Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[TinselKoala]

TK,

Since it looks like you are trying to cover all possible things that can be wrong, is it possible that the test equipment is in error itself?

Of course, that is always a possibility. In this case, however, the fact that other people with different sorts of equipment are able to reproduce the Ainslie measurements indicates that it isn't the instruments themselves that are responsible for the measurements obtained.
If you watch my videos you can see that the RF from the circuit causes the DMM reading the thermocouple to give false readings, and this is almost certainly happening to Ainslie's thermocouple DMM system too. The scopes themselves also are subject to artefacts; much of the oscillation amplitude is probably actually artefact in the sense that it is RF rather than direct pickup.

I ask this from first hand experience with metes being weird.  I built this thing and was playing with it, and in my usual way of "what the heck" I placed a single wire secondary within my device,, connected on side of my device up to a battery and used the other side to hand pulse the unit,, with my Fluke 77 on 300ma I connected the leads to each end of the single wire, I registered an AC output,, not a good one but something,, but on DC I could only register the first strike of the battery. 

Now, with this meter and on these slow pulses it will show me a reading, except for this device, I attribute that to a messed up meter.  I used another meter and in the first testing with it it did not behave in the same way,, it gave a much smaller reading for starters, but after using it for some time it started to give the same result,, as in RA saying that it takes "time" and this could either be blowing Q1 or messing up the test equipment.

I assure you, if the settings displayed in the Figure 3 scopeshot are used with a properly functioning mosfet in place, it will take less than 26 minutes for it to blow from heat stress. In my experiment above, with the six batteries in series, the mosfet carries over six amps! This is actually over its maximum current rating right there and the only thing that saves it is that the ON time is short.
In addition..... "Ainslie says" is probably the least reliable source of information on the entire internet.

I also run into jumper lead and test lead breakage that when in one position seem to work just fine, but move them a little and "poof".

This happens all the time and is one of the first things to look for when you get strange or unexpected... or even _expected_ readings from instruments. The actual wire in the cable of a good scope probe is a strand of very fine NiChrome resistance wire, which is brittle and easily broken.

[TinselKoala]

And this is why verification by independent replication is always a good thing.

Yes, and there are replications, and then there are "replications". I'm getting to where I hate that word. It's a matter of the philosophical approach to doing science, and the nature of proof and valid inference.

A lot of times you might see a skeptic or a True Believer "replicate" a claim of an OU device or effect, get a null result, and call failure or fake and just walk away. But that, in my opinion, is neither helpful nor truly scientific. What I personally try to do is to follow the "cookbook" or design recipe as best I can, and if it fails, then I keep trying until I can at least get the same or similar _data_ that produced the original claim. Then I try to understand how that data arose. This is done by perturbing the system in various ways: varying an "independent variable" and watching for its effect on some "dependent variable", and then attempting to draw inferences from the data obtained that way. This is what an experiment really is. The inferences drawn will either support or fail to support one's hypothesis, and may generate new hypotheses that hadn't been considered before the _real_ experimental data came in.... as in the present case. Now here's the clincher: a real scientist tries as hard as possible to _falsify_, that is, to generate data that _fails to support_ the pet hypothesis. When she "fails to fail", so to speak..... at that point one can consider that the hypothesis has experimental support. Proven? Hardly. NOT DISPROVEN is usually the best that a real scientist can say.
But if one _disproves_,  that is, falsifies or fails to find support, in a properly performed true experiment, then one can be confident that the hypothesis is wrong.... as in this case.

[Liberty]

http://www.earthtech.org/index.php/about

Be aware that he gets calls and submissions from ....er..... ah...... crackpots...... all the time, and if you want to be taken seriously, you had better be serious when you approach him.

I'm sure he does get a lot of calls from people that don't really know what they are talking about, but think they do.  In my opinion, an inventor either has something or he doesn't.  I feel the same way, that the physicist to be taken seriously by the inventor, must also be serious when working with an inventor.  It's a two way street, not a one way street.

[TinselKoala]

I'm sure he does get a lot of calls from people that don't really know what they are talking about, but think they do.  In my opinion, an inventor either has something or he doesn't.  I feel the same way, that the physicist to be taken seriously by the inventor, must also be serious when working with an inventor.  It's a two way street, not a one way street.

That is perhaps true if the Inventor and the Physicist are at the same level of experience and knowledge. In the case of Hal Puthoff, his experience and knowledge and credentials, some of them, are on public record and are very impressive.

In the case of the random person on an internet free energy forum who can't even google Dr Puthoff's website and contact info for himself.....perhaps the experience and knowledge level isn't quite enough to make the lanes of that "two-way street" exactly equal in size.

[profitis]

@seamonkey..the core isnt 'may be the key'.the core fantastically and fanatically is the key,this is what im trying to teach these electromaniacs.im the thermodynamicist who crosses the path of the electrician and says,hey,what the fuck are you doing,do you even know what you are doing and why you are doing what you are doing.im learning a lot of stuff from them and i hope they learn something from me.