far from the tech experts having their reps on the line.... what you have done Saturday is to put your friend Donovan Martin's reputation on the line. Because his name is on your papers, and he presented your demonstration, he is making the same bogus claims you are, and has also been shown to be incompetent at basic oscilloscope use, circuit analysis.... and he's an all around lousy presenter, to boot.
Uh oh. It looks like somebody has been rifling computers again. Only this time they left behind some disgusting graffiti. I wonder what it means?
QuoteThanks Poynty
That was very clear. My questions. Why did you leave the probe's reference 'floating'? What happens when you attach this to the common negative? Is that the term? The point where your signal generator's ground reference is attached to the circuit? Can you generate our Fig 3 paper 1 waveform by applying 4 volts or less to Q1? Because we can.
Thanks Poynty. Very nice work.
Kindest regards
Rosie
Liar!
Here we go again. YOU CANNOT GENERATE THE FIGURE 3 WAVEFORM WITH 4 VOLTS !! Your FIGURE 3 CLEARLY shows 12 volts on the Gate !! That is the WHOLE POINT of the ENTIRE Exercise that went down on Saturday. Your paper shows a figure that you CANNOT PRODUCE without fudging the probe TIP, not ground reference, position or having a blown or missing mosfet! Saying that you get zero current in the CVR when you have 4 volts on the Gate is not only TRIVIAL but it is NOWHERE NEAR the Figure 3 conditions!
Stop lying, child, and go to bed.
Honestly Tinsel. What are you trying to achieve?
It was obvious to my from my minor run in with RA a couple of years ago she has a serious disorder. Clearly she is intelligent but 'confused'
You will achieve nothing. People dumb enough to believe her will continue to believe her. They are the 'followers' of the world and have difficulty with critical thinking.
Best leave the likes of RA and her followers to their fate.
Lastly I must say I LOVED your LENC* videos, true classics.
CC
*LENC - Low Energy Nuclear Cheese
Quote from: CuriousChris on July 02, 2013, 08:08:36 AM
Honestly Tinsel. What are you trying to achieve?
That is exactly what I am trying to achieve.
Honesty, from Ainslie, and from her "team" which I now understand a lot better.
I think now that she is being manipulated in the most cynical manner by Donovan Martin. Think about it: Ainslie herself has no skills in this matter. She did not build the apparatus, she did not put the test suite together.... we don't even have any evidence that she actually even operates it herself (she has admitted that she is not an experimentalist, is afraid of it and of electricity in general.)
Quote
It was obvious to my from my minor run in with RA a couple of years ago she has a serious disorder. Clearly she is intelligent but 'confused'
I would love to hear this story, and if there are supporting materials I'd like to put them into my database.
"Confused" doesn't really capture the disorder very well. She is the absolute most fully-blown case of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have ever seen. I don't think she's confused at all, I think that most of what she does is completely deliberate and calculated. No amount of "confusion" can result in the trolling, the constant insults and disrespect, the utter refusal to think through matters or engage in real dialog. She is simply narcissistic, overweeningly arrogant and disrespectful, and is a bright child in an adult world, and the people around her are treating her just exactly like that: a bright twelve-year-old with a big vocabulary and an evil temper, so to avoid a screaming, crying tantrum they treat her with kid gloves. Well... guess what, I am a bright precocious child too, and I don't wear kid gloves. She carries on a deliberate campaign, even outside these forums, to insult and disrespect and denigrate me... and I will not turn the other cheek. Every time she refers to "ickle pickle", the letters GRE, or the name Bryan Little, I will know about it and I will respond. Yes, it is personal, and she made it so. She also has the ability to make it stop.
Quote
You will achieve nothing. People dumb enough to believe her will continue to believe her. They are the 'followers' of the world and have difficulty with critical thinking.
On the contrary. She went for a couple of years telling people she had a patent, and I at least put that lie to rest. And, for example, when she started her BS on PESN and then on Mark D's site, the information I provided to Sterling and to Mark caused them to dampen their enthusiasm over Ainslie a bit, and to start paying attention to the fact that she lies and otherwise distorts the true record of her activities and data.
I doubt if I will be able to educate Ainslie herself, she is too well protected by her ego defense mechanisms to accept that she is ignorant and has a _lot_ to learn. But at least I can point out where she is wrong and then let the "followers" make up their own minds after hearing both sides of the Ainslie story.
Quote
Best leave the likes of RA and her followers to their fate.
Happily... as long as their "fate" doesn't include constant insults and libels against me, or bogus attempts to get monetary prizes awarded on the basis of her bogus claims, or moving from website to website, forum to forum, making the same old discredited claims yet again and yet again. People contact me regularly with "Hey, have you heard about Ainslie? She has replications, solid scope data, publications, everything! And an easy circuit to build! And it has been verified by SPESCOM, PB, and COCOL." Or whatever. Then I have to tell a whole new set of people about Ainslie, her lies and her bogus claims. Do you think this pleases me? For instance, the "June 1" demo thread here wasn't started by me until _after_ she had "postponed" her announced and highly hyped demonstration and started, once again, insulting me and lying about her circuit and its data.
Quote
Lastly I must say I LOVED your LENC* videos, true classics.
CC
*LENC - Low Energy Nuclear Cheese
Thanks! I am glad you were amused, and I also hope that my alt.snakeoil videos provide you with much food for thought. They are not just for fun, you know, there is a deep message within every one of the alt.snakeoil Video Reports.
Ainslie, on her forum, makes the following statement:
Quote... 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. 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. 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.
...
(emphasis mine)
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4491/ (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4491/) Scroll down to Reply # 218.
I received today a personal communication from Mr. S. Weir. I know that this is indeed from him, although I do not know him personally. With his permission I am reprinting it here, in full.
(Sorry about the font and formatting. I can't seem to change it.)
Quote[cite] S. Weir, personal communication [/cite]
| Rosemary Ainslie statement
"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. "
Does not accurate reflect what I have said. A fair statement of what I have said is:
IF an ACCURATELY MEASURED CURRENT waveform that is similar in APPEARANCE of the PRESENTLY KNOWN INACCURATE CURRENT MEASUREMENT, then there would be current driven back into the battery for a portion of the cycle. IE the battery would be recharged during a portion of the cycle. IE the circuit would be doing something conventional theory does not expect it to be able to do. IE there would be an anomaly.
The present measurements are badly fouled by an L*di/dt term that is much larger than the R*I term when the circuit oscillates. The L*di/dt term must be reduced to a value much smaller than the R*I term in order for the net measured voltage to translate to current by dividing out R.
As of the demonstration it appeared that there was agreement by Rosemary and her helpers that the current measurements are invalid when Q2 oscillates.
Sent to: TinselKoala . |
Let us note please, that TODAY, after the disastrous demonstration where she, or rather Donny, fumbled around for four hours trying and failing, she is now claiming that she can produce the Figure 3 waveform with 4 volts on the Gate. (see above.)
Of course she cannot! The Figure shows 12 volts on the Gate! How is she going to produce a waveform that shows 12 volts on the Gate, if she only uses 4 volts on the Gate? Perhaps she means that she can produce _some selected features_ of Figure 3 using a 4 volt gate drive.
So what? A stopped clock produces the correct time twice a day.... which is twice as much as Ainslie can do. The PAPER shows 12 volts and zero current flow. That CANNOT be reproduced by Ainslie or anyone else under the conditions claimed in the paper, and four hours of our time was wasted on Saturday by a team that ALREADY KNEW THAT, but they carried on their little obfuscatory charade in spite of that.
Donny pretends, passive-agressively, not to understand just what it is that is desired from a Figure 3 replication. What... make ALL the little colored lines and numbers in boxes in the live version look JUST LIKE they did on the Paper's version? What a concept, apparently completely foreign to Donovan Martin. I don't think they actually even had a copy of Figure 3 in front of them.
Someone needs to take this woman in hand, sit her down and explain some basic facts of life, and electronics and test equipment, to her. Clearly it cannot be Donny, so who is left, I wonder, who can actually make her shut up and listen? Mr. S. Weir, perhaps? She is going to have to stop misrepresenting him and start paying attention to what he says, then. Like the fact, which she apparently admitted to yesterday, that NONE of the measurements involving Q2 oscillations are valid, but today she wants to repeat them in just the same manner as before. And of course.... shots like Figure 3 and the demonstration events prove that the Q1 measurements are bogus as well.
She has learned NOTHING in thirteen years, she learned NOTHING at Saturday's demonstration, and she still shows that she has no understanding whatsoever of the operation of Donny's circuit, her function generator or her Etch-a-Sketch.... er, I mean her oscilloscope. But that doesn't prevent her from bloviating and insulting and distorting and even lying about what happened. It never has, and never will.
I can jump off of a four-story building and land gracefully on one foot, without even spilling my chocolate milk. I can do this easily, at any time, and there is a photo of me doing it, taken three years ago. (Of course you can't see the building or how high it was...)
Look, there is a 4-story building, here is my foot, and here is my glass of milk. And here is a footstool, six inches tall. To prove my initial claim, I will climb up onto this footstool, live on cellphone, and four hours later I will jump down from a height of six inches, landing one foot, and I won't spill a drop of my milk.
Then tomorrow I will crow proudly that I have fully demonstrated the truth of my initial claim.
What? You can't prove you can jump off a four story building? But I CAN... by using a six inch footstool.
And it is up to the technicians at LeCroy and Tektronix to prove I am wrong.
;D I'd be impressed if you wouldn't spill your milk even from 6 inches...how full is your cup?
Glad Weir contacted you TK, as he's contacted me already. I've not yet had the chance to reply yet, but I will.
Why does everyone focus on the milk level in the cup? It is irrelevant, the claim still stands. Look, it was investigated by GP, SPB and FBI. GP set up a complete control, they insisted that I jump with full cups and empty cups, over and over and each time it was the same: the cup I had always worked better. KGB even offered a bursary award but it was declined.
Therefore my claim stands. Swan song? Not me.
;)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just in case the point isn't clear, to newcomers or to Ainslie herself:
If you cannot DOCUMENT those tests and offers of "bursary awards" by alphabet agencies, BP, whoever.... then they are just as good as my fairy stories with chocolate milk and a footstool: that is, no good at all. If you cannot document a test or offer of money by some third party, then YOU CANNOT USE IT AS EVIDENCE and you shouldn't even mention it at all. You cannot use it in support of your claims unless you can document it.
Further, if someone claims to be able to generate a "Figure 3 Waveform".... then using 1/3 of the required Gate voltage just doesn't cut the mustard and in fact is a feeble attempt at saving face. The whole point of that exercise was to demonstrate to YOU, Rosemary, that you did in fact make some kind of error or mistake that does in fact invalidate your data and the claims based on them. The only way your claims could be salvaged is if you HAD been able to do what you claimed in the paper: apply a 12 volt (NOT a 4 volt) gate signal to the Q1 mosfet and NOT show any current in the "shunt" trace. You cannot do that, therefore you are wrong, it is as simple as that and no amount of "Fig 3 with 4 volts" whining is going to change that. So drop it and face reality: you have failed, you demonstrated your failure in public, you essentially crashed in flames and you took Donovan Martin down with you.
Now here is some advice, which I expect Ainslie to ignore as she always does: if you intend to perform a "live demonstration" for an audience that has been waiting for it for years, and may number in the thousands.... you had better
1) be sure you understand what it is you are demonstrating;
2) do at least one rehearsal, including the internet streaming and camera work;
3) find someone who isn't too arrogant to read the scope manual so that he or she can actually operate the equipment... and yes, rehearse that too;
4) don't schedule your demo the same day that your presenter arrives from the depths of Africa after being awake for four days straight;
5) find someone who can speak and enunciate Standard English without a heavy regional accent and have him or her speak INTO THE MICROPHONE... because the people in the same room with you are not the ones you are doing this for;
6) try really really hard NOT TO COVER the microphone with your thumbs;
7) shut up and listen when someone is talking to you and don't try to interrupt or speak over them like a Scientologist would;
8) have something interesting to demonstrate and don't screw around chatting amongst yourselves in Afrikaans;
9) don't invite people to one "hangout" URL and then use a different one for your actual hangout;
10) DO NOT BREAK FOR SUPPER IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR LIVE DEMONSTRATION WHILE PEOPLE ARE WAITING FOR YOU to show what you promised.
I'm sure that other people can add to this list of dos and don'ts for Ainslie's next "demonstration" .... I can hardly wait.
Listening to the segment where Ainslie and Darren are having their conversation, it is clear that Ainslie is still confused about just what I wanted to see concerning the long period (as the Figure 3 scopeshot shows: a 160 second period with about 10-20 percent ON duty cycle) and the 12 volt gate signal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miOXBOx4Kso (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miOXBOx4Kso)
Ainslie keeps saying "it takes 26 minutes for that waveform to resolve itself". What could this possibly mean? Well, at a scope scan rate of 50 seconds per horizontal division as in Figure 3, it takes the LeCroy 500 seconds to scan completely across the screen. That's 8.3 minutes. So 3 full scans would come very close to 26 minutes. I think that the Q1 mosfet, _on its original small heatsink that it had when Figure 3 was made_, will indeed overheat when a 12 volt gate signal, is used as shown in Figure 3 and AS IT SHOULD IN THAT CASE WITH A 75 VOLT SUPPLY, is carrying 6 amperes D-S for the ON times. It is entirely possible that after three full scans (26 minutes) the mosfet should fail and then.... sure enough, the "waveform resolves itself" to the Figure 3 traces, with 12 volts on the gate and no current at all in the shunt.
Of course the way to do this is to set the circuit to the correct gate voltage at a higher frequency. If the probe is correctly positioned the current trace will show the 6 amps during the Q1 on times. Fine. Now turn the FG's frequency down, while you already have the gate set properly, so you don't have to wait for the scope. Monitor the mosfet temperature, as well as the load if you like, but most importantly, the mosfet.
Now leave the thing the hell alone, DO NOT TOUCH ANY SETTINGS and wait until the waveform "resolves itself" and mysteriously turns from the expected waveform that you started with, showing 6 amps in the shunt, into the Fig 3 waveform with zero current, but still a 12 volt Gate drive. This would be a good time to have your supper, also live on cellphone, instead of abandoning everyone and wasting that time.
The fact that the Q1 mosfet is NOW on a much larger heatsink is a very meaningful observation. Who put it there? Certainly not Ainslie herself, she believes that the mosfet does not even get warm, much less hot. (And of course a blown mosfet does not get warm or hot.) So that leaves DONNY. You have got to ask yourselves.... what does Donny know and when did he know it?
I am starting to form the strong opinion that Donovan Martin is the "brains" behind this evil disinformation plot and Rosemary Ainslie is just the primary dupe. She clearly didn't come up with the circuit, she wouldn't know an AV Plug from a fireplug even if her dog does, and she can't even operate the test equipment. Donny is using Ainslie in some manner, manipulating her to be his "front woman". He is either hanging her out to dry, deliberately, or he is pushing his own FE agenda through her, or...perhaps a group of Ainslie's friends and loved ones, understanding that she is very disturbed, is trying to keep her out of trouble by letting her work this little fantasy project, "humoring" her it used to be called... and who cares who it affects outside the walled compound that is White Cape Town.
(Right.... At this point in time, we will actually stop using the actual word "now" because actually, saying "at this point in time" actually sounds so much more educated and proppah. Actually.)
@.99.....
I am flabbergasted by Ainslie's latest. It is as if Saturday never happened. Just as I predicted, she is now apparently trying to claim that they DID reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot and can do so at will. Of course she means "little current" and not zero current, and she means 8... or is it 9 volts to the gate and not 12 as the Figure 3 shows....
How is it possible to deal with a person like this? Her thinking is twisted, sick, demented even. The Figure 3 scopeshot shows 12 volts on the gate and zero current. This is impossible, therefore the Figure is faked or an error. Therefore the claims based on the figure are not supported. If Ainslie wants to assert that Figure 3 DOES support her claims then she must reproduce Figure 3 _precisely_ and show that it is done with a functioning mosfet and the proper probe position. Showing some other scope trace, with some other behaviour, is NOT RELEVANT and certainly doesn't help support the claims. Ainslie apparently really cannot understand this, and so there is something seriously wrong with her thought processes.
Finding out just HOW the Figure 3 traces were actually made is secondary to the issue of her present inability to make them in the conditions she claims in the papers.
But of course if she is Donny's puppet, parroting what he tells her, then we shouldn't be so hard on her. I am starting to imagine that she is may be an ignorant dupe and it is Donovan Martin who should be in this debate, not Ainslie.
What part of "ON part of switching cycle" is so hard to understand? This mosfet, as even DONNY explained, isn't going to be truly and fully ON until... it sees near 10 volts at the gate, and the Figure 3 shows 12 volts or perhaps a bit more. Therefore, a "4 volt" gate signal is not an "ON part of the switching cycle" at all. It should however bias the transistor into its linear operation region, barely, so there should be some small current flow indicated in the current trace.
She said that they were going to put a current sensing shunt in series with the FG, to show that the FG was not contributing power to the circuit. Of course she didn't do it, wonder why, but it is a Great Idea! Let's see what that CSR shows _during the Q2 oscillations_. We know, of course that the oscillations need an external power source to proceed and that it is the FG that is providing this power. SO let us see the current trace from the FG during the oscillations. Will it be ZERO as Ainslie claims it must be, or will it show that the FG is acting as a current source during Q2 oscillations (and also when Q1 oscillates too)? I already know the answer and I am sure .99 and PW do too. But...does Ainslie? Does DONOVAN MARTIN? I wonder what their explanation is for never being able to see a Gate signal that is more negative than -4 volts (plus fuzz) from their +/- 20 v p-p FG, no matter how they have the offset and amplitude set.
Note that in the video above, Donovan Martin himself is trying to explain to Ainslie the same thing: the mosfet is not fully on until 10 volts or so on the gate. Ainslie is protesting that 8 volts is surely enough to turn the mosfet on, and yet she thinks that there isn't any current at that level, and so she believes she's shown what is necessary.
But she's got it backwards. She is taking a mosfet and seeing how much gate voltage she can apply without it turning on appreciably. But what she actually at this moment in time actually needs to show is that 12 volts at the gate does NOT turn on the mosfet at all!
Because that is what Figure 3 is showing. She has it completely backwards. She is looking at the Current and turning the Gate to some value based on the Current she sees, when she should be turning the Gate to directly to 12 volts -- because that is what is shown on Figure 3 -- and then looking at the Current that results.
Backwards, like much of her thinking on this merry mosfet matter. Confusing the Independent and Dependent variables in an experiment.
Whoever was able to ask questions at the stealth after-party conversation might not have asked some good questions, and I think that we should be preparing a list in advance of questions for the Donovan Martin team's next demonstration. I'll put them down as they occur to me and I would appreciate help and comments.
1. What is the explanation for the removal of the small heatsink used on Q1 in the March 2011 demo, and replacing it with the larger heatsink presently used? Who thought of changing it, and why? Who did the physical work of changing it?
1a. Why were only four batteries used in the second part of the March 2011 demonstration instead of six? Did the Donovan Martin team know at that time that the Q1 transistor would oscillate if driven at 75 volts D-S with a decent gate signal?
2. Is there any documentation or other evidence of the vettings that Ainslie, and Donovan Martin, have spoken of so many times? The previous "BP" controlled and supervised testing, the "bursary award" offer that "was declined" somehow... Is there any documentation or evidence for these things? At all? Where is this documentation, if any, and why have we never seen it presented?
3. What is the Donovan Martin team's explanation for the anomalous features of the Figure 3 scopeshot? By which I mean the obvious application of 12 volts to the gate of Q1, and the obvious indication of zero current in the shunt. I don't care about the timebase setting, just as .99 explained, that is another story, or even the load heat. I am just talking about the Current and Gate traces, the Vbatt of 72 volts or more and a gate drive that is just as definitely +12 volts as the one shown in Figure 3. What is the Donovan Martin team's explanation for the Figure 3 scopeshot... NOT in Ainslie-speak "thesis" terms, but in ordinary everyday EE circuit-analysis terms that real people could hope to understand.
3a. What is their explanation for their utter and abject failure to reproduce these scopeshot features in spite of Ainslie's insulting claim that it was easy, trivial, a throwaway matter?
An Open Letter to DONOVAN MARTIN:
Mr. Martin:
You recently participated (Saturday June 29 2013) as the "presenter" and primary operator of the controls for a demonstration of Rosemary Ainslie's so-called "NERD" circuit, which is described in two papers that bear your name as second author.
The primary stated goal of this particular demonstration was the reproduction of the oscilloscope trace set referred to as Figure 3, Paper 1. The problematic feature of this data set is the plainly evident Gate signal that reaches +12 Volts, but which does NOT result in a "turn-on" or corresponding flow of current in the transistor's Drain-Source channel. The significance of the Figure 3 as presented in the paper is that it is used as "evidence" for a set of claims involving heating of the load without corresponding current drain from the battery. If the Figure upon which those claims are made is itself made from an apparatus that is malfunctioning or miswired or probed incorrectly, then obviously that data is invalid and cannot be used to support any claims or conclusions.
In spite of Ainslie's repeated claims in various forums that it would be easy, even trivial to reproduce the Figure 3 scope traces, you found it impossible to do so. You also found it difficult or impossible to read a frequency from the LeCroy oscilloscope (in spite of the very bottom line of every LeCroy screen, where it is displayed for you) and you were utterly surprised and amazed when you stimulated oscillations in the Q1 mosfet at a particular Function Generator amplitude setting. In fact you delayed the demonstration for over an hour while you attempted to blame this surprise on some malfunction of the FG itself. Of course there is nothing wrong with the FG at all as you have by now realized, I hope, but rather with your circuit-theoretical understanding of the operation of the Device Under Test.
Since you were the "presenter" and you were the "sole manipulator of controls" at the demonstration, and you are Ainslie's co-author, you bear considerable responsibility for the fiasco that was the June demonstration. Yet you are not supporting Ainslie in her defense of the demo, you are apparently unavailable or unwilling to engage with her -- or rather at this point YOUR-- critics and you are apparently content to "hang her out to dry" and to let her bear the brunt of criticism and ridicule, much of which rightly should be directed to you. Ainslie rather appears the unwitting if not entirely innocent dupe, and apparently you "set her up" and then, with your miserable performance at the demonstration, you let her down and now apparently you have abandoned her.
Sir, I see this as reprehensible. Come out and confront your critics directly, and stop using a poor ignorant old woman to do your fighting for you. Stop hiding behind Rosemary's skirts, DONOVAN MARTIN, and explain yourself properly.
As always, my real identity is protected, but I will gladly reveal it to principals who are willing to sign a strict NDA with a penalty clause. Should my personal identity be revealed to Ainslie, I fear that she might follow through with some of the threats she has made against me.
Until then I remain,
--TinselKoala
Hi TK
for what it is worth I think Donavan assisted in good faith and should not be subjected to demand like these. I agree it would be good if he could express his opinion, however I think his willingness to help we should all be thankful for.
Mark
As somebody that has been following this saga since the beginning it seems only right that we get to the truth about the deception and lies, anyone that has supported these bogus claims should be made accountable.
Hi TK
Interesting you see RA as the Patsy not the instigator. I'll have to take your word for it. I wrote her off as a lost cause some years back.
My conflict with her was not that interesting, If I recall I think I tried to point out her cct was a simple oscillator. That there are billions of such devices in use everywhere. What makes her think her version was somehow special. I think she had made the infinite COP claim about that time and then backed off denying she ever said that.
I suggested proper tests. She responded with tests were not for her but for "the physicists" or something similar, but was hugely abusive as you noted. Normally I will play tag in that sort of game but felt this one was not worth pursuing. too much verbiage, which is of course her weapon of choice.
As to her state of mind. I hope you realise I was being polite.
I haven't gone through any of your snake oil videos apart from the cheese one. Time is not my friend but I will certainly try.
Good luck on your quest.
CC
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2013, 12:39:28 AM
@.99.....
I am flabbergasted by Ainslie's latest. It is as if Saturday never happened. Just as I predicted, she is now apparently trying to claim that they DID reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot and can do so at will. Of course she means "little current" and not zero current, and she means 8... or is it 9 volts to the gate and not 12 as the Figure 3 shows....
TK,
It is somewhat surprising to see this response, yes. It had seemed Weir made some progress with Rose's understanding and acceptance of error, but perhaps we overestimated that to some degree.
Empirical results speak louder than words, the only question remaining is will Rose accept them? We shall soon see.
Quote from: markdansie on July 03, 2013, 07:18:53 AM
Hi TK
for what it is worth I think Donavan assisted in good faith and should not be subjected to demand like these. I agree it would be good if he could express his opinion, however I think his willingness to help we should all be thankful for.
Mark
Donovan Martin's name is on the papers as second author. In the "real world" of scientific criticism that makes him fair game, and doubly so by his participation in the demonstration. It should be abundantly clear by now that RA herself cannot build or operate "her" apparatus at all and is totally dependent on "Donny". You may think that he should not be "subjected to demand".... but I disagree. The events of Saturday show quite clearly that he is the one with the knowledge and skillset that Ainslie herself lacks. So let him explain himself in his own words. It's clear that Ainslie does not even speak the language of electrical engineering, but Martin does. So he should be fielding questions and monitoring discussions. Or... he could always remove his authorship of the papers. That would get him off the hook he placed himself on, this Saturday past.
Donovan Martin is also the narrator for the March 2011 demonstration.... where he has already told at least two lies in the first minute.
