New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[hoptoad]

Snooze alarm:

I hear a very gentle sound...
With your ear down to the ground...
We want the world and we want it now!

When the musics over,
Turn out the light.

[gmeast]

I'm not shooting the messenger, I am just interested in accurate reporting.

She sneaks in a link to her Quantum magazine article, without mentioning the FACT that the article is incontrovertibly WRONG, so she is again making false claims from the outset.

The schematic included with that article cannot possibly make the duty cycle she claims to have used. This has been confirmed over and over again, most recently and definitively by Mark Euthanasius, as shown in the image of the scopeshots above.

So either one of two situations exist: Ainslie used the schematic in the article, which means the "ON" duty cycle she reported is FALSE and the claims made are WRONG.... or the circuit was operated with some other schematic! Or both!  Which makes the entire Quantum magazine article FALSE, another lie.
Further, Ainslie has known about this discrepancy since 2009, when I FIRST DISCOVERED AND POSTED ABOUT IT, (.99 also noted this discrepancy back then)  yet she has made no corrections, no retractions of the article and in fact has even allowed her friends, like GMEAST, to build the device without even informing him of any problems. His famous posting of his discovery is appended below.

I say again: either the schematic in the article WAS used, in which case the duty cycle reported and the data gathered are BOGUS, or the schematic in the article WAS NOT used, in which case the entire experimental situation, including the data collected, is false, bogus, another compendium of lies and false claims. There are no other alternatives!

Further, and even more hilarious, is the FACT that the Quantum circuit is just the unclamped inductive test circuit from the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet, with the substitution of the 555 timer instead of the FG the data sheet specifies. Even further.... the circuit is the same as the presently discredited 5-mosfet circuit, just without the "Q-array" of the four backwards-wired mosfets.

Are these undeniable and incontrovertible facts made clear in the article about Ainslie? Or is she to be allowed to continue to use your webpage as a forum to push her false claims, like the link to the Quantum magazine article which DEFINITELY contains false statements and claims?

I am amazed at the "defense" of the Quantum article that appears. It seems that the issue of publishing a FALSE SCHEMATIC is again considered unimportant, and I am utterly amazed by this.

Mark E's analysis is commendable. He came into this story rather late in its development but he has come "up to speed" rapidly, due to his knowledge and experience. Is it too technical for your wide audience, though? Suffice it to say that  the article as published by Ainslie is simply bogus and should not be referred to or linked to without a clear statement of this FACT.

The fact that the 555 PWM circuit did not work as illustrated really didn't bother me much because I simply switched to using a single channel from the 3-Phase digital PWM I designed and had been using in my exploration of Bob Boyce's toroidal transformer self-charging battery circuit technology that used his Hex controller. That technology drew great interest after Johann from S. Africa posted his 4 (famous) videos showing the Hex controller self-charging a battery. Nothing came of it though. The Inductive Resistor research I've conducted and continue to do so does NOT / did NOT mirror Ainslie's work. I never built and tested that complete array as pictured and argued in these forums. My variant is quite different (simpler) and the protocols are altogether different.  I'm still adamant that there is something to the Inductive Resistor Heater based on what I've been able to show ... disclosed and undisclosed.


I hope this clarifies that I was NOT misled in any way by Rosemary Ainslie. I subsequently made the 555 PWM circuit perform in the frequency and duty cycle range referred to in the articles/papers. But now my variant is self-oscillating and based on simple 'blocking oscillator' principles.


I know that an FG was the only input signal device ever used, and that (her advisors/reviewers) were the ones insisting on including the 555 PWM circuit in all publications/disclosures ... that's what I was told anyway. Rosemary Ainslie did NOT perpetrate and was NOT part of any intentional deception ... that's my belief.


Regards,


GME

[TinselKoala]

@Gmeast:
Are you saying that you used the same component values and the same schematic that Ainslie published, and you were able to make it make a short ON duty cycle, at 2.4 kHz as she claimed?

If so, I would really like to see some scopeshots. Because your claim is at variance with _every body else_ who has ever built and tested that circuit, in hardware or in simulation. Perhaps you have erred; I can't believe that all those people including .99, SWeir, MarkE, the folks at Energetic Forum, and many others have erred and you are right.

Now, when you DID start out to build her circuit, the very first thing you noticed was that the 555 timer "didn't work", and you asked if anyone else had actually built the circuit. Remember that? I do.

The paper makes the claim that the published 555 timer circuit was used. If this is not the case, then the paper is wrong, it is making a false claim and her plea for replications is... disingenuous to say the least. If the 555 timer circuit WAS used, then the duty cycle claimed in the article is impossible. If some other duty cycle was used... then the paper is wrong and her plea for replications is.... well you know.

What are the other alternatives? Please explain.

The duty cycle issue was brought up, hashed over and, I thought, settled in 2009. That is, dear GMeast, Ainslie has known since 2009 that the circuit published would not make the duty cycle claimed. Yet... she let you proceed without even warning you. I think this is dishonest, you may not. What do you call it?

(By the way.... she has always insisted that the 555 circuit WAS USED, until just the past couple of weeks. If she had in fact used a FG instead... .why in the world did she NEVER MENTION it back in 2009 when everybody and his brother were "replicating" this circuit? I know why, and in your heart I think you probably do too.)

[TinselKoala]

....Rosemary Ainslie did NOT perpetrate and was NOT part of any intentional deception ... that's my belief.
Regards,
GME

Does your belief in her honesty extend to the 5-mosfet circuit and claims? Because she most certainly DID perform an intentional deception back in 2011.

The Demo video was released in mid-March with the claim that all five mosfets were in parallel, and it was not until April 19, about, that .99 finally showed the correct schematic, after he looked very carefully at the circuit because he was _unable to reproduce_ the Ainslie scopetraces precisely. No wonder, because he was using the CLAIMED schematic which was an intentional deception, as Ainslie herself was then forced to admit. Over four hundred forum posts, discussing her CLAIMED but not used schematic, occurred in the interval, and .99 was not the only person wasting his time on a false schematic. To top it off, Ainslie said that she wished that he had NOT revealed the truth, she actually wanted the deception to continue!


Note her statement: "We showed it in the video. We just didn't draw anyone's attention to that positioning".
Now go and watch the "Donny Blooper Reel" and tell me again that Ainslie wasn't engaging in intentional deception.

[TinselKoala]

I just want to point out something here.

There are several people making claims of various sorts in this thread. Yet.... the only ones who appear to be providing _evidence_ in the form of checkable outside references, demonstrations, and so on.... are ...Poynt99 and Little old me. (Reference: Check the posts above. If I've made a claim for which I hace not provided some necessary support, please let me know and I'll remedy the situation asap.)

Others are of course welcome and strongly encouraged to provide the same kinds of evidence, for THEIR claims. Or any evidence at all for that matter.