What the good lady from the tip of Africa desires is attention. And one seems to give her just that.

Her circuit is the least important aspect of this strange story. Totally unimportant for her and as it seems also for her admirers and critics.

Greetings, Conrad

I was in two minds regarding to publish for that very reason, however I thought it would be a way to bring it to a conclusion.
I willfollow up after the live test
Mark

Mark, in your article you say

QuotePerhaps her biggest Nemesis has been a poster who goes under the name of TinselKoala. He has challenged both the testing methodology and technical aspects of her circuit design. Many others over the years have failed to successfully replicate he design and results. I would welcome those who have had successful replications to come forward and share their results.

Let me clarify something for you.

Everyone who has built the circuits described by Ainslie has had no trouble at all replicating her _actual_ results. The mean negative power product, the scope traces, the heating of the load.... all of the REAL results are easy to reproduce.

Her claims of overunity come from two features: the bad calculation and measurements that led her to believe that more energy is being dissipated than can be delivered by her batteries, and the subject of the present discussion here: the Figure 3 scopeshot, which she believes indicates high heat in the load without any current being drawn from the battery.

The bad math has been shown and explained many times, but still has not been retracted and corrected by Ainslie. I'll attach an image showing the "calculation" below. The issue of the Figure 3 scopeshot is as you see: pending her demonstration or her guiding .99 through the settings required. Or her failure to do so.

Note once again that the _real data_ is easy to reproduce, and is a combination of naive measurements and misuse of apparatus. Her interpretations of what she is seeing are completely in error because of her ignorance of her topic and her arrogant unwillingness to learn.

The complete operation of her circuit has even been simulated in ordinary circuit sim software by several people, most poyntedly by .99, and the features that she claims are special are in fact ordinary and fully capable of being modelled and understood by conventional circuit theory. In fact .99 designed a single mosfet oscillator in the sim that produces the single feature that Ainslie still depends upon for her claims: the measured negative wattage. I built this in hardware and I power it from its built in capacitors only, and it makes the identical measurements that Ainslie cites as evidence. On demand, on anyone's oscilloscope, running only on capacitors.

In short, it's simply not true that "Many others over the years have failed to successfully replicate (t)he design and results." Many others have indeed successfully replicated ALL of the REAL results that Ainslie has ever actually demonstrated. In addition, many of the claims she has made have been soundly and unequivocally refuted by several very competent people.... and also by me, incidentally. As you know, all of my work is fully documented in YouTube videos and is fully repeatable by anyone with very simple equipment, no fancy expensive digital kit needed.

I'm not going to be commenting on your site; I have enough to do just watching the several forums where I am active. But if I see something that's just wrong, like your statement above, I'll have to correct it somehow. Please feel free to copy-paste any or all of this comment.

Mark.... why don't you ask her for the report from the Independent Laboratory in the USA to which she sent her actual apparatus, last year, for testing.

Not having the apparatus available bought her some weeks of time during which she continued to delay doing any promised testing, and when the apparatus came back, the laboratory suggested some tests for her to perform and even included some special resistors (according to her). Ainslie has told us that this lab found that the batteries DO discharge.... surprise surprise.... but very little else. Surely this report is important and should be shared completely and openly.... and any honest researcher would have done so by now.

In the "math" she is describing the same trial that we have been talking about here.

First she claims 900 mL of water, but we know now that there were only 700 mL. So, to go from 16 C to 104 C (sic) is a temperature rise of 88 degrees C.

To raise 700 mL of water by 88 degrees C requires (4.18 Joules per gram per degree x 700 grams x 88 degrees) = 257,488 Joules. The time does not enter into this calculation at all. However, the uninsulated container will leak heat over the course of the trial, so the true amount of energy provided will be greater. How much greater? Say your heating efficiency is only 50 percent due to this leakage, so it might take over 500,000 Joules to heat the water to "104 degrees".

(That is assuming all the while that the water was actually heated to 104 degrees. But Ainslie has told us now that they never actually measured the temperature of the water, and indeed it is impossible for water to exist as a liquid in an unpressurised container at 104 degrees at the altitude of Cape Town. Therefore the true energy provided will likely be much less than even 500,000 Joules.)

Yet a 12 volt, 60 amp-hour battery (which is what she used) contains (12 V x 60 A-h x 60 min/hr x 60 sec/min) = 2,592,000 Joules and six of them together contain over 15 megaJoules. Six batteries were used in the trial, not five as she claimed in the calculation.

So.... "doing the math" we see that not only did Ainslie's trial NOT use more than the batteries contained, but rather, as many as 30 such trials could have been performed before the battery pack was depleted of its stored energy.


This is not a small error, people! This calculation of Ainslie's is the reason she thinks she is exceeding her battery capacity! This one right here! And the Figure 3 scopetrace, indicating no current when she knows Q1 is needed to heat her load, is the basis for her claim that something unusual is happening in her circuit. Here is the whole house of cards laid out before you: a huge bogus math calculation, brought on by ignorance and arrogance and mendacity, combined with another ignorant failure to understand what oscilloscope traces mean. There is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OU BEHAVIOUR in Ainslie's OWN DATA. Sorry to shout, but these calls for "replication" and claims that replications have failed are entirely inappropriate. What has failed is AINSLIE HERSELF, since her own data do not support her claims, due to these ridiculous errors she made and continues to make.