Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Well, it appears that the Great Scientist is losing sleep over this. Funny, isn't it? She continues with her misrepresentations and outright lies concerning my work, and ignores Poynt99's and even her advisor Steve Weir's statements that the DMM can be accurate to over 100 MHz when used as I am doing. Meanwhile she thinks that by waving her hands about and shouting, she can eliminate the EVIDENCE that I have presented and continue to present. The spectacle is truly laughable.

Especially laughable is her continued claim that I'm using some different circuit. The Grey Box circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that appears in the photographs that she submitted to Steve Weir for decoding. The Quantum-17 circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that she published in the Quantum magazine article. The circuit that I demonstrated here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4

is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that Ainslie has published herself and used in the three demonstrations.... the ONLY demonstrations.... she has ever produced, with the only exception that I used a single Q2 instead of 4 in parallel.

The Tar Baby circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT, including all 5 mosfets, 4 Q2s in parallel, that Ainslie has CLAIMED to have used in the demonstrations.

The SWeir board circuit is different from Ainslie's circuits only in that it includes proper filtering, a much better noninductive CVR and properly laid out low-inductance current pathways. In other words it is a PROFESSIONALLY LAID OUT AND MANUFACTURED version of what she should have done in the first place, which does not suffer from the large errors that are produced by her stupidly laid out and naively measured kludge. You recall... the one she lied about, over and over, as to the correct schematic.  The additional snubber components on the SWeir board have not yet been used by me.

Ainslie has lied deliberately and continues to do so, with every post she makes, and the evidence is plain for every one to see. And she continues to make her absurdly false claims without any support at all. Ainslie can provide NO data, no references, no demonstrations, and nobody comes and says she's right about anything... because clearly she is not.

[TinselKoala]

Here, for example, is a scopeshot from the test I'm running right now. Yellow trace is the Current (Voltage drop) across the precision 0.25 Ohm noninductive CVR testpoints on the SWeir board, and the Blue trace is the input Battery voltage, also measured at the board's  testpoints.

This is the Steve Weir designed and built Shifting Paradigms board, with 1 Q1 and 2 Q2s, all IRFPG50s. I'm running at 1 kHz and 10 percent ON duty cycle with enough negative bias from the F43 FG to produce nice Q2 oscillations as usual. This run will be compared to two more runs at the same settings but with only Q1 ON, no Q2 oscs, and also with the other way around: No Q1 ON and only Q2 oscs.

Note that the Q2 oscillations do not affect the battery voltage indications. I'm not using the Snubber portion of the circuit, obviously, since it eliminates the Q2 oscillations completely.

(The Yellow trace is shown inverted, the baseline is the blue dashed line through the fuzz at the bottom.)

[MarkE]

Well, it appears that the Great Scientist is losing sleep over this. Funny, isn't it? She continues with her misrepresentations and outright lies concerning my work, and ignores Poynt99's and even her advisor Steve Weir's statements that the DMM can be accurate to over 100 MHz when used as I am doing. Meanwhile she thinks that by waving her hands about and shouting, she can eliminate the EVIDENCE that I have presented and continue to present. The spectacle is truly laughable.

Especially laughable is her continued claim that I'm using some different circuit. The Grey Box circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that appears in the photographs that she submitted to Steve Weir for decoding. The Quantum-17 circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that she published in the Quantum magazine article. The circuit that I demonstrated here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTTA80T0BU4

is THE EXACT CIRCUIT that Ainslie has published herself and used in the three demonstrations.... the ONLY demonstrations.... she has ever produced, with the only exception that I used a single Q2 instead of 4 in parallel.

The Tar Baby circuit is THE EXACT CIRCUIT, including all 5 mosfets, 4 Q2s in parallel, that Ainslie has CLAIMED to have used in the demonstrations.

The SWeir board circuit is different from Ainslie's circuits only in that it includes proper filtering, a much better noninductive CVR and properly laid out low-inductance current pathways. In other words it is a PROFESSIONALLY LAID OUT AND MANUFACTURED version of what she should have done in the first place, which does not suffer from the large errors that are produced by her stupidly laid out and naively measured kludge. You recall... the one she lied about, over and over, as to the correct schematic.  The additional snubber components on the SWeir board have not yet been used by me.

Ainslie has lied deliberately and continues to do so, with every post she makes, and the evidence is plain for every one to see. And she continues to make her absurdly false claims without any support at all. Ainslie can provide NO data, no references, no demonstrations, and nobody comes and says she's right about anything... because clearly she is not.

