What a example of being asleep at the wheel and showing their inexperience in managing or owning a forum.

After 82 pages of SPAM it's stopped for the moment but the spammers are going to show up in the masses now.

The first new member "Rleriebak" check him out in a SEARCH at http://www.stopforumspam.com/   

There's no Terms of Service at that forum .... and no freedom of speech either for experimentalist just spammers. 

FTC

Take a look at these three scope shots. I'm sorry I can't find any higher resolution versions of them. Perhaps Ainslie can post better versions... perhaps not. Then there is a fourth one, discussed further below.

These are taken from her blog post # 84:
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/03/84-10-days-to-go-and-yet-more-surprises.html

All taken on 2011/03/02.

SCRN0253:
Time 07:54
Mean Battery Voltage 73.8 V
Gate HI voltage ~12 V
Gate HI current (from CVR trace) 0 A
Gate HI on times ~ 18 seconds each period

SCRN0254:
Time 08:10
Mean Battery Voltage 73.7 V
Gate HI voltage ~12 V
Gate HI current (from CVR trace) 0 A
Gate HI on times ~ 18 seconds each period

SCRN0255 (oscillations magnified):
Time 08:13
Mean Battery Voltage 73.3 V
Gate LO voltage ~ -5 V

Some points to ponder:

1. The mean battery voltage has dropped by 0.5 volt over the twenty minutes of the trial. Yet Ainslie continues to claim "no measurable change in potential difference" or however she puts it in her prevarications. The battery voltage drops, indicating.... what, now? Normally, a drop in the mean battery voltage over the period of an experiment... especially a large battery.... would indicate, to most researchers, that the BATTERY VOLTAGE IS DROPPING. Duh. Hence the battery is discharging, as shown by the Ainslie data, in contrast to the Ainslie claims. Once again, the data refute her claims.

2. The Full 72 volt nominal battery pack was used, with a long.... long.... on time. High heat was claimed to be produced. By the time the scope shots were recorded, no current is flowing through the Q1 mosfet. This cannot possibly happen IF the circuit is wired as we are told and if the mosfet is functional, since the Gate signal during those 18 second periods is STRAIGHT DC AT + 12 VOLTS. The combination of the high battery voltage and the total circuit resistance of under 14 Ohms during Gate HI periods indicates that something over 5 Amperes SHOULD be flowing through the Q1 mosfet..... which of course would cause it to fail fairly quickly but not immediately, considering its tiny heatsink and inadequate mounting... IF the circuit is what we have been shown and told it is.

The next real data from Ainslie in the blog is the posting of the Video Demo (the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" video) in her blog on March 22, 2011, some three weeks later. Some of the intervening period was spent writing up some of the trials as "experiments".
As we all know by now, for the High Heat demo in the video, BATTERIES WERE REMOVED and only 48 volts was used to demonstrate the long ON time, GATE HI, high heat mode. This brings the mosfet current down to about 3.5 Amps, which would allow it to survive, given that it is allowed to cool off during the gate LO periods.

The forum posts in the locked thread, between March 2 and March 22 are very interesting. These are happening, of course, while people are still believing that 5 mosfets are in strict parallel and there is nothing special about a Q1. The Q1-Q2 wiring error wasn't discovered BY THE PUBLIC -- thanks to .99's careful observations and analysis-- until ALMOST A MONTH AFTER the video was released on March 22.

The posts between those days are very interesting to read. Evolvingape has some extremely well-thought out and well-stated comments in there; Mark Dansie asks about running on Capacitors and everyone agrees this would be a good idea... except YKW..... there is no mention anywhere of why one might remove batteries for the demonstration of High Heat in the video..... except for this post here:

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/105/

QuoteI should add this.  We have very high temperatures when we're in that 'booster' mode - and I suspect that we're then getting some kind of wattage reconciliation.  But the heat is that extreme and it rises that fast that we've not even managed to do a data dump.  Everything then becomes critical and we barely get the time to check that the voltage levels are still compatible with the DSO's.  Then, indeed - we're possibly getting something that correlates with our measurements.  But then too, we're talking really high wattage values.  Well in excess of the 44 watt tolerance that we know we can test - safely.  The urgency then is to disconnect.  Fast.  It's really quick and really hot.