(He gestures towards a paper schematic that shows a single mosfet, a gate series resistor and no FG black lead connection and says something like "this is the schematic"-- of course it is not -- then he gestures to the apparatus and says "five mosfets in parallel" and of course they are not...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k)
SO I am afraid that I will have to disagree, strongly, with your statement "Donavan assisted in good faith and should not be subjected to demand like these." (sic)
Quote from: powercat on July 03, 2013, 08:20:04 AM
As somebody that has been following this saga since the beginning it seems only right that we get to the truth about the deception and lies, anyone that has supported these bogus claims should be made accountable.
Agree 100 percent. How could anyone disagree? I just don't get it.
Quote from: CuriousChris on July 03, 2013, 08:40:21 AM
Hi TK
Interesting you see RA as the Patsy not the instigator. I'll have to take your word for it. I wrote her off as a lost cause some years back.
My conflict with her was not that interesting, If I recall I think I tried to point out her cct was a simple oscillator. That there are billions of such devices in use everywhere. What makes her think her version was somehow special. I think she had made the infinite COP claim about that time and then backed off denying she ever said that.
I have recorded plenty of instances where she has made the COP INFINITY or even COP>infinity claims, and the most recent ones are from just last week, I think, I'll have to check the database. I think the COP she claims at any given time is directly related to the amount of "Old Academics" she's had for breakfast.
Quote
I suggested proper tests. She responded with tests were not for her but for "the physicists" or something similar, but was hugely abusive as you noted. Normally I will play tag in that sort of game but felt this one was not worth pursuing. too much verbiage, which is of course her weapon of choice.
As to her state of mind. I hope you realise I was being polite.
Got it. I am long past being polite to Ainslie, she has insulted me waaay too much.
Quote
I haven't gone through any of your snake oil videos apart from the cheese one. Time is not my friend but I will certainly try.
Good luck on your quest.
CC
Thanks, CC and I hope you find the vids amusing, if you have time to take a look. Thanks for watching and commenting. I'll point out that none, not a one, of my nearly 500 videos is "monetized" or makes you watch an advert. (This makes me either stupid or altruistic, or maybe both. Maybe there's no difference.)
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2013, 09:42:44 AM
TK,
It is somewhat surprising to see this response, yes. It had seemed Weir made some progress with Rose's understanding and acceptance of error, but perhaps we overestimated that to some degree.
Empirical results speak louder than words, the only question remaining is will Rose accept them? We shall soon see.
Heh... you are indeed a master of understatement.
;)
If she hasn't accepted the results already demonstrated, along with Donovan Martin himself telling her that the mosfet isn't turning on fully until around 10 volts is supplied.... she is unlikely to accept future results either. But your work is excellent as always and will be very difficult for her to place into her fantasy and still preserve her illusion. I predict that, after an initial kerfluffle (the "flail" stage that we are presently experiencing) she will once again "bail" by completely ignoring your work and never referencing it in her future claims and correspondence with "her academics". Have you ever seen her mention or link to your excellent .pdf analysis from last year? I haven't.
For the convenience of the interested parties, I have gathered the Demo HighLights into a playlist, and I've included at the top my video explaining the Figure 3 issue. Then the 9 Ainslie demo segments, in order, then at the end another couple of my vids illustrating some other issues that came up for the Ainslie-Martin team during the demo.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q)
If anyone knows of any significant segment in the original four-hour YT feed that I missed, please let me know (with timestamps) and I'll try to find them, exerpt them and include them in the list. Thanks for watching!
(Less than 2 hours of the 4-hour original feed actually contained anything worth watching at all. The rest is literally dead air (well over an hour while they went and had supper) or is totally incomprehensible blurs and garbles.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2013, 11:59:54 AM
Have you ever seen her mention or link to your excellent .pdf analysis from last year? I haven't.
LOL, actually the date on the document and when I released it was 2011-06-18; 2 years ago.
No, she has never linked-to or mentioned it. I've also not seen her refute any of the points made in that analysis.
;)
Good grief, how time flies when you're having fun! It really has been over two years. Astounding.
Just in case there is any question remaining about Donovan Martin, I've assembled a "Donny Blooper Reel" from the March 2011 demo.
We recall the amazing deception surrounding the schematic in use at that demonstration. The video was made on March 12 2011 and uploaded by Ainslie to her dooziedont YT channel on or about the 20th. Yet the true schematic in use wasn't revealed until about April 18, iirc. Were it not for .99's careful sleuthing we would have been in the dark much longer... because Ainslie wanted to keep the serendipitous wiring "error" secret. Yet she has claimed, or admitted, that they knew about the correct arrangement at the time the video was made. So.... "do the math" (tm Ainslie).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE)
I stand corrected Tk :)
Rosemary has stated that she wants to write to LeCroy to get them to comment on the testing and measurements. More high comedy. Can you imagine being the apps engineer that has to deal with that email? A good apps engineer would close that issue out in 90 seconds flat.
Thanks for your video comments TK, and MH, thanks for your support as well.
TK, here is the part number for the TVS diodes I used. See the schematic.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 03, 2013, 08:27:26 PM
Rosemary has stated that she wants to write to LeCroy to get them to comment on the testing and measurements. More high comedy. Can you imagine being the apps engineer that has to deal with that email? A good apps engineer would close that issue out in 90 seconds flat.
All that will do is cause her to conclude, and to claim, that the LeCroy engineers are FOS. And of course we will never see the LeCroy side of the correspondence. She pretty much did that with Tektronix when they pulled the loaner scope used in the early work with FTC... I think this is the same one in the 2011 demo video... because of her "misrepresentation" of Tek's involvement.
We still haven't seen anything from the famous USA laboratory that she claims she sent stuff off to last year when she was trying to avoid demonstrating anything back then. Remember all that? Ah... the memories.
I'd like to know when we are going to see the screen captures that S.Weir guided them through making at the end of the YT feed. Why have they not already been released? I know why. And what about the corrected (or more accurately reverted) schematic that they are supposed to post, showing the true position of the FG black lead that they have always used? I know why they haven't posted that, too. It reveals that the present location allows substantial current to bypass the CVR and thus not show up in the math calculations.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 03, 2013, 08:55:16 PM
Thanks for your video comments TK, and MH, thanks for your support as well.
TK, here is the part number for the TVS diodes I used. See the schematic.
Thanks, got it. I found the schematic yesterday in the other thread, don't know how I missed it when you first posted. Thanks....
Quote from: markdansie on July 03, 2013, 05:38:12 PM
I stand corrected Tk :)
No worries, mate, anyone encountering Ainslie and Martin for the first time will believe most of what they say, because she seems so sincere and he says "actually" a lot.
I've added some more explanation to the Description of the "Donny Blooper Reel" on my YT channel. If there are any questions about the points I'm trying to make in that video of Martin's statements, please check the Description. I was going to copypaste it here because I want to make sure Ainslie reads it... but she can click on the video as well as anyone, I suppose. But maybe not, I don't think she sees inline images most of the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE)
A conversation I didn't hear, at the Ainslie compound:
A: "I don't know what we are going to do. She's getting manic and paranoid again."
B: "I don't know either. You know she doesn't do well on medication, and she's starting to annoy the servants."
A: "What about that gadget she was working on for a while? The one Donny made up for her. That seemed to occupy her for quite some time during her last episode."
B: "Yes, she really seemed to enjoy typing away at her computers, even though she was always forgetting her password or deleting her own files."
A: "Right. And most of those people she was chatting with are on the other side of the planet anyway, nothing they do or say can matter to us here in CPT. So sure, I think it's in the attic, we can dust it off, get her some new batteries, and make her write down her passwords somewhere so we can find them when she forgets."
B: "OK. But what if she wants to do another one of her silly "demonstrations"? You know how that last one went, with Donny saying all those things that turned out not to be true."
A: "I'm telling you, it doesn't matter. Nobody "out there" really cares, except that Ickle Pickle Bryan Little fellow, whoever he is. All we have to do is to pretend to demonstrate something, anything, get a few friends to pretend to log in, maybe actually do something on YT just in case somebody checks. As long as she's happy and isn't screaming at the cook or the grooms that somebody's trying to poison her or sabotage her saddles, I'm happy."
B: "Right. I'll order the batteries today, you see if you can find the silly thing and dust it off. It's either in the attic or the basement, or maybe the pig barn. Try to figure out if it still works, we may need to order her some parts to play around with. Mossfeet, or misfoots or something, I don't remember. Expensive little slappers, anyhow, and she pops them like popcorn."
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 03, 2013, 10:01:28 PM
A: "I'm telling you, it doesn't matter. Nobody "out there" really cares, except that Ickle Pickle Bryan Little fellow, whoever he is.
Quote
Mossfeet, or misfoots or something, I don't remember. Expensive little slappers, anyhow, and she pops them like popcorn."
I believe I have finally located the source of Ainslie's "academics".
I am sorry, I really am. The more I look at the video demonstrations and the current apologetics, the more I see the Donovan Martin-Rosemary Ainslie team as objects of ridicule rather than anything seriously to be considered. The very concept of an experiment seems foreign to them: Vary a variable that the experimenter can control and observe the effect of its variation on a variable that the experimenter can observe, while holding constant, randomizing or otherwise controlling for effects of third variables. That's the process, and the object should be to select experiments and variables that have some chance of showing the experimenter's guesses are wrong, not that they are right. It took them at least four hours to get to the point of taking six proper experimental data points (the scope captures that S.Weir talked them through), and that bit was done in fifteen minutes and would have taken even less time if Ainslie and Martin would have just shut up and cooperated.
An amusing observation about their hit rate. I am not an Internet nerd but it looks to me that the legacy of the "bot swarm" that logged into her site way back when is the continuous pinging of her web page. It's like there is an army of bots out there trolling the Internet looking for email addresses and stuff like that. The bot swarm is aware of her site so they will be knocking on her door from now to kingdom come.
They tell me you can get 10 million email addresses for 20 bucks! lol
She's posted her actual email address publicly several times. I can just imagine what her inbox must look like.
Anyhow.... I just did a Test-to-Failure of the Q1 mosfet. Briefly, I set up a Gate input drive as slow as I could get with the F43 and a bit under 20 percent duty cycle, as close as I could get to the proportions in the Fig 3 shot, but of course not quite as slow. Her period was 160 seconds and mine was about 50 seconds, I think, with about 10 seconds HI per period.
ETA: I just checked and my duty cycle was a bit longer than hers. Sorry.... but my heatsink was better !
I started at ambient temperature and allowed the system to run, recording temperatures during the non-oscillating Q1 ON times. The temps recorded during oscillations are not reliable. Vbatt was 75 volts, about, no load and dropped to around 70 volts when the Q1 was fully on, and the inline ammeter showed around 6 amps during those times. The gate drive was as shown in Fig 3, +12 V for the Q1 ON times and -4 V with fuzz on the bottom for the Q2 oscillation times. The mosfet lasted a little over 11 minutes and failed _shorted_, not open; the current trace went to 5 amps or so and stayed there and the mosfet began to +cool off+ even though it was carrying all that current. Its Rdss actually dropped, due to the internal short! I'm sure that it would fail open if I kept running for a few more minutes but my load cell was already pegging its analog thermometer!
Anyway... I wasn't able to get the flatline of Fig 3 probably because I stopped too soon. But it only took 11 minutes for my "waveform to resolve itself" and produce a blown mosfet.
I captured all of this on video of course, including the post-mortem test showing the mosfet was indeed fully shorted. Processing and uploading now, should be ready in a couple of hours max.
AHA.... I have Yet Another possible explanation for the Figure 3 scope traces.
Look at the way the wires are attached to the mosfet package leads on Ainslie's apparatus. They are soldered to the leads by lengthwise splices. This means if the solder softens the wire will come loose, it isn't mechanically restrained, just "glued" on with solder.
Tar Baby uses Molex-type sockets with spring pins pressing hard against the mosfet leads. The shell might melt but the spring pins won't lose contact.
My heatsink temperatures exceeded 260 degrees C before the mosfet failed. The mosfet itself would have been even hotter.
From WIKI:
Quote
Tin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin)/lead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead) solders, also called soft solders, are commercially available with tin concentrations between 5% and 70% by weight. The greater the tin concentration, the greater the solder's tensile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensile_strength) and shear strengths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_strength). Alloys commonly used for electrical soldering are 60/40 Tin/lead (Sn/Pb) which melts at 370 °F or 188 °C and 63/37 Sn/Pb used principally in electrical/electronic work. The 63/37 is a eutectic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic_point) alloy, which:
1. has the lowest melting point (183 °C or 361.4 °F) of all the tin/lead alloys; and
2. the melting point is truly a point — not a range.
"Do the math" (tm RA).
From the photo on PESN:
The VBatt probe has had its ground ref wire pulled out of its little connector cover. It needs repair, it isn't just unclipped.
Of course one cannot tell from the demo cellphone video if this has been fixed for the demo last Saturday.
EDIT: I was wrong, I was able to find a frame that shows the board in enough detail to make out that the Vbatt probe reference lead has been repaired and is present and accounted for at the June 29 demo.
Test-to-failure video coming up in a few minutes:
(A discontinued link)
EDIT: grr. that one had the aspect ratio screwed up (my fault totally) so I'm uploading another copy.
http://youtu.be/ygu7ljn1SqA (http://youtu.be/ygu7ljn1SqA)
Sorry about that, it will be an hour or so until it's viewable again.
Holiday Reading
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 Reagrds
Mark, I see that you have linked to the full four hour video. Having watched it all several times I can say that it is very very difficult to watch in its "raw" form. From moment to moment you have no idea whether something important is about to be shown, or will they lay the cellphone down and just walk away again.
I've carefully gone thru the original and I've excerpted the significant segments and made a playlist of them. I've also included in the playlist a few of my own videos that explain and demonstrate the issues that were supposed to be addressed by the Donovan Martin team. I have not edited or altered anything within the clips. On one of them ... the attempt by Martin to find a simple frequency... I did put in a comment at the end of the video but otherwise my comments are in the YT videopage comments or description for the individual clips.
Please feel free to put the entire playlist, or just the clips from the Ainslie show only, or any selection from the playlist onto your site. It will save people a lot of frustration and a significant amount of time, I think. And if anyone notices anything significant that didn't make it into my clips, please let me know , with a timestamp, and I'll go back in and find it and add it to the extracts.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa_6b8yMpkYJHIR7F9ah3-1q)
This playlist does NOT contain the "donny blooper reel" or the test-to-failure above, but of course you can link to them too.
(ETA: I've just realized it is Thursday, and I have been working on these videos and my own several demonstrations nearly fulltime (real fulltime, not 8 hours fulltime) ever since the demo started on Saturday morning.)
Mark, I've just finished reading your report of that Ainslie show. Very nice, polite and well-stated... and restrained. I could not have been so gentle.
I would like to emphasize one point though. Towards the end you speculate about whether some noted improvement in battery capacity might be due to chemical effects like desulphation, etc.
It is very important to note here that Ainslie has _never_ actually performed any valid State-of Charge tests of her batteries. There is no evidence for the "benefit" that she keeps on claiming. None.
She has been shown how to do "dim bulb" rundown comparison testing, which is very simple to do, and she herself even describes the basic procedure when she talks about the "BP" or the other alphabet agencies she claims tested and supervised testing those long years ago. She has never produced a single scrap of evidence, not even an email, to confirm that those tests, "bursary awards" etc. happened in the way she describes, or even at all.
After seeing how she garbles and distorts information about things that happened three days ago and are recorded for reference.... how much less likely is it for her to be reporting accurately these events from many years ago and for which no record, at all, apparently exists?
In short, when she starts protesting that comparisons have been done...."screenshot or it didn't happen" is the by-word. She cannot produce any valid battery state-of-charge data (I can though). Hence any speculation about chemistry or nuclear reactions or purple unicorns is irrelevant and moot, because there is _no evidence that any gain has occurred_ by the use of Ainslie's devices.
Good job overall and I'm glad you don't just drop these things into the Limbo bucket the way PESN does. I hope you are back in the pink of health again quickly.
Thanks TK
I find it emotionally taxing to write stories like these. However the stories are more of a prompt for others to come forward and continue the debate who may have felt intimidated to do so in the past. I already see some very good comments from people like Simon who make some great points.
I agree with what you said regards the batteries, I was speculating based on past observations.
I have never seen a control experiment to compare battery data with including lifespan
I remember one place I visited the battery effect was so evident that a new battery had about a 3 week life span. (then the overunity disappears).
People are often shocked how polite I am in person despite being the skeptic and Darth Dansie, but I can be the biggest pain in the ass cranky AH as well.
I think we should not criticize anyone for trying, however how they handle criticism and other peoples opinion will be how they will be ultimately be judged. i have some very close friends around the world where we are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to agreeing on the validity of their technology, that does not mean we can not have respect for each other or enjoy each others company.
I also realize the value I have in cases like this is limited by my own expertise apart from applying logic and my experience.
I need to get back to bed not quiet recovered.
Ulimately the truth will always prevail. Without the truth we have no foundation to move on with.
Mark
If you worked on a bench a lot and knew what you were doing you would check both sides of the CVR as common practice. In a related fashion and as a generic comment you would use your scope probe to check along your circuit ground connection, not to check for inductive effects, but just to see how well your ground connection is handling the return current stream and to make sure there is very little voltage bumping going on. It's a common check to see if you need to "fatten" your ground return. And of course any bench experimenter worth his or her salt would do the same thing for their power rails, to make sure that you are satisfied with the power feed.
So it's arguable that both sides of the CVR should have been checked when someone with experience in South Africa first laid eyes on the circuit.
I seem to recall that way back in 2009 Poynt advised Rosemary to solder her CVR right to the negative battery post and measure the current from there and only there. This was not friendly for Rosemary's setup and the advice was ignored. Then Poynt ran simulations with small inductors in series to model the long wire lengths, etc, etc.
TK's basic check on both sides of the CVR and the equivalent oscillations indicating corrupted current measurement is a big blow to Rosemary's proposition. (I am just repeating what others have already posted.) This is a simple observation that can't be refuted that should make sense to most people, even casual observers.
In fact this is a death blow, but we know what the dynamics are like, and for Rosemary this will be something that she will argue against. More drama to come. Poynt's testing may seal the deal.
It's sort of like what I have been told about World of Warcraft. Sometimes 100 people will have an epic battle lasting hours with some kind of giant creature or robot. You have to inflict enough damage points on that big sucker and slowly bring him down. It's a war of attrition just like we are in one now! lol
MileHigh
Another moment of high comedy from Rosemary:
QuoteJust a point of order. Ignore Mark E's comments. They're ENTIRELY unfounded.
MarkE has been active on PESN for many months now and the man is truly brilliant and multidisciplinary. About a month ago he made a posting about doing proper bench measurements and it was abundantly clear that he is also brilliant and an expert on the bench.
From her:
QuoteAll are avoiding the central issue. It is this. We are able to generate a robust oscillation while the battery is apparently disconnected and unable to deliver any energy during the 'on' period of a switching cycle.
As she mentioned the oscillations, I assume she actually meant to say "off" period, or moreso correct, the portion of the FG cycle wherein the FG output is a negative voltage.
It took months to convince her that an FG can pass current, over a year to convince her that there was an issue with Q1 in FIG3, and now, even after many people have explained it to her over and over, she remains clueless as to how the Q2 portion of her circuit operates.
She continues to believe that during the portion of the cycle when Q2 is biased on and oscillating, that her batteries are "disconnected". To her, the operation of Q2 must appear as magic, but to most others, its operation is well understood and nothing unexpected is observed.
No one is "avoiding" the battery being "disconnected" simply because this is not true, the battery is not "disconnected". Q2 is turned on, passing current, and oscillating. Both the DC and AC current paths and quiescent conditions have been discussed and explained in great detail.
I have never before seen anyone so unable or unwilling to learn.
'Tis a shame...
PW
This clip pretty much says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miOXBOx4Kso (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miOXBOx4Kso)
You can see how disordered, yet crafty, her thought process is.
The observation, which nobody doubts, is the LeCroy screenshot. It shows a main supply of +72 volts or more, +12 V on the Gate, and ZERO drain current in the CVR, during the "ON" portions of a periodic gate stimulation.
Other parameters of the Figure 3 screenshot are interesting but not ultimately impossible in the same way as the zero current. As Darren says, the long period cycle time is not as important to demonstrate as the "levels and waveforms".
(The long cycle time is posited as a possible _cause_ of the Fig 3 scopeshot because a mosfet would be likely to fail under those conditions and a Fig 3 scopeshot is the result of several possible permanent or temporary mosfet failure modes (fail open, solder "fuse" leadwire disconnection) resulting from overheating. This could be demonstrated... but only if First, a solid 12 volts could be applied to the mosfet gate, and then left alone for the required time, while monitoring mosfet temps. Of course, when this is done, the waveform will not look like Figure 3 until the mosfet fails, and the load will heat maximally until that time.)
The Gate voltage is the Independent variable (IV), the one that the Experimenter controls. The Drain current is the Dependent variable (DV), the one that varies as the experimenter varies the IV. Data consists of pairs of numbers (Gate V, Drain I). The data in question are (12 V, 0 I) and the challenge to the Donovan Martin-Rosemary Ainslie collaboration is to reproduce THAT PAIR OF NUMBERS using the schematic claimed, a working Q1, a properly positioned probe and the 72+ volt supply.
The Figure 3 scopeshot claims that Ainslie produced that pair of numbers under the conditions stated. If it turns out that the scopeshot was NOT produced under the conditions stated, or more strictly just the pair of numbers (12V gate, 0I current) wasn't obtained properly.... then obviously the scopeshot itself is invalid and shouldn't be included in any claim of overunity! The thing was broken and/or not measured right! And this pair of numbers, 12 V and zero current, is the basis for an entire set of downstream claims.
Yet when she has to confront this inescapable fact during the discussion with Darren, she freaks out in mid-sentence, literally, and changes the subject and the tone of her argument, first to a plea, then a demand, then a pout, then indignant anger..... it's an amazing clip. I can imagine using her rant in this clip in several different kinds of psychology classrooms as textbook examples.
Note that they apparently do not even have the Figure 3 shot in front of them for comparison until they decide to download it from "the blog" at around 5:48. I forgot to record the timestamps on the original video but this is waaaaaay deep into the demo.
Why doesn't she STOP already!!
I really think that she should submit all her posts to Donovan Martin for approval before she sticks her foot down her throat even further than she has already, if that's possible even.
QuoteI have NEVER doubted that a function generator can pass current. This comment is based on an amusing little diversion in tactics where our 'ickle pickle' apparently did a youtube number using the function generator as the ONLY source of energy - to show that it does pass current. Of COURSE it does. But the question is this. IS it passing current onto our circuit? I claim - categorically - that it is not. Likely I am wrong. But certainly when we did use CSR's at the gate of Q1 - it showed - IF anything - that current was being returned to that generator. Which also means that I most CERTAINLY doubt that it is passing current into our circuit. BUT. THAT much is yet to be proven. It's a question that is now in the capable hands of Donny.
She starts with an outright lie, as usual for Ainslie, then amplifies that.
Capable hands. That cannot find a frequency with a digital oscilloscope in over five minutes of fumbling around, when it's displayed constantly on the screen in front of him. Right. Actually, at this point in time, Donovan Martin may be capable of many things, actually, but certainly not anything having to do with actual practical electronics. Actually. Insert ROFL smiley here.
Anyway, note the continuing idiocy.
QuoteBut the question is this. IS it passing current onto our circuit? I claim - categorically - that it is not. Likely I am wrong. But certainly when we did use CSR's at the gate of Q1 - it showed - IF anything - that current was being returned to that generator.
Current was being returned to the generator, but categorically was not passing current into "our" circuit. Well, then clearly the FG must have been filling up with current. Did you remember to drain it once in a while? You wouldn't want it to overflow.
How is it possible even to argue with a person whose thought processes are so disordered? Who can't even recall from day to day just what it is she has or hasn't claimed lately? Who can't even understand, or even see, the evidence that is presented to her? Argument is totally useless, but she and Donovan have certainly put themselves out as targets for mockery.
QuoteAnd regarding this...'she remains clueless as to how the Q2 portion of her circuit operates.' Not actually. I think that it should be left to picowaT to explain how it is that the MOSFET Q2 can pass a current FROM the battery through it's source leg and onto the Gate of Q1. And he must try that explanation without his typical hand waving. We KNOW that there's energy there. But it cannot POSSIBLY be coming from the batteries. Unless - in defiance of standard theory - a positive current CAN bridge the applied negative signal at the Q1 MOSFET gate - and simply FLOW. If it could do this then it would be impossible to use a MOSFET as a switch. EVER. And no amount of EXPLANATION related to capacitive reactance or any other kind of excuse will cut it. The fact is that there is an oscillation and this is self sustaining. And it delivers energy as can be seen on the heat dissipated at the element resistor. IF this is coming from the function generator - then we have a problem. Because we can get that same effect WITHOUT using a function generator. And if this is some variation of a amplification - then very evidently - there's extra energy here.
Which makes THIS comment somewhat unsubstantiated...No one is "avoiding" the battery being "disconnected" simply because this is not true, the battery is not "disconnected". Q2 is turned on, passing current, and oscillating. If Q2 was turned ON - then it would simply be passing current. It would NOT be oscillating. When current is passed it is ATYPICAL for it to oscillate. It would simply flow.
See? She still has no clue about the linear operation of a mosfet. Even though Donovan Martin can be heard explaining that a threshold voltage of 3.5 of 4 volts turns the mosfet on a little, 8 volts turns it on more, and it is fully on at 10 volts or above. He tells her this in the video segment "swan song" and she says "yes" to him as if she understands. But by today she has forgotten. She thinks a mosfet is ON with zero resistance or OFF with infinite resistance and nothing in between.
