Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

So.

Recall that with the "NERD" or 5-mosfet circuit, we had FIVE different schematics presented as what was used in the experiment reported in the papers.

1. The single mosfet, FG with no black lead, six battery circuit that Martin said "this represents what you have before you here"
2. The claim that all five mosfets were in parallel
3. The actual circuit of the demo board as traced out by Poynt99, revealing the miswired 4 mosfets and the Black FG lead at the common battery negative.
4. The circuit given in the official publication Paper 1 at Rossi's JNP showing the Black FG lead at the transistor side of the shunt.
5. The circuit given in the official publication Paper 2 at Rossi's JNP showing the Black FG lead at the transistor side of the shunt, and the Q1-Q2 positions reversed.

The only photographic evidence that exists shows that Schematic Number 3 was actually used, not the schematics given in any papers or shown by Martin or Ainslie.

And now we have a similar situation developing. We have _at least_ four different schematics presented as having been used in the Quantum article.

1. The "official" and "precise" schematic given as Figure 1 in the Quantum article, which specifies a 555 timer circuit that _cannot_ produce the dutycycle and frequency claimed, uses a separate 12 volt supply for the timer, and specifies IRFPG50 as the mosfet and shows NO recirculation diode.
2. The schematic presented in the "EIT Paper" submission, which shows a FG symbol for the timer, but specifies a 555 in the text without providing its circuitry... and DOES show a recirculation diode and a gate control potentiometer, and DOES indicate that the frequency and dutycycle are independently variable in the accompanying text. The mosfet itself is not specified in the schematic.
3. The SWeir schematic of the "found", formerly "lost" apparatus, which shows the IRFP450 mosfet, a very different beast than the PG50, no gate control pot on the N-channel mosfet (What is on the P channel mosfet that he mentions but does not show, I wonder. Is there perhaps a tiny blue trimpot soldered to its gate pin?) and a _different_ 555 timer circuit than the "precise circuit" given as Figure 1 in the Quantum article. A diode is included in SWeir's schematic but its type and connections are not shown and not known. The duty cycle and frequency of the SWeir 555 circuit are not independently variable and there is only one potentiometer connected to the circuit and the circuit cannot make a 2.4 kHz output signal, but works at much higher frequency range, and certainly cannot make the claimed 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz.
4. The schematic from the IEEE submission, which is similar to the original Quantum schematic, with many component value changes, and bears the notation "revised 11-26-2009". The IRFPG50 mosfet is specified in the schematic.

And I will wager, although I have no proof at the moment, that the ACTUAL circuit used to produce the data in the Quantum article was likely different still! What are these "coils" that SWeir mentions? How many different ways can that circuit be altered by patch cords?

It is very clever of Free Energy claimants not to specify exact operating conditions or circuitry. It is, in fact, a tradition that pervades the field. Anyone who tries to "replicate" one of Ainslie's circuits finds out that not only does it not do what she claimed it does, but that it isn't even the circuit that she is "currently" claiming she used !!

The original Quantum schematic and the SWeir schematic are posted above. I'll repost the EIT paper schematic and the IEEE schematic below. Compare, contrast, discuss.

[TinselKoala]

Curious, isn't it, that all the schematics where Ainslie actually specifies the mosfet, it is the IRFPG50, but in Steve's sketch it is the IRFP450? Could Steve have made an error? After all, the parts look identical except for the number, and it is easy to mistake a "G" for a "4" in that tiny font they use on the mosfet.

Is the difference even important? Maybe checking the data sheets might reveal that they are equivalent and can be substituted with impunity.

Hmmm.... let's check.

Did Steve make an error? Nope.
I can confirm that the schematic he drew shows the IRFP450 mosfet that is in fact shown in the photos of the box Ainslie "found" a few days ago. Was it the one used for the experiments twelve or fourteen years ago? Who knows. One thing is certain: the apparatus has definitely been modified since the photo accompanying the Quantum article was taken.

Are the mosfets significantly different? Yep.
The P450 is significantly faster, has less than 1/4 the ON-state resistance and requires less charge to turn on. It can handle more current but is only rated for 500 volts as compared to the PG50's 1000 volt rating. I can and do use a single IRFP450 in my SassyClassE SSTC. A PG50 will not even begin to work in that circuit.
The IRFPG50 is also significantly more expensive than the P450, at least at my sources.

