Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[TinselKoala]

This clip pretty much says it all.

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

You can see how disordered, yet crafty, her thought process is. 

The observation, which nobody doubts, is the LeCroy screenshot. It shows a main supply of +72 volts or more, +12 V on the Gate, and ZERO drain current in the CVR, during the "ON" portions of a periodic gate stimulation.

Other parameters of the Figure 3 screenshot are interesting but not ultimately impossible in the same way as the zero current. As Darren says, the long period cycle time is not as important to demonstrate as the "levels and waveforms".

(The long cycle time is posited as a possible _cause_ of the Fig 3 scopeshot because a mosfet would be likely to fail under those conditions and a Fig 3 scopeshot is the result of several possible permanent or temporary mosfet failure modes (fail open, solder "fuse" leadwire disconnection) resulting from overheating. This could be demonstrated... but only if First, a solid 12 volts could be applied to the mosfet gate, and then left alone for the required time, while monitoring mosfet temps. Of course, when this is done, the waveform will not look like Figure 3 until the mosfet fails, and the load will heat maximally until that time.)

The Gate voltage is the Independent variable (IV), the one that the Experimenter controls. The Drain current is the Dependent variable (DV), the one that varies as the experimenter varies the IV. Data consists of pairs of numbers (Gate V, Drain I). The data in question are (12 V, 0 I) and the challenge to the Donovan Martin-Rosemary Ainslie collaboration is to reproduce THAT PAIR OF NUMBERS using the schematic claimed, a working Q1, a properly positioned probe and the 72+ volt supply.

The Figure 3 scopeshot claims that Ainslie produced that pair of numbers under the conditions stated. If it turns out that the scopeshot was NOT produced under the conditions stated, or more strictly just the pair of numbers (12V gate, 0I current) wasn't obtained properly.... then obviously the scopeshot itself is invalid and shouldn't be included in any claim of overunity! The thing was broken and/or not measured right!  And this pair of numbers, 12 V and zero current, is the basis for an entire set of downstream claims.

Yet when she has to confront this inescapable fact during the discussion with Darren, she freaks out in mid-sentence, literally, and changes the subject and the tone of her argument, first to a plea, then a demand, then a pout, then indignant anger..... it's an amazing clip. I can imagine using her rant in this clip in several different kinds of psychology classrooms as textbook examples.

Note that they apparently do not even have the Figure 3 shot in front of them for comparison until they decide to download it from "the blog" at around 5:48. I forgot to record the timestamps on the original video but this is waaaaaay deep into the demo.

[TinselKoala]

Why doesn't she STOP already!!
I really think that she should submit all her posts to Donovan Martin for approval before she sticks her foot down her throat even further than she has already, if that's possible even.

I have NEVER doubted that a function generator can pass current.  This comment is based on an amusing little diversion in tactics where our 'ickle pickle' apparently did a youtube number using the function generator as the ONLY source of energy - to show that it does pass current.  Of COURSE it does.  But the question is this.  IS it passing current onto our circuit?  I claim - categorically - that it is not.  Likely I am wrong.  But certainly when we did use CSR's at the gate of Q1 - it showed - IF anything - that current was being returned to that generator.  Which also means that I most CERTAINLY doubt that it is passing current into our circuit.  BUT.  THAT much is yet to be proven.  It's a question that is now in the capable hands of Donny.

She starts with an outright lie, as usual for Ainslie, then amplifies that. 
Capable hands. That cannot find a frequency with a digital oscilloscope in over five minutes of fumbling around, when it's displayed constantly on the screen in front of him. Right. Actually, at this point in time, Donovan Martin may be capable of many things, actually, but certainly not anything having to do with actual practical electronics. Actually. Insert ROFL smiley here.

Anyway, note the continuing idiocy.

But the question is this.  IS it passing current onto our circuit?  I claim - categorically - that it is not.  Likely I am wrong.  But certainly when we did use CSR's at the gate of Q1 - it showed - IF anything - that current was being returned to that generator.

Current was being returned to the generator, but categorically was not passing current into "our" circuit. Well, then clearly the FG must have been filling up with current. Did you remember to drain it once in a while? You wouldn't want it to overflow.

How is it possible even to argue with a person whose thought processes are so disordered? Who can't even recall from day to day just what it is she has or hasn't claimed lately? Who can't even understand, or even see, the evidence that is presented to her? Argument is totally useless, but she and Donovan have certainly put themselves out as targets for mockery.