Here is a graphic that overlays the circuitry on Ms. Ainslie's breadboard circuit as demonstrated August 11, 2013, on top of the schematic I just proposed for measuring the true input voltage.  If anyone didn't catch it when it was diagrammed and explained many times before:  During Q2 conduction, IE the so-called "Q1 Off" times, loop current flows through the Q2 source leg through the function generator red lead and back out the function generator black lead.  Q2 conduction only occurs when the sum of the waveform amplitude and the offset are sufficiently negative to bring the internal function generator voltage below the Q2 gate potential by at least Q2's V_THS value.  This fact has been expertly demonstrated in several of your videos.

[TinselKoala]

Interesting, isn't it?

The Great Scientist has put us on notice (sic) that she intends to challenge Stefan H. and Poynt99 for their Overunity Prizes, monetary awards offered for an overunity/free energy device.

These _open source_ websites are offering monetary prizes for an _open source_ overunity project that actually performs as claimed.

I wonder what part of "open source" the Great Scientist fails to understand. Does "Open Source" include lying about the actual schematic used.... _TO THIS DAY_ .... ?  Does it include failing to provide credible or even respectable demonstrations of the claims? Does it include failure to acknowledge one's own only credible data which is contrary to the claims?  Insults to the hosts who are offering the awards? Apparently so, all of this and more. But what it actually doesn't include, apparently, is any actual true detail or credible data of the actual "work".

Meanwhile... I'm totally "open sourcing" my work. I even upload the _raw data_ for inspection. I don't even have to interpret the data: I just present it as it occurs, and in the words of Gary Hendershot.... you can make up your own damn minds. Meanwhile, as I've tried to show all along, one does not need fancy digital equipment to do this kind of work (although it's nice to have a crosscheck and easy numerical measurements.) All of my work is reported in full detail and can be reproduced for very little cost by anyone who is interested and has the few hundred dollars worth of equipment, obtainable at any garage sale. Right.

If one knows _how to use_ the equipment one has on hand, much valuable work can be done with inexpensive surplus analog equipment. On the other hand, as we see from the Ainslie mob in all three of their laughable "demonstrations", when one is naive and innocent as a babe when confronted with all those knobs and buttons, it is charming certainly to watch the flailings and gropings, but only shows the truth of the adage: Garbage in, Garbage out.

And then when the output garbage is fed into the shredder of Ainslie's fractured "math".... where units don't matter, Joules are Watts, and the technique is to multiply every number in sight by every other one... well, one gets what one deserves, in the end, that's certain.

[MarkE]

Interesting, isn't it?

The Great Scientist has put us on notice (sic) that she intends to challenge Stefan H. and Poynt99 for their Overunity Prizes, monetary awards offered for an overunity/free energy device.

These _open source_ websites are offering monetary prizes for an _open source_ overunity project that actually performs as claimed.

I wonder what part of "open source" the Great Scientist fails to understand. Does "Open Source" include lying about the actual schematic used.... _TO THIS DAY_ .... ?  Does it include failing to provide credible or even respectable demonstrations of the claims? Does it include failure to acknowledge one's own only credible data which is contrary to the claims?  Insults to the hosts who are offering the awards? Apparently so, all of this and more. But what it actually doesn't include, apparently, is any actual true detail or credible data of the actual "work".

Meanwhile... I'm totally "open sourcing" my work. I even upload the _raw data_ for inspection. I don't even have to interpret the data: I just present it as it occurs, and in the words of Gary Hendershot.... you can make up your own damn minds. Meanwhile, as I've tried to show all along, one does not need fancy digital equipment to do this kind of work (although it's nice to have a crosscheck and easy numerical measurements.) All of my work is reported in full detail and can be reproduced for very little cost by anyone who is interested and has the few hundred dollars worth of equipment, obtainable at any garage sale. Right.

If one knows _how to use_ the equipment one has on hand, much valuable work can be done with inexpensive surplus analog equipment. On the other hand, as we see from the Ainslie mob in all three of their laughable "demonstrations", when one is naive and innocent as a babe when confronted with all those knobs and buttons, it is charming certainly to watch the flailings and gropings, but only shows the truth of the adage: Garbage in, Garbage out.

And then when the output garbage is fed into the shredder of Ainslie's fractured "math".... where units don't matter, Joules are Watts, and the technique is to multiply every number in sight by every other one... well, one gets what one deserves, in the end, that's certain.

Ms. Ainslie has not produced any data since she refuted her own claims with her June 29, 2013 and August 11, 2013 demonstrations.  She admitted the fact that the demonstrations tore the representations of her Paper 1 and Paper 2 to shreds, so much so that she withdrew them in whole.    No evidence has materialized that can rehabilitate those papers.

I suggest simply continuing with the great work that you are doing.  It's instructional and entertaining.