It's hilarious, isn't it? Ainslie seems to think that she isn't responsible for materials that carry her name as author and that she posted herself. If they contain "errors" or are caught in outright lies, she isn't responsible! She claims that Rossi's JNP posting consists of "publication", then she disavows them and refers to other, more recent edits that appear elsewhere. When some objection to her daft manuscript becomes overwhelming, she simply makes another edit. This has happened many times.
-when it was pointed out that the actual circuit showed the FG current bypass, the new edit appeared that showed the correct, but never used, FG hookup.
-when it was pointed out that the claim of dissipating 5.9 megaJoules was completely implausible under any circumstances... it vanished from a new edit.
-when it was discovered that the channel baseline markers were deliberately edited away from images, a new edit appeared that had them restored.

Yet the old versions still exist. For example, compare the text under Paper 1, Figure 7 in the "official publication" on Rossi's JNP

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=645

with the same text in more recent edits of that manuscript, shown in the image below.

Ainslie accuses me again without any evidence. She claims that I've mocked her diagrams because they are hand-drawn. Contrariwise, I have never done this. I mock them because they are _silly_ and _wrong_.

TinselKoala I looked at the two Figure 7's and associated texts.  I did not spot any differences.  Can you tell me what I should find?

Ms. Ainslie now claims that at least the battery voltage and current measurements taken at the battery during the August 11, 2013 demonstration are wrong.  She does so without showing any new measurements that she alleges are now correct.  What was proven wrong during that demonstration was the current measurements during the oscillations as measured on the white breadboard. 

In the schematic published by Ms. Ainslie for the demonstration, we can see that the current sense resistors on the breadboard are in the same DC loop as the current sense resistor added at the battery.  Yet the two gave very different results.  The disparate results were predicted by Poynt99 and others.  They result from the huge stray inductance of the wiring between the battery and the breadboard.  The measurements taken directly at the battery do not suffer the distortion those long lead wires impose on measurements taken at the fixture.  The errant measurements are at the white breadboard.  Those effects can of course be nulled should someone bypass the high frequency currents around the lead wires.  I realize that various people have suggested such things to Ms. Ainslie in the past and she was not receptive to those ideas.  If Ms. Ainslie is interested in the truth she could apply a good bypass network across the battery connections at the white breadboard and then compare the battery voltage and current measurements that result at the white breadboard versus those taken at the battery.

Ms. Ainslie has gone on to now deny what she and her collaborators eventually demonstrated June 29, 2013 as well:  That Figure 3 in Paper 1 was the result of measurement error.  Ms. Ainslie currently protests in effect that what is plainly visible in her own demonstrations should be rejected as false.  She does so neglecting to provide any evidence contrary to those demonstrations.

Ms. Ainslie is further unhappy that you have pointed out discrepancies in her schematics.  She offers this protest:

http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php/topic,2313.msg5323/topicseen.html#msg5323

QuoteThe paper has NOTHING to do with the schematic.  It has everything to do with the paths available for the flow of current through the transistors.

I don't know how Ms. Ainslie expects to convey the "paths available for the flow of current through the transistors" if she does not provide an accurate circuit schematic that depicts how those transistors were connected.

The text below Figure 7 in the "official publication" version on Rossi's JNP:

Quote
Steam was evident at all times when the temperature exceeded 62°C,
which points to a secondary exploitable potential.
At no stage  in  this  test  was  any  energy  depleted  by  the  batteries as
measured   in   the   math   trace   and   spreadsheet   analysis.
Therefore it is evident that it is possible to bring water to boil
without any depletion of potential difference from the supply.
Given 4.1 joules required to heat 1 gram of water by 1°C then
over  the  entire 1.6  hour  test  period  about  5  904 000  joules
were dissipated.  The batteries' rated capacity is

...and the text stops there, and then continues on to major heading VII.

The same passage in the version on Ainslie's forum reads:

Quote
Steam was evident at all times when the temperature exceeded 62°C,
which points to a secondary exploitable potential.
[/size][/font]At no stage in this test was any energy depleted by the batteries
as measured in the math trace and spreadsheet analysis.
Therefore it is evident that it is possible to bring water to boil
without any depletion of potential difference from the supply.

... and then goes on to major heading VII. The absurd claim of dissipating 5.9 megaJoules in 1.6 hours is gone, as is the dangling sentence fragment that emphasizes the fact that they never disclosed the actual battery capacity.

It's clear from the accompanying scope traces and battery voltage measurements that indeed there _was_ depletion of potential difference from the supply. And again... the water wasn't actually boiling, according to Ainslie herself. They never measured the temperature of the water, just some combination of water and heating element temperature.

TinselKoala, I see so she removed 5.9MJ claim from the forum version.  4.18J/gm/C * 850gm * (104C - 82C) comes out 78kJ on my calculator.  What inspired Ms. Ainslie to get a 75X higher figure is a bit of a mystery.  The report said that temperature rise took about 10 minutes, so making the inaccurate assumption that the water heated uniformly to 104C (assume poorly calibrated TCs) then the input power less leakage would have been about 130W.  For an 11 Ohm heater, that would have been an RMS voltage of 37.8V, which certainly could have been realized with a 72V battery stack and Q1 on about 25% of the time.

From what I can tell, Ms. Ainslie is not content with Kirchhoff's current law.  She writes and though she presently believes that the current that flows through the negative terminal of a battery can be different than the current that flows at the same time through the positive terminal of the same battery.  Where this excess or deficit charge goes off to or comes from she is not saying.  She has at least committed herself to performing a test to measure the current flow to/from the positive battery terminal.

My guess as to what is going on is that Ms. Ainslie trusts the battery measurements taken at the white breadboard that give her values that she would like, and distrusts measurements that she reads at the battery that give her values that she does not like.  I suggest that if Ms. Ainslie is intent on measuring current at both the positive and negative terminal of the battery that she rent appropriate non-contact current sense probes.  That will eliminate the common mode issues that she will otherwise have to address.  LeCroy CP030 probes should be compatible with her LeCroy oscilloscope.  If she were to twist the lead wires between the battery and the white peg board together for at least one foot, and the pass that twisted pair through the CP030 such that the CP030 is midway along the twisted section, then she would find essentially no net current sensed.  That would prove that the current into or out of the negative terminal is identical to the simultaneous current out of or into the positive terminal, because according to Kirchhoff's Current Law, it is the same current.