And she has forgotten the lesson that lowering the voltage on the Source pin is equivalent to raising the voltage on the Gate pin, because her conception of voltage is wrong, and she doesn't understand that voltages are relative. Thus she cannot understand how Q2 can be biased into partial conduction in an oscillatory manner. She knows the Gates of Q2 are pinned to the negative rail. What she does NOT understand is that the Sources of Q2 can be brought to a voltage that is _below_ the voltage at the negative rail by the FG or other bias supply input. And because she doesn't understand that voltages are relative, she cannot see that a -4 volts on the source and 0 on the gate is the same thing, to the mosfet, as 0 volts on the source and +4 volts on the gate.
Hence she is incapable of understanding how a mosfet amplifier operates or how amplifiers in general produce and sustain feedback oscillations. Even my breakdown of the process with Manny the Manual Mosfet Oscillator didn't penetrate her ego armor. Nothing will. SO my focus has changed from trying to help her understand, to mockery and irony. She will _never understand_, but the people around her will, and those who must eventually evaluate and judge her... they will understand.
On Mark D's forum, in the comments to his recent analysis of Ainslie's work, Mark E asks a question.
Quote
Mark Dansie, thanks for updating with the correctly annotated picture.
Looking at their set-up is a bit mind boggling as to what they were thinking. Why did they set Q1 off to the side from the stack of Q2s? When they first did this, they showed just the one MOSFET. Did they try things out with two, then three, then four MOSFETs and find that wasn't enough and they couldn't find screws long enough to go higher, so they added Q1? And who but a very naive person would locate the common node anywhere but right at the low side of the current sense? And how could they have been confused as to source and gate, when they used black wires for each source and red wires for each gate? There are so many questions. And none of them really matter because these guys have never shown anything that supports their claims.
The "updated picture" refers to an error that Mark E made on the original picture: ironically the same error that the NERDs seem to have made with the hardware. But in answer to the question about the evolution:
The circuit started with Q1 only. That is why it is separate. The "gang of four" Q2s was added all at once and was intended to be in strict parallel with the existing Q1 but they made the same mirror inversion mistake that Mark E made in his first picture and is talking about above.
I submit this schematic for discussion.
The Gate of the mosfet is connected to an Earth Ground and the Negative Rail of the main battery supply. Will our Ickle Pickle be able to turn on the 24 volt light bulb by adjusting R1?
QuoteAnd regarding this...'she remains clueless as to how the Q2 portion of her circuit operates.' Not actually. I think that it should be left to picowaT to explain how it is that the MOSFET Q2 can pass a current FROM the battery through it's source leg and onto the Gate of Q1.
I think it should be left to Donovan Martin and Rosemary Ainslie to explain how it is that SO MANY OF THEIR CLAIMS are refuted by my simple demonstrations, and by their own attempts at demonstrations. Why can they not produce EVIDENCE in support of their claims, even when given the best possible opportunity to do so: a demonstration ENTIRELY under their own control. It is because their claims are bogus, of course, and the data that they pretend supports the claims, is only error and deliberate deception. IT CANNOT BE REPRODUCED, even by them, when other people are watching.
Where are the scope captures that were made at the end of the four-hour YT video feed of the demonstration? A week ago? Have they been posted to the internet somewhere, like on Ainslie's forum? If not, why not? Is there some reason to hide those shots? They were the whole reason for the demonstration; the demonstration was public... sort of..... so where's the data?
Apart from another test for the curious, I think it is time to pack this one up.
I feel the outcome is clear and definitive. TK, you were always correct and I do not know anyone who would question that after the demo
You are held in much higher esteem than you give yourself credit for. I also applaud Ponty99
I really think its about the ability to move on with grace. A lot of bad blood was split, and its time to leave the battle field...move on.
Go read this letter, I thought it said it out well in reflecting perhaps how we should all behave in the future.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/05/the-human-element-of-original-thought/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/05/the-human-element-of-original-thought/)
Next Month is Mr Wayne.......stay tuned.
Quote from: markdansie on July 05, 2013, 12:02:51 PM
Apart from another test for the curious, I think it is time to pack this one up.
I feel the outcome is clear and definitive. TK, you were always correct and I do not know anyone who would question that after the demo
You are held in much higher esteem than you give yourself credit for. I also applaud Ponty99
I really think its about the ability to move on with grace. A lot of bad blood was split, and its time to leave the battle field...move on.
Go read this letter, I thought it said it out well in reflecting perhaps how we should all behave in the future.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/05/the-human-element-of-original-thought/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/05/the-human-element-of-original-thought/)
Next Month is Mr Wayne.......stay tuned.
Nice thought, however I suspect....... actually I know it will not happen. Some peoples ego's need permanent stroking, simply being right is never enough.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2013, 11:15:46 AM
Where are the scope captures that were made at the end of the four-hour YT video feed of the demonstration? A week ago? Have they been posted to the internet somewhere, like on Ainslie's forum? If not, why not? Is there some reason to hide those shots? They were the whole reason for the demonstration; the demonstration was public... sort of..... so where's the data?
Indeed,
Yet I am having demands made upon me to produce scope captures for the tests I've done thus far. :o
Quote from: markdansie on July 05, 2013, 12:02:51 PM
Apart from another test for the curious, I think it is time to pack this one up.
I feel the outcome is clear and definitive. TK, you were always correct and I do not know anyone who would question that after the demo
You are held in much higher esteem than you give yourself credit for. I also applaud Ponty99
I really think its about the ability to move on with grace. A lot of bad blood was split, and its time to leave the battle field...move on.
Go read this letter, I thought it said it out well in reflecting perhaps how we should all behave in the future.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/05/the-human-element-of-original-thought/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/05/the-human-element-of-original-thought/)
Next Month is Mr Wayne.......stay tuned.
I wonder if you would feel the same way if you had to bear the brunt of all the insults and even threats that this woman has flung at me over the past four...yes, FOUR years since I first encountered her in late 2008 or early 2009.
I started out thinking she was just making a mistake and might appreciate the help... since that is how she starts: Please help me test this and bring it to our Academics. Literally as soon as I found the first problem -- the patent lie -- she began with her insults, disrespect and all the rest. When I built the first circuit and found the first hardware problem, the inverted 555 duty cycle..... and all of the utter crap that went down...and is STILL going down... over that... it became a personal thing. Ainslie has always had the option to stop pushing her crap, she had the option to learn something and stop on Saturday.... but she still insists upon continuing. As long as she persists with her insults and idiotic claims about circuitry, and I know about it, then I will be there. You don't want to watch, that's your business. The one that needs to stop and walk away is the one who is, and who always has been, wrong in her claims and obnoxious and denigrating in the way she makes them.
And personally, I feel that people who operate websites where she pops up should be _helping me_ in my efforts to put Ainslie down, by publishing every fact that is known about her personally, her claims, her insulting behavior and her bogus circuitry and "thesis".
I've spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of time on this. I've been working fulltime since the demonstration on trying to make some sense out of that ridiculous farce. I am right and I've always been right about Ainslie and her stupidity, and as long as she has the strength to continue to lie about what she's done and about me.... I'll be there with the other side of the story. Every time she mentions me, Bryan Little, Ickle Pickle or any other slur or misrepresentation about me, it starts the clock again. Every time she claims a "benefit" or some other non-proven claim I'll be there. Every time she spouts some bogus circuit explanation to someone who doesn't know any better... if I know about it I will be there. She may not realize it, but I'm a good friend to have......and I'm a tenacious adversary, and I have facts and truth on my side.
Quote from: elecar on July 05, 2013, 12:32:42 PM
Nice thought, however I suspect....... actually I know it will not happen. Some peoples ego's need permanent stroking, simply being right is never enough.
Who are you? What have you done? You joined this forum on May 28th. Can you demonstrate some reason why anyone should even care about what you "suspect" or "actually know"? You might be an Ainslie sock puppet, you have no credentials here.
Bump.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2013, 09:51:18 AM
I submit this schematic for discussion.
The Gate of the mosfet is connected to an Earth Ground and the Negative Rail of the main battery supply. Will our Ickle Pickle be able to turn on the 24 volt light bulb by adjusting R1?
QuoteAnd regarding this...'she remains clueless as to how the Q2 portion of her circuit operates.' Not actually. I think that it should be left to picowaT to explain how it is that the MOSFET Q2 can pass a current FROM the battery through it's source leg and onto the Gate of Q1.
I think it should be left to Donovan Martin and Rosemary Ainslie to explain how it is that SO MANY OF THEIR CLAIMS are refuted by my simple demonstrations, and by their own attempts at demonstrations. Why can they not produce EVIDENCE in support of their claims, even when given the best possible opportunity to do so: a demonstration ENTIRELY under their own control. It is because their claims are bogus, of course, and the data that they pretend supports the claims, is only error and deliberate deception. IT CANNOT BE REPRODUCED, even by them, when other people are watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rgB3WlXtU
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2013, 05:42:38 PM
Who are you? What have you done? You joined this forum on May 28th. Can you demonstrate some reason why anyone should even care about what you "suspect" or "actually know"? You might be an Ainslie sock puppet, you have no credentials here.
There you go again. Why ? Who are you ? Whats up is my post count too low still ? Are you the site owner ? I do not need to answer to you bully boy. You may impress others on here with the way you stalk people and their work simply to prove "you are the know it all"
I really do not give a flying fig what you think of me. You are too unimportant, however this is an open forum which I joined I joined because I have an interest in the subject matter.
But before I joined I made sure I read the Ts & Cs, you might think its ok to keep being rude and insulting people because you are a trumped up little moronic know it all. Perhaps "brains" you could read the Ts & Cs yourself so that you can steer your perfect little self in the right direction. What a useless little trumped up bully you really are.
Your little speech about how you are the victim is BS anyone who googles your name (well the one you hide behind) will see for years you have stalked and pestered people. Like I said before you are the self proclaimed sheriff of the FE forums.
I did write the site owner after getting sick of reading your rude attacks. And before you tell me not to read what you write, I have an interest in the matter, but would rather skip your rudeness. Perhaps the owner should moderate your posts until you learn some common manners you trumped up idiot.
Everyone else please excuse my outburst, but please allow me to explain why I am pissed.
Today I read Markdansie's post (Reply # 71) here is the full post.
QuoteApart from another test for the curious, I think it is time to pack this one up.
I feel the outcome is clear and definitive. TK, you were always correct and I do not know anyone who would question that after the demo
You are held in much higher esteem than you give yourself credit for. I also applaud Ponty99
I really think its about the ability to move on with grace. A lot of bad blood was split, and its time to leave the battle field...move on.
Go read this letter, I thought it said it out well in reflecting perhaps how we should all behave in the future.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/05/the-human-element-of-original-thought/
Next Month is Mr Wayne.......stay tuned.
As you can see there is a link in Marks post. I went ahead and went to the link and read the content from a young guy. You can read the full content here
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/05/the-human-element-of-original-thought/
I hope Mark does not mind but here is the last paragraph from the article. I have highlighted the part I made reference too.
QuoteWhile I am not subscribing to the notion of bashing any particular researcher, or process, I also don't join those who judge a researcher based on a lack of education to explain the phenomenon being tested or observed. I simply ask that while leaving the dignity of the person intact, it would benefit both sides to focus only on the science for validation, implementation and not let the efforts go in vain. Maybe Rossi's device did or did not work, but more importantly than the lessons learned, if there was any sub-feature, sub component, or advancement in any way shape or form as a mere piece of the whole that failed, that this component did function and unto itself was original and could benefit the whole of everyone in this spectrum that is be used, and credit be given properly. Wasting time in the arena of egos is exactly that: a waste of time.
My reply to Marks post (post #72) is quoted below.
QuoteNice thought, however I suspect....... actually I know it will not happen. Some peoples ego's need permanent stroking, simply being right is never enough.
To which rude Mr know it all took part of the post as you can see in his rude reply above and here is what he typed in full.
QuoteWho are you? What have you done? You joined this forum on May 28th. Can you demonstrate some reason why anyone should even care about what you "suspect" or "actually know"? You might be an Ainslie sock puppet, you have no credentials here.
So you see I was addressing a post and a link provided by MarkDansie, but the moron decided it was all about him, I suppose because he is one of those who needs his ego stroked.
You will note how he expects apologies from those who have been rude to him, however I do not suppose I should expect the same from the idiot who deliberately misrepresented what I wrote to make it appear like it was all about him again. He really is unimportant to me so I have no idea apart from the size of his ego why he would think I did anything to smite him, that I deserved to be spoken to the way he did to me.
Respectfully Elecar
"Respectfully Elecar"
Hypocrite.
Just like all the rest of your ilk, you cannot refute me with facts references or demonstrations of your own, so you spew your filth and insults freely, while you criticize what you cannot understand.
Would you like to discuss Ainslie and Martin's latest sets of errors and mendacity and insults, or do you just want to continue your trolling? I know the answer.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2013, 07:34:32 PM
"Respectfully Elecar"
Hypocrite.
Just like all the rest of your ilk, you cannot refute me with facts references or demonstrations of your own, so you spew your filth and insults freely, while you criticize what you cannot understand.
Would you like to discuss Ainslie and Martin's latest sets of errors and mendacity and insults, or do you just want to continue your trolling? I know the answer.
I do not wish to discuss anything, I enjoy the reading. You can try and turn it around but just go back to your reply # 75 and its plain to see you are everything I say you are.
I do not know Ainslie or any of her partners or friends. But regardless I do not think men should speak to women the way you do.
I was following your dissection of her circuit with interest, and actually agree with your findings, so I am no Ainslie fan. But your rudeness is what comes through rather than the important content. And all because you have a personal beef.
You can not deny that you decided you would turn your venom on me because you thought my reply to Mark was all about you.
Should I expect an apology ?
Well?
Do you think women should talk to men the way she does? Accusing .99 of fudging results, insulting PW and me the way she does, just recently?
I don't care what you think of me. You cannot refute me with facts, references or demonstrations of your own, and when you focus on what you perceive to be MY insulting behaviour, I refer you to Matthew 7:3.
So you do not wish to discuss the topic of this thread but would rather focus on me. And then you complain about my "ego". I laugh at you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rgB3WlXtU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rgB3WlXtU)
There is not a person on this forum who has been insulted MORE than I have been. And the claims that I pursue are claims from people like Archer Quinn, MyLOW, Wayne Travis, Rosemary Ainslie and PJHardcastle, who make claims that they cannot support, perform miserable excuses for demonstrations, commit outright fraud, and level amazing degrees of insults to their critics. Anyone who has _really_ been reading up on me and my posts knows this, and also knows that I will help people who are genuinely doing real research or asking real questions, at my own expense. Will I apologize to you for your insulting and disrespecting and misrepresenting me and my efforts? Dream on.
TK,
Someone's going to blow a gasket; you have no diode drawn across the MOSFET S-D.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 05, 2013, 07:56:23 PM
TK,
Someone's going to blow a gasket; you have no diode drawn across the MOSFET S-D.
If anyone blows a gasket it will be me.
Does my demonstration help to explain the negative bias issue, the current path involving Q2 or not?
Could I replace the battery and pot with a FG, or not? What will happen if I then put a "Q1" in the circuit and wire it like Ainslie has? Will I have demonstrated the feature of the circuit that Ainslie says is impossible, or not?
Does the body diode really make any difference, or not? I mean, I certainly didn't remove it from the transistor for my demonstration, did I. And many mosfet circuit symbols, like the 2n7000, don't include the body diode because _everybody knows it's there_. Don't they?
Next: Replacing the Negative Bias 9v battery and potentiometer with a Function Generator.
Will Ickle Pickle be able to light up the light bulb without any extra batteries, just using the FG alone to stimulate the mosfet's SOURCE, leaving the Gate pinned to the battery negative and earth ground?
But the battery is "disconnected", isn't it?
(Am I moving too fast for you, Donny?)
What, no discussion? Where is everybody?
Check that last diagram above. Let's say.... just for the sake of argument.... that I LEFT OUT the Black FG output lead altogther from the diagram.
Would it then appear even more magical, if you didn't realize that the FG could act as both a PS and a simple 50R resistor?
(Yes I know that the Ainslie diagram below shows the Q1, and what I am showing is the Q2 behaviour. What the Ainslie -- or rather Donovan Martin diagram is telling you is that the Black FG output lead isn't important, ignore it, don't worry about it, it's just a "negative" and it's grounded anyway so there's no point in including it, or if you do, being accurate about where it is placed. But stay tuned.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0DziLllc0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0DziLllc0)
TK,
That the MOSFET can be "turned on" with
bias applied to the Source is well established.
The technique has been in use for decades;
"grounded grid" in the case of vacuum tubes,
"common base" in the case of transistors,
and
"common gate" as it applies to MOSFETs.
The circuit configuration which utilizes this
form of bias/signal input is generally an RF
Power Amplifier. The configuration is quite
stable and doesn't require neutralization as
would be the case with common cathode/emitter/
source configurations.
The input impedance is low as all output
current is present in the input signal.
That some of today's "embryonic level"
technicians are not aware of this is not
too surprising. It's kind of a "niche" circuit
which the 'roll yer own' Hams are very
fond of.
The schematic for Part 3 is the same as for Part 2, but I've changed the Power Supply and am using 2 ea. 12 v, 6 A-H batteries in series instead, with some added lead inductance in the jumper wiring. These batts are pretty low already, they barely measure 25 volts together. And I changed the mosfet: I put in one of Tar Baby's Q2s, including its lengths of wiring.
This video is a bit longer than the other two, and it will be a few minutes before it's viewable.
http://youtu.be/3vm2ZTDUyyA
Quote from: SeaMonkey on July 06, 2013, 12:25:31 AM
TK,
That the MOSFET can be "turned on" with
bias applied to the Source is well established.
The technique has been in use for decades;
"grounded grid" in the case of vacuum tubes,
"common base" in the case of transistors,
and
"common gate" as it applies to MOSFETs.
The circuit configuration which utilizes this
form of bias/signal input is generally an RF
Power Amplifier. The configuration is quite
stable and doesn't require neutralization as
would be the case with common cathode/emitter/
source configurations.
The input impedance is low as all output
current is present in the input signal.
That some of today's "embryonic level"
technicians are not aware of this is not
too surprising. It's kind of a "niche" circuit
which the 'roll yer own' Hams are very
fond of.
It's pretty obvious, isn't it, that I know this already. Why don't you log on to Ainslie's forum and tell
her this? Since, as you can probably tell from the last posts in her threads there, that she thinks this is impossible, even though it is exactly what her circuit is doing.
Your post, though, with all its extra hard returns, isn't _quite_ long enough to drive my video demonstrations off the front page. It just doesn't seem like your heart is really into your work tonight.
QuoteThe input impedance is low as all output current is present in the input signal.
Got that, Donny? Please explain to Rosemary.
Now, I present to you two schematics. The first one is the one I used in the Part 2 demo above, and also with the 24 v batt in Part 3 above.
The second one is the Ainslie schematic, with the FG lead in the place she uses, and some bits removed and labels changed. Right?
Compare, contrast, discuss.
Quote from: elecar on July 05, 2013, 07:44:57 PM
I do not wish to discuss anything, I enjoy the reading. You can try and turn it around but just go back to your reply # 75 and its plain to see you are everything I say you are.
I do not know Ainslie or any of her partners or friends. But regardless I do not think men should speak to women the way you do.
I was following your dissection of her circuit with interest, and actually agree with your findings, so I am no Ainslie fan. But your rudeness is what comes through rather than the important content. And all because you have a personal beef.
You can not deny that you decided you would turn your venom on me because you thought my reply to Mark was all about you.
Should I expect an apology ?
No, just more refutations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUzsCVNXaGs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_LjNBdSvc8
Part 3 is up now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vm2ZTDUyyA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vm2ZTDUyyA)
Quote from: TinselKoala
Your post, though, with all its extra hard returns, isn't _quite_ long enough to drive my video demonstrations off the front page. It just doesn't seem like your heart is really into your work tonight.
Is it nice to read into a response more than
is actually there?
Rosemary may not yet understand all that
there is to know about biasing of active
amplification devices but she is making
progress.
Although, it is entirely possible that you've
learned more during the course of this drama
than Rosemary has. Take that as you will...
P.S. Hard Returns are useful when a format
is desired that is easily read by all. News-
papers, magazines, and numerous printed
publications utilize this ages-old format for a
beneficial reason.
Well, aren't you special, saving us all that work scanning our eyeballs. Thanks!
And I don't think anyone has ever accused me of being nice. Koalas aren't nice, in general, and I'm no exception.
And I'm quite certain that I am indeed learning more than Ainslie.... she has demonstrated the depth of her learning many times... and it isn't.
Why exactly do you think I am engaging in this present deconstruction, or rather, reconstruction of her circuit from the gills up? I am making tiny little bitesized pieces that lead from one to the other in an absolutely unavoidable trail of crumbs. Whether or not a little Polly Parrot bird decides to gain nourishment from them isn't up to me... but for her to complain of hunger, after this, will be seen to be more deserving of mockery and ridicule than ever.
Dispassionate scientific refutations went out the window, as far as I'm concerned, on Saturday 29 June 2013 when they set down the phone and went out to supper, with thousands of people watching. Feel me?
Meanwhile, here is the schematic for Part 4:
(the video is still uploading and should be ready in a half hour or so, sorry... slow uplink)
http://youtu.be/1jENARrROGs (http://youtu.be/1jENARrROGs)
Now do you see why she thinks the Source of Q2 is "floating" and the battery is disconnected during the Q2 osc times?
Quote from: markdansie on July 05, 2013, 12:02:51 PM
Apart from another test for the curious, I think it is time to pack this one up.
I feel the outcome is clear and definitive. TK, you were always correct and I do not know anyone who would question that after the demo
You are held in much higher esteem than you give yourself credit for. I also applaud Ponty99
I really think its about the ability to move on with grace. A lot of bad blood was split, and its time to leave the battle field...move on.
Go read this letter, I thought it said it out well in reflecting perhaps how we should all behave in the future.
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/05/the-human-element-of-original-thought/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/05/the-human-element-of-original-thought/)
Next Month is Mr Wayne.......stay tuned.
Mark, I read Chris's letter and I quite agree with him, in principle. But it is also very clear that he does not know the history of the Rosemary Ainslie affair. Ainslie is willfully ignorant. She is not the simple, naive uneducated researcher that Hunter wants us not to mock. She has had these issues explained to her over and over by literally dozens of people, who have worked with her side-by-side and who eventually fell away because she isn't simply ignorant, she is willfully so, and overweeningly arrogant about it. She insults her critics in the worst ways imaginable: by not respecting their learning, skills, experience and credentials. She is manifestly NOT the kind of person that Chris is talking about here:
QuoteI also don't join those who judge a researcher based on a lack of education to explain the phenomenon being tested or observed. I simply ask that while leaving the dignity of the person intact, it would benefit both sides to focus only on the science for validation, implementation and not let the efforts go in vain.
The efforts that are going in vain are evident: Ainslie's critics wish to focus on facts, references and repeatable demonstrations. Ainslie ignores facts, doesn't cite checkable references.... and we have seen what passes for a "repeatable demonstration" this past Saturday. She replies to valid criticisms with insults and threats. She is uncooperative in releasing data. Where are the scope captures and why is she giving .99 a hard time about HIS shots when she won't provide hers... etc etc.
I invite Chris Hunter to take a look at Rosemary Ainslie's forum. Then let's see if he still feels the same way after he reads her own words on these matters.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/ (http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/)
Also, as a deaf person... it is truly unfortunate that he cannot hear the audio in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miOXBOx4Kso
Maybe someone can transcribe it for him, but he'll still miss the tone of voice coming from Ainslie.
Part 4 is up and viewable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jENARrROGs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jENARrROGs)
Quotesomehow survived pre and post demo edits... I think? Unless you reposted this? In any event. We MEASURE a negative wattage - essentially defined as more energy available on the circuit than was ever MEASURED to be supplied by the battery supply source. And we make NO categorical claims here. We mention that this 'APPEARS' to enhance the circuit performance.
Audio in the clip above at 12:17 on:
Quote
I'm telling you this absolutely categorically: BPE issued the most comprehensive report and made us do the most stringent tests......
Where is this report? Nobody has ever seen it. What does Chris Hunter say about that, I wonder?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2013, 09:51:18 AM
I submit this schematic for discussion.
The Gate of the mosfet is connected to an Earth Ground and the Negative Rail of the main battery supply. Will our Ickle Pickle be able to turn on the 24 volt light bulb by adjusting R1?
TK,
Here is a simplified re-drawn version of your 1st drawing, when the pot is adjusted fully "south" (ON).
I have similar drawings that I made in the distant past when trying to explain this, but I quickly did a new one to augment yours here. With floating supplies it is arbitrary where the earth ground is placed, and not necessary to show for the point I am trying to make.
Note the BIAS supply (or FG) is in series with the RUN battery.
Good work on the recent vids.
Thanks, .99. I remember your efforts well.
I've drawn my version the way I did for a good reason, though. If one follows the progression from Part 1 to Part 4, you can see where I'm going, I'm sure. There isn't any place for some kind of "floating source" or magical current path through any mosfet gates in my evolution. (Nor was there in yours either of course.) If one understands parts 1 and 2, and follow lines well enough to compare the schematics I show, then by part 3 one must realize what I am testing and demonstrating, and by the Part 4 with its schematic and its result, surely an avalanche of reason must occur. (The Figure 3 waveforms and settings are shown in Part 4 of course.) Part 5 will of course add the second transistor, for completeness. But even more important than illustrating the features of the circuit, the videos illustrate a scientific approach to experimentation and demonstration that Ainslie should pay attention to. Of course I don't really expect her to, since she avoids watching my videos as if they challenge her very fundamental belief structures in uncomfortable ways.