And a bit later this (note the "set fire to sundry components" bit):

QuoteIt is a complete waste of time testing those small wattage values as this does not show depletion on that large stack of batteries.  It may make sense to test those higher wattages.  But here there's a problem.  There is clear evidence that the system is trying to output more energy than is determined by the setting at the gate.  It has OFTEN defaulted that the gate setting seems to slip higher and - in moments - we're in a crisis.  I have - in the past - set fire to sundry components.  Therefore to test this to duration would take time.  Whole days and nights of it.  And someone would need to be there to monitor that accidental 'rise' in output which - most assuredly - would be hazardous.  There simply was not the personnel available on this kind of test basis.  It was simply a 'no go' criteria for testing. 

And finally, on the 19th, she reports that Tektronix have pulled their scope back, as reported in more detail by FTC (very interesting reading) and that soon the LeCroy must be returned, so she cannot do any more testing.

She is asked for higher resolution versions of some scopeshots and presents these (some of which I didn't include in SCRN.zip yet) in this forum post:

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278651/#msg278651

Note the dates and times and gate traces and current traces. The top four shots are from March 2, and show a +12 volt gate HI pulse but no current in the CVR. The bottom two are from Feb 22 and DO show current in the CVR during gate HI periods--- but are using much higher frequencies.

Next consider SCRN0243 and SCRN0244 from Feb 24. The 0243 is very interesting.... I've attached it below. Look at the gate signal. Even at the high frequencies used, the FG should not sag like this, and of course no current flow is shown. Is the mosfet partially shorted gate-to-source?

Then there is a day or two of discussion about why .99's sim results cannot duplicate Ainslie's scope traces or what's shown in the video... then she posts SCRN0227 (A meaningless comb) and SCRN0235, both from Feb 22 again, with substantial current flow clearly shown in 0235.
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279127/#msg279127

Then a bit later she posts SCRN0150, showing only a 48 volt battery pack and STRONG current during gate HI on times.

All this posting is happening BEFORE the "mistake" separating Q1 and Q2 is discovered, but AFTER the video demo.

Ainslie reports replacing two mosfets here, on April 7:
http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg280715/#msg280715

And it is not until APRIL 19 -- after nearly a month of bloviation on Ainslie's part, and spurious explanations and meaningless scopeshots that .99 finally discovers and explains the VERY SIGNIFICANT difference between what is ACTUALLY SHOWN AND USED, and what Ainslie has been leading people to believe.

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg282094/#msg282094

The ramifications have still not sunk in completely. But I encourage readers to go back and read the posts from the posting of the video on March 22 through the discovery by .99 of the wiring "mistake".

"Well, this is terribly embarrassing...." --- the understatement of the century.

Bottom line --- blown mosfets due to high heat, prevarication and mendacity on Ainslie's part, and her OWN DATA refute her claims of "no measurable loss of battery potential" over and over again.

My replacement NOS Motorola transistors for the F43 just arrived from Singapore, so I'll be off line for the afternoon while installing and testing.

I am happy to announce that the Mighty Interstate F43 High-Voltage Function Generator is fully repaired and checks out 100 percent on the bench, after replacing all 4 of its final output transistors. Better than 100 percent, actually, since it seems to have a bit more "oomph" now than before. It's burning in now, back in its accustomed position next to its partner the HP180a oscilloscope.

@pw: I did use the 60 volt MPSU05 which was all the Singapore vendor had in stock. I'll put the 80 volt MPSU06s in when I get them, but for now all is copacetic.

I am pleased with this vendor. The order went along without a hitch, if a bit slow, since it came via registered mail from Singapore. Order was painless, I got the right parts for cheaper than anywhere else, they have a huge stock and selection, they ship registered mail, no minimum quantity, 10 dollar minimum order, the package came with all kinds of official looking quality assurance stamps on it.... a happy experience overall. I endorse this vendor and will be using them again, immediately.

http://www.utsource.net/

TK:

Didn't I predict that it would be the output transistors?  What the hey?!

Was it due to that NERD negative oscillation mode?  Damn!  Damn!  Damn!  (In a Charlton Heston kind of way.)

Okay back to kicking some NERD butt!

MileHigh