Quote from: mrsean2k on May 20, 2012, 03:46:31 AM
@TK

I don't think she does much "lying" in the straightforward sense, but she manages to convince herself she has a case.

You are being excessively charitable. Yes, it is possible to reproduce the actual data, and in that sense she is telling some truth. However I have documented many real lies, like the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" howler, and the "IN THIS TRIAL ALONE" lie based on her admittedly bogus calculations which she still has not corrected and retracted. There are many more solidly untrue, flat out lies that she has told over the years and I've got many of them solidly documented, if the imaginary lawyers want to see them.

Quote

Most of the wilder claims she's documenting would need a seed of truth or misunderstood observation.

I'll go for "some". Many of the others are forced "stuffing" and bending of facts to conform to what she considers her "thesis" which is nothing more than an ignorant handwaving set of crazy conjectures with no connection to any "standard model" that she keeps squawking about. She doesn't even know what the Standard Model is, and she thinks her "zipon" theory will replace Quantum Electrodynamics as the correct understanding of electricity and magnetism. She doesn't have the education to be able correctly to interpret the things she sees in her twiddling and tinkering... which beggars the very term "experimentation".

Quote
As far as the temperature measured for the water, I guess that would be confusing it with the temperature on the surface of the tortured heating element itself?

She has never measured the temperature of the water. She heats the load in air, then when it is as hot as she likes, she plunges it into water. So all of her thermometry is fatally flawed and has nothing to do with measuring the real power at the load or the energy dissipated there. You are right: she is measuring the outside temperature of a big water heater element with very large thermal mass. Her fumbling temperature methods do not illustrate anything about the performance of her circuit: they illustrate the difficulty in performing proper calorimetry, mostly, and are the feeble tinkerings of a naive child playing with her play-oven set. She is someone who doesn't even cook for herself, probably.

Quote

As far as the water temperature increasing with not power, that's the hot element cooling itself into it's surroundings and raising the temperature

Bingo.

Quote
And as far as "bubble" in the water, could they be developed on the surface of the element where it's in direct contact with the water?

Could be. Tiny bubbles..... The whole description sounds like it's coming from someone who has never _actually_ boiled water at all ever.  To blithely say that the "water" was at 104 CELSIUS degrees, and then just move along as if that were normal, or even possible  .......  makes me laugh every time I think of it. She and Rossi are a perfect match.

Quote

20W although substantial, isn't *that* much; certainly you wouldn't want to wait for your morning tea from it, and at a brief google, those in-car 12V heating elements look to draw a lot more power, and most people complain about how long they take to work.

I invite you to take a mosfet, or anything that is that small, like a night light bulb, and send "20 Watts" of power through it. Hold it in your fingers for a while. People do solder with 20 Watt irons quite effectively, melting metal and causing the flux to waft its fragrant vapors upwards. And if you provide one of those in-car heating elements with 72 volts instead of 12..... well, you won't have to wait so long for your instant coffee after all.

The point is not really how hot the load gets. It is how hot the _mosfet itself_ gets. The mosfet we are using has an ON state resistance from source to drain of 2 Ohms when it is fully on and cool. If the circuit's voltage is 72 volts and the total circuit's resistance including this mosfet is 14 Ohms, there will be I=V/R = 72/14 = almost 5.2 amperes flowing through the mosfet. The power dissipated IN THE MOSFET is given by P=I^2R = (5.2 x 5.2 x 2.0) = 54 Watts, in a little thing about the size of a piece of hard candy. Sure, reduce the duty cycle. That will help. But if you use a LONG PERIOD the short duty cycle isn't going to help much. A 2.5 minute period with an 18 percent ON duty cycle leaves the mosfet ON for 27 seconds at a time, carrying 54 Watts. Do you have a 60 Watt light bulb handy? Hold it in your hand and turn it on and count slowly to 25 (since it's 60 not 54 Watts). Feel anything? Now imagine that power concentrated in a volume smaller than a US dime inside that plastic package that is the mosfet. I've attached the IRFPG50 data sheet below again so that one may look at its various graphs and charts to see that the IRFPG50 will NOT survive long at 5.2 amps on that inadequate heatsink.
And.... as the mosfet warms up, its resistance rises and its power handling capacity goes down. Mosfets in real use are always mounted on Good Heatsinks and are often fancooled. I invite you to look at the Ainslie breadboard used in the video demo, and also in the pix of the single-mosfet version and look at the "heatsink" that is used for Q1. I also ask you to recall that in the High Heat Demo in the video.... they removed a battery and used only 48 volts in the main battery and this has NEVER BEEN EXPLAINED by anyone but me. And several of the scopeshots we have where there is current in Q1 and high heat reported.... also only used 48 volts.
Recall as well that we KNOW about at least two and maybe a third failed mosfets in her apparatus -- two that she admitted to herself and one that her friend (Macey?) maybe blew during the "soldering iron" trials without FG (or was that a different "chip" that blew then?)  --  and we suspect several more from her own reports and definitely from the screenshots which show high positive gate signals but no current in Q1.