But it is really hard for me to believe that someone could go through your logical argument, or mine, and fail to understand. Failing understanding, one must simply accept data that is valid and that others understand... I have to do that all the time. But making explanations up out of fantasies and dreams, and then filtering data so that it looks like it supports the fantasy.... that takes a special skill set.
Usually when someone is having trouble grasping some explanation or other, it's because somewhere deep in their "knowledge base" they have some misconception or misunderstanding, a brick that doesn't quite fit in the edifice of knowledge, and it causes a stumbling block, or lack of stability and strength in the courses above it. In Ainslie's case, unfortunately, the root misconceptions that she holds are tightly bound up in her "thesis" and so are not likely to be modifiable. The conceptions of charge, voltage, current that she is operating with are so twisted from the actual physical realities that there is no framework for her to understand, e.g., the idea of relative voltages, or even the idea of a linear operation region of a mosfet "switch".
So why, exactly, were the waveforms captured at the end of Ainslie's public demonstration?
I thought they were captured so that they could be used in discussions that explain what is going on, and I expected to hear explanations and discussions from "both sides" of the issues. It's lucky that there is a record of the public demo, because by now, a week after the event, my memory is starting to fade. Why, by next week it might be hard to recall that screen captures of critical data were even made, much less the circumstances of their making. And in a month..... the whole thing will be long past, won't it, and nobody will care. Just like the spreadsheet data she promised to Stefan and the rest of us two years ago.
In other words.... unless and until those captures are released for review and discussion .... even S.Weir's efforts to get them made were wasted, useless, like fishing for eels with a coarse net.
(I hate to get all Freudian and all, but the words "anal retentive" spring to mind. Ainslie gets attention by holding in, holding back, what she should be producing willingly and in copious amount.)
Here are the four parts all together, along with re-drawn schematics that should make it very plain how the parts relate to the Ainslie circuit. A Part 5 is planned which will add the second transistor to complete the circuit and the illustrations of its behaviour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rgB3WlXtU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rgB3WlXtU)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0DziLllc0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0DziLllc0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vm2ZTDUyyA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vm2ZTDUyyA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jENARrROGs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jENARrROGs)
Well, it has been a week since Ainslie's demonstration. As I write this it is Sunday evening in CPT, so it has been a week and a day for them.
Where are the scope captures that were made under the direction of S.Weir? Why have they not been released by the Ainslie team?
Why is Donovan Martin not making himself available for discussion? He has a lot of responsibility for the entire Ainslie affair and particularly for the events of last Saturday. Why is he leaving Ainslie, a poor old woman without technical training or even the language of electrical engineering, out in the cold all by herself to try to answer questions and criticisms?
There is much more going on with this Ainslie affair than meets the eye. Saturday's demonstration, and the events afterwards, are ample proof of that much at least.
But whatever it is, certainly it is Very Suspicious, and unconscionable, for them not to have released those screen captures immediately while events were still fresh in everyone's minds and could be discussed properly. Fortunately we have the video segment that preserves the making of the captures, thanks to the Ainslie team.
Wait..... we have the video segment, NO thanks to the Ainslie team.
OK, baby, if I have to pry it out with a teaspoon... so be it.
I reviewed the video clip segment where S.Weir guides Donovan Martin through the proper settings to make meaningful scope displays and they make the captures of the significant data sets. Here's the video, my "capture captions" describing the conditions of the captures, and the best images I could get from my computer's screenshot taking an image of the YouTube viewer showing the web stream from Ainslie's cellphone camera image of the LeCroy scope screen. The images are good enough to show the utter and complete refutation of Ainslie's claims wrt Figures 3, 6 and 7. Those figures were not obtained under the conditions claimed in the papers. Probe "cheats" could have fully accounted for the paper's scopeshots, but when the stated conditions and settings and correct probe positions are used, very different traces result.
The timestamps in the lower left of each image refer to the video clip linked below.
S.Weir Capture 1: FG Offset raised to stop Q2 oscillations, Amplitude raised to 8V. Current trace at 4 amps/divison.
S.Weir Capture 2: FG Offset lowered to make Q2 oscillations, Amplitude raised back up to 8.75 V. Current is high, Ainslie can be heard to say that something (load?) is "quite hot" and it's clear they are worried about overheating something. Weir offers cooldown time if needed.
S.Weir Capture 3: As above but Current probe moved to the other side ("ground" side) of the Current Sense Resistor (shunt). Note the "Figure 3" type traces. Even though we know that there is massive current flowing, the trace has dropped to zero just like Figure 3.
S.Weir (TK) Capture 4: As above, current probe moved back to normal location. (S.Weir didn't make a capture here but I did.)
S.Weir Capture 5: As above, but with Gate drive voltage raised to 11.9 V (per Donovan Martin audio). Note high current reading in the top trace.
S.Weir Capture 6: As above, but with Current probe moved to the other side of the Current Sense Resistor (shunt) as in Capture 3. Note the exact correspondence to the Figure 3 traces in Paper 1.
At this point S.Weir asks, "Rosemary do you have any questions about what we've been doing here?" and Ainslie says, "No, it's beginning to make very good sense to me, I've seen what's happening."
S.Weir Capture 7: Current probe on correct side of CSR. FG Amplitude lowered to just below Q1 oscillation point, then offset lowered to re-establish Q2 oscillations, then amplitude raised to just below Q1 oscillation point.
Now S. Weir tells the team that they should 1) Publish the "change" in the schematic, that is, the True location of the FG's Black output lead. 2) Publish the scope captures and the conditions under which they were made. (There should only be six captures forthcoming from the Donovan Martin team, my count is increased by the one that I added to the mix as number 4.)
(It is important to note here that the True location as shown here in this video is the ONLY location that Ainslie has ever actually shown for the Black FG output lead. It is at the common circuit ground in every photograph and every video that exists, even the first single-mosfet apparatus has it here. The schematic in the papers only appeared _after_ the current bypass situation that S.Weir describes in the video clip, was explained to Ainslie back in 2011. As far as I am aware the hookup in the paper's schematic has never actually been used by the Ainslie team. So when Donny at 12:05 actually says a remarkable sentence containing the word "actually" four times.... saying "that's actually been amended somewhat"... is actually an astounding statement, isn't it actually? Since it's not an "amendment" at all, the present state is as it has always been, and it's not "somewhat", it is completely different from what is shown in the schematic and has profound effects on the data. In other words his remarkable statement is another bald-faced lie.)
Now the flailing begins on Rosemary's part, as she and S. Weir are trying to agree on what was observed and how it relates to what she claims in the papers.
At any rate, here are the screen captures that the Ainslie-Martin team should have released seven days ago. Too bad you can't see the actual scope captures and have to put up with a screenshot of a cellphone webcast from a YouTube viewer. Isn't it.
A Quote from S. Weir that should be burned in every researcher's mind with a laser beam:
"Let's not worry about explanations, yet. Let's make sure that we share the same observations."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 06, 2013, 03:59:50 AM
Mark, I read Chris's letter and I quite agree with him, in principle. But it is also very clear that he does not know the history of the Rosemary Ainslie affair.
For the record, Chris Hunter was daily battling publicly with Ainslie and her circuit claims well over 10 years ago long before anyone here ever heard of her. He was the very first to call her to account, is well aware of her of her fraudulent claims and her mental instability. The guy is a legend as far as Ainslie is concerned and she still bears the scars of those battles. You will no longer find him posting on forums. We stay in touch a couple times a year and his private personal story is remarkable. One of the few people in these forums to run with his original ideas and innovations and bring them to market. Technically, he is as astute as both TinselKoala and Poynt99. ..just a remarkable young man who has no time for this kind of stuff.
Quote from: The Boss on July 07, 2013, 08:00:06 PM
For the record, Chris Hunter was daily battling publicly with Ainslie and her circuit claims well over 10 years ago long before anyone here ever heard of her. He was the very first to call her to account, is well aware of her of her fraudulent claims and her mental instability. The guy is a legend as far as Ainslie is concerned and she still bears the scars of those battles. You will no longer find him posting on forums. We stay in touch a couple times a year and his private personal story is remarkable. One of the few people in these forums to run with his original ideas and innovations and bring them to market. Technically, he is as astute as both TinselKoala and Poynt99. ..just a remarkable young man who has no time for this kind of stuff.
Thank you for that correction. It appears then that it is I who do not know the full history even now, even after everyone I know has told me all they know about Ainslie. Haven't they.
That being the case I wonder why Mr. Hunter chooses, at this point in time actually, to criticize those newcomers like me who are currently being critical of Ainslie. And why he wasn't able to put a definitive stop to her BS long ago, saving me, .99, FTC and all the rest of us a lot of trouble.
Can you provide some links to some information about Hunter's public battles with Rosemary Ainslie?
Because sometimes I feel like I am all alone in this struggle, like all my friends have abandoned me, and I would appreciate knowing about things I might have missed. Before, rather than after, I stick my foot in my mouth due to insufficient information.
Us unremarkable old men, who do have time for "this kind of stuff", meaning the pursuit of Truth, deserve a break now and then too, don't you think?
Part 4ab of the continuing series "works mosfet how dat" Negative Bias explanation of the oscillations in Q2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV2ePEbJ76I
Part 4c: Radio NERD: RF power in the Ainslie Q2 circuit, and the common-gate oscillator as RF transmitter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H14qF_CLHp8
wait a minute wait a minute guys.it has come to my attention that the ainslie resister coil is made of nichrome.nichrome is capable of magnetic allignment thus i just want to put for the record that i may have been wrong to dismiss her circuit too quickly.apologies to her
Does this mean you'll finally get off your butt and go over there and help the poor woman out? Good, because it's really clear that she needs all the help she can get, and the two of you deserve the best: each other.
Meanwhile..... I'll just keep on demonstrating what _really_ happens with "her" circuit. Got any questions about what you've seen so far?
Or are you even bothering to watch?
Maybe profitis could explain Ohm's Law to her, for starters.
QuoteYou have NOT yet told us what you're using by way of a shunt resistor. From my perspective it seems that a shunt that can show such major variations to its Ohmage values is somewhat suspect as a reliable measure of anything at all. And I would have thought that the measurements should be possible - optionally at ANY point on that CSR including those 'test points'. If these measurements vary - as they do on your set up - then the shunt is NOT non inductive. Then. You recommended that we retain the use of our own CSR type - but that we replace the 4 that we have with a 0.25 Ohm number. I'm telling you again. We have a wattage dissipated in excess of 50 watts. It would be foolhardy to replace this with such a small resistor unless it also has a high wattage tolerance. We have NOT found such a resistor.
No, Ainslie. You have a MAXIMUM current through your CVR of around 6 amps, even when you are using 6 batteries.
(A total circuit resistance of, say, 13 ohms and a 72 volt supply, if connected by simple wires, will give you a current of I = V / R, or 72/13 = around 5.4 Amps.)
The power dissipated by a resistor is given by Ohm's Law as P = I
2 R. Your maximum current is 6 amps and the suggested shunt resistor is 0.25 Ohms.
DO THE MATH.
Oh.. that's right, you cannot. 6x6x0.25 =
9 Watts. There will be a MAXIMUM of 9 Watts dissipated in your "shunt" during a trial with a 72 volt supply. Typically your maximum current is much less.... as you demonstrated quite well on Saturday the 29th of June.
You have been given the part numbers of noninductive shunts that have plenty of power handling capacity and only cost six dollars and you can order them on the internet and have them in your fenced compound in four business days. You have no, zero, zip, zilch excuse for any of this whining and protestation.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/4ps-Caddock-MP816-0-25R-1-non-inductive-resistor-brand-new-/220855731235?pt=US_Amplifier_Parts_Components&hash=item336c070423 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/4ps-Caddock-MP816-0-25R-1-non-inductive-resistor-brand-new-/220855731235?pt=US_Amplifier_Parts_Components&hash=item336c070423)
Well, TheBoss, it seems that Ainslie is disagreeing with you about Chris Hunter.
She says she's never heard of him. Yet she's happy to claim that he's defending her in his recent letter to Mark Dansie. She also appears to be very nearly outright accusing you of instigating a break-in and bloody theft at her compound.
My, what tangled webs we weave....
Meanwhile, research continues. I've given the common-gate, negative source bias oscillator a proper name, and used it to demonstrate audio modulation of the RF signal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I854Zd65B-k
The "negative mean power" computations of Donovan Martin and Rosemary Ainslie depend on the Q2 oscillations of the Current trace, indicating current flowing or oscillating in the system. Right?
The schematic given in the manuscripts is NOT showing the actual FG Black wire hookup used by the Martin team. Right?
This is seen in every photo and every video of her apparatus including the last demo. The BLACK FG lead is hooked to the common circuit ground; this is admitted in the demo by Donny and Ainslie and is the first thing that S.Weir told them they had to publish a correction about. Right?
Please consider the two diagrams below. The first is the Corrected, actual circuit used in the demonstrations of the Donovan Martin-Rosemary Ainslie team. Right?
The second diagram is a little pop quiz.
Video to accompany the Pop Quiz, and to give everyone some food for thought.
If there actually is anyone out there, that is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w
What I hope I've been able to demonstrate here with this series of videos is of course that ALL the data of Ainslie and Martin involving Q2 oscillations is spurious. The Current Viewing Shunt _is not even properly in the circuit_ during the Q2 oscillations. Far from the "Source leg" of the mosfet floating, it is actually the current sense resistor that is floating during the Q2 oscillations. Except for the gate leakage current due to the low AC impedance of the mosfet at the oscillation freqs, the CVR is not indicating the loop current at all. Most of the CVR indication will be coming from the Gate capacitive leakage and the RF pickup.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 09, 2013, 07:18:35 AM
Well, TheBoss, it seems that Ainslie is disagreeing with you about Chris Hunter.
She says she's never heard of him. Yet she's happy to claim that he's defending her in his recent letter to Mark Dansie. She also appears to be very nearly outright accusing you of instigating a break-in and bloody theft at her compound.
My, what tangled webs we weave....
What she conveniently forgets is that 10 years ago none of us, including her, were posting using their real names.
What I have consistently maintained is that this woman is highly disturbed and psychologically diseased.
The thousands of people over the years that have taken the time to read one or two of her posts agree.
Take another look at that post. Can anyone say that those are the words of a sane person?
You are dealing with an old woman with a horribly pathologically-infested mind. Nothing more.
..your instruments can't measure that particular anomaly.
I don't disagree with you, obviously.... but come on, without checkable references your story about Chris Hunter is on the same footing as her claims about BP, SESOL or whoever and their testing reports and the "bursary award which was declined"... in other words, if it can't be verified by checkable outside references or documented in some manner, it really can't be admitted into evidence.
If you don't want to post a link, can you at least tell me the names she and Hunter _were_ using at the time ?
You are right about checkable references, but I'm really going by memory here. That was 10 years, or more, ago. He went by the name of AlaskaStar, and as I recall she may have been calling herself Aethervarising or something close to that at the time. She used several names. The forum was called either OUPower or Energetic Forum or Free Energy. I honestly don't remember. Some of those forums from 10 years ago no longer exist, but I'm sure the footprints are still around on the net. That was around the time that I first became aware of her and she used to post on several forums. In addition to her circuit she used spout bizarre theories about the universe well before her discovery of zipons for which she should have been awarded the Nobel Prize. I have no intention of digging up those references, so anyone reading this is free to dismiss what I say as hearsay. ..I just cant be bothered looking for, or rehashing, her Groundhog Day posts from years ago TK, but maybe an oldtimer from those days reading this will chime in.
I can't find anything under those aliases either (aetherevarising is how she spelled it). I did find the OUPower forum and some controversy over his claims about his electrolyzer. So it's still a foul ball, sorry. I wish I could include the Hunter story in the database but without checkable references I can't.
Meanwhile, it's clear she is reading here, but it also appears clear that she isn't doing her homework, as usual. The current paths are fully explained in my last set of videos, and the fact that the Current Viewing Shunt data is completely spurious is demonstrated unequivocally in the last one of the set.
Last one, for the moment, that is.
P-Channel mosfet? Polly Parrot, parroting big words she cannot understand, once again.
Examining the Gate Threshold Voltage of the IRFPG50 n-channel mosfet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pnnNR85XcQ
Unfortunately, I can't tell you how an IRFPG50 P-Channel mosfet behaves... because there is no such thing.
Ok. Let me review. I've been presenting a series of videos that "dissect" the Q2 mosfet from the complete Ainslie-Martin circuit to examine its behaviour and to try to find the "source" of Ainslie's confusion about the oscillations and the current paths in the system.
Part 1 shows that the oscillations are produced by a power (current) source that is more negative than the "zero" ground reference for the Mosfet's Source or circuit Negative Supply Rail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rgB3WlXtU
Part 2 removes the bias battery and shows how the Function Generator fits into the circuit in the same place and performs the same role, only with a polarity reversal with every cycle of the FG's output.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0DziLllc0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i0DziLllc0)
Part 3 puts in the IRFPG50 mosfet on some long wires and ups the supply to 24 volts from batteries. The rate of pulsation from the FG is increased up to around 1600 or 1700 Hz. The oscillations show up at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vm2ZTDUyyA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vm2ZTDUyyA)
Part 4 removes the non-linear light bulb load and puts in a 10 ohm wirewound resistor stack for the load. A 1-ohm Current Viewing Resistor (aka "shunt" or Current Sense Resistor) is also incorporated in the location specified. I've also redrawn the schematic to show its exact correspondence with the Paper 1 schematic.... except I show the correct (wrong) location of the FG Black lead on my version, which the Paper 1 version does not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jENARrROGs
Parts 4a&b are combined together and demonstrate the negative drive from the Function Generator, including a frequency determination of the oscillation frequency.
Then I remove the FG and use a 12 volt battery, a resistor and a light bulb to provide a constant negative bias current in place of the FG. The oscillations are shown and their frequency is measured to be the same as when the FG was used.
Further, the little light bulb is shown to be lit dimly, proving that there is current passing, overall, through the FG, which is acting both as a series power supply (when its Red lead goes negative) and a 50 R impedance to the flow of current through the batt pos rail-load-drain-source-FG-batt neg rail loop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV2ePEbJ76I
Part 4c is the RF power demonstration, and uses the same schematic as Part 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H14qF_CLHp8
Part 4d is the alt.snakeoil Video Report showing audio modulation of the RF: a complete AM radio broadcast station!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I854Zd65B-k
And then of course there is the "punchline" of the Q2 Current Measuring During Oscillations joke: What is the Donovan Martin-Rosemary Ainslie team actually measuring when they measure oscillations on the CVR shunt resistor by their methodology?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C72jwywsz3w
SO there you have it, sports fans, once again. The Q2 current path, the oscillations, the negative bias supply and the spurious nature of the current values derived from the oscillations on the shunt are fully explained, as is the mendacity of putting the Black FG lead where they do, allowing the current path through the FG to bypass the CVR and not show up in its readings at all.
Ainslie has no excuse whatsoever for her continuing fantasy that there is no return path for the current during Q2 oscillations, she has no excuse whatsoever for failing to understand that fluctuations around 4 volts on a mosfet gate will cause substantial conduction, and she has no excuse for badgering .99 with ridiculous strawman arguments about gates passing this or that or whatever.
But of course she will persist anyway.
Well done TK
So some R&R
Mark
You mean, "So shut up already!" of course. ;)
But I haven't put the circuit back together with the other transistor yet, to show how that behaves!
:P
Meanwhile, I see that today, over ten days after the demonstration, .99 is asking for the Donovan Martin team's screenshots to be released, and that Ainslie persists in her delusions about how the circuit functions. It really is too bad that she is too arrogant to watch my simple explanations and discuss them like a rational adult scientist might.
@TK
did you expect anything else. I will follow up on the screen shots.
OK have a question
We have another self looped battery generator her in the Philippines. I would like your 10 cents worth on how you think I should test it.
I need not state my public opinion on thisi t is well noted
Kind Regards
Mark
@ Mark: Sneak past the claimant's home and see if they are still hooked up to the utility grid.
Just kidding. Sort of.
Of course without knowing the specifics of the device, which you probably can't tell me, I can't suggest a test protocol for it.
if ainslie wants to prove to herself overunity or to the public then open lead-acid bats are the way to go.spot chemical analysis of the electrolyte will reveal all.ima email her this info.
Quote from: profitis on July 11, 2013, 09:59:57 AM
if ainslie wants to prove to herself overunity or to the public then open lead-acid bats are the way to go.spot chemical analysis of the electrolyte will reveal all.ima email her this info.
It would really be nice if people would keep up with events, and if Ainslie would report the data publicly instead of needing it pried out with a teaspoon.
Last year, Ainslie sent her entire apparatus off to an independent laboratory in the USA for testing and evaluation. This lab was supposed to be a battery chemistry or other chemistry laboratory, and they supposedly did do state-of-charge and electrolytic chemistry evaluations of the batteries they used, and they found a null result. The Ainslie circuit -- HER ACTUAL APPARATUS, not some homebrewed replication like Tar Baby -- did not keep the batteries charged, it did not charge them up or recharge them. You will note that she no longer makes that claim, even though it is clearly claimed in the papers and the blog and forum posts prior to the return of her apparatus from this unnamed laboratory. The most she claims now is that they exceed their rated capacity while heating her load... and this is something she has never even pretended to test properly. (But I have).
She actually used this sending off of her stuff as a further excuse for not performing the testing that she had promised to do at that time. The laboratory also explained to her just where she was going wrong, and they even sent her some "special resistors" according to her to repeat her own testing. She has never said what these resistors are or given their part numbers in spite of being asked several times. The strange thing is that she would say anything at all about these null tests... but she did, and now you know what I know about them too.
thats intresting tk.at least now i have put forward a full-proof method for self-charging claimants and even improved efficiency claimants to test their own stuff before throwing it on us.the chemical method i proposed for markdansie on the electric-car thread is so sensitive that one can determine exactly how much lead was burned in a lead-acid system by weighing precipitates before and after runs.
You've put forth a method. Is it fool-proof?
I laugh at you. You are talking about people -- the claimants -- who don't even know how to use an oscilloscope properly, to measure an easily obtained "sample" of electrical power from an apparatus on a bench. And you expect these same people to be able to do a volumetric, quantitative analysis of a wet precipitate from a highly acidic solution. Repeatably, accurately, and with the ability to discriminate between two cases that might differ in the parts-per-million range.
I could probably do this, but only because I actually do own a Mettler H-10 and my first college training was in organic chemistry. This is also why I understand just how difficult it would actually be to do.
OK. I will be looking forward to your demonstration of such a determination.
In fact, ever since you have been posting and suggesting things, I have been looking forward to your demonstration of _anything actual_, actually.
Now, do you want to discuss Ainslie's misconceptions about the way her circuit works, or the video demonstration, or my explanations and analyses?
@tk,,those who take their shit seriously will 1)learn to do it correctly and 2)do it correctly.its for those types. ive already demonstrated overunity and still,to this day,nobody has proven otherwise.one would think this entitles me to display a certain degree of authority on the subject,on any thread,at any time.
Quote from: profitis on July 11, 2013, 05:21:27 PM
ive already demonstrated overunity and still,to this day,nobody has proven otherwise.one would think this entitles me to display a certain degree of authority on the subject,on any thread,at any time.
RFLOL.
Profits:
I think it's fairer to say that you believe that you have demonstrated over unity. Do you have any hard core proof? If it's another alleged 2LOT violation, then you are going to have a tough time convincing me and others. It seems every corner you turn you come across a 2LOT violation.
There was a guy named Paul Lowrence who may still have a blog, I'm not sure. Just about every time he built a little spinny pulse motor he convinced himself that he had over unity. Just like some people believe coils or switching circuits produce over unity, it's old hat.
MileHigh
aw for chrissakes @milehigh,is it sooo hard for you to shove a piece of platinum and a piece of gold into sulfuric acid and measure anywhere anytime?cmon.im going to put a video of me walking in the street in my underwear on this website if you or anyone can prove that karpens bat isnt overunity.its that simple.
Well, it's nice to see that the thread is active, anyway, even if you don't want to discuss any of the actual topics of the thread but would rather bury them instead.
I expect Sea Monkey
to chime in with
his strings of four-word
lines at any moment.
And what about those badges...er.... waveform captures?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
TK and gang:
QuoteIn Fig 3 Paper 1 we show that we can we have a zero discharge of current from the battery during the ON period of each switching cycle. Where we 'errored' is in the DISPLAYED voltage across the GATE of Q1 in that same paper. What we SHOW is that there is an applied 12 volts to that GATE. This DISPLAY is INCORRECT. The error is due to having the probe reference of CHANNEL 3 - at the WRONG POINT. It does not SHARE the common probe reference points. THEREFORE is the voltage reading across that GATE of Q1 INCORRECT. It SHOULD read PLUS 4 volts. At PLUS 4 volts the CLAIM PERSISTS.
This looks to me like a doozie from Dooziedont. As you know I am not following the schematic-level discussion but it looks like Rosie is trying to claim that the ground reference for one of the probes was at minus eight volts relative to the ground for the battery stack??? Plus I think that even Rosie is aware that if you have multiple ground reference clips connected to the circuit, that they all have to be on the same node or very close to the same node and therefore at the same potential or very close to the same potential before you clip them into the circuit. All four channels of the DSO share a common ground.