[TinselKoala]

And regarding this...'she remains clueless as to how the Q2 portion of her circuit operates.'  Not actually.  I think that it should be left to picowaT to explain how it is that the MOSFET Q2 can pass a current FROM the battery through it's source leg and onto the Gate of Q1.  And he must try that explanation without his typical hand waving.  We KNOW that there's energy there.  But it cannot POSSIBLY be coming from the batteries.  Unless - in defiance of standard theory - a positive current CAN bridge the applied negative signal at the Q1 MOSFET gate - and simply FLOW.  If it could do this then it would be impossible to use a MOSFET as a switch.  EVER.  And no amount of EXPLANATION related to capacitive reactance or any other kind of excuse will cut it.  The fact is that there is an oscillation and this is self sustaining.  And it delivers energy as can be seen on the heat dissipated at the element resistor.  IF this is coming from the function generator - then we have a problem.  Because we can get that same effect WITHOUT using a function generator.  And if this is some variation of a amplification - then very evidently - there's extra energy here.

Which makes THIS comment somewhat unsubstantiated...No one is "avoiding" the battery being "disconnected" simply because this is not true, the battery is not "disconnected".  Q2 is turned on, passing current, and oscillating.   If Q2 was turned ON - then it would simply be passing current.  It would NOT be oscillating.  When current is passed it is ATYPICAL for it to oscillate.  It would simply flow.

See? She still has no clue about the linear operation of a mosfet. Even though Donovan Martin can be heard explaining that a threshold voltage of 3.5 of 4 volts turns the mosfet on a little, 8 volts turns it on more, and it is fully on at 10 volts or above. He tells her this in the video segment "swan song" and she says "yes" to him as if she understands. But by today she has forgotten. She thinks a mosfet is ON with zero resistance or OFF with infinite resistance and nothing in between.

And she has forgotten the lesson that lowering the voltage on the Source pin is equivalent to raising the voltage on the Gate pin, because her conception of voltage is wrong, and she doesn't understand that voltages are relative. Thus she cannot understand how Q2 can be biased into partial conduction in an oscillatory manner. She knows the Gates of Q2 are pinned to the negative rail. What she does NOT understand is that the Sources of Q2 can be brought to a voltage that is _below_ the voltage at the negative rail by the FG or other bias supply input. And because she doesn't understand that voltages are relative, she cannot see that a -4 volts on the source and 0 on the gate is the same thing, to the mosfet, as 0 volts on the source and +4 volts on the gate.

Hence she is incapable of understanding how a mosfet amplifier operates or how amplifiers in general produce and sustain feedback oscillations. Even my breakdown of the process with Manny the Manual Mosfet Oscillator didn't penetrate her ego armor. Nothing will. SO my focus has changed from trying to help her understand, to mockery and irony. She will _never understand_, but the people around her will, and those who must eventually evaluate and judge her... they will understand.

[TinselKoala]

On Mark D's forum, in the comments to his recent analysis of Ainslie's work, Mark E asks a question.

Mark Dansie, thanks for updating with the correctly annotated picture.
Looking at their set-up is a bit mind boggling as to what they were thinking.  Why did they set Q1 off to the side from the stack of Q2s? When they first did this, they showed just the one MOSFET.  Did they try things out with two, then three, then four MOSFETs and find that wasn't enough and they couldn't find screws long enough to go higher, so they added Q1?  And who but a very naive person would locate the common node anywhere but right at the low side of the current sense?  And how could they have been confused as to source and gate, when they used black wires for each source and red wires for each gate?  There are so many questions.  And none of them really matter because these guys have never shown anything that supports their claims.

The "updated picture" refers to an error that Mark E made on the original picture: ironically the same error that the NERDs seem to have made with the hardware. But in answer to the question about the evolution:
The circuit started with Q1 only. That is why it is separate. The "gang of four" Q2s was added all at once and was intended to be in strict parallel with the  existing Q1 but they made the same mirror inversion mistake that Mark E made in his first picture and is talking about above.

[TinselKoala]

I submit this schematic for discussion.

The Gate of the mosfet is connected to an Earth Ground and the Negative Rail of the main battery supply. Will our Ickle Pickle be able to turn on the 24 volt light bulb by adjusting R1?

And regarding this...'she remains clueless as to how the Q2 portion of her circuit operates.'  Not actually.  I think that it should be left to picowaT to explain how it is that the MOSFET Q2 can pass a current FROM the battery through it's source leg and onto the Gate of Q1. 

I think it should be left to Donovan Martin and Rosemary Ainslie to explain how it is that SO MANY OF THEIR CLAIMS are refuted by my simple demonstrations, and by their own attempts at demonstrations. Why can they not produce EVIDENCE in support of their claims, even when given the best possible opportunity to do so: a demonstration ENTIRELY under their own control. It is because their claims are bogus, of course, and the data that they pretend supports the claims, is only error and deliberate deception. IT CANNOT BE REPRODUCED, even by them, when other people are watching.