@fuzzy: Those are neat ! thanks for posting them. I doubt if the relevance to the present issues will be understood _or believed_  by she-who-knows-all-already, though.

A paranoid personality is always going to suspect that her "enemies" are going to great lengths to try to trick her and fool her into believing something that she "knows" isn't so. But she "knows" so much more than they do and feels entirely justified in her own eyes. Constantly feeling under attack, the paranoid person will "circle her wagons" and strike out at anyone and anything that happens by so long as it seems to threaten her heavily-defended world view. Contrary information will always be seen as a fabrication, a lie, an attempt to subvert her position that she knows is correct without room for doubt. Anyone who brings her contrary information is the enemy and will be attacked, and any chain of reasoning based on something that contradicts anything she "knows" is simply ignored. Her enemies conspire against her behind the scenes, they are organized and have agendas to prevent the great work that she is involved in, not only her own work but anything that even resembles it. There is a vast shadowy conspiracy working against her and people like her, who have the key for salvation of the human race.

You can see this thought pattern in her postings, over and over again. It is a "textbook" example of what CLINICAL psychologists call the Paranoid Personality Disorder. It moves from being a "style" to a "disorder" when it interferes with normal functioning and causes problems that extend out from the individual to affect the group ... as in the present case.

Ainslie always corrects her errors, she claims. Yet I cannot find anywhere where she has corrected the errors in the following statement:

QuoteIn any event it has now been running for 67 hours.  Therefore it's dissipated 10 x 60 x 60 x 67 = 2 412 000 watts. Sorry I've overstated this.  It's been running since Friday 10.30am therefore only 54 hours.  Therefore 1 944 000 watts dissipated. It's rated capacity is 60 ah's = 60 x 60 x 6 batteries @ 12 volts each = 1 296 000 watts. Technically it's already exceeded its watt hour rating at absolutely NO EVIDENT LOSS OF POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE.

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/07/134-more-results-this-is-getting-bit.html

Is there anything about this statement and claim of hers that is in error? Anything at all that calls the conclusion into question?
"So. Do the Math."  (tm Rosemary Ainslie.)



In her "papers" she mentions the use of the IsoTech GFG324 function generator. Yet the function generator shown in the video is some other model. Is the "GFG324" part an error? If so... why hasn't it been corrected? If not.... I would really like to get hold of information about this FG because the claims made for it seem critical to investigating the Ainslie claims themselves, since she claims it will do things -- or rather not do them -- differently from other common FGs. So information about the ACTUAL FG used in the "papers" is necessary. Is there an error here..... or not?

Ainslie claims always to correct her errors. Yet I find MANY errors in what she's said, posted, and put into her papers. And I can't find a single place where she corrects any of these errors. She has not even corrected the stupid assertion she made about my "lack" of color coding of wiring... when my wires are indeed all colorcoded in a consistent manner.... and hers are ALL BLACK.

Nor has she ever corrected this howling conceptual error:

QuoteCorrectly it is one Joule per second - but since 1 watt = 1 Joule and since 1 Joule = 1 watt per second - then AS I'VE EXPLAINED EARLIER - the terms are INTERCHANGEABLE. Which is ALSO explained in WIKI.

Out of context? What possible context can be imagined that would make that statement correct? And anyone can see perfectly well that it's not a typo or transposition... since she CALCULATES that way, over and over, and bases her overunity claim on the conclusions from those bogus calculations.

So. Do the math (tm RA.)

Ainslie acknowledges that Current Must Flow from the function generator in order to switch a mosfet gate and turn the transistor's main current path ON. But how much DC current does this take?

How much current from the Function Generator does it take to charge up the gate of an IRFPG50 and turn its drain-to-source pathway fully ON? If I had a perfect current meter and I put it in the gate circuit, what would it show if there were no other connections to that part of the circuit, as I apply a voltage there to switch the mosfet on?

What is the magnitude of the current (let's assume  +6 volts , gate-to-source, applied at the gate of the single IRFPG50 mosfet) required to turn it on? Does this current persist once the mosfet is turned on?

I'm talking about an arrangement like shown in the sketch below. The meter in the gate leg is a "perfect" current meter, the mosfet is an IRFPG50, the battery is 4 D-cells in series, the switch is a manual pushbutton and the bulb is a flashlight bulb. And the black lines are wires.

Two simple questions:
1. When I close the manual switch, how much current flows to the gate through the perfect ammeter to turn the mosfet on?
2. Once the mosfet is ON and the light bulb is glowing brightly, does the GATE CURRENT continue flowing through the perfect ammeter?

I've attached the mosfet data sheet for the convenience of anyone who wishes to answer this little quiz. Open notes allowed as always, but please show your workings.

I am no electronics engineer but I was under the impression that a field effect transistor needs only voltage to trigger the main.  Usually the gate has an rc network attached to make sure the fet doesn't miss fire.  The signal generator needs to supply enough current to overcome the rc network filtering and satisfy the gate capacitance.

TK,

From my read, RA is discussing the oscillation seen on the battery trace.  She is trying to arrive at an explanation for how the oscillation Vpp can far exceed or be less than the battery voltage (i.e., oscillate above and below Vbatt).

Apparently that was written without any belief in battery lead inductance and the high impedance it presents to the osc at the frequency of osc.

She discusses the many many amps that must sink/source from the battery if the battery trace indication is correct, and though apparently aware .99's assertions regarding lead inductance, ignores them for one reason or another.

I could be wrong as it is difficult to read due to its use of "less than technical" language.

PW