More craziness and that's why I gave up. She is carrying on a fight I suppose to defend her paper. Instead of acknowledging the mistake and moving on, it's time for another irrational fight. The same fight has been going on for something like a year. There are indeed some psychological issues at play.
MileHigh
dear readers.notice how milehigh and pw always run away when the going gets tough..
I was involved in this silliness for a good two years. Rosie may still have one of my postings printed out and framed and hanging on her wall. I even came back for another round. Contemplate that for a full 26 minutes to try to resolve that in your mind.
yes im sure.it takes less than 26 minutes to contemplate how you have no problem attacking the weak..
Weak?
QuoteAnd the significance of this? YOU NEED TO REPLICATE THAT. Else you have NOT replicated our experimental evidence.
She is not asking for people to do independent replications and measurements on her circuit, she is forcing people to get the same 'results' that she gets.
That's a 'strong' woman if I ever saw one. :-*
Quote
In Fig 3 Paper 1 we show that we can we have a zero discharge of current from the battery during the ON period of each switching cycle.
Yes, that is right.... when there is no functioning mosfet in the Q1 position or when the positive Gate drive voltage is under 3 volts. Big deal. The Martin-Ainslie claim is that you can produce high heat in this situation, but you cannot. The claim is also that the Figure 3 scopeshot represents this situation. But it does not, and you cannot reproduce it.
Not only that, but also your measurements "showing" your "zero discharge of current" are erroneous and misrepresented by you.
Quote
Where we 'errored' is in the DISPLAYED voltage across the GATE of Q1 in that same paper. What we SHOW is that there is an applied 12 volts to that GATE. This DISPLAY is INCORRECT. The error is due to having the probe reference of CHANNEL 3 - at the WRONG POINT.
That is COMPLETELY FALSE. The "incorrect" display in Figure 3 does NOT RESULT FROM AN IMPROPER POSITIONING OF THE PROBE
REFERENCE. It is a result either of placing the PROBE TIP ITSELF on the "wrong" side of the CVR, or a blown or missing or miswired mosfet. The probe REFERENCE in that shot is not and has never been in question. You CANNOT reproduce Fig. 3 by moving the probe REFERENCE.
Quote
It does not SHARE the common probe reference points. THEREFORE is the voltage reading across that GATE of Q1 INCORRECT. It SHOULD read PLUS 4 volts. At PLUS 4 volts the CLAIM PERSISTS.
Wrongo again. Here she is claiming that she can set the Gate to +4 volts, then move the Probe REFERENCE to some other location and thus reproduce the Figure 3 shot that shows +12 volts at the Gate.
And I say she cannot.
In addition, as my video above amply shows, at +4 volts to its Gate the IRFPG50 INDEED CONDUCTS, as it is biased into its linear conduction region of operation. When there are oscillations in Q2 during the Gate LO period and +4 volts to the gate of Q1 during the Gate HI period, there is indeed "discharge of current from the battery" and this is easily measured and indeed is already amply shown in Ainslie's own data.
Once again she misrepresents the true state of affairs and what someone else has told her, and then proceeds to attack her own misrepresentations, while displaying her abysmal ignorance of her own chosen topic and the circuit with which she claims to have been working all this time.
And she still cannot support any of her claims with demonstrations, as we have seen. I can hardly wait for the next comedy of errors from Donovan Martin and Rosemary Ainslie.
TK:
I am getting the feeling that the "team of EXPERTS" is just Donovan and Rosemary and has always been just Donovan and Rosemary. From the glimpses I had of Donovan in action, sleep deprived or not, I didn't get the impression that he "had it" in terms of bench experience, expertise in operating the DSO, and technical acumen.
So you can predict a future demo that will be rehearsed, but still very uncertain without the feeling that they are in control or acting as two people on the same page.
It's like the serialized Saturday morning never-ending series of cliffhangers! lol Note that was part of the inspiration for The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
MileHigh
@Profitis,
you have never supported you hypotheses fro overunity. Where is you published report or paper, peer review and supporting data. More importantly where is a practical application.
Mile High and many others have earned their stripes. Your the one who could have got involved with the latest tests from Rosemary but his sulking because she hurt her your feelings in a forum some time back.
Most I have ever seen from you is speculation, no testing, no scope shots, no yourtube, no peer reviewed paper just speculation.
There is nothing wrong with that and I really encourage the thought processes you undertake. But do not make claims you have proven overunity. To date no one has.
If you liek I will put you in touch with the GBEM people you can be their headline act demonstrating overunity at their next international conference. And I do mean demonstrating not just gas bagging.
So good sir, time to put up or you to will become the next Mylow
Mark
Donovan Martin's name pops up on Jean-Louis Naudin's site back in 2001:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mdvlift3.htm
QuoteWe're talking about the position of the signal generator's terminal reference - whatever it's called. Weir showed us that this was positioned INCORRECTLY. It's correct position is when it shares the same COMMON REFERENCE WITH THE SCOPE PROBES.
EVEN THIS IS NOT TRUE.
Putting the BLACK function generator output lead at the common reference with the scope probes IS JUST EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID DO AT THE DEMO, what they have always done, and is WRONG in the sense that it allows the current through the FG itself to bypass the current viewing resistor. The position of the FG lead as shown in the PAPER is WRONG, in that it does not represent the actual hookup Ainslie used to generate the data. However the position in the paper is RIGHT in terms of taking account of all the current flowing in the system. One needs to use a ground-isolated FG... which I possess... in order to do this properly, as well as being aware of the groundloops caused by connecting BNC cable shields (probe references) together with other functional elements of the circuitry.
This woman needs to be taken by the hand, sat down and made to watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY)
where she is told in no uncertain terms by S.Weir himself that the schematic in the paper does not reflect her actual hookup, that the actual hookup bypasses the CVR, and that she needs to publish the CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTUAL HOOKUP USED, not some lie like is in the papers.
For the sake of reference, here are the schematics in question. The first is the schematic claimed in the paper, which does NOT bypass the "shunt", and the second is the ACTUAL schematic as used by Ainslie and Martin in both the March 2011 demo and the June 2013 demo, and in every photograph of the device ever published including the single mosfet version and the version on PESN now.
The second schematic is what Weir wants them to publish, as it is the actual schematic used and illustrates the bypass. The first schematic, claiming no bypass and a ground-isolated FG, only appeared AFTER the bypass problem was discovered and discussed, back in 2011.
This situation is described by S.Weir and discussed with Donny and Rosie from about 11:30 on in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY
This whole Ainslie thing is utterly confusing. It would be nice to have a succinct summary of claims vs. criticism in a form that is digestible by an average human brain. These endless repetitive arguments simply aren't sufficient to resolve the matter.
Start a blog somewhere and post a structured analysis of the claims vs. the actual experimentally derived facts. This only needs to be done one time. And after that's done, the thing only needs to be updated.
There are many free hosting services like tumblr, filckr, vimeo etc. that would be helpful to create a curated documentation of the Ainslie claims vs. actual measurements.
But please understand that this endless recursive argument can only end in the grave or insanity.
Thank you.
@markdansie..you cannot disprove the karpen device overunity.you cannot and you will not its as simple as that.you will try test A and fail.you will try test B and fail.you will try tests C,D and E ,and fail.you will even try chemical and mass spectroscopy and fail.you will desperately try to kill the voltage,the current but alas,you will fail.you will even try to at least reduce the voltage,current,yet fail. It is the most robust,stubborn,resilient and menacing 2lot antagonist i have ever seen.GBEM? now theres something interesting.i smell money,aaaah
Quote from: profitis on July 11, 2013, 10:51:27 PM
@markdansie..you cannot disprove the karpen device overunity.you cannot and you will not its as simple as that.you will try test A and fail.you will try test B and fail.you will try tests C,D and E ,and fail.you will even try chemical and mass spectroscopy and fail.you will desperately try to kill the voltage,the current but alas,you will fail.you will even try to at least reduce the voltage,current,yet fail. It is the most robust,stubborn,resilient and menacing 2lot antagonist i have ever seen.GBEM? now theres something interesting.i smell money,aaaah
YOU ARE OFF THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.
I HAVE ASKED YOU OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO
START YOUR OWN THREAD IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR DEVICES FOR WHICH YOU PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE.
Yet you won't. What does that indicate?
Quote from: orbut 3000 on July 11, 2013, 10:12:45 PM
This whole Ainslie thing is utterly confusing. It would be nice to have a succinct summary of claims vs. criticism in a form that is digestible by an average human brain. These endless repetitive arguments simply aren't sufficient to resolve the matter.
They certainly are sufficient. Read Ainslie's papers for yourself and note the claims. Then look at my videos above. Tell me, AFTER you have done that, whether or not the claims in the papers are refuted by my demonstrations and analysis. It will take you four hours, if you are really interested.
Quote
Start a blog somewhere and post a structured analysis of the claims vs. the actual experimentally derived facts. This only needs to be done one time. And after that's done, the thing only needs to be updated.
There are many free hosting services like tumblr, filckr, vimeo etc. that would be helpful to create a curated documentation of the Ainslie claims vs. actual measurements.
But please understand that this endless recursive argument can only end in the grave or insanity.
Thank you.
What you are suggesting has been done, and Ainslie ignores it. This thread here, for instance, was only begun AFTER Ainslie herself resurrected the issue by posting a promise of a demonstration, on PESN, that was to occur on June 1. But Ainslie has not watched a single one of my videos explaining her circuit. Then she attracted Mark Dansie's attention and started up with her claims on his forum. She is like a zombie that won't stay put down. But with this last display of hers, there is finally enough irrefutable information in the form of her own words, the words of Donovan Martin, and the scopeshots they made, to be able to discount and disprove her very simply whenever she might raise her head up again. Even as her claims change from day to day, as they are wont to do. I haven't heard her claim COP>INFINITY for a while now, but she certainly was claiming that for a while.
It should be clear by now that even S.Weir, after a total exposure of a couple of hours, understands that circuit and the measurements better than the Donovan Martin-Rosemary Ainslie team does after thirteen years of working with it.
Meanwhile I will continue to add new information, like my analyses above, that refute her silly claims one by one and as she makes them. If you don't like to watch... then don't.
Just put me on your ignore list, I don't mind at all.
Quote from: alaoKlesniT
Just put me on your ignore list, I don't mind at all.
Splendid! :-* Top Drawer! :-*
Recursive=Endless Loop :o
Reset=Finis 8)
Power Off=The End :)
lol@seamonkey.tinselkoala is loopdeloop
Trolls. Stalkers. Unable to contribute substantively to the discussion, they post irrelevancies, insults and distractions, designed to get an emotional response, and they follow particular posters from thread to thread.
Further, they often make claims that they cannot themselves support with demonstrations or data of their own. They are, in short, useless wastes of bandwidth.
I refer specifically to SeaMonkey and profitis, in case there was any doubt.
Most interesting commentary. One can
only wonder how you were able to so
correctly self-diagnose! ;)
Look, the circuit that you've written volumes
about is a dead end. It is a novel example
of how things can go wrong when wires are
mis-connected. :o
Could the circuit be resuscitated with simple
modification to perform with efficiency?
Aye, it could. And you've amply demonstrated
that you have the ability to apply innovative
solutions when sufficiently motivated. 8)
But then, this discussion is not really about the
circuit and how it could be made to work. ??? This
discussion is much more akin to a long distance
love affair gone obsessively awry :P - a vendetta
with a passion. :( This pursuit is also a dead end.
Time to switch the power off on this channel
and look for something with true substance. ::)
Have no fear - in time the hurt will go away. :-*
lol @seamonkey..its hard to let go they say..
@tk hey listen youve been quite valuable when it comes to debates,at least you have more balls than milehigh and pw so im gna try not get on your tits and freak your threads out k.as markdansie said youve earned your stripes,peaceout.
Meanwhile.... Ainslie remains clueless and continues to demonstrate that fact with every post she makes.
She demands that .99 do something she CANNOT do: make a "figure 3 scopeshot with 4 volts on the gate". Figure 3 shows TWELVE VOLTS on the gate and that is the matter of contention, and that is what she demonstrated that she cannot do.
She, nor anyone else, CANNOT set the FG drive to +4 volts, then produce the Figure 3 scopeshot showing +12 volts by moving a probe REFERENCE as she has claimed.
Further, a signal of +4 volts applied to the gate of Q1 WILL MOST CERTAINLY cause the transistor to conduct in its linear response region, as I have amply shown above and as Ainslie's own work shows.
She is asking .99 to "replicate" her fantasies. She cannot do it herself, as she demonstrated on the 29th of June. So why is she continuing to make these false arguments about moving probes, FG terminals and etc? It is because she is clueless, but more than that: she is willfully ignorant, because these topics have been explained so thoroughly here in this thread that there is not a single supporter of hers left able to argue in her favor. Not even Donovan Martin himself.
lets see if 99 can do it.this should be intresting...
With +4V gate drive, there is significant current flow, even at just 36V battery supply. I will do a video, but Fig.3 can not be done, even at 4V gate drive (i.e. there will still be current showing on the CSR).
And yet in her mind she thinks she has done it, as she keeps telling us. The events of Saturday two weeks ago have changed, altered in her mind to fit her "thesis" and her claims.
Fortunately there exists a record, and one that is not under her control the way the Weir-directed scope captures are.
TK,
Here is a diagram that illustrates the problem when wanting to connect the FG ref to the correct point in the circuit as shown.
If the FG ref is connected to the battery common gnd point as Rose and I both have it at present (and you too I believe), then during the OFF phase when oscillation is occurring, the current through the FG will not register on the CSR because the FG ref bypasses the CSR. During this OFF phase, the FG is in series with the battery. Because Q2 is both ON and oscillating during this phase, the FG is contributing energy to the circuit, but we can not measure that energy contribution because the current through the FG bypasses the CSR.
I know you know this, just illustrating it for the record.
Poynt:
You are great, excellent point. However, your "composite" drawing and your description is _very_ confusing. For example, you state "CSR is essentially "shorted out" through common earth if FG ref placed correctly as shown." i.e.; "shorted out" (bad) vs. "correctly" (good.)
May I suggest a redo? I hate to task you with anything but Rosemary may have a near-meltdown trying to understand your valid point.
Another thing. Let's assume that you use an isolation transformer for the function generator and the reference terminal for the function generator output will be on the "high" side of the CSR as per your drawing. The scope reference connections remain at the "low" side of the CSR (i.e.; same node as the true battery post ground.) That will allow you to see all of the oscillation current through the CSR when you are in the OFF phase of the function generator output. But how do you measure the "battery voltage" now that the "battery" is the real battery in series with the FG OFF output? And of course the load resistor and Q2 D-S and the 50-ohm resistor are in between these two separate voltage sources.
Is the FG's own AC loop through the Q2 G-S also something that you also want to account for?
MileHigh
Some FGs... like my Interstate F43... have "ground isolation" switches. Mine was on the back panel but I found it so useful that I "hacked" the unit and installed a front-panel switch for its ground isolation.
The BNC FG output cable has its Black clip connected to the BNC connector outside shell and the cable's shield conductor, and the Red clip connected to the inner wire of the cable and the "tip" or inner connector of the BNC connector. The FG's chassis (grounded back through the mains cord) is connected to these "grounds" or "negative" as well, unless the "isolated" setting is selected on the switch.
When the FG is "isolated" by this method it is still possible to "screw up" and wind up with the Black FG lead truly grounded, by connecting a scope probe ground reference or some other instrument reference that is grounded back through its own power cord.
But one can still compare the difference in the current viewing shunt's indications, by not monitoring the FG's output directly during the test. Isolate the FG by the switch, hook the "Black" lead to the correct, non-bypass position as given in the Paper 1 schematic but not used by Ainslie,ever, but don't try to monitor the FG's output on any scope, so its Black lead remains isolated and you don't short the CVR with the groundloop.
Then you can read the CVR correctly, and then you can (or I can, at least) also "un isolate" the FG and see what the effect of the groundloop does to the reading in the CVR.
I have also shown, by the way, that the signal in the CVR is completely spurious anyhow, during the oscillations. You will get essentially the same signal in the CVR during oscillations even if the probe isn't actually connected to the circuit at all but rather is monitoring a simple 220R resistor that is only placed near the circuit, not even connected to it. See my video on the topic. And of course you can replicate Figure 3 at will in this manner.
Note well that Ainslie garbles and misrepresents the case here:
QuoteWhat Weir showed ME is that if we apply the terminal of the function probe AWAY from a COMMON point on the circuit - is that our numbers then change. Now. Here's a bit of history related to all these tests. ALL our previous tests were done with the scope and function generator probes TAKEN FROM A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE BATTERY NEGATIVE AND THE SHUNT... like this...
Bat + > BAT - > Signal generator's terminal & scope 1,2 & 3 probe references ALL ON A SINGLE POINT - in fact on a single BOLT - in series. THIS was the correct system. It was EXCLUSIVELY applied by our academics and it was EXCLUSIVELY applied by our team. Under THESE circumstances we ALWAYS measured a NEGATIVE wattage.
This was not the CORRECT system at all, because it allows the bypass. Ainslie maintained for years that the FG could not act either as a power source, nor as a 50R impedance, passing current, and so its contribution has ALWAYS been neglected by the Ainslie-Martin team. The early schematics DO NOT EVEN SHOW the position of the Black FG output lead, and it is always described as "negative" whenever it is shown, which is clearly an incorrect way to refer to an AC output terminal. The Ainslie-Martin team always used this "wrong" hookup of the Black lead, in every photo and every video extant. The Paper 1 schematic is a lie because the data in the paper was taken just as usual: with the Black lead on the common negative rail.
Quote
THEN. SADLY - I took that circuit to open source. And you and MULTIPLE members of your team of DISCLAIMERS stated - CATEGORICALLY - that we now had the SIGNAL from the FUNCTION GENERATOR - SKEWING THE RESULTS, PRECISELY because it was adding energy to the circuit and this was not being properly measured by the CSR.
That part is right, and that is exactly what S.Weir told Ainslie and Martin on Saturday 29th of June, and anyone can hear him telling them this very clearly in the video record.
Quote
This because that shunt was no longer in series with the battery negative terminal. SO. I changed it that the function generator's terminal was placed BEFORE that 'common' reference point. It ALONE was moved. The scope probe reference points STAYED WHERE THEY WERE. So NOW we had this...
Bat + > BAT - > scope 1,2 & 3 probe references ALL ON A SINGLE POINT - in fact on a single BOLT - in series > CSR > function generator's terminal. The function generator's probe was placed directly on the Gate of Q1.
The only place Ainslie ever did this was in the Paper's schematics. They never actually did this at all, at no time whatsoever. When Weir started conversing with Ainslie and Martin , he was looking at their PUBLISHED SCHEMATIC, and told them that was wrong, because it did not reflect what they actually were actually showing on their board, as DONOVAN MARTIN HIMSELF tells us in the demonstration, actually. It is wrong in the sense that it doesn't reflect what Ainslie and Martin actually used. It is NOT wrong in the sense of current sensing: the schematic in the papers, which they never actually used, is Right for current sensing, if one can isolate one's FG and make the measurement correctly. Weir wanted them to publish right away the "correct" schematic: correct in that it corresponded to what they actually used. But what they actually used is NOT correct because of the CVR not giving an accurate picture of the current flowing in the system.
QuoteTHIS, according to Weir and to all our team was and is WRONG. BUT NOR DOES THIS CHANGE THE MEASURED EVIDENCE. WE STILL MEASURE A NEGATIVE WATTAGE. The DIFFERENCE is this. FIGURE 3 PAPER 1 shows 12 volts applied at the Gate of Q1 when, IN FACT, there is only 4 volts applied at the Gate of Q1.
Hah. Prove it, Ainslie. You cannot. There is no possible change in position of the FG's Black lead that will cause an applied +4 volts to the gate of Q1 to indicate +12 volts on the scope as it does in your Figure 3, and for you to claim otherwise is an ignorant and feeble lie.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 13, 2013, 02:23:12 PM
However, your "composite" drawing and your description is _very_ confusing. For example, you state "CSR is essentially "shorted out" through common earth if FG ref placed correctly as shown." i.e.; "shorted out" (bad) vs. "correctly" (good.)
I'm not sure what you mean MH. The diagram depicts how the FG
should be connected in order to capture all the currents through the CSR. It also illustrates the challenge in trying to connect the FG correctly. If we did so without regard to the common earth in both the FG and scope, the CSR will be part of a big ground loop and the measurements will be erroneous. Rosemary, myself, and TK are not connecting the FG the correct way though thus far. But at least in my own and TK's case, that is on purpose to be "on par" with Rose.
Quote
Another thing. Let's assume that you use an isolation transformer for the function generator and the reference terminal for the function generator output will be on the "high" side of the CSR as per your drawing. The scope reference connections remain at the "low" side of the CSR (i.e.; same node as the true battery post ground.) That will allow you to see all of the oscillation current through the CSR when you are in the OFF phase of the function generator output. But how do you measure the "battery voltage" now that the "battery" is the real battery in series with the FG OFF output? And of course the load resistor and Q2 D-S and the 50-ohm resistor are in between the two separate voltage sources.
I think the best way to deal with this is to perform two separate measurements; one Pbat and one Pfg.
Quote
Is the FG's own AC loop through the Q2 G-S also something that you also want to account for?
I'm not sure I know what you mean, but I think I'm going to say "no".
Poynt:
Just a bit more brainstorming to get the old juices flowing. Is there a valid "Plan B" with no isolation transformer required?
Why not just use the "high" side of the CSR and tile all references to that point? Then you don't have to worry about isolating the function generator anymore.
The waveform across your CSR is then "inverted" but big deal, your DSO might be able to handle that minor detail? I realize that your main battery voltage will get a tiny "boost" from the CSR itself but it's something that is relatively minor (or you could compensate in a spreadsheet because you know the CSR voltage). Also, would this not then allow you to measure the (negative function generator voltage - (50 ohm voltage drop)) voltage contribution?
It almost sounds to me that some captures and then exporting the CSV values to a spreadsheet would be necessary. With the CSR voltage data (no extra wire lengths!!) and your battery voltage data, and your function generator voltage data (included the embedded 50 ohm resistor voltage drop), you would actually be able to "reconstruct" the actual drive voltage for the circuit during the oscillation phase. Plus you have the valid CSR current without any corrupting parasitic inductance.
I realize that after all that work you should "compute" a steady negative offset voltage from the function generator. This would be "satisfying" because you get what you expected, confirming your results. So I suppose this is all optional because you already know ahead of time that the FG contribution is a DC offset voltage.
I know you have a complete mastery of what's going on and my comments may have a mistake or two. My feeling is if you went with "Plan B" with common point on the high side of the CSR, then you will have enough data from your DSO to calculate the power contributions from the two voltage sources and the power dissipation in every component in the circuit.
Certainly the oddball function generator positioning complicates things.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on July 13, 2013, 03:21:48 PM
Why not just use the "high" side of the CSR and tile all references to that point? Then you don't have to worry about isolating the function generator anymore.
Yes, that is another approach that would work. However I doubt Rose would agree.
Poynt:
Clarification on this:
QuoteIs the FG's own AC loop through the Q2 G-S also something that you also want to account for?
I'm not sure I know what you mean, but I think I'm going to say "no".
What I mean is that when you are in the FG OFF oscillation phase, is there any AC current to account for going through the Q2
gate-source capacitance? (bold for correction) The FG output is across these two points and due to the oscillations, is there any significant AC current flow here?
Sorry I can't remember all of the waveforms and details and I am just curious about that. It may be minor or the question is inappropriate and you can ignore it.
MileHigh
MH,
OK, I know what you mean now, and my answer is "no".
The only thing contributing power during the "OFF" phase of the cycle is the net mean (i.e. DC) current through the FG. The oscillations themselves carry no ability to cause dissipation in the load, or at least very very little.
Poynt:
QuoteAnd DO NOT tell us that we've erred in our ANALYSIS. No Poynty. We are referring to MEASUREMENTS. We are specifically NOT referring to analsysis. And IF those temperature measurements are WRONG then ALL our temperature measurements are wrong. Which means that our measuring instruments are wrong. And they ALL CONFORM TO EACH OTHER. SO. THERE MOST CERTAINLY IS UPWARDS OF 7 WATTS DISSIPATED OVER THAT RESISTOR ELEMENT DURING THE PERIOD WHERE NO ENERGY IS MEASURED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED BY THE BATTERY SUPPLY DURING THE ON PHASE OF EACH DUTY CYCLE.
Sigh.....
I was going to post this yesterday but my connection went down:
The ironic thing is that just a few weeks ago leading up to the presentation Rosemary was making long postings including a disclaimer about the possibility that her results were from measurement error. She acknowledged that if this were to be the case she would withdraw her claims. Now she has changed her tune, demanding that her results be "reproduced" and demanding where the probe positions go. It's completely and totally ridiculous like usual.
If I was in Poynt's shoes, any more ongoing badgering from Rosemary would result in a temporary stop in the discussions. He could then do his testing in peace which he has carefully planed out. When all of the testing is done and the video clips made, release them all in one shot. Then see what happens.
Then my recommendation for Poynt, TK, and others, is to walk away. The test results along with TK's test results and other stuff could be archived online for any one that's interested. TK has those zip files with the posting trail. You could probably park it all on a freebie online storage site, or two. Hey, I think that there is a big server farm in Sweden that is built right into an old underground Cold War nuclear bunker. That is a "wrath proof" storage site.
What would be fun is if another Steorn came around and we could get into a new juicy debate.
