Yesterday morning, she posted this:

QuoteWe'll be doing our first video this afternoon - God willing.  That's in about 12 hours from now.  So, hopefully by supper time - in America - you'll have our first test on line.  Our very first test is to challenge those repeated claims by picowatt at OU.com that sullied my own thread and then meandered through TK's disgusting thread.  The claim was that the voltage measured across Q1 had sufficient voltage to ensure that the switch was 'on' and therefore the battery should have delivered current flow.  The evidence therefore should have been some voltage value across the shunt that was greater than zero.  I answered this - REPEATEDLY.  I mentioned that, in the first instance the coupling had not been set to AC.  And I explained that the voltage was further compromised by the justification of the 'off set' switch on the function generator.

Perhaps God was not willing. Where is the video showing these things? I think everybody knows by now, that if I promise a video, you get a video.

If I was doing this demonstration, I would show, in less than 10 minutes:

1) that the mosfets I use are actually working properly, by putting them into my Linear Operation Fixture and show them lighting and dimming a light bulb in response to varying gate voltage
2) that the experiment circuit I use is ACTUALLY the one represented by the schematic I claim to use
3) the application of the appropriate voltage to the GATE of Q1: +12 volts as shown on the scopeshots referred to by PW above
4) the resultant Drain trace and the CVR trace in the FULLY CONNECTED CIRCUIT, here demonstrating the truth of my claim
5) repeat 1 to show that the mosfets are still functioning
6) since I always repeat whatever I show in my videos..... I would REPEAT THE WHOLE THING from 2-5
7) explain briefly what was done, why, and what was observed and what it meant.

I could do this in less than ten minutes, with one hand working the camera!

Of course, the claims I make are true claims and so are easy to demonstrate, by anyone with the parts and the test equipment _and the skill and knowledge to use them_.

But apparently it's more important to Ainslie to get drunk and start typing insults:

Tk and All,

A wag once commented, "On the internet, Trolls may come and go but a sociopath is forever ..." There has never been any credible evidence that RA's circuit does anything unusual. All of her "experiments" and understanding are flawed. Simply and as one might expect in such a case, faulty testing and measurements give misleading and incorrect results.

Tk, picowatt and others here have only told and carefully explained the truth. What a crime ... I have followed this thread from its start. I've checked "the math" and watched all the videos which are highly informative and entertaining. It all checks out. There is now a mountain of credible evidence that explains the operation of the NERD circuit. It doesn't do anything even slightly remarkable.

RA does have a secret weapon and that is a public, however tiny and ill informed who maintain a powerful "need to believe".  Don't discount this little wrinkle in the social fabric of humanity. I have followed this thread not because I believed in the magical operation of NERD circuit, but because I could not understand how the many extravagant claims for the device could have possibly been maintained or grown legs longer than a Texas pickle. Now I know ...

As a scientific argument, there never was one and the NERD circuit was apparently DOA. Hmm.. How many years has it been?  I don't see the endgame here as the "debate" isn't really a scientific one but rather a sociological spectacle and assertion of fantasy. I think this thread may contain sufficient material to be used as case study for a doctoral thesis in the fields of psychiatry or related disciplines.  Fascinating, if you have the stomach for the cognitive dissonance. Just a thought from the peanut gallery and fond supporter of TK and other here.

ReFried

Thanks for watching the videos, ReFried.

It's nice to know that someone watches them and gets something out of them. They usually get 20 or 30 views immediately when they are posted; I have a few subscribers that seem to enjoy what I do, pitched at whatever level. Over the next few days the view count goes up to 60-100 or so. Not many people comment, though... perhaps I am pitching at such a low level that there are absolutely no questions and I am being absolutely clear in what I'm showing (not that I believe this,      .) Of course I get the occasional drive-by thumbs down, without comment,  from that Jib guy or NewsBoy or another of my personal trolls.

But of course we understand, I hope, that many of the videos in the Electric OU series are specifically addressing certain relevant points of contention and misunderstanding on the part of Ainslie, with regard to her circuit and measurements made on it. The basic examinations of mosfet behaviour could be especially enlightening to someone who thinks that a mosfet is just a "switch" and that gate current normally passes through the mosfet. and of course the various scoposcopy videos illustrate just what an oscilloscope actually is, and how it is used to good advantage to make reliable quantitative measurements.

Further, I hope this thread has been an example of how actually to conduct a scientific dialog. (I insult only when I am insulted, but being an Eastsider, I give as good as I get, or more so, and all my insults to Ainslie are based in solid fact: she proves her ignorance, arrogance, and obnoxious disgusting querulousness multiple times daily. Had she respected me from the beginning... had she actually corrected her math and conclusions, had she not begun insulting me and my education and my competence as an experimenter (which both far exceed hers) there would never have been any need for me to emphasise that she is a scrawny, overweening, intolerable, lying old biddy who is ignorant, unteachable, and stupid to boot, and who mindlessly parrots words and concepts that she doesn't understand at all.)

