Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Well..... where is some data?

The claim of COP>17 and even COP INFINITY has been made by Ainslie. She and others have claimed that excess heat in a load can be produced by a switched mosfet circuit, over and above the heat produced by the same power simply applied in a DC circuit.

So fine. Will someone Please present a data set that demonstrates this? Temperature RATE OF RISE data, as I have done over and over?


I've shown over and over that it takes less than FOUR HOURS to set up and run, gather data, collate and graph it and present a video proof of the experiment and the raw data itself.

We have:

Some batteries/power source > some oscillator/clock/555/FG/battery/PSU bias source > a simple mosfet circuit with 1 mosfet/5 in parallel/ 1+4 in antiparallel > some heater load > some time-temperature graph.

I've presented data from many different variations of the setup and I've shown the heating produced, both RATE of heating and 60 minute FINAL TEMPERATURE. And I've compared those experimental results to control time-temperature graphs made with the same load under the same conditions but with straight, uncontroversial DC power.

And EVERY combination of apparatus and operating parameters (waveforms, settings, etc) that I have tried produces a COP significantly less than 1.

So I'm ready to see someone else's data. Someone else can show me what I'm doing "wrong" by producing a data set using similar apparatus, with proper DC control data and good measurements..... that DOES produce a COP greater than 1, by heating up its load up faster and/or hotter than the same power delivered by straight DC.

WHERE IS ROSEMARY AINSLIE'S DATA THAT SUPPORTS HER CLAIMS OF EXCESS HEAT IN THE LOAD? WHERE IS AINSLIE'S RATE OF TEMPERATURE RISE DATA?

Nowhere, so far. But it only takes FOUR HOURS....... when there is a single competent person doing the testing.

But when there are five or six buffoons who can't even point a camera, speak clearly or operate their own test equipment.... apparently it takes FOURTEEN YEARS or more, and we are still waiting.

[MarkE]

Such data as you ask for you know will not be produced because the claimants cannot produce it. 

Ms. Ainslie has painted herself into a corner.  She has declared that she will not produce evidence.  Fine.  Then she leaves herself with her demonstrations of last summer that soundly and completely refute her extraordinary claims.

[TinselKoala]

If a DMM is not registering some fast spike component of a signal..... then it is UNDERESTIMATING the total power in that signal.

If the total power in a signal is UNDERESTIMATED.... then the true total power in the signal is GREATER than that indicated on the meter.

If the true total power in a signal is GREATER than that measured on the meter.... then the heating, and the RATE OF HEATING, in a load is actually LESS EFFICIENT than calculated using the readings on the meter.

Got that? EVEN LESS EFFICIENT.  If the meters say I'm supplying 10 Watts, but the meters are UNDERCOUNTING because of the spiky signals.... then I'm really supplying something GREATER THAN 10 WATTS....

DEAL WITH IT, AINSLIE..... even your latest laughable excuses are BOGUS AND BACKWARDS. YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ANY MEASUREMENTS OF YOUR OWN TO BACK UP YOUR STUPID CONTENTIONS AND CLAIMS.... you just yak and yak, and you've been wrong so many times it's a family tradition.


And we NOTE WELL.... yet another week has gone by with NO DATA from Ainslie, just more bloviating and useless squawking -- and, just as I predicted long ago.... she now attacks Steve Weir, the expert who so willingly and patiently gave of his time in a selfless effort to help Ainslie improve her measurements and understanding. Ainslie's true, vile and dank miserable excuse for "character" is on display for all to see.

[MarkE]

Like other well respected people that Ms. Ainslie has attacked, her attacks on Steve are completely unfounded. Steve took interest in the DMM averaging issue last year.  He ran tests that confirmed what Poynt99 reported.  I have run my own tests and also confirmed that DMMs do a really good job of averaging signals at least to 20MHz.  Steve has tested to 100MHz and beyond.

Ms. Ainslie claiming that she understands electronic instruments better than Steve is hilarious.  Maybe this DMM thing is why she went all Tasmanian devil on Steve.

It is a safe bet that whatever tests Ms. Ainslie has been conducting, they have not been yielding the results that she wants. 

[Tseak]

Like other well respected people that Ms. Ainslie has attacked, her attacks on Steve are completely unfounded. Steve took interest in the DMM averaging issue last year.  He ran tests that confirmed what Poynt99 reported.  I have run my own tests and also confirmed that DMMs do a really good job of averaging signals at least to 20MHz.  Steve has tested to 100MHz and beyond.

Ms. Ainslie claiming that she understands electronic instruments better than Steve is hilarious.  Maybe this DMM thing is why she went all Tasmanian devil on Steve.

It is a safe bet that whatever tests Ms. Ainslie has been conducting, they have not been yielding the results that she wants.

What she doesn't understand is the difference between the ac bandwidth of the instrument and the averaging effect of the time constant when measuring dc. At this stage it suits her to have a diversion to string the issue out longer without producing anything.

Interesting comment from her that no one here has used anything but multimeters for current measurement. Even a brief read back through this thread will show that to be just more BS