Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[poynt99]

  I'd be impressed if you wouldn't spill your milk even from 6 inches...how full is your cup?

Glad Weir contacted you TK, as he's contacted me already. I've not yet had the chance to reply yet, but I will.

[TinselKoala]

Why does everyone focus on the milk level in the cup? It is irrelevant, the claim still stands. Look, it was investigated by GP, SPB and FBI. GP set up a complete control, they insisted that I jump with full cups and empty cups, over and over and each time it was the same: the cup I had always worked better. KGB even offered a bursary award but it was declined.

Therefore my claim stands. Swan song? Not me.

;)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just in case the point isn't clear, to newcomers or to Ainslie herself:

If you cannot DOCUMENT those tests and offers of "bursary awards" by alphabet agencies, BP, whoever.... then they are just as good as my fairy stories with chocolate milk and a footstool: that is, no good at all. If you cannot document a test or offer of money by some third party, then YOU CANNOT USE IT AS EVIDENCE and you shouldn't even mention it at all. You cannot use it in support of your claims unless you can document it.

Further, if someone claims to be able to generate a "Figure 3 Waveform".... then using 1/3 of the required Gate voltage just doesn't cut the mustard and in fact is a feeble attempt at saving face. The whole point of that exercise was to demonstrate to YOU, Rosemary, that you did in fact make some kind of error or mistake that does in fact invalidate your data and the claims based on them. The only way your claims could be salvaged is if you HAD been able to do what you claimed in the paper: apply a 12 volt (NOT a 4 volt) gate signal to the Q1 mosfet and NOT show any current in the "shunt" trace. You cannot do that, therefore you are wrong, it is as simple as that and no amount of "Fig 3 with 4 volts" whining is going to change that. So drop it and face reality: you have failed, you demonstrated your failure in public, you essentially crashed in flames and you took Donovan Martin down with you.

Now here is some advice, which I expect Ainslie to ignore as she always does: if you intend to perform a "live demonstration" for an audience that has been waiting for it for years, and may number in the thousands.... you had better
1) be sure you understand what it is you are demonstrating;
2) do at least one rehearsal, including the internet streaming and camera work;
3) find someone who isn't too arrogant to read the scope manual so that he or she can actually operate the equipment... and yes, rehearse that too;
4) don't schedule your demo the same day that your presenter arrives from the depths of Africa after being awake for four days straight;
5) find someone who can speak and enunciate Standard English without a heavy regional accent and have him or her speak INTO THE MICROPHONE... because the people in the same room with you are not the ones you are doing this for;
6) try really really hard NOT TO COVER the microphone with your thumbs;
7) shut up and listen when someone is talking to you and don't try to interrupt or speak over them like a Scientologist would;
8) have something interesting to demonstrate and don't screw around chatting amongst yourselves in Afrikaans;
9) don't invite people to one "hangout" URL and then use a different one for your actual hangout;
10) DO NOT BREAK FOR SUPPER IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR LIVE DEMONSTRATION WHILE PEOPLE ARE WAITING FOR YOU to show what you promised.

I'm sure that other people can add to this list of dos and don'ts for Ainslie's next "demonstration" .... I can hardly wait.

[TinselKoala]

Listening to the segment where Ainslie and Darren are having their conversation, it is clear that Ainslie is still confused about just what I wanted to see concerning the long period (as the Figure 3 scopeshot shows: a 160 second period with about 10-20 percent ON duty cycle) and the 12 volt gate signal.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miOXBOx4Kso


Ainslie keeps saying "it takes 26 minutes for that waveform to resolve itself". What could this possibly mean? Well, at a scope scan rate of 50 seconds per horizontal division as in Figure 3, it takes the LeCroy 500 seconds to scan completely across the screen.  That's 8.3 minutes. So 3 full scans would come very close to 26 minutes. I think that the Q1 mosfet, _on its original small heatsink that it had when Figure 3 was made_, will indeed overheat when a 12 volt gate signal, is used as shown in Figure 3 and AS IT SHOULD IN THAT CASE WITH A 75 VOLT SUPPLY, is carrying 6 amperes D-S for the ON times. It is entirely possible that after three full scans (26 minutes) the mosfet should fail and then.... sure enough, the "waveform resolves itself" to the Figure 3 traces, with 12 volts on the gate and no current at all in the shunt.

