Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

So where is the evidence for this "Excess Heat" that Ainslie and GMeast are always talking about? There is none in any of Ainslie's reported data, that's for sure, and I've never seen anything like a complete DC calibration, compared to a temperature-time graph, from GMeast either. They simply claim, and boast, and assert, but are apparently immune to any requirement to support their claims with coherent data.

Ainslie's Figure 3, which is the ONLY EVIDENCE she has ever presented that even _appears_ to show heat evolution without strong Q1 current flow.... has been PROVEN to be an utter fabrication. Ainslie has NEVER presented any data that indicates heat performance over and above the power delivered BY THE BATTERY TO THE CIRCUIT.... and now she has told us that she never will. But she will still make the claims!


Come ON, people. SHOW ME A DATA SET THAT SHOWS EXCESS HEAT.  Or stop making the claims that you have such data.

REFUTE MY WORK. I've put all of it up for criticism, repetition, whatever. COME ON, PEOPLE. LET'S SEE A DATA SET THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIMS, without fabrications and lies like the Figure 3 bogus scopeshot.

But aren't we working now with the single mosfet, Quantum Magazine claims? WHERE IS THE DATA? Do you want to go back to discussing the "Q-Array" which was soundly proven to be very inefficient during the two "demonstrations" last summer? Fine---- PRESENT SOME NEW DATA THAT REFUTES THOSE PUBLICLY-GATHERED RESULTS. You cannot!

Because you have none, and you will never have any, that refutes my work, or that shows any excess heating from anything like the Quantum Magazine circuit, the Lost Grey Box circuit, or the 5-mosfet "Q-array" circuit.

PROVE ME WRONG!   You cannot. All you can do, Ainslie and GMeast, is to erect your straw man arguments and flail and moan about them.

THE MAJOR CURRENT PATH IN THE "Q-ARRAY" CIRCUIT IS NOT THROUGH THE GATE CAPACITANCE and nobody ever said it was. THE MAJOR CURRENT PATH IN THE CIRCUIT IS THE NORMAL DRAIN_SOURCE CHANNEL WHICH IS DRIVEN TO LINEAR CONDUCTANCE BY THE MOSFET OSCILLATIONS, and which goes THROUGH THE FG or other bias source, as my videos on the Common Gate Amplifier have PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT.  And nobody, on "this side", has ever claimed otherwise.

Would you like to refute those demonstrations? I invite you to do so..... it will be fun to watch your flailing and failing.  The mosfet input capacitance of 2800 pF or so...> READ THE DATA SHEET GMEAST< acts just like any other capacitance in the circuit, it does contribute to the formation and sustaining of the oscillations. How could it not? Why is the capacitance even listed in the data sheet if it doesn't act as a capacitance, GMEAST? Your faulty and arrogant "understanding" is leading you astray, you are buying into Ainslie's straw-man argument.... to the detriment of your own credibility.



Your arguments are invalid, Ainslie and GMeast. And the more you squawk the more people see how silly and duplicitous you both are. Produce a data set that supports your claims.... OR STOP MAKING THEM.



And while you are at it, explain these "DMM" screenshots and spreadsheet graphs. Why do these parameters NOT produce the "excess heating" in the load? I know why...... and so do you, GMeast.

[MarkE]

Ms. Ainslie's flailing about really should cause more yawns than excitement.

Each of the four paths that I identified do pass AC current.  I am pretty sure that Steve put  a Q2 gate current sense in tht board you've got.  It would be interesting to see just how much current flows through that path with 1, 2, or four Q2 MOSFETs hooked up.  If you use the gate current booster in series with say a 10 Ohm resistor instead of the function generator you may see some really interesting stuff. You may need a beefier heat sink for the low side PNP transistor.

While Greg has some funny ideas including somewhat paranoid ones about people like us, he has in my view done a much better job than Ms. Ainslie of trying to set-up measurements that faithfully indicate what he wants to measure.  And unlike Ms. Ainslie he has performed at least some null experiments.  I am disappointed that he has rejected my suggestions for additional experiments out of hand.  I hope that he will eventually reconsider out of interest in finding out the truth.

[TinselKoala]

The Great Scientists don't do true experiments, though. They simply do "demonstrations", not experiments designed to _disprove_ an hypothesis.

However, I don't work that way.

The hypothesis that the Gate or input capacitance of a mosfet cannot pass significant current ... that is, the Ainslie-GMeast hypothesis.... is easily tested in an attempt to falsify it. Have they EVER tested that hypothesis? Not to my knowledge, but please correct me right away if I am wrong.

However, I have done so.

