New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[Tseak]

There is always a positive side to these sagas. Even if the test/demo doesn't happen, The explanations, rants and self contradictions constitute conclusive proof that cloud cuckoo land exists. I wonder how long until  Mr. Wier is going to get the RA abuse? Nobody could be more patient than .99 has been yet she is so rude to him.

[MileHigh]

Another point...

IF there is any supplied voltage that is ABLE to vary the battery voltage - IF there is something that can impose a value on the battery - THEN - self-evidently - it cannot be from the battery itself.  The battery has a FIXED amount of energy.  It cannot CREATE more energy from NOTHING.  It cannot simply record a greater voltage than is available from that supply. Unless the very foundation of standard assumption is ENTIRELY wrong.  BUT the question remains.  WHERE did that energy come from?

I suppose that you could look at it like this:  It's just the "energy echo" that's "imposing a (voltage) value on the battery."  During the oscillation phase the circuit looks like and acts like a reactive load to the battery.  Energy is pumped out of the battery on one cycle and some of that original energy gets "reflected" back on the return cycle.  It's a standard property of electric circuits.  The key thing is that the return energy is less than the broadcast energy.  The energy that doesn't come back gets burned up elsewhere in a resistance.  So it would be more correct to say that the circuit is acting like a reactive + resistive load.

So this mystery of "WHERE did that energy come from?" has a trivial answer, the energy came from the battery itself, in the form of a reflection.  The circuit is acting like a reactive + resistive load.  This is standard theory.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

@MH: Here's Ainslie's SCRN0166, which is a zoom of the oscillations on the battery trace and the CVR trace. There was a nominal 48 volt Vbatt in use, 4 batteries in series. You can see that the Vbatt trace varies from near zero volts all the way to near 150 volts. Ainslie believes that the battery voltage is actually undergoing these fluctuations during the oscillations. The LeCroy cannot lie, it is a zut instrument, fully calibrated blah blah blah.
Of course a battery can undergo small voltage fluctuations when presented with an oscillating load at very low frequencies. But never of the magnitude or frequency that Ainslie imagines.

Weird, isn't it? She depends on something that _capacitors_ can do just fine but batteries cannot.... yet she constantly claims that capacitors don't have some special power that batteries do have, that makes batteries "work" and caps "don't work" in her circuit. Yet... as anyone with the wit can demonstrate.... capacitors and batteries produce the same waveforms and the same heat in the load, for as long as the caps have sufficient voltage remaining to run the circuit. A capacitor has no problem at all swinging its real charged voltage through hundreds or even thousands of volts, at high frequencies. A Battery cannot do this at all.

There is a further complication. Ainslie's scope, no matter how fast it samples, samples _consecutively_ not concurrently or simultaneously. It samples one channel, then the next, then the next, then the next, then it performs a math operation, then it samples the first channel again, etc etc.
This means that temporal "skew" exists between the channels, which shows up as a slight phase shift in the signals. The scope can measure and compensate for the skew that is happening in any given measurement situation... in fact on some of Ainslie's scopescreens you can see the skew compensation menu coming up... but of course they have never applied this subtle correction to their results. Uncorrected probe skew was how Steorn managed their "overunity" measurements with their 35,000 dollar oscilloscopes.

But as .99 has poynted out.... Ainslie's battery voltage is really quite nearly constant, a flat line. So channel skew issues should not matter... if only the measurements were correctly made in the first place.

[TinselKoala]

Another point...

I suppose that you could look at it like this:  It's just the "energy echo" that's "imposing a (voltage) value on the battery."  During the oscillation phase the circuit looks like and acts like a reactive load to the battery.  Energy is pumped out of the battery on one cycle and some of that original energy gets "reflected" back on the return cycle.  It's a standard property of electric circuits.  The key thing is that the return energy is less than the broadcast energy.  The energy that doesn't come back gets burned up elsewhere in a resistance.  So it would be more correct to say that the circuit is acting like a reactive + resistive load.

So this mystery of "WHERE did that energy come from?" has a trivial answer, the energy came from the battery itself, in the form of a reflection.  The circuit is acting like a reactive + resistive load.  This is standard theory.

MileHigh

What seems to have been swept under the rug lately is the fact that the oscillations cannot occur or persist without a power supply, and in the circuit that Ainslie and .99 and I (mostly) have been using, the Function Generator is the power supply. Or rather, the FG in series with the main battery is the power supply for the oscillations. The FG's role can be replaced with a constant, fully filtered DC supply... and then the oscillations will go on forever, no need to chop them with Q1 ON intervals at all.
And of course the power supplied by the FG is dissipated in the circuit elements just like the power from the battery. So OF COURSE, during the oscillations, there will be more power dissipated in the circuit elements than supplied by the MAIN BATTERY... because it is not the only power supply to the circuit!!!! Please, let us not forget this, and don't let Ainslie forget it either.

This fact of course makes Ainslie's whole section of the Paper 1, Test 1: To Determine the Potential Duration of the Oscillations..... just silly. They still think the oscillations have something to do with function generator settings. ANY DC power supply capable of making -4 volts wrt the circuit negative rail will cause the oscillations to persist for as long as that power is supplied, and the more current supplied the greater the magnitude of the oscillations, AND the more power from the DC source will be dissipated in the load and other circuit elements.

[TinselKoala]

I see that Ainslie is once again referring to the bogus Figure 3 scopeshot and the claims made around it.

She has apparently forgotten all about the June 29 demonstration which PROVED BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT that the Figure 3 shot, in the Paper 1 that bears Rosemary Ainslie's and Donovan Martin's names...  is FRAUDULENT.

What we measure in those scope shots is a battery voltage which, IF TRUE, would indicate that - at the peak of those oscillations - the battery is charging and discharging energies at a level that BEGGARS belief - and that is NOWHERE evident from the energy dissipated over those circuit components.  THEN.  Look again at our claim related to Fig 3  Paper 1.  Here we get ABSOLUTELY NO CURRENT DISCHARGE during the on period of that duty cycle.  YET?  We have evidence of some significant heat - upwards of 7 watts - dissipated at the resistor.

What we have evidence of, on the contrary, is the  incompetence and now deliberate mendacity and "cooked" data of the Donovan Martin - Rosemary Ainslie team.