ETA: It would appear now that both the "official submissions" of papers to actual respected refereed journals, the "EIT" submission and the IEEE submission, both contain Fabricated Data! Data that was not gathered under the conditions specified (circuit schematic and operating parameters) is FABRICATED. It appears that Ainslie has not only carried out her campaign of deception and misinformation here in these forum pages, but also by trying to get her nonsense published in real, respected journals with professional readerships and some cachet in the scientific world. But the submissions contain manifestly false statements. Either that.... or the "box" that Steve Weir so carefully analyzed (once again doing Ainslie's homework for her) was not in fact the apparatus used, because it corresponds to neither of the schematics given in those submissions. Not even close.

[poynt99]

Here is a simulation I did of the simple 1-MOSFET circuit driven by a FG. I used roughly the same frequency and duty cycle Glen used in his Test #13.

[TinselKoala]

Remarkable, isn't it? 

Except in my actual build you can see some _real_ oscillations on the top of the Gate signal, that actually does show up during the mosfet On time, but at low amplitude.
There is nothing particularly significant about this noise in my apparatus. With proper layout it will go away and my traces will be nearly as clean as your sim's.

[TinselKoala]

Regarding the Test Apparatus:   (Ainslie posting as "witsend" in the Energetic Forum thread as she was falling out with Glen and Harvey and the rest)
http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/5250-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-part-2-a-2.html#post83902

I have never been called on to produce the circuit apparatus until members of this forum required it.  It would have helped them no doubt. But I dismantled my apparatus when I sent the fluke, the multimeter and the digitial display devices to Aaron.  I said then that I would not again be doing any further experiments.  It had dominated many years of life.  My eyesight was deteriorating.  And I had lost all appetite for this, having done it so extensively for so many years preceding.  Also I no longer had the optimised resistor as one of our team had taken this for independant testing.  I do not, however, have to apologise for this. It is just a matter of fact.  I believe that the other circuit component parts are readily available.  And there is nothing to prevent a replication.  What is required is a patience in searching for the optimised settings on any particular resistor.  I found very few that did not exceed COP>2.  Nor did I take photographs because it did not occur to me that this would be required.  There is a second 'box' or apparatus set up that was sent to ABB Research.  I also don't know what has happened to that apparatus. Glen and Harvey are aware of this.  They know the circumstances intimately.  This argument is being used to discredit the claim.  The truth is I have never undertaken to produce any circuitry.  And I no longer had the apparatus nor the tools to measure.  this put paid to any further attempts at replication.  And frankly, I was rather anxious that a wide variety of resistors would be used and tested.  That's the only way the more precise inductance values will ever be established. 

Between the actual Quantum publication and the new paper prepared for the IET was a total of 7 years.  It was a miracle that the apparatus survived the 3 changes of address that I had.  It was substantially degraded and there was evident rust on the switch. The switch - in any event - had to be rebuilt and at the end of Donovan's final replication done for the IET paper - I effectively gave the resistor and some inductors to a friend - involved in those same tests under Donny's supervision.  The box was banged up and he wanted to 'start again'. Thereafter I willingly dismantled for Aaron.  That's the history of the apparatus.  Frankly I was glad to see the last of it.  Do testing yourselves, obsessively for years on end and see if you would not share that sentiment.  And I am not an experimenter.  My interests are in the theory.

How many different stories are there? As many as she has aliases, apparently. So she did have the apparatus, it wasn't lost at all, it was even repaired and rebuilt so that Martin could "replicate" for the "IET" paper submission, and then it was "dismantled" and parts were sent to Aaron in 2009.

Compare that story she tells above,  to the story of the suddenly "found" apparatus that we have been told recently.

The 555 circuit that SWeir found in the box is not the same circuit that was in the box for the Quantum article. The circuit in the box that we see now was designed and built to correspond to GLEN LETTERMEIER's operating parameters.... not the other way around.

This is proven by the history of the "EIT" or "TIE" or "IET" submission (at various times she has called it all of those). Ainslie was continuing to claim the original specs of 3.7 percent ON at 2.4 kHz. The published circuit was found by all who tried it to be incapable of producing that specified setting. People like Glen came on and started doing Ainslie's homework for her. Then he hit upon the 555 timer mod that would produce the results like those in Test 13 and .99's sim and my hardware above. THEN and only then did Ainslie and Martin or someone rebuild the Quantum box to contain the present 555 circuit, in order to try to match Glen's results for the "EIT" or TIE or IET paper submission.

As you read those threads on EF and Panacea U,  don't forget that many "skeptical" or contrary posts have been deleted, censored, edited away by Ashtweth and Aaron.