Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Look! She's baaack!

LOL.  Guys I've just dipped in at OU.com and see another 3 pages or thereby - of TK's MISDIRECTIONS.  He has a pop quiz for me.  Can someone advise him that I've got a POP QUIZ FOR HIM?

Here it is.  Run your function generator in series with that BANK of batteries at about 72 volts or thereby - and with or without that ridiculous 'extra winding' that you've added.  And then let us know how it fares.  I predict an explosive discharge - from both the machine and you.

Extra winding added? What the heck are you talking about? The circuits I used, especially the one in that video, are YOUR EXACT CIRCUITS and there is no "extra winding". Oh.... you must mean the inductance I added which approximates the length of YOUR OWN BATTERY WIRE INTERCONNECTS, as shown below. But it is really not completely necessary, it just boosts the amplitude of the illusory oscillations on the battery trace AS YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS PROVE.

And did it escape your notice, o Great Scientist, that I did EXACTLY THAT SERIES CONNECTION in the video to which you make your stupid objections? Or is my FG not connected in SERIES with those 72 volts of batteries?  Of course it is. Did you notice any explosions? If you did, it was your own brain popping from the strain of trying to follow a chain of logical reasoning. Again, refer to YOUR OWN SCHEMATIC to notice that the FG is in series with the batteries when the Q2s are on.

I predict you cannot answer any of MY popquiz questions, ignorant Ainslie .... and I am once again proven right about you, o Great Scientist Ains-lie.

Here's another.  How many people still buy into your ABSURD misdirections?

There are nearly two thousand subscribers to my YouTube channel. How many subscribers are there to all three of your YT channels added together?  THIRTY TWO.

How many people are buying into your fraudulent "papers", your fabricated data and your incompetent "demonstrations"? I can't find anyone who is still believing in your idiocy. Can you? Please provide a link.

And here's another.  Do you REALLY think that I'm likely to ever watch another one of your videos? 

Of course NOT, o Great Scientist. It would be very disappointing to me if you actually stopped making your stupid and idiotic statements, each one of which is disproven by one or another of my videos. You are simply displaying once again your willfull ignorance and your inability to deal with facts.
But other people DO watch them and nobody has managed to refute them yet. Why don't you ask Donovan Martin or Steve Weir to explain them to you. Or chessnyt, or gmeast. Let's see.... who else is there that we could ask to help you?   

NOBODY, that's who.

Kindest regards
Rosie

Hypocrite troll queen, how do you sleep at night? Oh... I forgot, you have plenty of Mother's Little Helpers to rock you off to dreamland.

There is not a word of misdirection in any of my videos concerning you and your claims. YOU, however, cannot utter a statement without including lies, misdirections, false claims and insults, and you cannot provide a single reference to support your idiotic contentions.

[TinselKoala]

Note that she still persists in her fantasies and false claims! The person will NEVER be able to understand the operation of her "own" circuit, because she refuses to look at the references that prove her wrong and explain the situation correctly!

THE BATTERY IS NEVER DISCONNECTED, silly child Ainslie. THE Q2s ARE NEVER DISCONNECTED. THE FG  DOES INDEED provide the necessary connection and this has been proven to you over and over and over again. The currents you think you "measure" and that I have also shown present no danger to even YOUR namby-pamby FG under the operating conditions you prefer. You are willfully ignorant of the explanations and proofs and you refuse to perform any real experiments to test your own claims. You could not even design such an experiment.... yet I have presented them to you in various forms since 2009. Your ignorance is no excuse for your.... IGNORANCE, since it is deliberate on your part.

And your misrepresentations of the role of the capacitance mentioned by MarkE and Poynt99 and the mosfet data sheet indicates that you STILL have no clue. The currents flowing through that capacitance is what really makes the _feedback_ and the phase shift that amplifiers require in order to oscillate. And since you have no clue as to how capacitors work your statements about how much current they may or may not be able to handle are just stupid handwavings, flailing about like a fish out of water, about to choke on her own spittle.

Further, you once again LIE when you claim that the high heat in your loads are produced by anything other than current running through the Q1 transistor during its ON time. And you can't have it both ways, AINS-LIE..... I either replicated your results or I didn't, make up your mind. The difference is that I DO NOT MISREPRESENT OR LIE ABOUT MY RESULTS.... the way you continuously do, as evidenced in your latest madwoman's rants. Your very last sentence is a total LIE as proven by YOUR OWN DEMONSTRATIONS.

