Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

And no more abusive insults !!!

Hey nanobot, what are you, another of Ainslie's Pod People? We all know what you are and why you've been banned from here so many times under so many different aliases. Your posts show that you, too, are ignorant and full of empty claims about things you don't understand in the least. You make up things, drop names, make crazy assertions and emit spam after trolling spam. It's obvious from your posts that you don't even understand what Ainslie is claiming or what the multiple problems are with her output of verbiage and logorrhea. You probably don't even know what logorrhea is. But like any script kiddie you will google it and pretend you knew it all along.

It is sad to hear you speak of someone in that way ? insult after insult where does it stop ?

My heart bleeds purple peanut butter for your sadness. Ainslie knows exactly where "it" stops and can stop it at any time. The option is entirely hers and has been so for years.

Just to put a seriously fine point on it, nanobot: I am doing real work in an effort to understand and explain this set of problems, better work than anyone on her "team" has ever done or will do, better than any outsider (that I know of) other than Glen Lettenmeier (FuzzyTomCat).  (I'm not including the excellent simulation work of Poynt99 here, although I learned a lot from it, nor his hardware work. The latter is not yet fully reported, I think, and the former is software and of course doesn't yield heat results that can be measured.)  Ainslie and her crew of incompetents have obscured, covered up, lied about, published false data upon their "experiments", and have stalled and done their best to prevent any real work, any good examination of what they have done and claimed. Ainslie still emits what I consider deadly insults to me and to others, daily, as well as showing her profound disrespect for those who have spent years in study and professional employment in the field. She has less understanding of the circuit's operation than YOU do, I'll wager. Yet she chooses to engage in the kind of behaviours that you have seen over the past six months. Read her forum! Then if you want to complain about something, do it to HER, because all of this mess is her fault, her responsibility. Had she behaved honestly and honorably from the beginning, or had she even honored her devastating demonstration of August 11 which resulted in her left-handed "retraction".... we would be arguing about Zero Energy Devices instead of Ainslie's stupid and silly battery discharger.

[TinselKoala]

The basic scheme is obviously limited to what kind of heat removal scheme that you've got.  A big heater if powered going to well:  generate a lot of heat!  I don't think that you want to operate above 200C no matter what, just as a matter of safety.  In rough numbers a 6 high lead acid battery stack is going to put out ~75.6 - ~78V.  ~12 Ohms and we are talking 450W on the low end, or as Ms. Ainslie likes to say:  "copious heat".  Besides with just one Q1, 450W in the load means about 40W in Q1 which is going to require a very healthy heat sink.  So, I think that limiting the Q1 duty cycles is the way to go. 

(snip)

It's very appropriate that you should mention that. Take a look at the schematic, FIgure 1, in the second daft manuscript in its "official publication", the posting on Rossi's "Journal of Nuclear Physics" vanity blog.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679

I've also attached a screenshot of the schematic from that paper, below. Notice anything interesting or significant?

Recall also that the March 2011 demonstration, which did NOT use this schematic but rather the one we are more familiar with, used only 5 batteries, not six, for the first part, and actually had to remove another battery for the "high heat" portion of the demonstration, which was performed with only 4 x 12 V batteries, 48 volts nominal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AIRkWF55k

One wonders why I or any other "replicator" should be required to "replicate" tests that Ainslie and Martin themselves have not done and will not do. They know fully well what will happen if they use 72 volts and long Q1 ON times.... notice that the tiny fake heatsink on Q1 shown in that early demo has been replaced with a much larger one for the June and August 2013 demonstrations.

As I've said before: There are smoking guns all over the place in what Ainslie has provided. The indicia are all there. Ainslie and her co-authors have been deliberately obfuscating, covering up data, ignoring contrary data, refusing to release raw and processed data, and even resorting to outright lying about data, schematics, instruments, procedures and results, ever since the first Quantum magazine reports. Mistakes abound, certainly, but the _deliberate_ actions, like the 48 volt battery stack to reduce stress on the lone Q1 mosfet on its miserable heatsink, attempting to cover up its significant role in heating the load so that the red-herring oscillations can be emphasized.... these deliberate and conscious actions on the part of Ainslie and Martin reveal the REAL story of the Ainslie affair.

[TinselKoala]

(snip)But never under estimate the lady in question but her only error is that she cam short of the truth and to her I am SORRY . (snip)
Nanobot     

What's the matter, are you AFRAID to register on Ainslie's forum and carry on your conversation with HER, there, directly? She is the one that you need to talk to, not me. I am clearly too stupid to grasp whatever it is you are ranting on about, but I know that you will be able to reach the Great Scientist with your astounding revelations.
http://www.energy-shiftingparadigms.com

[TinselKoala]

The Ainslie Q1 heatsinks, then and now, Yet Another Smoking Gun:

[TinselKoala]

MarkE said,

I don't think that you want to operate above 200C no matter what, just as a matter of safety.

Of course... but here's a test where I took the _mosfet itself_ to over 200 C, to try to find out where it would fail. But I should have used soldered wires instead of the socket! The socket did not fail, whereas the soldered wires probably would have melted loose (at 190 C)  before the mosfet failed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygu7ljn1SqA
Skip to about 19 minutes to see the temperature of the Q1 on its heatsink -- 225 degrees C !! -- and the final failure mode.