Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

My internet is glacially slow this morning, but in half an hour or so the new video should be viewable.
http://youtu.be/RTTA80T0BU4

I'm pretty irate during this video, I sound like I'm about to pop my clutch; I'm still seething at the idiocy of the insulting disrespectful troll queen liar Rosemary Ainslie. Donovan Martin, or somebody, needs to rein in that woman, explain things to her in terms she might be capable of understanding. What's a single syllable word for "oscilloscope" I wonder?

The technical aspects of the demonstration are very good:  Q1 is irrelevant to the oscillations.  IE Q1 is not in the oscillation current path.  Ms. Ainslie's hypothesis that Q2 must remain connected so that it can somehow "override" the gate signal on Q1 and Q1 carry the oscillating current is falsified by the first part of your demonstration.  The second part of the demonstration establishes that Q2 must be connected in order to get the oscillations. 

The one thing that was not included in the demonstration that would be useful is to show the relative AC currents:  Q2 source leg to the function generator red lead, function generator black lead to battery common, and the Q2 gate lead to the current sense resistor.  A crude current sense can be made by winding an air core coil.  Even better if you can shield the coil with a can or copper tape so long as you leave gaps so that you don't end up with a single turn short.  You would then need to use clip leads or do soldering for successive tests in order to thread the test lead that you are interested in through the coil.

The visible upset while understandable is a distraction.  Ms. Ainslie is unlikely to apologize.  She is far more likely to come up with some other magical thinking based rationale for why she will not accept your clear and convincing demonstration.

[TinselKoala]

Let her come up with whatever she likes. Whatever it is, it won't be truthful, respectful or accurate. I'm not doing that stupid, recalcitrant, lying hypocritical senile child's homework any longer. She can take her delusional claims, her outrageous lies and her insane trolling insults and stuff them up her kitchen pantry. She's an insignificant internet troll and stalker, a bully of the first water who has been banned more times and from more websites than anyone else I know about, a miserable execrable excuse for a dried up old woman. Her inability to think rationally, her endlessly repeated lies, her ridiculous stupidity and lack of understanding, her boasting willfull ignorance, her child's hopelessly silly "arithmetic", her lying fabrications of data, her calumnies and slanders are evident for all to see. She has been demolished by her own petard of ignorance and idiocy, and the record which she ignores won't go away because of her ignorance of it. On the contrary.... her own videos of the lying March 2011 demonstration where she made Donovan Martin lie for her, and the two amateurish incompetent 2013 demonstrations are public knowledge, and Ainslie and Donovan Martin have ZERO credibility because of those utterly miserable, disrespectful presentations and her subsequent squawkings. Her chances of making any kind of impact or garnering any real interest are identically zero, not only because of my work but mostly because of her own hopelessly incompetent flailings and floppings, which I have preserved for the record. This latest bit of hypocritical contradictory waffling and ingorant deluded hand-waving was too easy to put down, like some poor demented sick puppy; it took far more time to process the video than it did to set it up and make it in the first place. Her delusions of grandeur, shouted from the depths of her intellectual poverty and her lies, are all the more ridiculous because of it. The vile and stinking mud she slings falls back upon her in the deep pit she has dug for herself. Let her rot in it. And rot she will.

The great team of Donovan Martin and Rosemary Ainslie cannot even read a frequency from a digital oscilloscope, even though it is PERMANENTLY DISPLAYED ON EVERY SCREEN FOR THEM. Why have I been wasting my time on that steaming and stinking pile of rotten red herring excrement that she tries to foist off as "experimentation"? Because it's slightly more entertaining than watching diseased rats drowning in a bucket of vinegar, I guess.

I do have a couple of actual current-sense transformers, but why should I bother to dig them out and set up Yet Another Little debunking experiment? Anyone who falls for Ainslie's lies and tries to repeat what she has kludged together in her and her "team's" incompetence will very quickly find out for themselves, just as GMeast did with the 555 timer of the Q17 circuit, that her claims are false and that she is unreliable, inaccurate, incompetent and insufferable. And it will serve them right for ignoring the information that is already extant. Let them waste their own time, I have better things to do.

[TinselKoala]

I think there is a slight error in the illustration of the traces to be expected from the first schematic in the latest issue of the "for dummies" series. The trace doesn't show any elevation during the Q1 ON times, but does show sufficient gate signal to turn it on. Since the current sense probe in that sketch is connected, if not as they actually used it, at least across the CSR, there should be some current shown on the scopetrace during the Q1, load-heating, ON portion of the signal.
The fact that for the Figure 3 and other shots she published there was no current measured, was the clue that Ainslie's probe was placed as you show in the second schematic. (Some other explanations also could account for the improper measurement as well.)

[MarkE]

We will see what she tries to come up with.  Something that you didn't mention in the video narrative was the low level at the function generator output.  When you cut the source lead of Q2, Q2 no longer drove current through the function generator's output impedance, and the function generator output voltage dropped to ~-10V, and of course without any oscillation.

[MarkE]

I think there is a slight error in the illustration of the traces to be expected from the first schematic in the latest issue of the "for dummies" series. The trace doesn't show any elevation during the Q1 ON times, but does show sufficient gate signal to turn it on. Since the current sense probe in that sketch is connected, if not as they actually used it, at least across the CSR, there should be some current shown on the scopetrace during the Q1, load-heating, ON portion of the signal.
The fact that for the Figure 3 and other shots she published there was no current measured, was the clue that Ainslie's probe was placed as you show in the second schematic. (Some other explanations also could account for the improper measurement as well.)

You are correct that the upper left hand figure shows physically unreasonable results.  Those are the physically unreasonable results Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators reported in Paper 1.  The adjoining figure shows the actual connections used as demonstrated June 29, 2013.  There it is obvious as to why they did not see measurable voltage on CH1 during the "Q1 On" times:  The voltage across their wiring was only about ~18mV.  Something that befuddles Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators is why they still saw the large voltage swings during the "Q1 Off" times.  During the June 29 video, Steve Weir asked them to intentionally connect the CH1 probe to the circuit common side of the current sense resistors.  Watch the comedy as Donovan Martin spent minutes connecting and disconnecting and fiddling with the oscilloscope controls.  He did not expect to see a signal that was essentially unchanged during the "Q1 Off" periods independent of which side of the current sense resistor he probed.  Team Ainslie may refer themselves to "High Pass Filters for Dummies" and "Current Measurement for Dummies" to understand why they saw what they did.