MileHigh
MH,
I was considering doing what you mentioned, and I still may. Rose is doing everything she can to derail my testing by criticizing my every move. How can one proceed with all that hand waving going on?
No. Please do not consider just "walking away" at this point. Now is the time to _press hard_ with absolute refutations of her claims and continuing misunderstandings and misrepresentations. The present argument from her about the positioning of the FG output leads is a case in point.
Here are the relevant schematics and photos. Show her the photographs and get her to agree that the RED clip is connected to the Gate of Q1 and the Sources of Q2. Don't let her get away with any more scrambling! When she scrambles something, immediately refute her with the real facts and make her agree to them! She cannot deny photographic evidence, nor can she deny evidence which she herself produces. Show her her own evidence. As S.Weir says, it is important to agree on the observations, first, before you worry about explanations. If she is allowed to make up her own versions of the observations, without reference to actual facts, that is just wrong.
The FG has two clips, one RED, and one BLACK. She erroneously calls the RED one "positive" and the BLACK one "negative" on the schematics. As anyone can plainly see on the actual photograph the BLACK clip is connected to the common ground and the RED clip is connected to the Gate of Q1, which in turn is connected to the Source of Q2. I recommend _always_ using the RED and BLACK terminology for the FG output leads, as any other terminology is at least in part incorrect. (Not "ground" -- many FGs can be isolated; not "negative" -- because this lead can just as easily put out a positive voltage, and does. The "negative" designation for the BLACK lead is one source of Ainslie's confusion.)
In order below:
1. The original one-mosfet diagram showing NO BLACK lead at all, which was fraudulently presented by Donovan Martin as the schematic used in the March 2011 demonstration.
2. The Photograph showing the actual connections she has always used, from the 2011 demo, and as shown in the last schematic below.
3. The Photograph from the June 29 2013 demo, showing the connections in the same place as always, and as shown in the last schematic below.
4. The "revised" schematic that appears in the Papers, which shows the proper place for a (ground isolated) FG Black clip... but which has never been used by Ainslie. (I put in the RED and BLACK clip designations for clarity.)
5. The ACTUAL schematic currently in use by Ainslie, by .99, by me, and by everyone else who wishes to examine Ainslie's claims, which bypasses the CVR.
As far as the Figure 3 current claim goes: She says she can put a signal of +4 v to the RED FG lead connected as always, then put the BLACK lead somewhere else in the circuit so that the scope then shows +12 volts for the Gate signal at the RED lead.
We know this is impossible. And we know Ainslie cannot demonstrate it herself because she claims that she doesn't have the apparatus set up at home any more. (When have we heard this before?)
So you do it, why not. Set up your own little mini-demo, .99. Stream it over YT and have Ainslie there on Skype, or however it was done before. Let her tell you where to put the probes, and you show her, and us, the resulting traces.
It is a lot of trouble, but I think it would be worth it.
TK:
Seriously please, it's time for you to start considering switching this whole thing off in your head. Poynt will do his thing and you have all of your archived materials and that will be it in my opinion. Give it a few more weeks and then move on. Rosemary is just feeding off of the attention. It's just as much about the attention and the daily drama as it is about the stupid throbbing resistor and the ridiculous 'thesis.'
You could do something else on this forum, build another Linux box, read a book or do some quality TV series binging or spend more time with your telescope, whatever. I binged on the series Homeland and it was great. There is a Brazilian actress in that series that is like a modern day Audrey Hepburn, she is gorgeous.
It's like the Dollard cat fight extreme. Yes, in Rosemary's case there is some principal involved, but at the same time it doesn't amount to anything. Just like the insane cat fight over Dollard from two opposing camps. I am not getting the feeling that Dollard has anything at all to offer. They will set him up in a lab and he will play with scopes and transistors and antennas and never deliver a single tangible thing. Yes, the "crazies" may lap it all up and dream at night that Eric is just on the verge of ....... something.
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sla845GW9YM
MileHigh
good advice MileHigh, I agree TK has talents more worthy of paying any more attention. Game is over, I politely ended it as the story was picked up by thousands from my site.
Mark
Thank you both for your opinions. I respect you, and them, and I take them into careful consideration.
But... it's not over until it's over, and it's not over yet. Do you hear any fat ladies singing? Or any scrawny wenches acknowledging the facts?
0. If you are following my YT channel you should be able to tell that I am doing other things as well as this. I just tonight completed a Color Organ for my housemate for example. It uses an Arduino Pro Mini, and 12 brilliant LEDs red green and blue, and performs a Fast Fourier Transform in software, in realtime, of ambient sound picked up from its builtin electret microphone. Powered by a 9 volt battery, it is a self-contained desktop lightshow color organ, programmable to boot. A couple of weeks ago I made an ultraviolet laser out of aluminum foil and overhead transparency material. I also have a gyro precession experiment, very complex, that I work on periodically. And etc etc.
1. I personally have learned a lot from my explorations of this set of phenomena. I mean the psychological as well as the electrical and metrological aspects, of course. And I am still learning and perfecting my skillset. I use YT and this forum (thanks, Stefan!) as my laboratory notebooks, so that other interested people can learn along with me, or help me to learn by giving constructive criticism.
2. Yes... it is personal and I am pissed off, in addition to being scientifically offended. Had the woman restricted herself to her delusions of grandeur and her confabulations, I could easily walk away. But this last two years of insult, disrespect and disregard of facts coming from her... particularly the "Bryan Little" and the "ickle pickle" nonsense... has earned my eternal enmity. If SHE wants me to stop researching and finding new facts about her circuit and her story, if she wants me to stop refuting her nonsense every time I encounter it, the path is very simple. She must retract the bogus papers based on false and incorrect data. She must retract the absurd claims for which there is no experimental evidence. She must publish errata sheets to try to correct specifically the dozens of errors and mistakes and claims she has posted. And she must apologize, sincerely and publicly, to the people like .99, MileHigh, PicoWatt, myself, and many others whom she has disrespected, slighted and insulted over the course of this saga. Any person with a hint of integrity must realize that those are the correct and proper things to do.
3. If you think my "talents" are worth more than this waste of time.... fine, then hire me to do something else. Something I can do without leaving my home.
4. If you are annoyed at my posts and my videos.... please discuss it with whomever is forcing you to read and watch them.
5. Unfortunately the weather around here has sucked as far as Astrophotography is concerned. I haven't even set up my kit in a couple of months because of the clouds and haze at night and the high heat and humidity during the day.
Meanwhile I have indeed made Yet Another Video that Ainslie will ignore. This one should demonstrate that there is indeed measurable current flowing from the battery in the Ainslie circuit, whenever the Gate drive from the FG exceeds even a couple of volts, because of the _series power supply_ arrangement of the FG and the Battery. This current partially bypasses the "shunt" if the position of the Black FG lead is as Ainslie always uses. It does not bypass a simple inline ammeter, though, and there can be no argument that the meter is not correct due to the high frequency when it is measuring the DC portion of the circuit's response. There also cannot be any argument about the gate voltage readings, because those come from the Fluke 83 Digital MultiMeter, a very reliable instrument measuring straight DC voltage.
The video is still being processed and uploaded. When it's ready I'll post a link, of course. You don't have to watch it if you really don't want to, I won't be offended.
ETA: The new video will be viewable in a few minutes here:
http://youtu.be/s8_ZTBtyTvo
Well... she manages to be half right and half wrong, for a net score of zero. Much better than usual.
Imagine how much easier this would be if she would just watch my Negative Bias videos and try to follow the logical argument. Or, continue to laugh at her while she makes a fool of herself over and over.
Observe also the lame excuse for not providing the Data from the USB Thumbdrive that the scope captures were saved to.
Do you want to see some of my original data, that I took in Toronto three years ago? Ask for it (with a legitimate reason) and I'll make a couple of phone calls and you will have it before the day is out.
Ask Ainslie for six scope captures made two weeks ago .... and see what you get. They have vanished into the South African veldt, or maybe they are on a plane to Zambia or Zimbabwe or Zurich. They are NOT where they should be: published on the internet. But if you scroll back through this thread a few pages you will see my screen captures of the scopeshots as they were taken, and there is enough detail there to DEMOLISH Ainslie's feeble arguments and protests. Her withholding them is not preventing anyone from seeing the critical features. Her withholding is only demonstrating her uncooperative nature and her attempts to obfuscate the true state of affairs. Does she imagine that her current hero S.Weir will condone such shenanigans? Does she actually imagine that S.Weir would want to hug the Tar Baby that is Ainslie's mind to his breast?
Hi
I say keep up the good work mr. Tinsel Koala. I had no idea how much difficulty a simple looking
circuit like this could provide.
I watched a bit of the video when mr. Weir was trying to help, he seemed to be a very patient
man and obviously knew what he was on about.
It would be nice to see some original thinking from the likes of Sea Monkey and Profitis, to me
they are in the same vein as Red Sunset in the Travis saga.
John.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 13, 2013, 01:06:28 PM
TK,
Here is a diagram that illustrates the problem when wanting to connect the FG ref to the correct point in the circuit as shown.
If the FG ref is connected to the battery common gnd point as Rose and I both have it at present (and you too I believe), then during the OFF phase when oscillation is occurring, the current through the FG will not register on the CSR because the FG ref bypasses the CSR. During this OFF phase, the FG is in series with the battery. Because Q2 is both ON and oscillating during this phase, the FG is contributing energy to the circuit, but we can not measure that energy contribution because the current through the FG bypasses the CSR.
I know you know this, just illustrating it for the record.
And here's how she responded to your nice diagram. I am amazed. She just lays stuff out there, contradicts herself from sentence to sentence, and then demands that you "move on" without even ever understanding or conceding her folly.
Quote from: minnie on July 14, 2013, 09:34:18 AM
Hi
I say keep up the good work mr. Tinsel Koala. I had no idea how much difficulty a simple looking
circuit like this could provide.
I watched a bit of the video when mr. Weir was trying to help, he seemed to be a very patient
man and obviously knew what he was on about.
It would be nice to see some original thinking from the likes of Sea Monkey and Profitis, to me
they are in the same vein as Red Sunset in the Travis saga.
John.
Thanks John, I'll take your post as encouragement.
The circuit is pretty simple. But the complexities of trying to measure its power with _the wrong instruments_ or by using correct instruments improperly, and somehow get coherent results, are indeed instructive. Then, the psychological factors involved with trying to explain something relatively simple to someone who doesn't have the prerequisite background to understand it and who refuses to learn.... add even more interest to the spectacle, in my opinion.
I hope your summer is going better than your winter did. I see Mister Wayne is still kidding around.
Meanwhile.... my latest video is up and viewable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8_ZTBtyTvo
@.99:
It seems clear to me that she has not watched the video recording of the demonstration. The full 4-hour version is pretty intolerable, for sure... I've watched the whole thing several times.
But there is no excuse for her not to watch the excerpts that include the conversation with you, and the later conversation with S.Weir.
It is just crazy for her to claim that she replicated the Figure 3 scopeshot, but it showed the wrong voltage because of some misplaced FG wire or probe reference.
"Here, I've replicated Green. What's that, it looks like fire-engine RED to you? Well, that's just because I put a bit of the wrong color in the mix earlier. Take my word for it, this is Green. And by the way, your blood is Green too, see, it looks just like my Green replication."
She really should watch the video clips, don't you think? How is she going to be able to tell just where and how I may have altered them, otherwise? ;)
So I think we have dealt adequately with the current path issue (the magical "floating" Q2 Source) and the matter of Figure 3, which Ainslie now admits is bogus. The issue of current flow at a gate drive of +4 volts, with oscillations in the "gate low" time, is being examined by .99 with his more accurate accurate instrumentation. But my results already show quite well that there is significant current both in the oscillations and in the Q1's DC condition even at a gate signal of only +4 volts. Is it enough to account for the small heat observed at the load under these conditions? We shall see.
Next is the claim that there is some "benefit" involved in using the Ainslie-Martin circuit. This apparently could arise in a couple of ways.
First, the batteries could somehow exceed their rated capacity while heating a load. This of course is ill-specified, as battery "capacity" varies according to the load schedule, a fact known for decades. Hence it is a difficult claim to test properly by any but the crudest methods (dim bulb tests, etc.) I would like to hear some ideas about how properly to test battery capacity in the context of powering an Ainslie-Martin oscillating heater circuit.
Next, more traditional measures of "efficiency" at heating a load could be obtained. This is easier to do, if one can get a number for the power supplied by the battery _and the FG_ when the circuit is operating. Again, there is the problem of specification, because the exact settings of the FG, the battery voltage and etc. that are claimed to produce the best "effect" are still not known or precisely stated. After all this time. However, at least it is relatively easy to measure load cell temperatures and time intervals, and it is possible to supply a load with a known DC current so that the electrical power input can be precisely known, at least in the DC case.
When I was examining the claims around the Quantum article's COP>17 claims, I was able to get a measurement of the power drawn by that circuit, and I was able to set up a DC equivalent power draw, and I plotted time-temperature profiles of both systems using the same load cell in the same environmental conditions. And I measured the temperature of a known quantity of heat-transfer liquid in a sealed and insulated container, not the "temperature over the load resistor" hanging in air. I was able to obtain good temperature profile data using this technique, and it's easy to see from the data which system is more "efficient" at heating the load.
If I can get a good measurement of the battery power (plus FG power) drawn by the present circuit, I will be able to set up a similar performance comparison that should show whether or not the circuit is actually more efficient than straight DC. Ainslie's own temperature data, taken as it is in her naive manner, is not reliable for any quantitative determination.
Crunching the time-temperature data down into an easily-interpretable display results in a picture like this (data from the Quantum circuit experiments done in 2009):
How about this.
I have a capacitor bank that can power Tar Baby for some seconds, during which it produces the mean negative power product just like it does when powered by batteries, but only until the caps run down and the oscillations stop.
I can set up a load with small heat capacity and an accurate temperature monitor. Then I can "pulse" the load by running the Ainslie circuit, starting with the cap bank charged to a known voltage, and I can record the increment in load temperature produced.
Then I can repeat the pulse heating test but using just the cap bank and the load (starting from the same cap voltage and load starting temperature of course), with no intervening circuitry except for a relay or manual switch.
Thoughts?
TK,
Your capacitor is likely to expire 10x faster with a direct connection compared to when it is running the RA circuit. So wouldn't it likely get much hotter but for a much shorter time period? I would think to achieve an accurate comparison you would have to integrate the temperature over time.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 15, 2013, 06:58:02 PM
TK,
Your capacitor is likely to expire 10x faster with a direct connection compared to when it is running the RA circuit. So wouldn't it likely get much hotter but for a much shorter time period? I would think to achieve an accurate comparison you would have to integrate the temperature over time.
Yes, that's right. The well-insulated container with some heat-transfer fluid in it will act as an integrator, though, and knowing the time it takes for the capacitor to run down, while running the RA circuit, will actually give me a fairly accurate average current draw for that system. If the natural integration time of the load capsule isn't sufficient or doesn't work, I can try adding plain resistance, also within the load cell, to equate the average current draw of the direct capacitor system.
The biggest hurdle to overcome is the claimant's continuing claim that the circuit doesn't work with capacitors, that batteries are somehow special. This is just handwaving conjecture on her part, though, because she has never tested the circuit powered only by capacitors, and as I have shown, the circuit makes the identical waveforms with caps that it makes with batteries, until it runs down. So there is no justification or evidence for the claim that caps aren't suitable as power supplies.
(I have actually seen arguments of the latter form taken as far as the material and color of the insulation on the wires. "Your replication doesn't make the Free Energy like my original does because I used Teflon insulated wire that is white, and you are using ordinary black PVC insulated wire.")
Well.
Quote
OK Guys, that rather interminable conversation with Poynty has hopefully come to a close. The idea is that he simply present us with his argument. Not sure when this is likely to be forthcoming - but he's apparently done DEFINITIVE? tests that have yet to be published. These include PROOF that the oscillation does NOT move through the battery and onto the element resistor.
Is that true, .99? Did you ever state that you have "PROOF that the oscillation does NOT move through the battery and onto the element resistor?"
Or is that a confabulation that Ainslie came up with, from somehow confounding the fact that the true battery voltage isn't actually oscillating?
Certainly there IS an oscillating AC current experienced by the load itself during the Q2 oscillations and nobody has ever said otherwise, that I can tell. I've even shown that LEDs are lit up in both directions by this oscillating current at the load. SO once again she is doing that very characteristic Ainslie thing: she makes up something that someone didn't say or mean, and then she goes on attacking that fake "fact' that she just made up.
Quote
One thing which is an ongoing concern of mine is that he's using a wire wound resistor and - at best - can get between 5 and 7 watts dissipation.
Wrong again. The resistor can be driven as hard as he likes within its power handling capacity, using Q1 ON times, and this has nothing to do with "wirewound resistors" vs. single wires. Does Ainslie forget that her first, COP >17 claims were made WITH A WIREWOUND RESISTOR? The low power figures refer to the power in the oscillations only, and this is the same for her circuit, his circuit, my circuit, and everybody else who has built and operated the circuit. You do not get high heat or power dissipation in the load from the oscillations alone.
Quote
We get in excess of 50 watts using 'apparently' the same amount of energy. I have hinted at this before.
Another false statement, as demonstrated on June 29th. The higher heat is done with MUCH MORE applied energy, and significant Q1 current, as indicated by her own scopeshots. She is still believing her own fantasy of the Figure 3, 6 and 7 scopeshots, which are bogus.
Quote
Our element resistor has NO WINDINGS. It comprises a single wire positioned INSIDE and not OUTSIDE the body of the resistor. And the inductance on that resistor element is negligible. Therefore I'm NOT entirely satisfied that we're comparing apples with apples. But out of respect for the sheer volume of work that he's already done - I think it fair to hear his objections related to measurement.
There are other concerns. But as promised - the floor is his. Let's hear his argument.
Kindest regards
Rosie
"Out of respect" in a post dripping with sarcasm and disrespect. "Kindest regards" when she really wants us to drop dead.And 2.23 microHenry is not a negligible inductance.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 16, 2013, 04:42:01 AM
Well.
Is that true, .99? Did you ever state that you have "PROOF that the oscillation does NOT move through the battery and onto the element resistor?"
I certainly did not and have never said that the oscillations don't move through the circuit, including the load resistor. Of course they do, but the oscillations themselves aren't what's causing significant heat dissipation in the load resistor.
What DOES cause heat dissipation in the load resistor? During the ON phase, it is the average current through Q1, the battery, and the load resistor (assuming >+3V Gate drive). During the OFF phase, it is the average current through Q2, the FG (including its internal 50 Ohm resistance), the battery, and the load resistor (assuming >-3V Source drive).
I think we have Yet Another gross distortion and misrepresentation emitted by Ainslie, again claiming that .99 said or claimed something that he did not say.
QuoteWhat Poynty has advised me (likely also to be contradicted) is that the maximum heat he can dissipate is in the region of 7 watts. And that's also with serious current being applied during the 'ON' time of that duty cycle. We - correspondingly - can get upwards of 50 watts when we apply our 'maximum' current during that same period.
When we have "serious current being applied during the 'ON' time of that duty cycle" we do indeed dissipate a lot of heat at the load resistor. Ohm's law gives the value, in fact. With an 11 ohm load at 5 amps, ALL of us, Ainslie, me, .99, whoever builds the same circuit and tests it will get the same results! This isn't VOODOO, it is basic electronics. P = I
2R == 5x5x11 == 275 Watts, and with a 20 percent duty cycle that is 55 Watts average power dissipation in the load. 6 amps peak current gives 396 Watts and a 15 percent duty cycle gives just under 60 Watts average power dissipation in the load. Hers, mine, yours, .99's, anybody who has a load of the proper power handling capacity, driven by the same input, will have the same power dissipation! This is NOT VOODOO.
Now... if Ainslie distorts and misrepresents things that are happening +right now+ and for which there are plenty of references and documentation.... just how likely is it that we are hearing the Full, True, and Correct story of all those tests by BP and whoever, and bursary awards and fired engineers and all that, which happened a decade or more ago and for which there is absolutely no checkable reference or documentation?
"Do the math" (tm RA)
QuoteAnd Guys, the next part to this argument is more subtle. Hopefully you'll be able to follow it. Poynty has isolated Q2 on a schematic. This is a valid representation of the circuit - EXCEPTING that it does NOT show the connection of the source leg of Q2 to the Gate leg of Q1. He then argues that the resulting oscillation is because of the plus 4 volts applied to the gate of Q2 which results in the MOSFET IRFPG50 being 'half' on and 'half' off. Which then, in turn, accounts for that oscillation. IF this were the whole of the argument then with the application of plus 4 volts to the Gate of Q1 we would also be able to generate that same oscillation. As their conditions would be equivalent.
Clearly this is NOT the case. Because with that same plus 4 volts applied to the Gate of Q1 restricts ANY current flow at all - during the ON period of the duty cycle. There is something in the vagaries of that attachment of the Q2 Source to the Gate of Q1 - that is needed to induce that oscillation. And this is what we've attempted to explain in Paper 2.
Attempted, and FAILED, because Ainslie has no clue about the actual observations, much less explanations for them! The cartoon "attempt" at explanation in Paper 2 doesn't even have the mosfets hooked together properly!
She doesn't even remember that THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED when their Q1 drive was in the 4-6 volt range! This Q1 oscillation caused them over an HOUR of confusion and obviously STILL DOES confuse her. Even though S.Weir figured it out in seconds once he got enough cooperation from them to see the screen.
I am astounded. Flabbergasted at the sheer and utter inability of this woman to THINK and reason and even state the true facts of a demonstration!
She hasn't even watched the video record of the demo-- and then she does her typical thing: she makes up something that ISN'T TRUE AT ALL, then she proceeds to attack her own misrepresentations and idiotic interpretations of things she can't even remember properly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE)
Look! Polly Parrot has discovered the terms "integration" and "derivative". It's too bad she has never had exposure to the calculus... because then she might actually have some understanding of the fundamental terminology.
She had apparently never even heard the term "integration" outside a racial context (South African Apartheid) until I told her that was what she was trying to do with her spreadsheets back in 2009. And now she's discovered "derivative"... without knowing what it means or how the word is properly used.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/math/derint.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/math/derint.html)
And she apparently doesn't even realize that her LeCroy is one of those "wonderful" instruments that can do this math live and on-screen __when it is properly set up__ to do so. Nor will she recall, or acknowledge, that the very same thing can be done, with a bit more trouble, on analog oscilloscopes. I wonder how she thinks people did power analysis before digital scopes were invented. No...scratch that..... it's clear that she doesn't think about issues like that at all.
But it matters not that she is totally ignorant mathematically. You can be the most expert mathematician in the world, and if you are given garbage data with which to calculate, your results may be "correct".... but they will be correct garbage, nothing more.
QuoteI have ALWAYS known that our CRS's can tolerate 25 watts each.
I'll ask poynt99 to comment on this statement from RA that she made today.
The total circuit DC resistance of the Ainslie-Martin circuit is close to 13 ohms, if we can believe her specs for the "element resistor". 11 ohms for the element and 2 ohms for the mosfet Q1 fully turned on. If the Q2s could be fully turned on that would lower the resistance to about 11 1/2 ohms, but the circuit cannot turn the Q2s fully on.
Hence the total current flowing in the circuit, with a 6-battery stack fully charged to 78 volts, will be a maximum of I = V/R == 78/13 == 6.0 Amperes.
In the Q1 fully on 100 percent of the time DC condition, the circuit will carry 6 amps, and the load will be dissipating P = I2R == almost 400 Watts. If the duty cycle is reduced to 10 percent, then the average dissipation in the load will be 40 Watts. For "upwards of 50 Watts" whatever that might mean... call it 55 Watts.... the duty cycle for Q1 ON time must be Pavg = (I2R)(duty cycle), so solving for Duty Cycle we have duty cycle = Pavg/(I2R) == 55/396 == about 14 percent.
So, with a full battery stack, a 14 percent Q1 ON time would produce 55 Watts average dissipation in the load. The Q2 oscillations contribute little or nothing to the heating of the load.
At 36 volts supply, the current would max out at 36/13 or 3 amperes, and carrying through the calculations again we have max power in the load, at 100 percent Q1 ON, of about 100 Watts. Reduce the duty cycle to 50 percent and you have 50 Watts dissipated in the load. No Q2 oscillations needed, nor do they contribute.
In the first case, 6 amps current at 100 percent ON, a 0.25 ohm Current Viewing Resistor will dissipate 6x6x0.25 == 9 Watts maximum. If the duty cycle is reduced the power dissipation of the resistor goes down proportionally.
In the second case, 3 amps current at 100 percent ON, a 0.25 ohm CVR will dissipate two and a quarter Watts. Reduce the duty cycle, and you reduce the power proportionally.
The oscillations are not providing any significant heating to the load. Most of the load heating is coming from the Q1 ON times. Much of the rest comes from the function generator or DC bias supply itself. A tiny bit comes from the oscillations causing the Q2s to dribble a bit of current.
Don't believe me? Set up your complete experiment, monitoring temps "over the load" as usual. Set your FG to your favorite "oscillation" settings to produce HIGH HEAT, 50 Watts or "upwards", in your load, and let the temperature stabilise. Now... without doing anything else, just unplug the DRAIN leads of all your Q2 mosfets. What happens to the load temperature?
Now start over, with everything hooked up, and use the same FG settings to make the same heat as before and let stabilize. Now, without doing anything else, just unplug the Drain lead of the Q1 mosfet. What happens to the load temperature?
