Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Usually when someone hooks up probes incorrectly, they fry only the probe and/or the probe cable.  It takes some really serious current to damage the BNC connector or anything past the internal frame.  Ms. Ainslie's unfortunate accident could have happened to anyone.  I have been in labs that had to be cleared for days after an ESD bench ground lead ended up doing double duty as a protective ground.  The fried insulation gave off toxic gas and tripped the fire protection system.  The lab was a mess.

20-20 hindsight is easy.  That said, a $700. differential isolation probe would have protected Ms. Ainslie against that accident.  Unfortunately a good DC - >1MHz non-contact current probe costs about as much as the oscilloscope.

[TinselKoala]

My, my how things change over the years.

Remember when Ainslie's claims were like "the batteries don't discharge at all, because energy is being created in the circuit elements and returned to the batteries, while boiling water with no measurable current drawn from the source" ?

Now it appears that Ainslie's claims have degenerated -- perhaps "decayed" is a better word -- to something more like "two batteries, powering two different loads with two different discharge schedules, will last different lengths of time before they reach some low terminal voltage."

Well, triple-whoopie-dingding!! Send in the clowns! What an earthshaking result that is! .......... NOT.

There is just one Little problem: The energy OUT from the batteries will never exceed the energy put INTO the batteries to charge them up in the first place, and the energy SUPPLIED TO EACH LOAD (in this case the complete circuit, whatever it might be) by the batteries, or DC control power supply, will never be less than the ENERGY DISSIPATED BY THOSE LOADS during the experimentation.

Wait.... isn't that two Little problems? Sorry....

Poynt99, I wouldn't be so worried if I were you. Ainslie's kludgewerk is so drastically _inefficient_ that proper testing will clearly show, just as it always has in the past, that maintaining any given temperature of her load, using her "oscillations", will always require more power input than a simple DC source and straight wires would require to maintain the same temperature in the same load. As you poynt out, simply comparing the battery "capacity" using Ainslie's naive methodology is not a valid test of an overunity claim, but even so, I'd still wager that testing using her own "protocols" would nevertheless fail to support her claims. Which is why we won't be seeing any real data from such tests, coming from her.

[MarkE]

Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators already established Aug. 11 that the battery to heating element power efficiency during the oscillations is only about 20%.  A conundrum that Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators now face is how much wire should they put between their test set-up and the batteries?  Do longer wires enhance or hinder each:  power, power efficiency, and battery desulfanation?

[TinselKoala]

"Watts of energy". Again. Still. After all these years.

One awaits eagerly the next Little foot-in-mouth pronouncement from the amazing Ainslie.

[MarkE]

"Watts of energy". Again. Still. After all these years.

One awaits eagerly the next Little foot-in-mouth pronouncement from the amazing Ainslie.

Well yes confusing power and energy is a bad problem, but the argument that she is trying to make is not entirely off the mark.  It is clear to me that she is advancing the very simple idea that if one gets more energy (sustained power across some time interval) out than in, then something extraordinary is going on.  She is obviously convinced that this is the case despite last summer's demonstrations.

Where things can run awry quickly is if power and energy measurements get mixed-up.  Ms. Ainslie writes as though she has some technical professionals conducting her experiments, so there is hope that measurements and comparisons will be kept straight. 

The current debate seems to be over how to evaluate if a circuit offers a benefit to a battery.  Poynt99 has objected to comparing a battery loaded by a straight resistance versus a battery connected to a pulsating load.  A low pass decoupling filter between the battery and the test assembly would eliminate that distinction.  The question is whether Ms. Ainslie would accept insertion of such a low pass filter.  I would think that as long as it is placed at the battery and that she can observe that it has virtually no impact on the waveforms that she observes at her test assembly that she would accept such a filter.  Two copies of the filter could be built so that the test arrangements are identical between the DUT and the control, but for the DUT and the control heater resistor themselves.