Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

The reason-challenged Great Scientist is squawking again, like the plucked chicken she so resembles.

Because according to what is measured from that negative wattage is unequivocal PROOF of an INFINITE supply of energy.  OR standard protocols applied to the measure of energy are WRONG.

OR....OR YOU ARE NOT DOING IT RIGHT BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT "STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS" ACTUALLY ARE.

You are omitting the FACT, once again, troll queen Ainslie, that you have NEVER APPLIED ACTUAL STANDARD MEASUREMENT PROTOCOLS to your circuit! You are measuring artifacts because you have no real idea of what real "standard measurement protocols" actually are.... even though you have been provided with reference after reference concerning those standards. You are applying your own naive measurements, taking them at face value without the least understanding of circuit theory, instrument operation or interpretation of results. Standard measurement protocols include things like decoupling, proper filtering, and proper application of instruments and the proper interpretation of their results. NONE OF WHICH YOU HAVE EVER ACCOMPLISHED.... until, that is, Steve Weir took you by the hand and actually had you do some proper measurements on August 10 and 11, 2013.... which you now reject, in your continuing arrogant ignorance and mendacity.

Real, actual Standard Measurement Protocols, when they are actually applied to your kludge, AS I HAVE BEEN DOING, show the Truth: there is nothing but STANDARD LOSSES and you yourself are simply deluded, and in your arrogant ignorance of the actual facts of the Standard Measurement Protocols you squawk about, you continue to stuff your feet deeper and deeper down your own mendacious throat. Keep it up..... O Great Scientist who can't even figure out what "VI/dt" might mean.

You cannot refute my work at all, so you squawk like a chicken being plucked, being unable even to PARROT correctly any more. You cannot even provide anyone who will join you in your idiotic and unfounded criticism of my work. You are hopeless, and abjectly deluded, and you really should seek competent help for your problems -- both in the field of electronics, and for the sake of your own precarious mental health.

[MarkE]

And now... just as I predicted .... the Great Scientist begins to turn against Steve Weir.

In addition to misrepresenting and lying about my work, she also now proceeds to lie about what is clearly on the record: her own measurements and her acknowledgement of them.

What she _actually said_ :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhpL86xo34w

And now it seems that she is admitting that her thermal power measurements, all of them, are so inaccurate as to be unusable.

YOUR "PAPERS" ARE GARBAGE, AINSLIE, AND THE MORE YOU SQUAWK AND SQUEAL THE MORE OBVIOUS IT IS.

Wow!  She really wrote that and put it on her web site.  If Steve sees it he will not be happy.

[Tseak]

It seems that the goal posts in this issue are becoming remarkably agile. The solution is actually simple.

Rosemary,
You have claimed that you can show a COP of greater than 10. At this level of power gain the finer semantics of measurement become largely irrelevant. There is a HUGE margin of error within which you can still show overunity. Why don't you simply do the draw-down tests that you have been promising since last year.  In this instance I think most people would accept the nominal energy rating of the battery as the source available. For example if you were to use a 7 AHr battery and a circuit with a COP of 10 or greater then it would be irrelevant whether the battery actually delivered 5Ahrs or 9AHrs. - you would still show overunity (which is what I understand to be the objective) by recording the stable temperature of the resistor and making the assumption that the average power dissipation is constant through the test. This way any dispute regarding voltages, currents, frequencies is sidelined. The one item which is critical is the charactarisation of the resistor/inductor. If you don't feel like doing this then perhaps you could borrow TK's if you ask nicely .
So instead of many words of speculation, why don't you just do the test. It would only take a day or two to set up and you can silence your detractors permanently.

As an aside you seem very put out by MarkE's use of the term "stiff supply". I would have thought the meaning is obvious. It simply says that the supply is adequate for the job. More precisely, assuming a voltage source power supply, it means that the output impedance is low enough to ensure that there is insignificant voltage variation over the range of current used in the circuit that it is feeding.

[TinselKoala]

What would be the use of that? We already know that we cannot trust Ainslie's experimentation, her performance or her reporting, and we know that she will happily fabricate data to support her ridiculous contentions. The only time she produces believable data is when someone like Steve Weir is guiding and watching and there is a video record made. You can even hear her trying to lie about data in the clip above: "Before you got here we had COMPLETELY different results using the EXACT SAME settings".... a total lie.

