Now... .what kind of "peer review" fails to notice that two papers, describing the SAME EXPERIMENTS, give two significantly different schematics? What reviewer, a peer and therefore qualified to evaluate electrical information, fails to notice a mosfet getting 12 volts to the gate but not turning on? What peer fails to notice that the cartoon explanations don't correspond to ANY of the schematics supposedly used?

With every new chapter this story keeps getting better and better. Here we have an extremely clear case of pseudoscientific misconduct: the submission and "publication" of a paper that is KNOWN to contain many errors and false statements, and has been known to do so for at least a YEAR.


What kind of function generator does that paper say was used?

I am bemused because she has the MOSFETs arranged backwards again on the Rossi blog post.   

How many seas must a white dove sail before she sleeps in the sand?

Quote from: MileHigh on August 02, 2012, 11:45:04 PM
I am bemused because she has the MOSFETs arranged backwards again on the Rossi blog post.   

The extreme irony being that THIS, with the multiple parallel transistors on the right, is actually the better way to do things, so that the Gang of Four can carry the large DC current during the FG RED lead HIGH portions of the duty cycle.

Why should you be bemused, though? I immediately checked the paper EXPECTING TO FIND these "errors".... and sure enough, there they are. It's not bemusing at all. It is par for the Ainslie course.

What is bemusing to me is how someone can continue to be so very overweeningly arrogant and ignorant as to NOT correct the obvious errors before submission. She thinks 1) the difference isn't significant; 2) nobody is likely to notice; 3) even if they do, they are too stupid to understand the implications; 4) and if anyone questions or complains, they are incompetent.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 02, 2012, 11:33:59 PM
First, the battery voltage mean is 73.8 volts, steady.
This means that each of the batteries is at 12.3 volts.... and according to the data tables that .99 has posted in Ainslie's honeytrap, this means that the batteries are 40-50 percent DISCHARGED.... yet in the paper Ainslie claims that they are all of them still fully charged.

Keep in mind that the voltages listed in the table were taken under no-load conditions.