[MarkE]

It is all just so silly now.  Kirchhoff's Laws instruct us well how to measure a circuit and determine where the energy sources are.  There is no need to assume when we can readily measure.  Ms. Ainslie has during her June 29, and August 11 demonstrations has proven the invalidity of the measurements produced in her papers.  It is what caused her in a fleeting moment of lucidity and honor to withdraw those papers.  Now she chooses to attempt to reassert that which she herself has disproven.  It's mind boggling.

She now asserts that she disconnected the batteries:  Yes when the clip leads were disconnected.  And Yes when the function generator was a positive voltage but too low to turn Q1 on the circuit did not conduct current.  But Ms. Ainslie wishes us to believe that the battery was disconnected during periods when current passed through the heating element.  And that is patently false as proven by her own demonstrations.  Ms. Ainslie insists that she has shown "upwards of 14 amps during this 'off' period".  Again, Ms. Ainslie is oblivious to the errors in her measurements.  What she can rightfully claim is that she has observed upwards of 3.5V pp measured across each:  her current sense resistors plus wiring to her circuit common, as well as just the wiring from her current sense resistors to her circuit common.  Both were clearly in evidence during the June 29, 2013 demonstration.  What Ms. Ainslie demonstrates herself incapable of reasoning out is that if the signal is essentially the same, as Donovan Martin ultimately showed that it was across both the combined resistors and wiring, as just the wiring, then what is the source of the majority of signal voltage?  The big clue is that it's what was common to both of the essentially identical measurements:  the wiring.  And why might that be?  It is of course because a 6" chunk of wire offers considerable impedance to a 3MHz signal. But fear not.  TinselKoala has some low inductance resistors handy and will be demonstrating why a 3.5vpp voltage only means 14A when measured across 0.25 Ohms resistance without multiple volts of L*di/dt.

And from there it is downhill for Ms. Ainslie as she attempts to bootstrap her misinterpreted 3.5Vpp into a current and then that current into a capacitance that she denies exists despite the MOSFET manufacturer:  International Rectifier providing a handy plot of that capacitance versus drain to source voltage.  Has Ms. Ainslie attempted a computation?  Say if we take  the lower end of that graph at about 100pF for each of the four Q2 MOSFETs, we end up with ~400pF which at 3MHz works out to ~130 Ohms total.  Can ~130 Ohms more or less in series with a greater than 200V signal pass more or less an Ampere of current?  Can an ampere of current across 0.2uH at 3MHz produce 3.5V swing?  Inquiring minds who haven't mastered the "Hand Calculators for Dummies" book may have to wait for TinselKoala to post his video.

And now Ms. Ainslie misquotes Poynt99.  Poynt99 has correctly stated that destructive powers do not flow through the function generator.  That is a fact.  Ms. Ainslie again forgets where she measured the oscillatory currents up to August 11:  around, and not through the function generator, because the function generator was directly connected to the same circuit common as the ground lead of her CH1 oscilloscope probe.  The oscilloscope CH1 (current) probe did not register voltage or current through the function generator.  Ms. Ainslie betrays her ignorance of the mechanics of her own circuit when she attempts to assert that the 3.5Vpp signal she measured had anything to do with either the function generator or for that matter her current sense resistors.

There is absurd denial in play.  It is all from Ms. Ainslie.  I like TinselKoala dare Ms. Ainslie to get any expert on record.  See if any competent engineer will go on record in support her claims.  See if any competent engineer will dispute TinselKoala's demonstrations.

As to Ms. Ainslie's closing claim: 

MOST ASSUREDLY - we have AMPLE proof that there is MORE ENERGY measured from our element resistor than has been supplied by the energy supply source.

Her August 11, demonstration clearly showed ~15W battery draw for what was also shown to be between 2.4W and 3.4W evolved heating power from her "element resistor".  Only in a very perverse world is:  ~3W greater than ~15W.  Such a world is the world of Ms. Ainslie, and she is proud to say as much.

[TinselKoala]

I swear this is like shooting fish in a barrel, using a 12 ga shotgun.