This test would take a competent experimenter about an hour to perform, if that long. Who will be the first to do it? I'll tell you this much for nothing: it won't be Rosemary Ainslie or Donovan Martin -- but it just might be me, or .99, or some other rational experimenter who knows how to formulate and test an hypothesis.
TK and others:
The comedy show on the other channel continues. Posie is all flustered about the CVR power issue. We are still at the "start gate" if you will in the sense that she cannot understand that the voltages that she sees across the unwieldy CVR wiring in her setup don't correspond to the actual current flowing through the CVR. This idea that the high speed switching is resulting in inductive di/dt "phantom voltage" in the CVR wiring is completely beyond her powers of conception. Even if she was taught it the idea would only be retained for a few days anyways.
Meanwhile she is rude and says it's all "boring" and she must have already dropped that comment a half dozen times by now.
There is probably an interesting baseball stat out there... Starting the clock from four years ago, Rosie Posie must have made at least 1000 errors, and perhaps one third of those errors are repeat errors.
So, it's gunna be "consistent sailing" as the ship slips over the horizon and finally falls of the cliff into the oblivion of obscurity. The seasoned sailors can already smell that "end of the world" smell in the air.
MileHigh
I would really like to see someone simply disconnect the scope probe from the current sense resistor entirely, and just clip that probe directly across a 220R , and then set it down in its normal position without actually connecting it to the board.
Now.... please explain to me this: If the oscillations that you see when the probe is connected to the circuit ARE ALSO SEEN WHEN IT IS NOT EVEN CONNECTED... what exactly are you measuring, and how does it _really_ relate to the power in the circuit?
I have suggested test after test that would experimentally probe and reveal things about the circuit and the claims made. Poynt99 has done the same. When WE perform these tests on our apparatus, we get interpretable and repeatable results and we report them..... and they refute Ainslie's claims, each and every time. Yet Ainslie does not accept our results "for some reason." She appears to think that an identical circuit operated in identical ways, giving the identical data that she shows on the tests she HAS performed, will somehow act differently than hers does on these new tests. How does someone with gaps in thinking like that even manage to buy groceries?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 18, 2013, 12:38:45 AM
I'll ask poynt99 to comment on this statement from RA that she made today.
Rose was emphatic in stating that their resistors were rated only for 5W.
The power dissipated in the circuit series resistors are proportional to each other. So with an 11 Ohm load resistor and a 0.25 Ohm CSR, the CSR power dissipation will be 44 times less than the power dissipated in the load.
So if the load resistor is dissipating 55W, the CSR will be dissipating 1.1W.
I have confirmed a power test in a sim of the circuit; the load is 30W and the CSR about 0.7W. My load resistor is 10 Ohms, so the ratio is 1/40, not 1/44. So 30/40 = 0.75.
Rosemary should take the polygraph test, then we will know the difference between incompetency and deception
Rose has announced a possible demo Aug 4.
I wonder what is left to demonstrate.
Will she -- or rather Donovan Martin -- perform any _real_ tests of their claims? Like any genuine attempt to show the heat produced by the oscillations _alone_, without any contribution from the Q1? Will they continue with the false claim that the Figure 3 scopeshot is somehow able to be made HONESTLY under the conditions claimed? Will we be treated to another four hours of inept incompetence and utter disrespect for their audience?
Meanwhile, she continues to demonstrate her mendacity and ignorance with every post.
QuoteBut those instantaneous wattage values can certainly be extreme enough to degrade that resistor as efficiently as a power surge will blow your average light bulb. Which is why we used resistors in excess of 5 watts. I have ALWAYS known that our resistors are valued at 25 watts. Good heavens Poynty. I ORDERED them and PAID for them - against the wattage that we determined was required. WHY are you trying SO HARD to imply that I did not know those wattage values? Is this based on the general need to emphasise how little I know about that circuit? Because we're all rather sick and tired of that spin.
nonono no NO....
Some of us are laughing very hard right now.
She's STILL at it! I almost said "unbelievable" but it's all too believable, really.
Addressed to .99:
QuoteI have ABSOLUTE confidence in Weir's expertise. Correspondingly I have very little confidence in your own. The more so as I MOVED the function generator's terminal REFERENCE to it's position in the attached schematic - ON YOUR ADVICES. You and others on open source - went to some considerable lengths to advise me that by positioning that reference at the common position with Channel 1 and 2 probe references - that we no longer could rely on the measurements across our Rshunt.
And she goes on in that vein, again making stuff up, insulting people who are clearly much more competent than anyone she can muster in her own defense, and attacking and insulting based on her own mendacity and imagination.
In every photograph of her apparatus, going all the way back to the single mosfet design, the BLACK FG output lead can be very clearly seen to be connected to the COMMON CIRCUIT GROUND. That is, in the position that bypasses the CVR. In the March 2011 Demo, it is there. In the photographs of the single mosfet version, it is there. In the images of the apparatus that appear on PESN, with the new resistors in place.... it is there. In the video of the June 2013 demo, it is there. The position shown in the schematic given in Paper 1 HAS NEVER ACTUALLY BEEN USED BY AINSLIE, not even to gather the data in the papers. The BLACK FG lead has ALWAYS been positioned as it was during the recent demo. The schematic in Paper 1 only appeared AFTER this issue was "poynted" out to Ainslie. Prior to this, the schematic given was the single mosfet version and the Black FG lead was not even included on the schematic.
Ainslie
has NEVER used the correct schematic (BLACK FG output on Transistor side of Shunt, ground-isolated FG) in any of her demos or reported tests, and it was certainly NOT used in the experiments described in the papers.... her own blog posts made at the time of the experiments prove this.
Below images are:
1. The schematic presented in the March 2011 demonstration and claimed by Ainslie until April 18 or so. No BLACK FG lead shown-- which CONCEALS the current path through the FG bypassing the Shunt.
2. The schematic which "now" appears in the papers, but which was not acknowledged by Ainslie until late April 2011, after the FG bypass problem was shown, along with the four Q2 mosfets being in "backwards".
3. The schematic that Ainslie has always ACTUALLY used, but has never published, with the 5 mosfet device, and also shows the BLACK FG position used for the single mosfet device.
4. A photo of the single mosfet device, clearly showing the Black FG clip at the common circuit ground.
5. A screenshot of the 5-mosfet device demonstrated in March of 2011, clearly showing the Black FG clip at the common circuit ground.
6. A screenshot from the June 2013 demo, clearly showing the Black FG clip at the common circuit ground.
7. And finally... her latest confabulation of mendacity, insult and misrepresentation.
The "correct" schematic given in their Paper
has never been used by Ainslie and Martin, and they don't know how to ground-isolate their FG at all, even though Donovan Martin is clearly aware of the issue.
I forgot to include the PESN version, sorry.
QuoteRight now - and by following your own advices - it seems that I've compromised our paper and that this needs required amendments.
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.She is trying to blame poynt99 for "compromising" the pile of garbage and mendacity that she pretends is a "paper". Her own demonstration showed that ALL of the oscilloscope data is bogus, false, not obtained as claimed and not properly interpreted. ALL of it, Q1 current and Q2 oscillations, all of it is bogus.
And now she wants to try to put the blame on someone else, on "Open Source"......
The person to blame, Rosemary, the person most responsible for your misconceptions and errors and present embarrassment... is
DONOVAN MARTIN.
Outrageous indeed.
Apparently Rose asserts that although she would have complete confidence in S. Weir's assessment of her tests and results (should he even agree to participate in the next demo), that confidence would NOT extend to Weir's assessment of my own tests and results. :o
There's a phrase describing that type of jabberwocky... "double standard".
TK
In a stand up fight between a reasoned adult's argument and a wilful toddler's persistant mischievious rants, I'll place my bet on the toddler winning everytime. RA is a toddler, lacking a parent to guide her. But no one else can be her parent. Not you, nor me, nor anyone else.
For your own psychological health, move on. Leave RA to her delusions. Your need to publicly prove the error of her ways, merely feeds the imp within her and continues the public exposure she craves. Nothing kills a bad idea more quickly than simply ignoring it.
The great marketplace of ideas, will in time, consign her propositions to the joke bin. In the meantime, for your own benefit, why not redirect your wasted efforts spent on rebuking RA, and continue instead, to use your obvious great research skills to further your understanding in whatever field you choose.
Don't let RA's delusions distract you from more meaningful pursuits. You do good experimental work and follow up analysis. You possess a skillset and lifetime which can be spent more usefully than dueling with idiots.
Life is short. Make the most of it.
Cheers and KneeDeep
While I appreciate the compliments, I must say this: You have no real idea how I spend my time, or why.
Donovan Martin and Rosemary Ainslie are perpetrating a fraud, a hoax, on the entire community of free energy overunity whatever research. She has clearly announced her intention to badger and bully --her words-- the Chancellors of universities around the world with her idiotic compendium of errors. Do you think these people look kindly upon crackpots? Do you think, having once encountered Ainslie and Martin, that they are likely to look more kindly on people with extraordinary claims, afterwards? I don't.
Ainslie is perpetrating this outrage, but even further, DONOVAN MARTIN is instigating it. There is no way that Ainslie herself could have built that apparatus and she quite evidently cannot operate it herself. Yet her main man DONOVAN MARTIN is absent. He will not "engage" by answering questions or dealing with the objections from the _community to which their claims are addressed_. He prefers to sit in whatever ivory tower he maintains, and to let his poor old ignorant mental patient friend hang out in the breeze, lying constantly and making an utter fool of herself, while engaging in the most insane and ridiculous process of insult and denigration of her critics. However he allows his name to remain on Ainslie's "papers", thereby saying that he agrees with everything they contain. And at the same time he is supposed to be some kind of working engineer in South Africa--- in spite of his evident ignorance of basic electronics. This is so wrong on so many levels it's not funny any longer.
May I suggest, Hoptoad, that you simply place me on your "ignore" list, and don't bother checking this thread any more, if it bothers you to see me wasting my precious time this way.
(Wait a minute... am I talking to myself again? After all, Ainslie has said more than once that Hoptoad and TinselKoala are the same person.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 20, 2013, 04:33:35 AM
snip...
May I suggest, Hoptoad, that you simply place me on your "ignore" list, and don't bother checking this thread any more, if it bothers you to see me wasting my precious time this way.
(Wait a minute... am I talking to myself again? After all, Ainslie has said more than once that Hoptoad and TinselKoala are the same person.)
Now it wouldn't be much fun putting you, sorry I mean me, on the ignore list. I just hate to see wasted time and effort, that's all. RA's assertions are a waste of time and effort.
Cheers from Hoptoad aka TinselKoala in another existence.
no no @tinselkoala.how can there be a fraud if ainslie keeps bumping into the first stumbling block in the propagation of overunities,the acedemia.do you think that a high professori weir is going to one day say,hey, fuck you guys,we got over-unity here,bing bing..never,even if he does see it.disrepute is onli thing going to come from this thus she must be genuinely trying at least,and we should admire her on that,the merrit of trying.milehigh was right,she aint no weakling.
Hi,
Oh yes, Rosemary is genuinely trying, look how she tried the patience of poor mr. Weir.
How on earth was mr. Weir expected to be able to come to a conclusion when he couldn't
scope shots clearly?
John.
well minnie she,s bashing her head against a wall but trying nonetheless.unless the acedemian is openminded he,s going to point to the probe,the fg,the machine thingy,the wires,the settings regardless of an overunity or not.too much complexity here.would tk even know an overunity in this circuit if he was looking at it?would 99 know?
Hi,
I tried looking up over-unity in my dictionary..... It didn't like it! Eventually I found a dictionary
that would accept the term and it said"able to put out more power than the operator puts in".
Why does Rosemary need a b.great battery bank and an FG? Once someone can make a cup
of tea without a huge L.A. Battery it'll be worth investigating.
John.
yes indeed sir.it is going to have to be a thermodynamic demo if it is to convince mainstream.watch batteries or AAA batteries are more easily monitered for total power spent on any circuit due to small finite size.with giant batteries we are stuck to rely on conjecture where evrybody,s interpretation of the measuring meters is different..thus the length of this saga,and the next,and the next.
@.99:
The only place that I can find the Figure 8, Paper 1 scopeshot is in the paper. She didn't post it to her blogs at the time, that I can find. But... she did post two shots taken just a few minutes later that are very interesting.
The Figure 8 shot was taken on 16 February 2011 at 9:26:01.
SCRN0183 was taken at 9:31:41
SCRN0184 was taken at 9:33:00
Chances are that no settings were changed in that few minutes, but who knows. Fig.8 does appear different than the other two.
I don't see any current during the ON phase of the cycle. Is there enough +'ve gate drive?
Well, it's hard to say what might have been changed. The paper doesn't give much information about the settings. But here's what I think.
The waveform seen in SCRN0183 and SCRN0184 look very much like the "turnips" that I get when using a triangle ramp, tilted over with the "symmetry" or duty cycle control to make a sawtooth with fast rise and slower decay, on the gate drive instead of a rectangular waveform. I think that the only difference between these two shots is the scope's horizontal timebase setting. The duty cycle and frequency of the circuit's waveforms hasn't changed.
The waveform in the Figure 8 scopeshot looks to me like it might have been made at a different frequency and duty cycle. I think I can see four "turnip" bursts per 500 microseconds (one per 125 microseconds) with nearly no space between them, whereas the shots made a few minutes later are at 4 times that frequency and have about a 50 percent "on" or ramp positive duty cycle.
However it is possible that aliasing in the display could be masking the true shape of the turnips, and this shot too could be made with the same FG settings. It certainly does +not+ look like a shot made with a rectangle waveform on the gate.
As far as current flow goes.... I don't know. When I use the triangle ramp stimulation I get high heat in the load too. I think that the Q1 is turned on enough at the peaks to conduct significantly for a short time. These shots were taken during a time when she was reporting "stress" on the transistors, function generator problems etc. It is possible that she has selected the triangle ramp output of the FG without realizing it. For sure the FG in the PESN photos is set to make a triangle ramp.
Hmm.... Note that the Fig8 description gives the Period as "approximately 20 ms" and the Period of the later two shots read from the Gate drive signal is just about 20 microseconds.... and recall that she has made the "ms us" error before.
It's really too bad that we cannot trust any verbal descriptions from Ainslie at all. The only things we really _know_ are the data in the scopeshots and the photographs.
TK,
Even the CSR scope traces are in question in my opinion. Zero current indicated can be easily accomplished by misplacing the probes as we've recently seen them do.
TK,
I don't see any pattern at all in that Fig.8 scope shot. But without a description we can only speculate.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 20, 2013, 09:56:56 PM
TK,
I don't see any pattern at all in that Fig.8 scope shot. But without a description we can only speculate.
We can speculate, and also experiment. Try setting your PG for a triangle ramp, tilted over to the left, with about 50 percent of it above the zero reference, at a frequency of about 31 kHz. You should see displays like 0183 and 0184 with your timebase set at 50 us and 10 us per div, respectively.
Now, change the timebase to 500 us/div and see what the screen looks like with the FG at 31 kHz and at 10 kHz.
Poynt:
That was a great clip, a home run for sure. "From the point of view of the battery itself" comes to mind.
Nice to see you cut to the chase.
I confess that in the last round of discussions I wasn't considering the ground loop issue. Even way before that I was thrown off by the scope channel common ground issue. I am sensing atrophy. lol
I was even a bit surprised that you went right back to the battery. That's because I was kind of self-brainwashed in the sense that we gave up on that issue with Rosie a long time ago. We just couldn't convince her of the "battery distance problem" and more or less dropped it.
You made a very educational clip for all to view.
A bit of colour commentary: The reason the parasitic inductance is so important here is that the current is always going start-stop start-stop at high frequency in the lengths of wire. Just like we are all familiar with the back-EMF spike from a coil when you disconnect it from a voltage source, the same principle is happening in the interconnect wire itself. It's like there is a mini back-EMF spike happening all along the length of wire from the switching. That mini back-EMF spike is from the wire itself, and not the battery. As we saw in the clip that will have an affect on the measured CSR voltage and also on the measured battery voltage - a double whammy. That screws up the measurement. The solution is to go back to the battery and avoid these mini back-EMF spikes. They don't exist when you are directly on the battery because there is no more wire length to worry about.
MileHigh
Ooops.
:o
:'(
:-* :-*
thers definitly going to be a back-spike out the nichrome yes,this is what we want to harness.
Thanks MH.
Apologies for the shadowy DMM presentations and uncooperative probe issue, but this wasn't rehearsed and I know I'm not particularly well-skilled as a live presenter. The hope is however that the main points get across.
Yes I see Rose's forum is shut down for the moment...didn't pay the bill? Or more likely they exceeded the traffic allocation due to constant hammering of all those netbots?
Good thing I've been posting here as well.
Great news, the suppressive self righteous delusional propaganda forum has been suspended :) ;D
what will she do now, admit she was wrong or run away.
Here are the 3 latest video links in case those reading here missed the posts on my thread:
Grounding problem and solution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rtuSwfs-90
Correct location for the FG reference lead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZK6OPJLl4
Pbat measurements - wrong, better, and correct:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXdsXvq6QAs
Poynt Ninety-nine!
About that schematic. It's amazing. I see voltage "falling" as you move from the top of the schematic to the bottom. It's like a beautiful waterfall!!! The music of the spheres!!! A soft parachute landing!!! I can save brain power looking at your schematic as compared to a regular schematic because there are less contortions and twists to deal with!!!
Conservation of brain power is very green because the brain consumes energy!
QuotePercent of total body weight that the brain represents 2 %
Percent of the body's oxygen consumed by the brain 25 %
Percent of the body's glucose burned up by the brain 70 %
You are really and truly an innovative expert!!! ;D
MileHigh
Often times people are tricked by the effect of a Lead Acid battery's effects when being discharged.
At first the voltage drops to a certain point then as the chemical reaction catches up the voltage rises while under load to it's actual voltage under load.
Sometimes this can show a battery initially drop from 12.6 volts to 12.3 volts in quick time but then after a minute or so the battery voltage will rise again as the chemical reaction
catches up to the draw on it. When that happens it looks to some as though the battery is recharging, and if when the battery first returns to the maximum voltage under load the load is removed, then the battery voltage rises due to the continuing chemical reaction, at certain times I have been able to observe a higher voltage on the battery terminals after disconnecting the load than was at the terminals before loading. However energy has been removed from the battery and it's charge is reduced. With some batteries if done just right this happens but the voltage always settles back to the same or less than it was before loading after some time. I guess it could be called electro-chemical hysteresis or something.
The effect tricks a lot of people. Including he 3BGS crew. Lead acid batteries can have some interesting effects or what may seem interesting at first, but after careful consideration make perfect sense.
I still don't see how anyone that matters could take her seriously. Especially without a self runner. By saying that I mean the things posted on these forums have little to no effect on mainstream science. By saying the "people that matter" in this case I mean, investors and third party examiners of the device. Everyone matters in some way it's not a put down to any trained guys here.
I think you guys have successfully exorcised this demon. Who is next UFO politics ?
Keep it up guys, I would hope you guys would exorcise all the demons infesting these sites.
Or is it Just Rosemary ? Are all the others OK to continue ?
I'm sure if I put my mind to it I could come up with a list of high profile more out than in claimants.
What about Aaron and his over C.O.P. 1 bouncing ball rubbish.
Or Eric Dollard and his free energy relay that supposedly "synthesizes" extra energy. I think that is his only claim of extra energy funnily enough.
And yet he denounces the free energy gurus "he says" to distance himself from the dramas, but he is in league with them and claims similar things.
I think Thane is done for. Needn't waste time on him. Even I can produce demonstrations to look him look silly.
If I was well trained I would rip into the rest of them as well. In my opinion they are conmen bordering on criminality.
Cheers
Thanks MH. Here is the next one:
Two potential sources of measurement error are examined; parasitic inductance (we've looked at previously) and induced emf in the scope probe ref leads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQKm0qVUCkk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQKm0qVUCkk)
Here we attempt to get a more accurate measurement for Pbat by using a makeshift Kelvin probe across the original CSR located close to the circuit.
Two outcomes: 1) the mean Pbat changes from negative to positive, even when the Kelvin probe is widely-spaced across the CSR, and 2) the magnitude is high but close to the actual value. The remaining discrepancy is most likely due to the parasitic inductance between the battery + terminal and the actual TP3 measurement point for Vbat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wctTbyqTj1A
Testing.
A friend donated a PC-based DSO, the Link DS2100. It is basic. Two channels, with memory and some very basic math, unfortunately not including trace multiplication. It works, gives numbers in boxes, and at least allows readings from cursors, easy frequency determination, etc. It can do the usual spreadsheet dumps.
It will make a useful addition to my stable of scopes, I'm sure. It is nowhere nearly as capable as a modern PC scope though... it runs on my old ThinkPad 600e laptop on Windows 98.
Meanwhile, it seems that the honeypot forum has recovered from its "suspension". And Ainslie announces her intention to pile garbage ever higher in the hope that it will be mistaken for a pile of gold someday.
If she attempts, once again, to gain monetary awards or prizes for her garbage pile, she will once again be crossing over from mere ignorant hoaxing into the realm of fraud. And if she continues to use Donovan Martin's name..... and he allows it..... then his involvement remains significant.
What's staring Rosemary in the face is to make the power measurement the correct (third) way as shown in Poynt's video. Mr. Weir will endorse this method.
Convergence is coming!!!
Ainslie is at it again. She has posted her letter to S.Weir, in which she follows her usual course of lying, misrepresenting, constructing false arguments against what she makes up, not what her critics actually say.
This statement here:
QuoteYou mention that you want ME to define the points requiring measurement? I'm not the right person. I know that my colleague wants to measure the Gate current at Q1 - but I'm not sure where he puts the shunt. What I did - AGAINST the advices of just about everyone I know - was put the Function Generator's terminal reference AWAY from the probe references - as shown on that schematic. That was motivated by the clamorous insistence of our 'debunkers' that this was REQUIRED. Which also means that I was roundly DUPED by those same players. I get it that this must now change. It needs to share the SAME position. But the concern then is that the Rshunt does NOT show the true current in and out of the batteries. In point of fact the difference in the values across that shunt are negligible - regardless of which position we put that FG reference. And - that this current then moves through the batteries is also unarguable. We see it in the oscillations across those batteries. In my own simplistic way of thinking I actually put the FG probe and reference DIRECTLY across the Gates of Q1 and Q2. That ALSO gives the same oscillation. And REGARDLESS of where I position it - those negative voltages persist.
[/color]
This is a BALDFACED LIE. Go ahead, ask Ainslie to provide ANY evidence whatsoever that she EVER actually used the schematic shown in the paper. As I have documented many times, EVERY SINGLE PHOTO AND VIDEO that exists, shows the Black FG lead connected to the Circuit Common Ground along with all the scope probe references. She has NEVER used the correct location shown in the schematic in the paper, certainly NOT for the experiments described in the paper.
Ask her for proof that she ever used the correct location "
AWAY from the probe references - as shown on that schematic." She cannot produce any... because she NEVER ACTUALLY USED that location. Never.
And further.... note the contradiction.
Quote In my own simplistic way of thinking I actually put the FG probe and reference DIRECTLY across the Gates of Q1 and Q2. That ALSO gives the same oscillation.
Examining the two schematics concerned, we see that Ainslie ACTUALLY uses the first one below...... but it is the SECOND one below that has the "FG probe and reference DIRECTLY across the Gates of Q1 and Q2." In short....... once again she garbles, misrepresents, and flat-out lies about the actual events and schematics used.
Below:
1. The ACTUAL schematic showing the Black FG hookup point that Ainslie has
ALWAYS used, which bypasses the CSR with the FG's current;
2. The CLAIMED schematic in the papers, which has the FG's Black output lead on the transistor side of the csr, which DOES NOT bypass the csr with the FG's current, and which DOES put the FG "probe and reference" (false terminology) directly across the Gates of the Q1 and Q2 transistors.
3. The post containing her current set of claims in the letter to S. Weir.
And of course once again, in both the letter to S.Weir and in the posts to .99 concerning his excellent, clear and simple demonstrations.... she reiterates her ignorance, saying she's not an experimentalist, she doesn't understand the circuitry, she doesn't know what measurement points to use, she cannot understand .99's demonstrations or explanations... yet she has the utter temerity to argue about these things with people who DO understand them! And she defers to Donovan Martin, using his absence as an excuse not to answer questions.
Well, I say this: Forget about Ainslie, she has no clue about her apparatus and doesn't even know how to operate or measure it. LET US TALK TO DONOVAN MARTIN. Rosemary Ainslie is irrelevant. DONOVAN MARTIN is the responsible party here and it is downright IMMORAL of him to let his admittedly ignorant and incompetent co-author Rosemary Ainslie attempt to answer questions and meet critical objections about something that she can't even describe honestly and coherently, much less discuss rationally... or even operate physically.
WHERE IS DONOVAN MARTIN in all this? Why is he letting Ainslie flap in the breeze like a tattered flag? Is this his "tough love" way of letting her make an utter and complete fool of herself in public?
I have to confess smiling when reading Steve Weir's recommendations to Rosie Posie.
Quote2a. Replace the four resistors with a single non-inductive shunt resistor on a heat sink. A Caddock MP930-0.25F is in stock at Digikey, as is a suitable heatsink: Ohmite RA-T2X-64E. Purchase a small one sided copper clad board and drill a hole in it to fit the BAT- side of the current sense resistor. Face the copper away from the resistor body so that it cannot touch the heatsink. Solder five 1/2" long 18AWG solid wires to the board to provide a place to clip the scope probe ground clips and the Bat- clip. The Caddock is a 30W resistor. In simple terms the amount of power through the heating element will be at least 40 times the power through the current sense resistor. That means that we are safe with this resistor to over 1000W average power through the heating element. The resistor and the heat sink together establish a thermal mass with a time constant that is in the minutes. We only need to worry about the average power that goes through the resistor.