Those factors notwithstanding, I've demonstrated many things, answered many questions, shared all my data, mistakes, blown transistors, posted photos and videos of everything I've done along the way, I've shown my work when making statements involving mathematics, provided links and externally checkable independent references for everything I've "claimed" and I've encouraged anyone and everyone to perform their own building and testing _properly_ to see for themselves that the things I "claim" about Ainslie and her circuit's behaviour are true.

Ainslie, on the other hand, has continually avoided properly educating herself about her own computers, her own test equipment, her own circuitry and her own "math". She continually distorts and changes the meanings of things others say to her, and responds with logorrhea and word salads to her own delusional interpretations, rather than responding rationally and appropriately to the actual comments. She makes error after error in her "math" and doesn't bother to try to understand why or how they occur, nor does she acknowledge and correct them, nor retract the conclusions based on them. She "publishes" multiple different edits of her daft manuscripts that are in conflict with each other and contain wrong data, false claims and simple errors. She actively conceals and lies about data and experimental conditions: witness the month between 22 March 2011 and 18 April 2011 when she lied about the actual schematic in use and even admitted wanting to continue the deception longer. Her original data spreadsheets have never been made available, in spite of many requests from many people and many promises by her to release them. She attempts to gain monetary awards based on her bogus claims and false conclusions. She makes paranoid and impossible accusations of computer break-ins and great world-wide conspiracies that are well funded and exist for the sole purpose of suppressing her "technology". She can't even remember when and where she posted her contact information. And she would rather insult without cause or evidence, than actually ask and answer questions, perform and analyze tests, examine data, consider implications, draw careful conclusions. She arrogantly refuses to acknowledge the competence and credentials of those who are quite clearly her superiors in every way, she insults her hosts and figuratively trashes their domiciles, and she turns viciously against her former collaborators as they discover and start talking about the truth of her and her circuit.

In short.... compare and contrast.... Do The Math (tm RA).


Thanks, ReFried, for giving me this opportunity to rant a bit in summary. I quite agree with your assessment that the case would make interesting material for psychology students, and I've actually compiled enough data to write a book about the whole thing myself, as a case study. I may just do that very thing.

Now..... where is Ainslie's video?

Just to review, the scopeshots below illustrate the issue.

The first one, SCRN0150, shows the applied voltage to the Gate of Q1 to be about 6 volts or so during the non-oscillating portion of the period. And the CVR trace shows the expected behavior during these times: a strong current flow. The voltage for this trial was about 50 volts.

The second one, SCRN0265, shows the applied voltage to the Gate of Q1 to be about 12 volts during the non-oscillating portion of the period. And the CVR trace shows NO CURRENT AT ALL during these times. Even though the voltage used for this trial was about 74 volts. There should have been MORE current shown here than in SCRN0150. After all... the load resistance hasn't changed, but the battery voltage has been increased, and the 12 volts should turn the mosfet even more fully on than in SCRN0150. By Ohm's Law... well, do the math (tm RA).

But there is no current, none at all.

Therefore, as PW has said repeatedly, either the mosfet is blown, not hooked up properly, missing completely, or the circuit being measured is not the one claimed by the schematic.

And as I have postulated... the lone Q1 mosfet on that tiny inadequate heatsink cannot withstand long ON periods at 74 volts. It will fail.


SO... The challenge to Ainslie then is a simple one: Just reproduce the scopeshot in SCRN0265.  Then show how you did it. We don't need to hear or see the usual garbled "explanations" from Ainslie. Just reproduce the scopeshot and SHOW how you did it.

   The joule thieves and various other coil bangers operate under the basic laws of induction.  Faster you turn the switch on and off the higher the voltage induced.  Below is a link to a very good basic electricity course.  In the particular subject I link to,  we have the problem of inrush currents being studied.   In this particular case an ac sinewave is the input.  Connecting at time 0 when the voltage is minimal and disconnecting at time 1 when the voltage is maximal efficiency of the circuit is greatly enhanced.  Way too much energy is consumed magnetizing objects such as transformer cores.  RF chokes use air cores to remove the highfrequency from the lowfrequency information to be reproduced in the speakers.  This is because the rf energy will be dissipated as heat setting and resetting the magnetic dipole moments of the oxygen and nitrogen in the core material.  If the rf chokes don't work then the carrier shows up in the output of the radio as distortion of the amplified low frequency information.  RFID chips don't waste the carrier they use it to drive the transmitter.  A number of RFID chips arranged in an array becomes a microwave transformer thereby transforming the currents associated with electromagnetic radiation into voltage that can charge a battery or large capacitor.

http://www.opamp-electronics.com/tutorials/inrush_current_2_09_12.htm