Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Awakened from her slumber after last week's flame-out, some details of the supposed up coming tests have been described.  They include this:

We will run two tests concurrently - the experiment - being a switched circuit and the control being a standard series application.  They will be powered by the same number and type of battery.  The resistors will be immersed in their separate containers of mineral oil.  They will show an equivalent rate of temperature rise .

As any EE101 student better know:  P = V²/R*duty cycle.  Since, V is the same for both configurations, but duty cycle is not, then the resistors cannot be the same value.  In order to evolve the same amount of power, given perfect switches, the resistor value scales directly with duty cycle. 10.8 Ohms for the conventional 1.000 duty cycle becomes 0.4 Ohms for the pulsed circuit.  That's a real problem because their IRFPG50 MOSFETs have a typical ON resistance of about 1 Ohm.  The MOSFET will dissipate ~70% of the delivered power which will peak out at around 400W during the on pulses.  15us pulses will average well enough to prevent a thermal stress issue at the die, but the resistor heating will be quite lethargic.

Of course if they invert their drive pulses again using 96.3% on time instead of 3.7%, then there won't be a big disparity in heater power.

We will monitor the rate of depletion of potential difference, or voltage, across the batteries. The batteries over the control will deplete well in advance of experiment - thereby proving that a switched circuit generates more energy from a supply than is available under standard series applications.  We will recharge those batteries and then rerun those experiments with the batteries that were previously applied to the control - are now applied to the experiment - and vice versa.  We will then show that the benefits to a switched circuit, persist and are not due to battery vagaries.

It doesn't sound like they intend to monitor current.

[MarkE]

I suspect the value of the control R will be adjusted so that the temperature rise above ambient is the same in both cases.

So in case of the experiment, it might involve short pulses of high current, while the control will be a lower, steady-state current.

Would this be a truly fair comparison? Considering the well-known "vagaries" of battery discharge rates and capacity, no in my opinion.

The experiment as described so far is deeply flawed.  One resistor or the other will have to be adjusted.  It will be much easier for them to adjust the resistance upward of the control resistor.  In that case it will have to go up to about 300 Ohms to match the temperature rise of the 10.8 Ohm resistor.  However then the volume and mass of the control resistor will be very different than the pulsed resistor.  And they will need to adjust the resistor to dial in a thermal match.  On top of that, the protocol that they propose does not deal with established battery effects.  Any improvement in battery endurance would have to be qualified against already well-known battery effects.

Here is a thought for you:  According to the zipon hypothesis, what is the effect of frequency on the magic release of energy from the resistors?  Is it linearly proportional?  Is it a square function?  Is it some other power function?

[TinselKoala]

Isn't it nice, though, that the Great Scientist has already determined the results and conclusions in advance? This saves so much effort.

Why, just as with the 2009 daft manuscripts, it even allows you to complete the writeup before you even do any "experiments".

In fact..... you don't even need to do any experiments at all... just proclaim that you did, and that CBC, FAI, SPASCOM and CIBA have validated them. Too bad those three FAI scientists got fired, though.

[MarkE]

Isn't it nice, though, that the Great Scientist has already determined the results and conclusions in advance? This saves so much effort.

Why, just as with the 2009 daft manuscripts, it even allows you to complete the writeup before you even do any "experiments".

In fact..... you don't even need to do any experiments at all... just proclaim that you did, and that CBC, FAI, SPASCOM and CIBA have validated them. Too bad those three FAI scientists got fired, though.

Determining results and conclusions in advance saves all the time and effort normally needed setting up, conducting, validating, and evaluating experiments.

[TinselKoala]

It seems to me that the description of the "DC control" means that they will be using a rheostat to 'turn down' the power to the "element resistor" so that the temperature is the same as the pulsed load's temperature. Then they will compare how long it takes for the battery to run down in each case.

But will they account properly for the power dissipation in the rheostat or other added resistance? How will they do this part? Who knows. The "Open Source" term in Ainslie-speak clearly doesn't mean what it means in the real world. It clearly doesn't mean transparency in methodology, sharing experimental setups and raw data, or even providing any evidence that actual experiments are being conducted at all.

One also wonders when Ainslie will withdraw the bogus COP>17, COP INFINITY, batteries don't discharge, etc. claims that she has made over the years, since she has no experimental evidence for any of those claims.

For example, just look at how long Ainslie squawked about the bogus, fabricated Figure 3 scopeshot. Literally _years_ went by from the time the discrepancies were first pointed out. Yet Ainslie maintained that the shot was correct and easy to make. Yet it is evident that not until the June 29 demo did they ever even _try_ to make the shot -- Donovan Martin is clearly even unaware of the nature of the controversy during the demo -- and were astounded at the results when they did try.

It is impossible to believe anything Ainslie says unless there is corroborating evidence presented. Time and time again she has shown that she will happily lie and misquote and misrepresent the work of others in order to try to bolster her bogus "thesis".  So if she wants to talk about experiments, DC controls, schematics, or anything at all.... supporting evidence in the form of photos, videos, checkable outside references, statements from credible people who will engage in dialog, MUST be provided and examined, else you can dismiss her statements as just so much more unverifiable hot air from the Queen of Hot Air: Rosemary Ainslie.