OMG, the guy is awesome! He is the real thing for sure.
I sense a deer frozen in the headlights. Break 9! Break 9!
People have made suggestions to her before.
Since early 2009, when I came in, many tests and modifications and experiments have been suggested to Ainslie. Even the laboratory to which she sent her whole apparatus off to last year made suggestions for tests to her. The ONLY thing she has EVER done in response to any of these tests and suggestions is to buy and install the "noninductive" Vishay thick-film power resistors she has placed on the board where the original wirewound resistors were.
She paid no attention to the actual power requirements, and she -- or rather Donovan Martin -- installed these new resistors in such an amateurish manner that nearly all the benefit of their reduced inductance was cancelled by the installation.
There is zero chance that she will implement the instructions given her by S.Weir. Her eyes will glaze over after the first sentence, and if she gets as far as the 40-1 ratio of power and the mention of 1000 W average power, she will start arguing with him about "averages" and how power has to be equal in all the elements, and so on.
Ten days or so until the next demonstration's first announced date. Will she be able to complete a DigiKey order in that time? She doesn't even have the apparatus at home any more according to her. Time's a-wasting!
It's only a matter of time; I think Rose will turn on Mr. Weir at some point.
She has done so every in single case when her unsubstantiated assertions have been challenged. And if Weir is as sincere, honest and altruistic as I believe him to be, there are going to be a lot of "corrections" made (or at least attempted) at that demo, and there's the very real potential for a few feathers to get ruffled as a result.
Quote from: MileHigh on July 24, 2013, 07:24:36 PM
I have to confess smiling when reading Steve Weir's recommendations to Rosie Posie.
OMG, the guy is awesome! He is the real thing for sure.
I sense a deer frozen in the headlights. Break 9! Break 9!
I just read the entire reply from S.Weir. He is of course making the same suggestions about measuring points, decoupling, filtering and so on that everyone else has been making to her for years. He is getting quite specific in his advice about how to hook up the shunts with flat copper ribbon or PCB planes for minimal inductance. It's clear that he's already done a lot of work on this matter, simulating and analyzing, even to the point of designing an entire PCB for the whole circuit, including properly arranged testpoints. It would be really nice if Ainslie and Donovan Martin decided, for once, to cooperate in a public test program that actually makes sense. I estimate the probability of that happening as identically zero.
In case you've not heard, Rose is enthusiastic about my offer:
QuoteRose,
I have the utmost confidence that Mr. Weir has the expertise to both guide and vet the measurements you will obtain at your next upcoming demonstration. Therefore, if you and Donny precisely follow his guidance and requirements at this demo, I will award you the OUR prize money if you or Donny are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt ANY ONE of the following. I will abide by Mr. Weir's final judgement if you've indeed satisfied the challenge.
Your OUR Award challenge, should you choose to accept it, will be to prove that (in no particular order):
a) The FG does not contribute any power to the circuit. Of course the FG ref lead must be connected correctly on the MOSFET side of the CSR.
b) The load dissipates some 50W of power with only 5W or so sourced from the batteries.
c) When the scope is computing a negative mean Pbat, a net energy gain is going back into the batteries recharging them.
d) You can reproduce Fig.3 from paper 1 exactly as shown in the original release. (Or show me an updated Fig.3 that I may consider). Of course implied is the proper connection of the scope probes, and you must have a properly connected and functioning Q1 installed.
e) No battery current flows during the oscillation phase ("OFF" portion) of the cycle.
...more choices may be added later.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg4724.html#msg4724
Continuing with the measurements series...
Next we obtain the measurement of power from the function generator (FG).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1ytR1uu8TM (http://youtu.be/s1ytR1uu8TM)
We live in a world of propaganda, quoting Rosemary:
QuoteGuys - the value of our circuit configurations - both on the Q-array and the single MOSFET switching circuits - is that it shows clear and MEASURABLE proof of a unity breach. The benefits to this circuit have been thoroughly explored and tested.
She can say it as many times as she wants but it won't make it true. Nothing has been proven at all. Poynt recently and accurately characterized her two previous demos as a shambles.
QuotePicture - in the mind's eye - a football or soccer ball as you Americans call it
. It's made from leather patches cut into hexagrams and sewn together
. Those black and white patches.
. Construct that same shape out of crystals of iron/ferrite/steel/neodymium - anything magnetisable
. Where each hexagram extends into a six sided crystalline structure that tapers to a point
. With a radius length that reaches to the precise center of that sphere.
. thereby making a solid structure - optionally a sphere - out of magnets or magnetisable material.
. Each 'crystal' is then magnetised or has been cut from magnets that has a NORTH (say) at the broad surface
. Tapering to a SOUTH (say) at the radial tip
. And those crystals are then held together inside a containing Teflon/glass or some such material
. That can withstand the repelling force of those crystals.
. Then the structure - here described as spherical - is mounted between two vertical stands
. And attached to those two uprights by a pin bearing or some such
. That that structure (whatever shape has been cast) can rotate freely on a axis determined by those bearings.
In effect, with this design and/or multiple potential variations of this design - one will have created a SINGLE POLE on the surface of that structure - with a SINGLE POLE buried in its center. This is the closest possible physical construction of a magnetic monopole. Which is the object of this design.
Right, so imagine a soccer ball made up of radial magnetic wedges. There will not be a single pole on the surface and a single pole buried in the center.
Rosemary, after more than ten years obsessing on magnetic fields and writing a thesis based on her own hypothetical magnetic field model, is clearly demonstrating after all this time that she still doesn't understand how magnetic fields work.
I think that the implicit message in a general sense is to watch out for false prophets. Rosemary doesn't ask for money but almost every person interviewed by Gary Hendershot does ask for "donations" and it is becoming pervasive. I just watched a guy on Gary's last show that stepped into the interview slot from the audience. He is playing with a coil and has a web site and buddy with a web site and he asked for donations. I watched him and it was soon apparent that he didn't know what he was doing and he had nothing to offer. So that guy, as sincere and misguided as he may be, doesn't deserve any donations.
Nor does Rosemary deserve any credit about her system when nothing has been proven. In fact, it's already been implicitly disproved in another setup. Buyer beware.
MileHigh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR_8f0DYK5s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yC00JL7kuE
@MH:
She is STILL at it! Look at how she insults and lies!
The persons who are ABSOLUTELY REFUSING to carry on a scientific dialog on these matters are only ROSEMARY AINSLIE AND DONOVAN MARTIN!!
They still have not even released the simple, six scope captures that S.Weir guided them through.... the only possible actual scientific products of the June 28 "demonstration". And they refuse even to consider scientific experimental exploration of the operation of their apparatus, as the events of the past month amply illustrate.
A true EXPERIMENT, as you know MileHigh, involves the experimenter varying an Independent variable and looking at the effect of this variation on one or more Dependent variables, in a systematic manner. The experiment should be designed to test a specific hypothesis and should be in principle able to produce results that falsify the hypothesis. This is the heart and soul of the Scientific Method.
Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE)
And I am more than happy to continue to refer to the "work" of DONOVAN MARTIN and ROSEMARY AINSLIE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE)
TK:
Let's explore Rosemary's "PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE" in a bit more detail.
Quoting Rosemary:
<<<In effect, with this design and/or multiple potential variations of this design - one will have created a SINGLE POLE on the surface of that structure - with a SINGLE POLE buried in its center. This is the closest possible physical construction of a magnetic monopole. Which is the object of this design.>>>
In her magnetic soccer ball design, she states that all North will be on outside of the ball and the South will be buried in its center.
What will happen in reality is that all of the South ends of the "crystal wedges" in the center off the ball will result in a lot of mutual self-cancellation of the magnetic field. So the overall magnetic field created by the ball will be much much weaker than the sum of the individual crystal wedges.
Beyond that, everybody that plays with magnets is supposed to know that magnetic lines of force have to travel in closed loops. So that means that the surface of the ball will not be a single North pole. The surface of the ball will consist of a patchwork where there are patches of weak North poles intermixed with patches of weak "breakout" South poles. In other words, it will be a mess.
As far as the magic perpetual motion spinning goes, that's just more bunk. Many people seem to think that if you have a true magnetic monopole then you could create a true magnetic motor. Well, that's false. All that you have to do is think about the situation for one minute to see the error in your ways.
Going back to the magic crystal soccer ball and it becoming a ball where the top surface consists of weak North and South patches, any astute student in Grade 8 General Science class should be able to figure that out for themselves and come to the same conclusion as me.
Finally, that's why I said in my previous posting:
<<<Rosemary, after more than ten years obsessing on magnetic fields and writing a thesis based on her own hypothetical magnetic field model, is clearly demonstrating after all this time that she still doesn't understand how magnetic fields work.>>>
MileHigh
All that Rosemary has learnt after 10 years is to carry on believing in her own deluded mind,
will she ever stop to think for a moment that she might have got something wrong ::)
Quote from: powercat on July 27, 2013, 08:40:39 PM
All that Rosemary has learnt after 10 years is to carry on believing in her own deluded mind,
will she ever stop to think for a moment that she might have got something wrong ::)
No, never. Because she is deluded. No amount of evidence of any sort will cause her to re-think her assertions.
She'll merely broaden her responses to accommodate contrary evidence, by warping said evidence to fit her paradign.
You can teach other's about her circuit so they can decide in advance if they're going to waste their time on it or not, but that's about it really.
So Rosemary has come back and here is her comment about the magnetic soccer ball:
<<<Not unlike MileHigh - who we all know - also occupies those higher altitudes that can barely support life - let alone the hard work required for scientific evaluations.>>>
In other words she is ignoring what I had to say and she has no response. I have seen that over and over on the free energy forums. The crazier and more ridiculous the ideas proposed, the less likely you will get a response if you challenge the person or ask technical questions about these strange ideas.
On a positive note, more from Rosemary:
<<<Steve Weir will be doing a summation of our discussion. Essentially - I'm paraphrasing - we've settled on 'defensible' protocols - that will give REASONABLE evidence of the anomaly. And the critical feature of that anomalous claim is that we'll be showing the measurable dissipation of more energy dissipated at the load than is measured to have been delivered by the battery energy supply by an order of magnitude>>>
Good choice, Rosemary is expecting to show at least 10 times more power dissipated in the resistor as compared to the power that is delivered by the battery and the signal generator combined.
I am assuming that the battery output power and the signal generator output power will be measured properly as guided by Steve Weir. That means Rosemary will likely have to change the current sensing resistor for a single resistor and solder it to the battery post and remove the extra interconnect wiring between her batteries if there is any. She will have to make the battery power output measurement on the battery set itself. She will also probably have to do a new thermal profiling of her load resistor again. PicoWatt suggested putting a vertical tube around the resistor to reduce the effects of differing ambient breezes in the air so I hope she does that also. That way you get a more consistent "chimney effect" when you do the temperature profiling of the load resistor.
Then we can all say bye bye.
MileHigh
All of those things are good and proper to do.
As far as the thermal output is concerned, the proper way to do that is to measure the temperature of an oil bath in an insulated container. There is no "hanging in air" arrangement that I personally would accept as quantitatively valid, but a draft chimney certainly would be better than what they have been using.
Having the thermocouple probe directly in contact with the metal of the "element resistor" is a no-no and definitely must be avoided and prevented. Close proximity is fine, with complete immersion in the known quantity of heat-transfer oil. Ordinary mineral oil USP from the drugstore, sold as a laxative, is perfect, as it is pure and has a known specific heat of 0.84 and a high boiling point. The lower specific heat of the mineral oil means that a given energy input will cause a greater temperature change in the oil than in water, improving resolution precision, and the insulated bath with proper mounting of the element and the thermocouple will improve accuracy greatly over the current Ainslie arrangement.
But as far as the input power is concerned.... there are two objectives.
One would be to take the trouble to collect precise and accurate quantitative data to assure that power calculations are valid and reflect the true power input to the circuit from the batteries. This kind of careful effort must be undertaken for any future experiments or papers coming from the Donovan Martin - Rosemary Ainslie collaboration.
A different but related objective would be simply to show that the existing input power measurements are not valid, and so any claims...and papers.... based on them must be withdrawn, corrected and apologized for. This is the kind of testing that can be easily performed within the time and testing constraints of a "demonstration" taking an hour or two and streamed live on the internet.
Inserting a proper CVR at the negative pole of the battery, while making no other circuit changes, would allow a very simple test.
The "shunt" on the Ainslie test board, and this second resistor right at the battery negative terminal, are plainly carrying the same true current and should, therefore, give the same readings on a test instrument IF there are no other factors influencing the readings.
On the other hand, if the readings are different..... then there must be some other factor that is making one or the other or even both of the readings incorrect.
So one simply moves the CVR probe and reference, from the Ainslie position on the board, to this new resistor at the negative battery pole, minimizing the probe's loop length, without making ANY other changes to the circuit, settings, or instruments.(The Vbatt probe should also be moved directly to the batteries and the two probes should share the common reference point at the battery negative pole itself.)
Does the CVR trace change _AT ALL_ on the oscilloscope? If it does --- then it's all over but the mopping up, because you have just PROVEN that the scope readings taken in the Ainslie manner are unreliable and cannot be used for power calculations or inferential conclusions.
In short, if the Current Sense trace gives different results depending on whether the resistor is measured directly at the battery negative pole, or is measured at the usual location on the Ainslie board, then all the Current data in the Ainslie papers is invalid and the papers are NOT REPAIRABLE, they must be completely withdrawn.
TK:
Of course we already saw Poynt do the full video clip where he makes the three measurements with the last measurement being done using the CVR right next to the battery terminal. That clip basically blew Rosemary's proposition out of the water and showed where she made her serious mistakes and how to correct for them.
Rose's response was something like, "Thanks Poynty." Now I am not sure how to interpret that. One possibility is that she is so dense that the whole test flew over her head, she understood nothing, and she just parroted out "thanks." Another possibility is that the did understand what transpired in that clip but she still refuses to acknowledge it. Another possibility is that she just put the whole thing on "ignore" just like she ignored my comments about her ridiculous soccer ball business.
I note that we have seen this pattern before. When something significant is presented to her that is not in alignment with her proposition she simply ignores it or gives a characterless, soulless, "thanks" as a response. That's in marked contrast to all of the colourful language and description that she is normally capable off.
No matter how you look at it, she is just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Thanks to Tesla for the wireless!
For the load resistor profiling, I have nothing in principle against your oil/integration method except for the fact that it's unwieldy and complicated, not something that Rose is good at at all. It's not something that can be easily done in a live demo. Perhaps just the bare resistor is the solution, forget about the chimney suggestion.
Let's hope that finally the fat lady is singing. If she does the test properly with Weir's guidance, and assuming that the measurements are done like the battery power measurements are done in the third part of Poynt's clip, then she should see the battery + signal generator power are equal to her load resistor thermal profiling power within +/- 10%.
Hurray!!! The Zipon witch is dead and the free energy munchkins can move onto other things
MileHigh
Submitted in advance for your consideration: the schematic I will be using to compare the signals seen at two different Current Viewing Resistor locations. I'll compare the setup used in the June 29 demo (aka "old") with the setup that is considered proper (aka "correct") which uses a second CVR attached directly to the battery negative, a minimum-loop probe connection across this new resistor, and a floated Function Generator ground.
I'll be doing this comparison with the new-to-me Link Instruments DSO 2102 M pc-based digital oscilloscope. It is a 15 or so year old PC-based 2-channel 100 MHz oscilloscope, with basic math and data readouts. Unfortunately it does not do trace multiplication, but I have a way around that that I may wind up using. It interfaces with a ThinkPad 600e laptop thru the parallel port. It is normally isolated from the mains ground but the channel references are connected together. This instrument was kindly donated to TKLabs by the Petaluma Irradiated Chicken Heads Corporation.
When I change the CVR probe from the "normal" to the "correct" position resistor, I will also attach the probe with a special very short ground clip system that minimizes the size of the loop formed by the probe tip and reference lead.
Stay tuned, it will take me the rest of the day to do this and post the vid, probably.
Here's a quiz to ponder in the meantime: If I have the system connected to the "correct" CVR, turned on and powered up and oscillating, I can get reasonable oscillations with zero current indicated on the inline mA meter. If I now open the Switch at the battery positive..... what happens to the reading on the inline meter?
@MH: I believe that Ainslie intends to do another demonstration pretty soon. Or rather she will have Donovan Martin do it while she chatters in the background. I think they intend to clear up some of the difficulties they had before, and there is a chance that the demonstration might be directed again by someone who is able to stay organized and present a coherent discussion.
We all know that Ainslie will never accept results that are obtained on someone else's apparatus, even that of .99, nor on her own apparatus under independent control (the lab in the States, from last year). So for her to even have a chance of acceptance, the measurements must actually be done on her apparatus, with her test equipment, by her team members, according to a pre-agreed set of protocols and conditions put down in writing. I think that they are preparing for this at the moment.
Meanwhile I'll be doing what I do.
Oh I am so going to enjoy watching this troll queen get her final come-uppance. The last time, which already utterly devastated her claims and her entire team's credibility, apparently wasn't enough. She just cannot leave it alone though: the lies and misrepresentations and stupid idiotic insults and false claims continue. That woman is sick. But it is ALL ON RECORD.
Anyone can refer to the Tar Baby thread and note well that I say MANY TIMES that CHARGE IS FUNDAMENTAL and conserved, and that electrons are the carriers of the UNIT NEGATIVE CHARGE. And this FACT is at the foundation of Quantum Electrodynamics, which is by far the most precise and accurate physical model of reality that humankind has ever come up with. Ainslie is an ignorant fool, and once again is insulting, making stuff up, and attacking her own fantasies. Let her! It is entirely amusing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKstLQYayNA
Ainslie has now officially announced a new demonstration scheduled for this Sunday, August 4, 2013.
She can't resist stuffing her announcement with garbage, though.
QuoteWe'll be doing a rehearsal of the demo on Saturday 03rd August - a 'dry run'. Thereafter we'll do the demo on Sunday 04th August intended for 17.00 hours South AFrica Time which is GMT + 2.
And thereafter - God willing - I'll no longer be working with the circuit. Hopefully it'll be in more capable hands than my own. I do envisage just one more demonstration required - which is to run the test in conjunction with controls. The data for this test was submitted in our very first paper published in Quantum. But a Professor Jandrell of Wits university - INSISTED that this evidence be removed before he would agree to publish. Should anyone wish to familiarise themselves with his argument for this - I would recommend that you contact him directly. He is still gainfully employed as a reviewer for Quantum and a Professor in the engineering department. I have tried to solicit the reasons for this requirement. But I've failed. What I will say about this is that this exclusion of evidence is in defiance of usual requirements in publications, which, as a rule, encourage as much data in support of the claim as possible. And it is precisely because of this rather draconian editing requirement that we are still debating the results - SOME 12 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION. It is my considered opinion that Professor Jandrell INTENDED to keep the results and the claim as ambiguous as possible - in order to deny the essential claim that there is a unity breach.
The reason that Jandrell INSISTED that the data be removed is that he knew it was GARBAGE. The 555 timer made an inverted duty cycle, remember? The data WAS NOT GATHERED UNDER THE CONDITIONS CLAIMED IN THE ARTICLE and he knew it.
The only people who are "still debating the results" are the Ainslie "team". Everybody else knows they are bogus.
QuoteMeanwhile - it seems that the war of attrition - as MileHigh describes it - is now coming to a close. LONG overdue. For some reason - best understood by himself - Bryan Little - who claims he is NOT 'ickle Pickle' or not 'ickle'... one or the other (I forget which), has fallen away from his own thread - and is busy hiding under that rock that he needs rather URGENTLY. This to protect his GRE count from over use and 'abuse' and to keep his identity hidden from view. Provided only that he stays there - then I think there may be room for some interesting disclosures in the near future that are NOT mindlessly contradicted with pseudo scientific nonsense - which is his particular genius.
Insulting lying ignorant troll Rosemary Ainslie. All of this is on the record and will follow you around forever. The internet never forgets. You have been soundly disproven many times, you cannot support your own claims or even reproduce your own "data" when someone is watching you to keep you honest. Both of your demonstrations illustrate your ignorance and your mendacity and your lying papers are there on Rossi's JNP blog for everyone to examine for themselves. You can insult me all you like, but you cannot refute me, and you cannot support your own claims.
In addition, many people know exactly who I am and are laughing at you out loud for your stupid idiotic claim that I am someone called "Bryan Little".
Ainslie, you have simply got to STOP YOUR LIES about this Quantum article and the timer circuit.
The circuit IS PUBLISHED FOR ALL TO SEE and everyone who has actually built and tested it agrees with ME: it makes the exact inverted cycle that you claim. This is NOT a coincidence or a mistake, as anyone with REAL EXPERIENCE with the 555 can tell you. No "random" error or misprint would produce the EXACT INVERSE of what you claim, and the heat results you claim are easily produced using that INVERTED duty cycle. And this has been proven over and over again by everyone who has actually done the experiment. You used an inverted duty cycle of about 96 percent ON and your own published data prove this.
You can complain and insult all you like but you cannot refute me with facts. And EVERY ONE OF YOUR LYING AND INSULTING COMMENTS is going into my Permanent Record and will be made available to anyone who gives you a second glance, ever.
I am still waiting for your public apology about all the insults and claims you made over your bogus Figure 3 scopeshot-- which is another total and complete lie, as was proven to all on the 29th of June.
Refute this. You cannot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2-gokjcDQQ
Ah.... I see that Ainslie has posted the written terms for the upcoming demonstration, along with a price/partslist of components to improve measurement accuracy. There may just barely be time to get an order delivered to SA from DigiKey, parts installed and the Saturdy rehearsal accomplished... at which point there will be some major tears and frantic scrambling in CYA mode in Cape Town!
Meanwhile she mentions that the Skype call between her, SWeir and Donovan Martin is " available, but large: 116Mb" but she neglects to say just how or where it is "available".
I interpret her saying that it is "available" to mean that it is available. At least that's what most people mean when they say something is available. So where is the link, Ainslie? Are you waiting for ME to post it? Maybe I should do it, just for the lulz.
Of course she also said the spreadsheet data from the papers was available, and of course the scopeshots from the most recent demo _should_ be available... her lame excuse about not wanting to bother poor overworked Donny just went out the window with yesterday's conference call.... so where are those scopeshots? I laugh at Ainslie's "available".
Hi TK i just had the dates and times confirmed
Not sure if i have too much more info
http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/29/self-looped-generator-rosemary-ainslie-updates/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/07/29/self-looped-generator-rosemary-ainslie-updates/)
Will post here when i get the test objectives.
Kind Regards
Well, if they do what she "agreed to", and they have time to do a rehearsal on Saturday... then they will discover some facts that will likely prevent them from having anything to demonstrate on Sunday. So my prediction at this point is that either there will be no demonstration on Sunday, or it will not show what she has agreed to show, or it will be another unrehearsed hashup like last time.
Tinsel, Poynt etc,
this whole thing seems to be so silly. Why couldn't a board be made using best practice and
up to industry standards with a built in frequency generating thing of its own. The optimum
frequency must be known by now so surely it needn't be anywhere near as complex as
a manufactured multi range machine. Then just compare input and output.
I've got a DAB radio and the thing draws 12w whether it's on standby or on at high volume
so I use a time switch for times when I know I'm not likely to need it.
I do appreciate all the effort that everybody has put into this subject and I'm now much
more aware of all the pitfalls arising from seemingly simple measurement tasks. I also
feel that mr.Weir did a very good job under very difficult circumstances,
John.
Hi Minnie
The pulses coming from the function generator, when they go positive, they cause the Q1 mosfet to turn on without oscillations. This can be thought of as a pulse of ordinary DC in the normal direction through the circuit and there isn't any mystery about its power or its effect on the load. The "magic" of the negative power product and the alleged anomalous heat effects and battery non-discharging... all of that comes from the oscillations, the portion when the function generator is sending a "negative" signal out its Red output clip.
These magic oscillations are really only feedback from the circuit's long wires. The function generator can simply be replaced by a small DC power supply or battery and the thing will oscillate happily until the cows get bored and go home.
Now here's the rub: if you build according to good practices on a proper PC board, you don't get the oscillations at all, without adding additional components, and you certainly don't get the mean negative power product that is Ainslie's only instrumental evidence in support of her claims. So it would be easy for her to deny the validity or relevance of such a test, since it doesn't reproduce the waveforms that she depends on, right out of the starting gate.
However it's still a good idea and it is being done, at this moment, and in a week or so there may be results to report from that phase of the work. It may or may not be still relevant at that time, though.
Cheers, and hi to the kids and the duck....
---TK
I did some precursory reading about Ainslie.
A few basic and rudimentary questions come into play, and I am not going to waste time with armchair experts that just like to cause trouble.
1. Kirschoffs Law: Is anyone taking into account the heat loss/ emissions from the entire circuit in wattage-BTU?
2. Spike-loading gives the appearance of more output energy than input energy. These calculations are available. Has anyone calculated the output heat to the PWM and with variable frequencies noted the changes to validate that this unexplained phenomena is explainable and proven science?
3. If the circuit is purported to put power back into the source of energy and get more out than in, how and what methodology is used to loop the output back into the input? What methods to convert BTU into electrical power is planned to be utilized? Is this method accounting the efficiency factors and losses?
AlaskaStar