Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[markdansie]

I took the zinc should be back on deck tomorrow.
I will write up the conclusion to these tests and that will be the end of this story.
I wanted some closure as do many people I see with technology....to know the truth.
i was on a suicide mission to get involved , but many lesson have been learned and some knowledge gained.
Is there any over unity....no, but there are some interesting things to explore.
I ask people not to be judgmental, I though the exercise of putting up some theories building something to test them was great, hey its what we all like to do. The failure was the lacking of the technical expertise needed to measure and interpret what was being seen. Simple mistakes needed up being the foundations to support the theory, something I have seen often in Universities.
Add to this some personality clashes.
Anyway many thanks to everyone and read my write up before end of week
Kind Regards
Mark

[TinselKoala]

OK, here is the really last one, I hope. This is the segment from about 0:40:00 on where they are trying to answer the request to do the simple probe swap from one side of the current sensing shunt to the other side, with current flowing in the mosfet. The end of this video should segue into the "First Attempt" at Fig 3 video, which is Highlights 3, I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIB-_dL-unA

[TinselKoala]

And as usual Ainslie does not understand what is in front of her nose.

Guys - I need to explain something. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.  The question at issue is this.  Figure 3 Paper 1 shows a zero input of current from the battery supply source.  BUT.  The voltage at the gate is shown to be 12 volts.  What picowaT stated is that IF there was 12 volts at the gate of Q1 then there's a signal that is MORE than strong enough to enable current flow.  Therefore - the MOSFET has been blown... OR there is a deliberate attempt to 'fudge' the results.

Well - from what we've tested it appears that he is right.  The most voltage that could be applied to the Gate at Q1 WITHOUT generating flow from the battery was 8 or possibly 9 volts.  Thereafter - as day followed night - there was CLEAR evidence of energy flowing from the battery during the ON time of the switching circuit.

HOWEVER.  We DO replicate that waveform VERY EASILY - as can and has been shown repeatedly - and at the demo - by APPLYING less than 4 volts to the gate.  Then we get PRECISELY the same effect.  We get a ROBUST OSCILLATION. Which essentially means that the claim holds.  The voltage remains negative. Which means that the wattage will also give a negative product.  AND.  THEREIN LIES THE ANOMALY.

The waveform in question has nothing to do with the oscillations or 4 volts to the Gate of Q1. YOU DID NOT REPLICATE YOUR WAVEFORM at all, so quit lying about it.
THE CLAIM DOES NOT HOLD and there is no anomaly.

The issue has NOTHING to do with the claim.  It has to do with my own REPRESENTATION of that claim.

You are amazing! This is like the "I DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO" claim from two years ago. Your "REPRESENTATION" IS YOUR CLAIM. And Donny's claim as well, since his name is on the papers too.

And that was screwed due to the incorrect positioning of the zero reference of the signal probe.

And even here you get it wrong. It was NOT the zero reference that was "incorrectly" positioned to result in the Figure3 scopeshot, it is the probe TIP, the actual signal. You have garbled the two different demonstrations in your own presentation.

It's an error.  God did not create us to be free from error.  The most RESPECTABLE OF ALL SCIENTISTS are prone to error.  Very few papers are EVER submitted without needing amendment for error.  There is NOTHING SHAMEFUL in this.

There is plenty of shame in what you did and are doing though. You have drawn other people into lying for you, as I have demonstrated. You are persisting in your errors long after they have been pointed out conclusively over and over. You do not check your own work at all. You do not have the prerequisite knowledge and education in your topic to discuss it coherently or to understand the explanations you have been given. You distort and lie about what other people say and you even get your WIKI references wrong. A Joule is NOT a Watt and the terms are NOT interchangeable. You most certainly should be ashamed of yourself, not the least because of the way you behave, insulting and whining and threatening and lying.

More as as I've now been assured that these errors can be corrected PROVIDED ONLY THAT IT DOES NOT EFFECT THE CLAIM.  And ours most certainly doesn't.

Of course it affects your claim! You claimed to get load heating with no current flow, and that is wrong. You claimed that your batteries do not discharge and that is wrong. You claimed COP INFINITY ! And that is not only wrong it is stupid and ridiculous.

I hope that's clarified things.

