Quote from: MileHigh on June 21, 2012, 10:27:39 PM
Hmmmmmmmzzzzzz.....

That fog finally kicked in?  MileHigh?  Sweet dreams....

Rosie Pose

@All,

Assuming the new lab will be receiving copies of the "papers" or its schematic/waveforms for their upcoming tests, imagine how difficult it will be for them to duplicate the FIG 3/FIG 7 waveforms with a functional Q1 connected as indicated in the schematic.

One would think that prior to sending off the apparatus to such a prestigious laboratory, amendment of the document or waveforms would be in order.

Golly, I would want to at least FAX that FIG 3 to LeCroy with a little annotation pointing to the positive portion of the FG cycle asking what the indicated voltage is, just to verify that everyone else really is reading the 'scope incorrectly.

Think of the ramifications if there actually is sufficient gate drive being applied to the gate of Q1 to turn it on.  What possible explanation could there be for Q1 not turning on?  "Oops?"

Oh well...

PW

It's just another chapter in the fantasy story.

The device is made from components that you can round up in a day. My local supplier keeps IRFPG50s in stock at 6.95 each. The heating element, or one with the same specs, can be obtained as a 48-volt RV water heater element. Do you seriously think that a lab, interested in Ainslie's tale, would not FIRST build and test their own version out of locally available components?

Then, finding that they could not duplicate the various claims, like the scopeshots that show no current when there should be, or boiling water with no current as claimed, or batteries that don't run down, THEN they might want to see the original apparatus.

Now... consider how reticent Ainslie has been about real testing, needing "academics" by fives or threes, and so on. Never even showing a recent picture of the apparatus, never producing a single person on the "team" to speak up for her, never producing a single document from the other earlier labs that she claims have tested her kludge. But suddenly... out of the blue.... apparently due to the posting of the ERRONEOUS versions of the manuscripts on Rossi's JNP site..... she now is sending the whole thing off to the USA for testing.

What are the chances that this is a real, truly independent and impartial laboratory? What are the chances that Ainslie is even TELLING THE TRUTH AT ALL about this?

What are the chances that she's been totally duped and is sending her thing off to the Men In Black at Suppression Central themselves?

@PW: Yes, it will indeed be ironic if the Ainslie circuit requires a blown mosfet in order to duplicate the claims in the paper.

It's really too bad that this open source project, released into the public domain by Ainslie, is being carried out in such secrecy and with so much misdirection and mendacity. I, on the other hand, only want this new laboratory to have ALL the FACTS in the matter, such as the true capacity of the batteries used, the fact that the water referred to in Figure 7 was not actually boiling at all, the fact that the version of the paper that they must have contains many errors like that wonderful 5.9 megaJoules claim that has now vanished from the most recent edit (without explanation), the fact that Ainslie has lied about and misrepresented the circuit schematic many times, and the fact that many other people have reproduced her circuit AND the data that she claims indicate "COP INFINITY" without finding any trace of overunity performance or perpetual battery charge.... Just the facts, that Ainslie is trying to keep buried and hidden.

Do you think Ainslie will point that laboratory to this thread and my videos, so that they can decide for themselves about Tar Baby and Altoid? Do you think that Ainslie will give them the complete collection of scope shots all in one place, or the collection of her forum and blog posts that I have selected and assembled in a convenient location?

Fresh prose from the Rose:

QuoteThere's certainly much cause to remain hopeful.  What's interesting is that the oscillations are self generating.  The system seems to find it's preferred frequency and then there's nothing to stop it.  You'll recall that the only known conditions to sustain an electric current flow are under very cold conditions.  Here we've got a self sustained oscillation with no measurable energy discharged from the supply - and at room temperature.  But the questions that have entirely confounded conventional analysis apply to the required path for this current flow.  Because there is no path available for a battery discharge through Q2.  And Q1 blocks this path by having the negative signal applied to the gate.

Ha ha ha.....  The never ending Rosie dog and pony show.

Oh yes Rosemary, you never bothered to put a multimeter on current measurement in series with the battery to see what was going on in your circuit.  TK did it and the batteries are clearly discharging with current flowing out of the batteries and into the load.  This was all confirmed with the dim bulb test.  Poynt's simulations showed that the batteries were discharging.

You are so full of crap.  This nonsense with you is never going to end.

Willful ignorance.  Willful stupidity.  Willful self-deception.  Willful propagandizing of something that is clearly not true.