Quote from: picowatt on June 16, 2013, 07:43:29 PM
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.     

That's right, but the higher battery voltage is important and since it's shown on Figure 3 in the paper and in other similar shots it must be used in the upcoming duplication. I want Ainslie to have to acknowledge in no uncertain terms that her Q1 mosfet does indeed get hot, and I think it will be amusing to see how many transistors she wastes trying to do what she claims is so easy to do -- "bring water to boil" with zero current coming through Q1 even though it's getting sufficient gate signal to turn fully on.

Quote
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 is certainly not above outright deception, as she has shown amply many times in the past, most noticeably concerning the schematic in use in the demonstration of March 2011. But it is more likely that she will simply not perform any demonstration at all. After all, we know that the scopeshot can't be made under the conditions she claims, and pretty soon she will know this too, so there will be some reason found not to have the demo in six days, just as there was one found not to have it on the first of June as she promised before.

Quote
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

She can't do any of that, because it's not just a matter of correction. The fundamental claims in the papers rest on two foundations: first, the amazingly bogus calculations that caused her to believe and claim that her batteries were not discharging and that she was delivering more energy to the load than her batteries contained, and second, the false claim of high load heating with no current flow, that resulted from her wrong interpretation of the Figure 3 scope data. In short, she has nothing at all in either paper that is defensible. They are not "correctable", they are garbage through and through.

Mark,
You are indeed in a difficult position. The "anomalies" are re-iterated in her latest epistle. Here are a few

QuoteThe amount of energy that is first supplied during the 'on' period of the duty cycle is NIL.  NOTHING.  NADA.  And then the MOMENT that the switch 'opens' or is OFF - that moment when NO current should be enabled - then the OSCILLATIONS START.  AND IT IS GENERATED AT A FREQUENCY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SWITCH.  AND IT PERSISTS FOR AS LONG AS THAT SWITCH IS OPEN.

A FET hard switched with a battery supply that passes no current?

Regarding a complete misunderstanding of the nature of a FET:

QuoteThe MOSFET is just a simple switching device.

and

QuoteEffectively that 'virtual solder' has NOT been applied as there is NO PATH for the current to freely flow from the positive terminal of the battery to the negative terminal of the battery.

Capacitance?
She demonstrates once again that she has no understanding of her circuit and apparently is not interested in learning.

Even more damaging to her claim of zero energy input is :

QuoteThen the requirement is that I 'self loop' the system and replace the battery with a capacitor.  Sadly the capacitor discharges to zero.  We show that we require the batteries' innate voltage imbalance to perpetuate each cycle of that oscillation.

Apparently the batteries are required to imbalance the circuit but do not  provide any energy whatsoever? huh!

Ms Ainslee claims to have a team of reputable people who endorse her work.

QuoteWe have a team of highly qualified engineers - one is writing his doctorate in engineering - two are qualified engineers and one is a technician who is studying further as a senior student for his engineering degree.  One other has a  masters degree in molecular biology.  Our protocols were designed by Professor Gaunt - and our papers written on those tests have been further ratified and refined by 3 academicians.  Our papers have been reviewed prior to publication and we have had very favourable feedback from many academics, most prestigious amongst them being Professor Horowitz. 

I suggest that you agree to the publication of the document following a successful demonstration which is endorsed  by these people or at least the majority of them. Not an unreasonable request seeing that they apparently have already examined the circuit and are happy with it.

After reading her recent posts, it is obvious that continued attempts to discuss anything with her regarding electronics would be fruitless, and a complete waste of time.  She continues to demonstrate her unwillingness, or inability, to learn and actually understand her circuit's operation.     

As she claims that she is supported by a team of intelligent people, she should be required to present at least one person, sufficiently skilled in electronics, that is willing to support her assertions and engage in dialog regarding the electronic operation of her circuit.

If her "team" actually believes that +12volts to the gate of Q1 will not cause Q1 to pass current, or that a negative voltage applied from the FG to the source terminal of Q2 will not bias Q2 partially on into a linear region of operation, or that the Q2 DC bias current cannot flow thru the FG, or that the AC currents of the Q2 oscillations cannot flow thru the intrinsic capacitances of all 5 MOSFETS's, then the onus should be upon her to present at least one knowledgable person that supports those beliefs and is willing to engage in dialog.

Until she can find even that one supporter, sufficiently skilled in electronics and willing to discuss her circuit, I have to agree with MH, this just needs to end...   

PW 

 

10x 7A/h batteries are charging, MOSFETs are found (thank you Glen), 2 MOSFETs mounted on a heat sink, load resistor, CSR, MOSFETs ready for hook up. I will not be building the circuit on peg board, but I will follow a similar wiring layout. I will also be starting with the as-built connections, mainly where the FG is connected to bypass the CSR, as shown in the annotated schematic.

Ready to start testing soon. 

Her latest layout.