I've looked carefully at the shot in question and it looks like a deliberate edit to me, not a "scanner artefact". After all, whoever made the papers HAS ALL THE ORIGINAL SCOPE SHOTS, and if they don't.... I do, and have posted them all publicly, so there's no excuse whatsoever for "scanning". There is no excuse for this kind of "error" and I don't believe that it is a scanner error.

But so what, maybe it is. The 5.9 megaJoule figure, the "taking water to boil".... all of that is a lie, as well, and there's no "scanner" involved in that part of it.

And the omission of the total battery capacity.... has that been "corrected" as well?

So.... Ainslie is waiting for ME to point out the continual string of errors and misrepresentations and outright lies in those "papers" before she corrects them.... ? Just as she has allowed ME to do her homework for her during the last six months?

I am disgusted by this whole thing. She lies and lies and lies about everything under the sun related to her obsession and isn't the least concerned about accurate reporting or even consistency.


5,900,000 Joules in 1.6 hours !! DO THE MATH.

And, Ainslie, I am NOT Scott Little, you bloviating insulting overweeningly arrogant ignorant lying idiot, so you can stop calling me "little" in an attempt to get a rise out of me.

Quote from: picowatt on June 19, 2012, 09:22:59 AM
I did not really expect an answer.  They are rarely, if ever, forthcoming.

The Q1 not turning on issue can only mean that Q1 was either damaged or disconnected during the 'scope captures where no current flow is indicated during the cycle portion wherein gate drive is indicated as more than sufficient to turn on Q1.

This of coures would mean that all tests and discussions related to FIG3, FIG4, FIG6, and FIG7 would have to be dismissed as erroneous.

Interesting how FIG 5, made the prior month, indicates a sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and indeed, the CSR trace does indicate that it is turning on.

PW

And it's interesting that in this particular case.... the important one describing the "water to boil that wasn't actually boiling" trial..... the information that would allow you to see this... is missing. For whatever reason.... THIS scopeshot has critical information missing.

How much other information is "missing" due to "scan errors" or other selective editing? I have always maintained that only the real RAW DATA from Ainslie can be trusted at all, none of her interpretations or math can be trusted. But now... I see that they are not above publishing even the RAW DATA with ... "errors" .... in it that grossly mislead the readers.

It's actually likely that Fig. 7 is showing the mosfet in the process of failing. If you examine the current and math traces carefully you can see the mosfet in its death throes. This experimental trial was the one where she produced the very high load temperature (if anything of her reportage can be believed) and is using more than 60 volts in the battery pack. It is also apparently the last time they tried for high heat with more than 4 batteries.

5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours is over a KiloWatt, continuously, there, picowatt. Do you really think she was sitting there in that little closet next to a kiloWatt heater for an hour and a half? I sure don't.

And you are right about no answers forthcoming. She'll just continue to skip over the real issues, like the missing current where there should be current shown, and the claims that nothing is drawn from the battery when there IS current shown, and the claims that the circuit won't run on capacitors, and the ridiculous claims about the power dissipation totals.

Ainslie and her "team" have engaged in deliberate covering up of contrary data, have distorted and misinterpreted the data that IS presented, and they have continually refused to correct the math errors and the refuted claims that are still contained in their posted drafts. The various accounts of the SAME experimental trial do not even agree with each other.

Laugh, or cry?


Let's try to go through this again, BRIAN AHERN, thou physicist with over 30 years of lab experience.

To calculate the energy in a battery from the Amp-Hour rating of the battery, one needs to use the VOLTAGE of the battery in the calculation.

5 each 12 volt 60 amp-hour batteries contain how many Joules of energy? Well, we have a battery pack of 60 volts that can deliver 60 amps for one hour. And one Joule is one Watt-second, and one Watt is one Joule PER second, as is explained in WIKI. SO... DO THE MATH.

So that is (60 volts x 60 amp-hours) x 60 minutes per hour x 60 seconds per minute = 12960000 Watt-seconds... or Joules. TWELVE POINT NINE MILLION JOULES in the battery pack, Brian.

Or, if you like, a single 12 volt, 60 amp hour battery contains 12 volts x 60 amp-hours x 60 seconds/minute x 60 minutes/hour = 2,592,000 Watt-seconds .... or JOULES. And five of these will then contain..... 5 x 2592000 Watt-seconds = 12960000 Watt-seconds... or JOULES.

Now.... how long would the Ainslie device have to run, making 23 Watts, to exceed that value? 12960000 Watt-seconds / 23 Watts = a bit over 563478 seconds.  How long is this in hours? 

I get a bit over 156 hours, or just under ONE WEEK of continuous, round-the-clock operation.

(NOTE that if you put the UNITS into your algebra, you can avoid making certain basic errors... like forgetting to include the VOLTAGE value when you are calculating Watt-seconds from Amp-hours.)

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on June 19, 2012, 08:06:43 AM
Dear picowatt and little TK

Your speculative excursions are considerably more entertaining than anything else in this thread.  The omitted zero reference lines were simply the result of a prior compression of the files.  This has now been corrected.

What ridiculous people you are.  Get a life for God's sake.

Rosie Pose

Guys - let me say this again.  IT IS SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE TO CORRUPT THE DATA FROM OUR LE CROY.  WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY IT'S SUCH A SUPERB INSTRUMENT FOR TESTS SUCH AS THIS - ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE CONTENTIOUS NATURE OF THOSE SCREENSHOTS.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

This has now been corrected? Not on the papers posted on your new forum it hasn't,  you liar. Here's the current "corrected" version... where you simply deleted the reference to the battery capacity, but the channel baseline indicators are STILL MISSING.

Look, if you are really having trouble finding the original scopeshot to put a good image in your paper, here it is, just as you uploaded it originally..... as a .bmp but with the extension changed to .jpg by you so it would bypass the forum's upload filters. If you download it, it won't display since it's got the wrong extension... just change the extension back to .bmp.

The one with the 301.1 kb filesize is the actual .bmp that Ainslie uploaded by changing its extension to .JPG.
The one with the 84.1 kb filesize is the true .jpg conversion from Ainslie's original .bmp scope-save shot.


No compression artefacts are evident to me. All the baseline references are clearly visible.