Let's also not forget just what needs to be demonstrated: The Figure 3 scopeshot in the first of the two manuscripts, under the conditions claimed for it in the paper.

1. Q1 mosfet on the original, small heatsink that was used for the work described in the paper.
2. The full 6 batteries in series, supplying at least 72 volts to the circuit, as described in the paper and as indicated on the Fig. 3 scopeshot.
3. A period of about 160 seconds with a "high" signal of +10 to 12 volts for 10 percent of the time (10 percent duty cycle) or about 16-17 seconds ON per period, as indicated on the scopeshot.
4. Bringing 800 mL of water "to boil", as claimed in the paper, using the signals as indicated on the Fig 3 scopeshot.

Failure to demonstrate this full set of conditions, as described in the paper, will of course mean utter and total failure on Ainslie's part, once again, to support her claims with truth. And further, her failure will demonstrate unequivocally that the data in the papers are bogus, the claims based on them ridiculous, the conclusions unsupported and the papers must therefore be withdrawn, and errata and apologies tendered to those whom she has insulted, denigrated and misled for all these years.

Quote from: TinselKoala on June 16, 2013, 07:21:01 PM
Let's also not forget just what needs to be demonstrated: The Figure 3 scopeshot in the first of the two manuscripts, under the conditions claimed for it in the paper.

1. Q1 mosfet on the original, small heatsink that was used for the work described in the paper.
2. The full 6 batteries in series, supplying at least 72 volts to the circuit, as described in the paper and as indicated on the Fig. 3 scopeshot.
3. A period of about 160 seconds with a "high" signal of +10 to 12 volts for 10 percent of the time (10 percent duty cycle) or about 16-17 seconds ON per period, as indicated on the scopeshot.
4. Bringing 800 mL of water "to boil", as claimed in the paper, using the signals as indicated on the Fig 3 scopeshot.

Failure to demonstrate this full set of conditions, as described in the paper, will of course mean utter and total failure on Ainslie's part, once again, to support her claims with truth. And further, her failure will demonstrate unequivocally that the data in the papers are bogus, the claims based on them ridiculous, the conclusions unsupported and the papers must therefore be withdrawn, and errata and apologies tendered to those whom she has insulted, denigrated and misled for all these years.

TK,

With or wthout the higher battery voltage, she cannot duplicate FIG3 with a functional MOSFET connected as per the schematic in the Q1 position.  If she does somehow manage to do that, then she cannot also duplicate FIG5, as she would have to replace Q1 or change some connections to do so.     

She probably thinks that selecting AC coupling on a scope channel or some such nonsense will vindicate her, when instead it will only further erode her credibility.  It will be interesting to see if she actually attempts an outright deception. 

She should just own up and accept that there was a problem with Q1 in FIG3, repeat her tests, collect new data, and correct the papers.  Instead, she digs the hole deeper.

Oh well...

PW

It's all so fantastical, don't you think?  We have this grinding battle over a waveform that clearly shows that a MOSFET is not working or there is a circuit connection problem.  What should not be a dispute at all is a knock-down drag-out fight.  Another fight for months and months about how a function generator works when again there should be no dispute.  And that's just scraping the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

I hope that Rosie sees with her own eyes how she is wrong about the MOSFET waveform issue from her own build.  I hope that Poynt does his build and presents his data and analysis.  One would hope that Rosie will have no choice but to accept the facts that will be clearly and unequivocally presented by Poynt.  It seems like that's the only end game possible because Rosie will not accept the learned opinions and real-world analysis done here.

It's just crazy and I can't follow it in detail any more.  It's just nuts.  It's like a battle of Cold War ideologies, and we all know how that one ended.

There have been moments of high comedy also.  Way back when Rosie and pixie faerie Joit had this preconceived notion that "ON MUST BE HIGH" with respect to the MOSFET switching.  That was a two-week battle and TK had to make a clip showing that when the gate input of the MOSFET is HIGH and the MOSFET is ON, then the drain output will go LOW.  This "discovery" of the inversion on the output was a "shocker" for Rosie and her Energetic Forum followers.   And of course Aaron's build was high comedy all around and it was tragicomic to see how this "leader" when it came to free energy circuits had accumulated about TWO WEEK'S worth of bench skills after working on the bench with luminaries like John Bedini and Peter Lindemann for TEN YEARS.

Just please somebody bring this thing to an end!!!  Please make it stop!!!!

What I have in mind is either we have some one visit for the video test or we do a live test over Skype where we can ask specific things to be tested. We can record that.  i want to bring it to a conclusion as well.
i would like anyone who is local to be bale to attend.
Just thinking out loud
i wil lpublish the letter on the condition a test or video follows
Mark

@MH: The kerfluffle over the flipped duty cycle in Ainslie's first circuit went on for far longer than two weeks. In fact it still raises its head now and then. Remember when the person who doesn't want to be referred to here anymore started to build that circuit from the link Ainslie gave him? She STILL has not corrected that schematic (because she can't) nor has she issued an errata notice. She refers to that article constantly but never mentions that the schematic makes the flipped dutycycle and that the heat results are wrong because of her errors. For a short while, in the face of incontrovertible proof that I am right and she is wrong, she did acknowledge the flipped cycle and "apologised", but never followed through with a retraction or correction, and then later on actually retracted her apology! And now.... well, just ask her and see what she has to say about it. She's still baffled by the fact that the Drain voltage is high when the mosfet is off in the configuration she uses, and if you read her latest shouts, it's clear once again, as I have been saying all along, that she has no clue about linear operation of a mosfet. Her mosfets, she believes, are either open, or they are "soldered" inside, either fully OFF or fully ON. She cannot understand their operation as amplifiers, nor how feedback oscillations work in amplifiers. Until she can accept this linear, partially conducting response region of a mosfet's operation she will _never_ be able to understand or accept just how her circuit operates. It has been explained to her over and over, and I've demonstrated it in my videos, and millions of high-powered stereo music systems demonstrate it every day.... but she still does not get it.

@Mark D: You should make her show you a video  _first_, I think. She won't, though.



So I ask again. How is Ainslie going to show that the mosfets she uses in her demonstration this coming Saturday are "in tact" before and after she makes the Figure 3 scopeshot, bringing water to boil under the conditions claimed in the paper? Does anyone have any suggestions? I note that Ainslie's mosfets are soldered to long clipleads, except for Q1 which has its soldered leads terminated in crimped connectors bolted into the circuitry. Are we going to see Ainslie take the apparatus apart, test the Q1 mosfet somehow, put the apparatus back together, boil some water while making the Figure 3 traces, then take the apparatus apart again, test the Q1 again, all live on camera ? I can hardly wait. I'll be stocking up on popcorn this week.