We are clearly in the Ainslie-zone now, where any measurements that do not support Ainslie's contention are by definition wrong EVEN WHEN HER OWN PUPPET MAKES THEM. Only those measurements that show the various impossiblitities, like huge amplitudes that would fry any FG (even though they don't), batteries that don't discharge (even though they do) and high heat produced by oscillations (even though they don't)... only those measurements which "prove" Ainslie's claims are right.  Why, she can even show you, in writing, just what the Standard Measurement Protocols are, for measuring power in oscillating systems, and of course that's just how she is doing her measurements. And of course she can demonstrate how exactly I am wrong in what I'm doing. Right?

ROFL all over the place!


Oh.... wait a minute.... Ainslie cannot even operate the instrumentation at all. We have NEVER, in any demonstration of hers, seen her operate anything more complex than a cellphone. All her actual experimental manipulations have been performed by Donovan Martin, who also evidently constructed the apparatus. The blind puppetteer Ainslie can't do any of it herself. She claims to have written the daft manuscripts but obviously has never comprehended the mathematics involved and even now gets it backwards.... but it is stated properly in the manuscripts in various places. So it's clear that she never wrote those passages herself.

[TinselKoala]

I have data from three very important trial runs.

These runs were designed to compare the performance of the system with 1) the full waveform showing Q1 fully on and full amplitude Q2 oscillations during their respective period portions; 2) the exact same settings on everything except with the Snubber installed to eliminate the Q2 oscillations without affecting either the Q1 current or the computed mean Q2 current (as shown in the latest video); and 3) the "Figure 3" configuration as in the Sneak Preview, with the FG offset turned down so that there is "complete restriction of positive current flow" i.e. no Q1 current indicated.... except in my version, there really IS no current shown and no current flowing because my measurement is correct, not fabricated as Ainslie's was.

Each run used 4 x 12V, 5 A-H batteries, and a frequency of 1 kHz and 10 percent HI duty cycle +/- square wave, with no offset except in the last "Fig3" oscs only run. This frequency and duty cycle are similar to what the Ainslie mob chose to use in their recent demonstrations.  Each run lasted an hour and took the load to thermal equilibrium and the sample interval was one minute, as usual, and there is a video record of all raw data, recorded and logged by the process I have detailed above. The raw data videos are available for inspection by anyone at any time and my definition of "thermal equilibrium" is well defined and known and can be seen in the raw data. In some cases the cell comes to equilibrium in 40 minutes or less but I still run for the full hour. In all cases the cell temperature changes by less than 0.05 degrees C/minute at the end of the trials.

Since the DC calibration power-temperature relationship is nicely linear, as are the power-temperature relationships for equal parameters of the DUT, an "efficiency" or COP can be determined simply by the ratio of the final temperature of the experimental trials, with the equivalent temperature of the calibration runs at the same power level. Since it is the temperature _over ambient_ that is used, it is not necessary to convert all temperatures to degrees Kelvin in order to calculate the ratios, I think.

The "bottom line" results are as follows:

Trial 1, full waveform with both Q1 current and Q2 oscs: 28.7 W input shown on DMMs, 39.7 degrees C rise above ambient.
The DC calibration temperature for 28.7 W DC input is about 51 degrees C over ambient. Efficiency COP = 39.7/51 = 0.78 or 78 %.

Trial 2, Snubber in place, no oscs only Q1 current + real Q2 current: 25.6 W input shown on DMMs, 33.1 degrees C rise above ambient.
The DC calibration temperature for 25.6 W DC input is about 47 degrees C over ambient. Efficiency COP = 33.1/47 = 0.70 or 70 %.

Trial 3, FG offset enough negative to make "Figure 3", Q2 oscs only and no Q1 current: 10.8 W shown on DMMs, 9.6 degrees C rise above ambient.
The DC calibration temperature for 10.8 W DC input is about 23 degrees C over ambient. Efficiency COP = 9.6/23 = 0.42 or 42 %

I will also be presenting these data in graphical plots a bit later on. Note that the measurements of the input power to the DUT system are actually likely to be somewhat _low_  for various reasons I will discuss later. If it really took more power than indicated, this of course moves the COP numbers even lower.

Some conclusions are immediately obvious. Not only were efficiencies over 1 not encountered at all or even hinted at.... the Q2 oscillations especially are demonstrated to be very wasteful: more than half of the applied power is wasted, spent heating the mosfets and the internal load in the FG !! It never makes it to the "element resistor" at all.

Other conclusions are also clear. I'll leave the further discussion for later, I really need a cup of coffee right now.