Take an IRFPG50 mosfet, completely disconnected from everything. Take a 14 volt light bulb, a GE161 for instance, and hook one side of it to the Function Generator BLACK output lead. Take the other end of the light bulb and hook it to the mosfet SOURCE only. Take the RED FG output lead and hook it to the mosfet GATE only. Set the FG for a positive square wave at the typical Ainslie operating frequency like 187 kHz as shown in her last released scopeshot.  Turn up the FG output amplitude, and observe the light bulb. What will happen? Now select a bipolar "AC" square wave. What will happen?

What is the prediction from Ainslie/GMEast's "theory" of mosfet operation-- READ THE DATA SHEET? What is "our" prediction? What does the real actual hardware do?

Is there ANYONE who can answer this question? Yes... .there is. I can answer it.


Can YOU, GMeast? I know Ainslie cannot do the experiment herself. But I believe YOU can do it.

(Let's pretend that the goalposts haven't been moved YET AGAIN..... Ainslie is suddenly talking about the 5-mosfet circuit, when she has claimed lately that they were testing the old Quantum Magazine single-mosfet circuit, and that circuit is what produced her latest scopeshots. But suddenly.... the Q-array is being discussed again. Fine.... I can test ANY of the 5 different circuits she has claimed for the "Q-Array" very easily, and produce a complete data set including CORRECT SCHEMATICS, CORRECT SCOPETRACES and PROPERLY GATHERED HEATING RATE DATA, along with spreadsheets and etc. in less than FOUR HOURS. Can you, GMEast or Ainslie? Why don't you DO IT, if you can? I know why.... and so do you: you cannot produce data that supports your claims. Where is ANY heating RATE data from Ainslie? Nowhere, that's where.... she has NEVER PRODUCED SUCH DATA, in spite of her claims that it is necessary. Please feel free to REFUTE ME. You cannot.)

[TinselKoala]

Here's a burr for your saddle-blanket, GMeast.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7Mcp390HyU

Ainslie said,

Guys - the wonder is how they get away with this APPALLING level of discussion on 'matters scientific'.  It beggars belief.  They can CERTAINLY assume that there are those readers who simply don't understand the points they raise.  But it's never ALL their readers.  But to claim that those IRFPG50's can discharge current from a battery or any supply source through the GATE of a MOSFET?  And then to say that they PROVED this?  For those of you who are NOT purists, trust me on this.  It is IMPOSSIBLE - unless that MOSFET has somehow degraded that it is ENTIRELY defunct.  That's just one of MANY absurdities.  The most of them have been discussed.  I put it to you that IF they're the 'experts' that they pretend - then LET THEM PUBLISH A PAPER ON THESE FINDINGS.  Because, of a truth - there would be a million or more aspiring power and electronic experts who would be MOST intrigued. 

And I laugh. More IMPOSSIBILITIES claimed by Ainslie, that I show to be perfectly POSSIBLE and in fact TRUE.

LET AINSLIE PERFORM EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE MY FINDINGS. She cannot, and neither can her faithful steed Gmeast, because my findings are TRUE and fully documented. All she can do is emit further bloviations, giving me more and more opportunities to REFUTE HER UTTERLY. The ignorant troll queen knows nothing about electronics in general or mosfets in particular and is happy to brag and display her ignorance in public for all to see! And she has suborned GMEast as well, which is sad, because he really should know better.

And LET AINSLIE PUBLISH A PAPER.... any paper! She cannot! Never has, and never will. Editors laugh at her, and summarily reject her submissions as the amateurish hodge-podge of error and mendacity that they are.

[TinselKoala]

It is amazing, isn't it? Even the Straw Man argument constructed by Ainslie and Gmeast fails in the light of actual evidence. 

In the first place, THERE IS NO EXCESS HEAT to be accounted for. The mosfet undeniably does have some current passing through the Gate capacitance; this current has been measured time and time again, even by Ainslie herself (see the August 11 demonstration, last ten minutes) and might be contributing slightly to the load heating. But how can we be claiming that it accounts for the "excess heat" when THERE IS NO EXCESS HEAT?

They can't even get their criticisms right, since they are criticizing Ainslie's deluded misrepresentations, rather than the actual assertions and demonstrations coming from the actual experiments that I am performing.... and which neither Ainslie nor Gmeast have EVER refuted in the least degree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc7iAGFceF4

The FG acts as a POWER SOURCE IN SERIES with the main batteries during the Q2 oscillations. This pathway, where the FG ADDS POWER TO THE CIRCUIT, has nothing to do with the Gate capacitance passing current. Ainslie and GMeast are simply fabricating, confabulating, when they make their false StrawMan claims about the FG adding significant load heating power _through the gate capacitance_. Her refusal to believe that the FG is a power source in the "Q-array" circuit is legendary.... and remains utterly WRONG.