Now... the daft manuscript says that the schematic in Fig. 1 "refers". But that schematic has the FG's black cliplead connected to the mosfet side of the current-viewing resistor. This, I believe, is the correct location so that the CVR can monitor the relevant current flows in the system.

However.... the photographs that we have of Ainslie's experimental setups, both the single mosfet design and all versions of the 5 mosfet design that we have been able to locate... show the black cliplead from the FG connected to the common circuit ground on the BATTERY side of the CVR, meaning that current flows through the FG (which Ainslie for a long time has denied were even possible) were not "counted" by the CVR.

What evidence do we have that the CORRECT location, depicted on the CLAIMED schematic, was in fact used.... especially considering that the issue wasn't even identified or discussed until after the demo.... after the experiment in the paper.... AFTER it could have been incorporated in the manuscript's experiment?

I've tightened up the topology a little more on my revision of the Quantum paper schematic.

I've included the original Quantum image, and a photo of my latest re-draw of it. This is the Exact Same Circuit ! (oscillator section only of my redraw is shown, of course.)

Quote from, well, you know:

Quote
Ok Poynty.  Would this test prove your proposal that there's a current flow through the function generator's terminal and probe at Q2?

We disconnect Q1 source leg from the circuit.  We then attach the function generator terminal to the gate of Q2 with its probe placed at the battery supply source or negative rail.  Therefore in series we'd have the  FG terminal at the Gate of Q2 >to the  FG probe >to the battery source rail or negative rail >to the  0.25Ohm shunt >to the negative terminal of the battery supply.  We then apply a positive signal at the gate of Q2.  Bear in mind that under this 'schematic' the source leg of Q2 would be DISCONNECTED.

IF there is clear evidence of a continual >zero current flow -  measured across the shunt - then there is unequivocal proof that the current from the battery supply and/or the function generator - can flow through the terminal and probes of the function generator as a DC current and that the probes and terminals effectively maintain a series path to enable this flow.

IF the waveform moves into oscillation mode then the question is still out there as to whether the current can indeed flow through the function generator terminal and probe as proposed.

If you agree with this as a fair test - then I'll list this as one of the proposed tests when that apparatus gets back to me.  I'll try and upload that schematic again - so that you can see that I've faithfully duplicated the schematic conditions to test this.

Well, from this post, it looks like all of .99's efforts have been for nought.  She struggles with the simplest of concepts regarding electronics, and even basic electricity, yet somehow feels she is more qualified to discuss (argue) a circuit, a schematic, or how to use test equipment than just about anyone else.

Armed with absolutley no idea what the "standard model" (apologies for using her words...) is with regard to the everyday understanding of the operation of electronic circuits, she feels qualified to tell all that whatever that understanding is, it is wrong and she has rewritten it.

I particularly liked her pondering where all those electrons come from that the utility sends us.  It made for a good chuckle.  I actually think she believes that electrons are somehow created and destroyed as they involve themselves with even the simplest of circuits. 

For every electron leaving a battery, there is one returning to the opposing terminal.  For every electron leaving a power plant, there is one returning to the opposing terminal of the generator.  Electrical or electronic circuits do not create or destroy electrons, they only move electrons about in a manner advantageous to a circuit's operation.

Generators and batteries only act as "pumps", to cause electrons to move within a conductor.  A generator uses mechanical energy to "pump" the electrons, a battery uses electrochemical energy to "pump" the electrons.

Electrons are not lost as a battery discharges, nor are electrons added as a battery is charged.

It would seem most logical for one to learn what the current understanding of electronics is before one decides that understanding is incorrect and new theories are required.



ADDED:  I see the "lab report" was a bust.  TK, you always seem to make accurate predictions...



     

Well, I don't know about that.... let's just say "usually", and my record with Ainslie is almost like deja vu all over again, because .... I have been here before. 

But.... the first paragraph describing the proposed connection seems, if I am decoding the Ainslie-ese properly, to simply place the CVR directly across the output of the FG, with the sources of both transistors removed from their connections to the negative rail completely. Assuming the "source of Q1" is disconnected on the transistor side of the junction with the Q2 gate and the FG's "terminal" and CVR.
I think I would be pretty surprised if any oscillations would occur under those circumstances, and of course the CVR will show the current, in both directions through the essentially shorted circuit of the 0.25R across the FG, being sourced by the FG, I should think.
I am having a hard time picturing what she is talking about though, since she refuses to pick up a pencil and draw what she means. Although considering what we've seen in that area before... maybe it's best that she doesn't.

I'll have to try it on Tar Baby, as soon as she is returned from Georgia. I sure hope she hasn't been captured by the extremist FEF Brigade (Free Energy Fanatics).

PW said,

QuoteADDED:  I see the "lab report" was a bust.  TK, you always seem to make accurate predictions...

Well... I'll try another one.

The lab confirmed that the numbers she got were the numbers she got. (Just like .99 and me and probably you too by now).

They also subbed in a noninductive CVR and filtered the battery and got some real numbers... just like .99 and me and probably you by now.

So now they are sending some noninductive shpeshul reshsisshtorsh and some instructions on proper testing back to Ainslie so SHE can replicate THEIR results and disabuse herself of the notion that she is all that.

And of course... when she DOES see what they've done and suggested, these good Boffins, to a man, will suddenly become ignorant idiots too blind to see what is laid before them as the salvation of Mankind, and that's the last we will hear of their suggested tests and their noninductive CVR. But Ainslie will use their "confirmation" of the numbers she got as an ENDORSEMENT, but of course she will still never mention the actual lab's name or any contact information so that her claims can be checked. And you can be sure that every body is NDA'd up to their armpit hairs, too.

I wonder if any of them are named Tarnow, or perhaps Tarnowski.