Oh, it does that, all right. It clarifies once again that you have no regard whatsoever for the truth.

BUT.  Our signal generator was picking up errors which could be shown during the offset sweep.  We need to attend to that first.

HA HA HA. You and your genius Donovan Martin are EVEN WRONG ABOUT THAT, and if you had only done your homework or even understood the bias current making oscillations, you would know that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR FG AT ALL. There are no errors and your "offset sweep" is another Polly Parrot phrase that you don't understand. And there is clearly no point in explaining it to you AGAIN. But I'll try anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE

Thereafter we'll be doing a repeat of that demo.  And hopefully under better camera conditions.  Then we'll be able to conclusively prove what and how much is required.  Frankly - I'm reasonably satisfied that picowaT is RIGHT and that I was WRONG.  BUT.  SO WHAT?  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE WATTAGE.  WE DO.  We just need to put that zero reference on the correct point during the measurement of that waveform.  And then we need to submit the revisions to our paper.

First you need to understand what the issues are, because you clearly do not. As usual, what follows after your first mistake-- the "zero reference" instead of the probe TIP-- is complete BS and irrelevant.
And as .99 has shown, your MEASUREMENT of a "negative wattage" is an artefact of your ignorant construction and measurement techniques. IT IS AN ERROR, nothing more, and a textbook one at that, fully explained, fully understood, fully repeatable and fully preventable, and there is NO ADVANTAGE, in fact the oscillations are wasteful of energy.

What was CONCLUSIVELY shown by Weir - is this.  Our figure 6 and figure 7 - ALBEIT ANOMALOUS - as the negative wattage PERSISTS - showed the erroneous level of current flow during the 'on' period of the switching cycle.  And this due to PRECISELY the same fault as we showed in Figure 3 of that same paper 1.   

And that was CONCLUSIVELY shown by me, days ago. Why don't you ask Weir where he got the idea from? Your negative wattage means nothing.

So.  PLEASE.  I see that Mark Dansie is now using this as an excuse to say that that he's DEBUNKED?  Or that our claim has been DEBUNKED? Absolutely NOT.  Not even close.  They are trying to MISGUIDE you all into thinking this.  It can ONLY be debunked when we can get those negative voltages into positive territory.

Now you are flailing about like a fish in a boat, just as I predicted you would. You most certainly HAVE been debunked and soundly too, by your very own demonstration, and to his detriment, so has Donovan Martin, whose name will now forever be associated with your DEMONSTRATION of incompetence.

And frankly I do not believe that we have to prove this.  We should simply allow the technical experts at LeCroy and Tektronics to argue that one.  They've put their reputations on their instruments.  Let them prove it correct.

No, Ainslie. You are making the claims, you have to prove their correctness. So far you are batting a solid zero.... and far from the tech experts having their reps on the line.... what you have done Saturday is to put your friend Donovan Martin's reputation on the line. Because his name is on your papers, and he presented your demonstration, he is making the same bogus claims you are, and has also been shown to be incompetent at basic oscilloscope use, circuit analysis.... and he's an all around lousy presenter, to boot.

[TinselKoala]

Uh oh. It looks like somebody has been rifling computers again. Only this time they left behind some disgusting graffiti. I wonder what it means?

[TinselKoala]

Thanks Poynty

That was very clear.  My questions.  Why did you leave the probe's reference 'floating'?  What happens when you attach this to the common negative?  Is that the term?  The point where your signal generator's ground reference is attached to the circuit?  Can you generate our Fig 3 paper 1 waveform by applying 4 volts or less to Q1?  Because we can.

Thanks Poynty.  Very nice work.
Kindest regards

Rosie

Liar!
Here we go again. YOU CANNOT GENERATE THE FIGURE 3 WAVEFORM WITH 4 VOLTS !! Your FIGURE 3 CLEARLY shows 12 volts on the Gate !! That is the WHOLE POINT of the ENTIRE Exercise that went down on Saturday. Your paper shows a figure that you CANNOT PRODUCE without fudging the probe TIP, not ground reference, position or having a blown or missing mosfet! Saying that you get zero current in the CVR when you have 4 volts on the Gate is not only TRIVIAL but it is NOWHERE NEAR the Figure 3 conditions!
Stop lying, child, and go to bed.