Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

What she doesn't understand is the difference between the ac bandwidth of the instrument and the averaging effect of the time constant when measuring dc. At this stage it suits her to have a diversion to string the issue out longer without producing anything.

Interesting comment from her that no one here has used anything but multimeters for current measurement. Even a brief read back through this thread will show that to be just more BS

I think it is very clear that neither does she have anything to show that supports her claims, nor does she understand much of anything when it comes to science and electronics in particular. 

As to her insistence that DMMs don't measure averages well.  She is dead wrong.  See for example the attached plot of integrating A/D converter response.  DMM's exclusively utilize integrating A/Ds for their precision and economy.   The graph shows that the DMM response becomes closer and closer to the ideal average, the higher in frequency that the measured signal component is.   Non-ideal circuit components ultimately limit how well the reading averages.

See also references such as:  http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/tutorials/MT-027.pdf.  That tutorial lists eight references of its own on integrating A/D converters such as are used in DMMs.

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie continues to display her disordered thought process and inability to reason. Not only does she deny her own properly collected data and persist in claiming her bad and even fabricated data is somehow worthy of consideration, but she fails to accept or even acknowledge the properly collected and analyzed data from others. She even says in so many words: if your data doesn't agree with her claims, it's wrong!

The deluded, irrational Ainslie makes utterly false claims, comes to fake conclusions based on her misperceptions and misrepresentations, and then proceeds to deliver insult after insane insult based on her deluded "reasoning". No corrections will ever be forthcoming from the Ainslie mob, in spite of the very public demonstrations of error, mendacity and incompetence that are the only "publications" they can actually claim. The proofs of her fabrication of data, and her suborning of outright lying by her "coauthor" Donovan Martin are solid and irrefutable. How can these overweeningly arrogant people ever expect to have their claims, made WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DATA AT ALL, to be seriously considered by anyone?

Ainslie chooses to ignore the excellent and complete explorations of the behaviour of DMMs that we have now from three different sources: Poynt99, Steve Weir and Mark E. She cannot even perceive the cross-checks and validations that I have done, showing that there is less than 5 percent error and usually much less, between the DMM and the scope's measurements of the same spiky current. She has proven herself to be incapable of interpreting graphically presented data such as MarkE presents.  Meanwhile she makes absurd assertions and Polly-Parrot squawkings that are not supported by data and in fact are UNSUPPORTABLE, as she has demonstrated herself over and over. Day after day, week after week, month after month goes by.... with NO DATA from Ainslie. Since August 11 2013, where Ainslie publicly demonstrated that her major claims are based on fabricated data, she has released ONE screenshot, and that one single screenshot demonstrates only that she and her "team" have learned literally NOTHING about making measurements, or displaying them on an oscilloscope screen.

Ainslie claims there is an "exploitable potential" in the spiky signals. But who has ACTUALLY measured the energy in these spikes? I HAVE. Who has ACTUALLY drawn off the energy in these spikes to be used in some external circuitry to make real effects? I HAVE.... and Ainslie and her mob NEVER HAVE.  And where, according to Ainslie, does this "exploitable potential" actually manifest itself? WHERE? It does not contribute to excess heating of the load. It does not result in recharging or preventing discharge of the batteries. WHERE IS IT? I will tell you where: There is NO EXCESS ENERGY, and what energy there IS in these "BEMF" or "CEMF" spikes is dissipated in the mosfet body itself, and in RF radiation. Ainslie and her gang of Keystone Kops can neither conceptualize nor measure properly these areas where the spiky signals DISSIPATE power from the BATTERY or power supply. The mendacious mob has even claimed that there is "no RF" when their own testing showed that there is -- their "AV plug" LED lighting up brightly demonstrates that -- and of course my better demonstrations show that there is plenty of RF indeed.

If Ainslie believes or claims otherwise, let her present evidence, in the form of a complete data set that supports her claims. After FOURTEEN YEARS she has been unable to do so, even though it would take a competent individual less than FOUR HOURS to obtain and present such a data set, were it at all possible. But AINSLIE CANNOT !! And the reasons she cannot are because her claims are specious, her "team" incompetent, and her equipment misused.

[MarkE]

You know full well that no evidence will be forthcoming.  Your satisfaction needs to come from the quality of your own work.

Ms. Ainslie acts as though she is simply bat shit crazy.  Nothing sensible comes from crazy.

[TinselKoala]

Yes, of course I know that the bloviating Great Scientist will not be producing any real and valid data. Meanwhile, I enjoy all the opportunities to demonstrate her mendacity, arrogance and sheer idiocy that she presents.

Here's a scopeshot from this morning's example run, along with the raw DATA DUMP FROM THE DIGITAL SAMPLING OSCILLOSCOPE, in a comma-delimited text file of 32,000 samples at 10 nanosecond intervals (100 samples per horizontal division), showing the Current and Vbatt traces. I invite Ainslie to show just where any DMM values are used here, and I invite her -- or rather, any member of her team actually capable of doing so, clearly not Ainslie herself -- to perform "integrated analysis" on this file just as they allege to have done on their own.

So where does this "exploitable potential" from these huge, MASSIVE spikes manifest itself, AINSLIE? The batteries do discharge, the heating at the load is only about 70 percent of the value obtained by straight DC delivered at the same "integrated analysis" power level.... so where is the "exploitable potential"? Is it in the heating up of the mosfet itself, where the spike is actually dissipated? That's certainly not very convenient. And it's also something for which Ainslie has never presented even a trace or inkling of evidence.

[TinselKoala]

In case anyone is interested.... here is the associated spreadsheet.

I've imported the raw .CSB data dump file from the Link DSO into the LibreOffice spreadsheet. Then I've put in the formulae to extract the actual voltages from the raw DSO values into columns. Then I've applied the 0.25 ohm CVR value to the Vcvr voltages to convert to amperage values. Then I've multiplied each of the 32k Vbatt and Icvr values together to produce the 32k values of the Instantaneous Power Curve. Then I've found the Mean of those values.... that is, I've integrated (added up all the equal-spaced time slices) and divided by the number of time slices to get the Mean power value. And just as Ainslie does, I get a nicely NEGATIVE "mean power product" of about -2.15 Watts for the overall capture. The capture is the entire scope's buffer of 32k samples at 10 ns per sample, so it covers much more -- about 20 times more -- than the single screen shown above.

So it cannot be argued that I'm not duplicating a "negative power product" with my system. In case it wasn't immediately obvious from the scope traces themselves, the spreadsheet's "integrated power analysis" confirms that I am demonstrating the same "anomalous measurement" that Ainslie attains. And not a DMM reading in sight.

If anyone finds any errors, or has any comments about the spreadsheet, which is nothing fancy... please let me know asap.