New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[poynt99]

The demo for Sunday may indeed be canceled, don't be surprised if it is. But if it is it won't be because they are not ready; it will be because the results of the tests on Saturday (the dry run) will be so very devastating to their claims.

[TinselKoala]

You will recall that we claim the battery is disconnected during the 'off' time of the duty cycle.  That's the period when the signal at the Gate of Q1 goes negative and then the oscillation is evident across the Rshunt.  I'll download a schematic hereunder.  Now.  That argument is germane - because IF the battery IS in fact connected - then we need to establish the path for it to flow through that Q2 transistor. 
(blah blah blah)
Therefore would our claim hold that the battery is open circuited and is NOT able to discharge its energy during that period of the duty cycle when the applied signal at the GATE of Q1 is NEGATIVE. Alternatively - we would claim that the amount of energy measured to be dissipated is anomalous as it does NOT conform to the amount of current required to enable that level of dissipation. 

Effectively the circuit exploits that voltage imbalance albeit that it does not NEED the current discharge from that battery supply source.  INDEED.  We argue that it cannot discharge current.  IT'S DISCONNECTED.

Indeed.

I do NOT CARE A TUPPENNY DAMN whether the oscillation is, as you claim and optionally - from parasitic inductance - from the wires and sundry circuit components - from anywhere at all.  IT IS IRRELEVANT.  The fact is that there IS a current that flows in two opposing directions through each oscillation.  And that measured oscillation - that measured current flow - is MOST CERTAINLY flowing through that battery stack - first in one direction and then in the other.  If, on the other hand - we simply DISCOUNT the evidence - then there is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in doing a demonstration.  We can continue to SPECULATE that there is ACTUALLY and ONLY a direct current discharge.  And then you will have proved your point.

No, Ainslie. You have proved MY point: that you do not have a clue, from one moment to the next, about what you are trying to discuss.

You claim that the battery is DISCONNECTED.... then you say that a measured current flow is MOST CERTAINLY flowing through that battery stack.

Of course we know that words mean whatever Ainslie says they mean. "DISCONNECTED" means something else in her South African world than it does in mine, because in Texas, things that are DISCONNECTED don't have current flowing through them, in either direction, and things that are DISCONNECTED don't change the circuit's behaviour when the wires are actually unplugged.

[TinselKoala]

I have NEVER claimed that the battery is 'experiencing' that alternating current.  I've only stated that convention requires that an alternating current would first represent a discharge and then a recharge.  What goes on in the battery itself is yet to be determined.  And that will require that comparative battery draw down test.  Which we are NOT going to do at our demonstration.   When I say the battery is 'disconnected' I am stating that the battery is UNABLE to discharge it's energy through that period of the duty cycle when we generate the oscillation.  IF it was discharging it would need to show not less than 0.8 amps deduced from the voltage across the shunt that we're going to put in series with the BLACK lead of the function generator.   And NOR are we discharging energy during the 'ON' phase of the duty cycle - when there's a positive signal applied to the Gate of Q1.  Therefore effectively in Fig 3 paper 1 the battery is effectively DISCONNECTED.

Hah hah. Again with the FIGURE 3 Paper 1 FRAUDULENT SCOPESHOT.
The Figure 3 scopeshot CANNOT BE MADE HONESTLY when you are being watched so you cannot cheat, and this was proven beyond a shadow of doubt on June 29.
Further it is EASY to prove that Q1 does turn on and does pass significant current even at a Vgs of +4 volts, much less the +12 volts that YOU CLAIMED IN THE FRADULENT FIGURE 3.

The battery is definitely connected in your Figure 3... but some other things are not! It is falsified out of whole cloth, a complete lie, and every time you refer to it I will remind you that YOU CANNOT REPRODUCE YOUR OWN CLAIMED DATA when you are being watched so you cannot cheat.

And further still....

The fact is that there IS a current that flows in two opposing directions through each oscillation.  And that measured oscillation - that measured current flow - is MOST CERTAINLY flowing through that battery stack - first in one direction and then in the other.

Can't seem to get your story straight, can you, Ainslie?

[Pirate88179]

The demo for Sunday may indeed be canceled, don't be surprised if it is. But if it is it won't be because they are not ready; it will be because the results of the tests on Saturday (the dry run) will be so very devastating to their claims.

Ah, the dreaded dry run again.  I think it was TK who first said, and I agree, that the dry run is THE demo that folks really need to see. 

Bill

[poynt99]

Hi Bill.

Not even I will be allowed to be present for the dry run. Which is too bad, because there might not be the Sunday demo once reality sets in on Saturday. In fact I believe the chances of a Sunday demo are fairly slim.

In the end does it matter? The outcome is going to be fairly clear; either Rose has been correct all along and all of us who have been trying to educate her for 6 years are clueless about electronics, or Rose has been refusing to see and accept the presented facts and conventional science prevails. In any case, it's sure to be the end of an era.

It should take but 2 or 3 straight forward measurements. And it's but a matter of time.