I just made another video that the Great Scientist will refuse to watch. I used a slightly different method to make the same points.

Method:
I put a 1 ohm wirewound "concrete" power resistor in series with my "kelvin probe" noninductive 1 ohm resistor soldered directly to the leads of a scope probe. These resistors are in strict series and so, obviously, will have the exact same _true_ current flowing through them. I placed this setup on the negative terminal of the run battery stack. Initially I used only two batteries. I isolated the FG's outputs from the chassis ground by using the F43's Isolation Switch. I connected another scope probe across the ordinary resistor, so now I have two channels each of which should show the same current IF the currents are really there. Right? Neither probe is attenuated, both are used in the '1x' position and both channels of the scope are set to 2 volts per vertical division. I hooked the FG outputs up exactly as before, with the Black output at the battery negative terminal and the Red output to the mosfet Source pin, where NOTHING ELSE is connected. I then turned up the amplitude of the FG and I show that the non-inductive resistor's indicated current is _much smaller_ than that indicated by the probe on the ordinary wirewound resistor.
Then I moved the FG Black lead to the correct side of the CVR assembly and showed the same thing.

Then I hooked up all six batteries in series to make a nominal 72 volt supply, actually measured over 74 volts, and repeated the demonstration using the higher voltage supply. Since the FG Red lead is the ONLY thing connected to the Source pin of the single mosfet, all the currents in the circuit MUST flow through the FG itself which is in strict series with the entire 74 volt power source.  In spite of the Great Scientist's squawkings .... the only thing that exploded was her brain.

The video will take a little while to process and upload, maybe two hours. I have to splice the segments together and go through 2 transcoding stages then the upload time. The demonstration itself took less than ten minutes.


Parts and instruments used:

IRFPG50 mosfet (one)
1 ohm non-inductive resistor, Ohmite WNER50FE
Xicon wirewound power resistor 1 ohm 5 watt
Dale 5 ohm 20 watt wirewound resistor (load) HL-20-02Z-5
Fluke 83 DMM to check resistances
Interstate F43 Sooper Dooper FG
Tektronix 2213A magic oscilloscope
6 ea. 12 volt, 5 A-H Sealed Lead Acid batteries, fully charged

Hypotheses tested:

1) If a non inductive Kelvin-probe resistor and an ordinary resistor with the same values are used to sense the same currents, they should read the same IF the currents they are measuring are real. On the other hand, IF inductances have a significant role in creating illusory voltage amplitude readings, the non-inductive resistor should read considerably lower than the ordinary resistor when measuring the same currents.

2) If the high currents inferred by looking at the voltage drop across the more inductive CVR are REAL, on the order of ten amps or more, this might put the FG at risk of failure. On the other hand, IF the measurement is spurious, then there aren't those high currents flowing through the FG at all and it is safe.

Results:
The non-inductive Kelvin probe gave much lower voltage drop readings for the same currents, than did the ordinary resistor/scope probe arrangement. The two probes were measured simultaneously in a series arrangement so that the identical current was in both probes at the same time. This result was true regardless of the Black FG lead location or the number of batteries in the supply.
The 74 volt battery supply did not damage anything. The load resistor was observed to be very slightly over ambient temperature after the 72 volt trial but remained at ambient during the 24 volt trial.


Conclusion:
The Great Scientist Rosemary Ainslie is not so great after all, as every one of her predictions has been proven FALSE and in fact, silly and stupid.

[MarkE]

This will be interesting to watch.  It will add an interesting chapter to the High Pass Filters for Dummies book.  Remember that  Ms. Ainslie never measured directly across her low inductance resistors.  Her oscilloscope ground clips were always connected to those bolts that fed through to the circuit common plate, and from there another 5" to 6" of wire to the bolts that then went through the board to the short wires that connected to the CSR low side, the CSRs themselves, and then wires to the bolts from the Q1 Source common plate near the resistors underneath the board.  So even though her resistors were arguably much lower inductance than your cement resistor, the extra inductance of her series wiring added much more inductance than you have with your probe and ground clip placements.  The other thing to note is that the CSR w0 angular frequency is:  R/L.  Past w0 for a 1 Ohm resistor plus her wiring inductance, her quarter Ohm array will create 4X the signal gain that a 1 Ohm resistor does.