She has NEVER explained how a properly functioning and connected mosfet can NOT turn on and pass current when given a plus gate signal of 10-12 volts. Yet that is manifestly happening in several of her scopeshots, as anyone can see in the SCRN database.

My position is that the mosfet MUST turn on in those conditions unless it is damaged or not connected, and I challenge Ainslie to prove her contention in this matter by SHOWING one that does not. SHOW, not talk about or claim.

"I invite you to take a mosfet, or anything that is that small, like a night light bulb, and send "20 Watts" of power through it. Hold it in your fingers for a while"


I take your point. To some degree I ask because my real world intuition for what 20W represents is poor - I attend only when the bill lands on the doorstep.

Heh..... Twenty watts doesn't seem like much, but there are other factors to consider like the volume. Take that twenty watts and cleverly concentrate it to the tip of a soldering iron and you can melt metals easily. Well, some metals anyway.


Now....  We have all the scopeshots in one place. And it's clear from the scopeshots that many of them have a MATH trace on them. And this MATH trace, by looking at the boxes, is always the Current Viewing Resistor Channel x the Battery Voltage Channel. Right? That is, the MATH trace is doing VxI, where the I is really a voltage across the CVR so is represented as another V. So the math trace is multiplying V x I at every sample instant, and is displaying those values as a function of time, and connecting them with a pretty colored line (RED) across the screen.

Right? In those crazy math terms, the MATH trace is displaying VI(t), the instantaneous product of current and voltage as a function of time. That is, an instantaneous power curve (or function).

And in the scope's parameters box Ainslie always has the scope calculate the MEAN of this trace, along with several other MEANS, and she uses this MEAN value, which is negative under the conditions of her measurements, as the main support for her claims. RIGHT?

I *mean*..... it is there in black and white and red, all over almost ALL of her scope shots. She multiplies VxI, displays that result as a function of time vi(t), and has the scope calculate a MEAN from that function. On almost every scope shot.

And yet..... she says this:

QuoteWe have never used MEAN vi EVER.  And you absolutely CANNOT say MEAN[vi(t)] because that's INHERENTLY contradictory.  Why don't you see this?

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg292432/#msg292432

Of course .99 came back instantly and illustrated that she was lying with a reference to one of her scopeshots, and she just blithely continued on with one of her Fractured Fairy Tale "explanations" which only serve to illustrate her profound ignorance of her topic. She doesn't even know what "mean" means, apparently.

Here is the first test using a capacitor in the method as suggested by MH.

The bottom battery is removed and replaced with a charged (12V) 47uF capacitor. The simulation run is short (3ms) which is why I used such a relatively small value capacitor. I set the oscillation duty cycle to 80%.

The capacitor discharges to zero, then begins to charge in the negative direction. Meanwhile the oscillations continue, albeit in ever decreasing amplitude, the same as before the capacitor went negative.

Due to the capacitor charge going negative, I would not recommend this test, as electrolytic capacitors tend to blow up when reverse-charged.

The next test will be with a single capacitor replacing all of the batteries.

Dear Rosemary,

I remain concerned by the just treatment you have received at the hands of the highly credible ruffians assembled here. As you are now moving into the stage of legal action I think you will find the link provided will assist you in dealing with legal counsel  and establishing basis for your compliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eGFqwWuU9c

Kind Regards,
(PS) Please do not be distracted by the Spanish or Portuguese definition of the word “mancha”. I was of course relating your prize to the celebrated area of Spain where our courageous Don Quixote struggled to right every wrong in his singularly unique way.

Ever,

ReFried