Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[gmeast]

Gmeast, has MarkE given you sufficient enlightenment or would you like to discuss my videos? Even though I think that the explanations given in them are perfectly clear, if you start at the beginning--- and especially if you have watched the Negative Bias playlist from the beginning... I would be more than happy to explain any thing in them and I would indeed like your honest criticism of the points that are being made that relate to Ainslie's claims. For example in the post you quoted, she predicted, very nastily, that I would blow out the FG if I used six batteries in series and put those in series with my FG. As you can see from the videos, I have done just that, and not just with the simplified half-Ainslie circuit but also, in the Tar Baby demonstrations, I did it many times.

So... your opinion please. And why are you critical of my attitude towards Ainslie? There is nobody, nowhere that she has insulted more than me, and with all her false accusations, proven lies and ridiculous claims, coupled with her deliberate ignorance and refusal to follow simple explanations... can you blame me that I am angry with her? I have worked long and hard in an attempt to explain the action of the circuit, nobody has made any refutations of my work at all, and yet Ainslie still persists in her remarkable set of errors. Do you deny, for example, that I have shown how the Q2s are turned on in the circuit by Grounding the Gate and Lowering the voltage at the Source pin of the transistor, something that Ainslie clearly believes, still, to be impossible, in spite of the references I have given her to the Common Gate Amplifier configuration? Something that Ainslie has actually accused me of FAKING by showing a stored waveform... on an analog oscilloscope from last century? Would you not be frustrated and angry if someone refused to believe your results that are perfectly ordinary, but rather accused you of FAKING them?

Hi TK,


OK, I've been mean to you I know ... no more. You and she will always butt heads and that's a fact. Rosie is not going to die and go away and neither are you. She has made some good arguable technical points as have you. You'll never be happy until she agrees with you and visa versa. I think Rosie's agenda is genuine in that she is trying to do some good for the world ... me too, and you also in your own way. She doesn't have some high class website out there where she's trying to scam a bunch of investors so I don't know why you continue the type of assault you do as if she WAS scamming people.


I've been going over my work (which you have said on many occasions "... it's not work at all ... ") and I'm happy with what I've done and I've received allot of support ... moral anyway. I believe in DISCOVERY. Mankind has ALWAYS taken what he (thinks he knows for sure) and changed it or fine tuned it or modified it to fit in and support new discoveries and inventions. It just seems that here, in this forum, that has all been turned on its head and pointed in the opposite direction. INVENTION AND DISCOVERY should be encouraged and supported, but not here apparently. Well, I didn't intend to go anywhere specific with this, so that's it.


Regards,


gme

[TinselKoala]

Well, take some of the points in that ridiculous post of Ainslie's and investigate them. For example, I have 1,891 subscribers, 580 total videos uploaded, with 1,270,131  total views, for an average of 2190 views/video. Of course many of them don't actually have that many views, because some of them have many many more.

See the top line on this page:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA

Ainslie has.... wait for it...... FOUR DIFFERENT YouTube channels with 31 total videos uploaded and 46 total subscribers, and 4196 total views across ALL FOUR CHANNELS. That's an AVERAGE of about 135 views/video, but most of them have much fewer.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rosemary+ainslie&filters=channel&lclk=channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/aetherevarising
Since Ainslie has so many different accounts (WHY?) I might have missed some. If so, please let me know, I'd like to add them to my database.

The video of hers that has the most views appears to be this one with 625 views:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZCioPgKFrU

Whereas, I have Fourteen different videos that each have over 10,000 views, and my most popular videos are these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRQvT8IKlpA  (466,201 views)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afQW8FT02DM (136,702 views)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPuKv9Z-XE  (74,067 views)
And so on.  I've made over 150 videos dealing with various Ainslie topics, and the one that seems to have the most views at 891 is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6lLu7tvCZE
Most of my Ainslie-associated videos have between 200 and 300 views. I can upload an Ainslie video and before I even have a chance to link to it it will have 5 or 10 views. This means that I have subscribers who actually look forward to my videos and watch them as soon as they are notified by YouTube email (subscriber option) that they are ready to be seen. What is 150 x 200, O GREAT SCIENTIST AINSLIE? I'll tell you. It isn't 2,000, or even 20,000. It is 30,000. So my Ainslie videos have in total well over 30,000 views. And that's an insignificant number compared to the total, all right: Ainslie just isn't that important or interesting for most people. They would much rather see a simple Joule Thief or a Tesla Coil than hear another pedagogical debunk of some obscure claim that an idiot named Rosemary Ainslie made.

So ONCE AGAIN, the absurd claims and allegations of the Great Scientist are disproven by ten minutes of research that ANYONE with a computer and an internet connection can verify for themselves.


And she is still denying what I so clearly showed in so many of the recent videos. KEEP IT UP, AINSLIE !! Don't forget that your absurd pronouncements are ON THE RECORD and you will never, ever be able to bamboozle people like you did here, at Energetic Forum and elsewhere, ever again. Whether you know it or not, whether you acknowledge it or not.... your incompetence and your lies are clearly recorded and anyone who types your name into a search engine will come across my videos and analyses, and they will back away from you as fast as they can. Nobody will believe a madwoman who ignores evidence and lies about what she does not hope to understand.