Of course the way to do this is to set the circuit to the correct gate voltage at a higher frequency. If the probe is correctly positioned the current trace will show the 6 amps during the Q1 on times. Fine. Now turn the FG's frequency down, while you already have the gate set properly, so you don't have to wait for the scope. Monitor the mosfet temperature, as well as the load if you like, but most importantly, the mosfet.
Now leave the thing the hell alone, DO NOT TOUCH ANY SETTINGS and wait until the waveform "resolves itself" and mysteriously turns from the expected waveform that you started with, showing 6 amps in the shunt, into the Fig 3 waveform with zero current, but still a 12 volt Gate drive. This would be a good time to have your supper, also live on cellphone, instead of abandoning everyone and wasting that time.

The fact that the Q1 mosfet is NOW on a much larger heatsink is a very meaningful observation. Who put it there? Certainly not Ainslie herself, she believes that the mosfet does not even get warm, much less hot. (And of course a blown mosfet does not get warm or hot.) So that leaves DONNY. You have got to ask yourselves.... what does Donny know and when did he know it?

I am starting to form the strong opinion that Donovan Martin is the "brains" behind this evil disinformation plot and Rosemary Ainslie is just the primary dupe. She clearly didn't come up with the circuit, she wouldn't know an AV Plug from a fireplug even if her dog does, and she can't even operate the test equipment. Donny is using Ainslie in some manner, manipulating her to be his "front woman". He is either hanging her out to dry, deliberately, or he is pushing his own FE agenda through her, or...perhaps a group of Ainslie's friends and loved ones, understanding that she is very disturbed, is trying to keep her out of trouble by letting her work this little fantasy project, "humoring" her it used to be called... and who cares who it affects outside the walled compound that is White Cape Town.

(Right.... At this point in time, we will actually stop using the actual word "now" because actually, saying "at this point in time" actually sounds so much more educated and proppah. Actually.)

[TinselKoala]

@.99.....
I am flabbergasted by Ainslie's latest. It is as if Saturday never happened. Just as I predicted, she is now apparently trying to claim that they DID reproduce the Figure 3 scopeshot and can do so at will. Of course she means "little current" and not zero current, and she means 8... or is it 9 volts to the gate and not 12 as the Figure 3 shows....

How is it possible to deal with a person like this? Her thinking is twisted, sick, demented even. The Figure 3 scopeshot shows 12 volts on the gate and zero current. This is impossible, therefore the Figure is faked or an error. Therefore the claims based on the figure are not supported. If Ainslie wants to assert that Figure 3 DOES support her claims then she must reproduce Figure 3 _precisely_ and show that it is done with a functioning mosfet and the proper probe position. Showing some other scope trace, with some other behaviour, is NOT RELEVANT and certainly doesn't help support the claims. Ainslie apparently really cannot understand this, and so there is something seriously wrong with her thought processes.

Finding out just HOW the Figure 3 traces were actually  made is secondary to the issue of her present inability to make them in the conditions she claims in the papers.

But of course if she is Donny's puppet, parroting what he tells her, then we shouldn't be so hard on her. I am starting to imagine that she is may be an ignorant dupe and it is Donovan Martin who should be in this debate, not Ainslie.

What part of "ON part of switching cycle" is so hard to understand? This mosfet, as even DONNY explained, isn't going to be truly and fully ON until... it sees near 10 volts at the gate, and the Figure 3 shows 12 volts or perhaps a bit more. Therefore, a "4 volt" gate signal is not an "ON part of the switching cycle" at all. It should however bias the transistor into its linear operation region, barely, so there should be some small current flow indicated in the current trace.

[TinselKoala]

She said that they were going to put a current sensing shunt in series with the FG, to show that the FG was not contributing power to the circuit. Of course she didn't do it, wonder why, but it is a Great Idea! Let's see what that CSR shows _during the Q2 oscillations_. We know, of course that the oscillations need an external power source to proceed and that it is the FG that is providing this power. SO let us see the current trace from the FG during the oscillations. Will it be ZERO as Ainslie claims it must be, or will it show that the FG is acting as a current source during Q2 oscillations (and also when Q1 oscillates too)? I already know the answer and I am sure .99 and PW do too. But...does Ainslie? Does DONOVAN MARTIN? I wonder what their explanation is for never being able to see a Gate signal that is more negative than -4 volts (plus fuzz) from their +/- 20 v p-p FG, no matter how they have the offset and amplitude set.