Nobody has EVER refuted any of the videos concerning Ainslie that I have uploaded over the years.

[TinselKoala]

 

Well, I didn't intend to go anywhere specific with this, so that's it.

Well, thanks, but you didn't answer the question. What about her allegations in that particular post where she accuses me of FAKING a perfectly ordinary result because she cannot understand the Common Gate Amplifier configuration? Do you agree with her, or not? It's a simple question and surely YOU have the skills and knowledge needed to answer it. I'll bet you can even answer all the "POP QUIZ" questions correctly. SO?

[MarkE]

You're talking 'apples & oranges'. Looking at the images in my slide show, what's shown are not the types of oscillations seen in the Q-Array or in any other part of Rosie's papers or in other replications. In mine, all you see is a (pretty much textbook - maybe plus one extra cycle) damped oscillation seen when ANY switch that has been charging an inductor is opened. There are only about 12 complete oscillations in the wave, with each one of them being successively of lesser amplitude. The waveform you see in my figures is exactly what you would see from a high-voltage scope with no probe attenuation and set on a 1:1 scale. There's no parasitic 'anything' in such a wimpy waveform as mine and any math scope will return an accurate mean value for the voltage drop across a non-inductive current measuring resistor applied to that waveform.

Actually, there probably is.  If you are using a ground clip lead of any kind with a passive scope probe, and the risetime of the waveform is fast, then the probe is likely adding ringing to the measurement.  When you have a chance, try this:  Solder a small 100 Ohm resistor with the resistor body as close to the MOSFET drain connection as you can easily manage.  Then instead of clipping the oscilloscope probe hook to the drain lead, hook it to the other side of the 100 Ohm resistor as close to the resistor body as you can.

Something NOT in my data, but that kept me optimistic, yet sober, was the simple fact that my batteries recharged faster following the pulsed loading tests (powering the Heater Element) vs. the purely resistive load tests ... and not by just a little bit ... roughly 6-Hrs vs. 8-Hrs respectively. This was a common factor throughout the dozens of tests I ran.

That is not very surprising.  Lead acid batteries suffer less discharge feeding pulsed loads of equivalent energy than continuous loads.   Lead acid batteries can be as little as 60% energy round trip efficient feeding continuous loads.

If you look at my 'crazy' startup procedure, you'll see that the batteries were charged (on a charger made for charging AGM batteries) that automatically tapered off and shut down to 20mA.

Yes, I have noted that you were pretty meticulous with your procedures.

Then the batteries were unhooked from the charger and left to sit for 8 more hours before being loaded on any test.  And also NOT in my published data (and I consider my slide show as "published") is the same battery-charging counterpart as applied to the second resistive load test wherein the lesser load and pulsed load had the same starting and ending battery voltages but wherein the lesser resistive load caused a lower temperature (rise over ambient) than the pulsed load on the same Heater Element test fixture ... yet they took nearly identical times to fully recharge the batteries after those tests. So there's yet another, albeit indirect, result in support of my conclusions as presented in my slide show.

Yes, I have noted this as well.  In my mind the next logical step is an actual heat transfer test, because this can be arranged to get a decently accurate measure of actual heat energy evolved from your heating element.

There are too many resultant factors in blatant support of one another. My conclusions are simply NOT the result of measurement error or measurement anomaly.

I think that you have done a rather good job of measuring the things that you have so far.  You have followed a good logical process, been careful to do things consistently, made a good record of your data, and used more than one type of test to cross-check your work.  Those are all hallmarks of good experimental practice.  I interpret your data as reinforcing the well known phenomenon where lead acid batteries deliver more absolute discharge energy when pulsed than when loaded continuously.  In terms of whether you get more energy out of the heater than you draw from the battery, you need a way to compare the two.  Measuring actual heat transfer to a known thermal mass will get you the energy out information.

... but thanks anyway. Regards,


gme

I encourage you to continue experimenting.

[gmeast]

Well, thanks, but you didn't answer the question. What about her allegations in that particular post where she accuses me of FAKING a perfectly ordinary result because she cannot understand the Common Gate Amplifier configuration? Do you agree with her, or not? It's a simple question and surely YOU have the skills and knowledge needed to answer it. I'll bet you can even answer all the "POP QUIZ" questions correctly. SO?

Hi TK,


Being accused of "faking" results re: scientific experiments is one of the most upsetting things a serious experimenter will experience. I don't condone those types of accusations. Those kinds of comments often occur during the heat of debate. They're inexcusable without question. It happens. Even though I have participated in hurling injurious comments myself, it's wrong for anyone to do it. The truth is, when passions flare, this crap happens.  Rosie is not a technician and admits to not being the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to the details of circuit design, but she IS a good theorist. As I said ... my take on all of this conflict is that the injurious comments (including my own) have ALL been hurled in the heat of debate with equal passion on both sides.


I answered you question I hope. Regards,


gme