Sketching it with colored pencils .... yeah, that would work. Don't forget to sketch in the high load heat, and the incredulous audience standing around the table with their teacups at the ready.



This right here is why she can't find any "academics" willing to waste their time attending one of her "demonstrations."  Anyone who has worked with mosfets and oscilloscopes can look at the schematic, look at this scopeshot, and tell immediately that something is wrong, and it has nothing to do with COP INFINITY.

People here and elsewhere have flamed me over and over; I have borne the brunt of the worst series of insults from True Believers that anyone has ever seen on this website and others about my stance wrt false claims and fraud. So why doesn't someone step up to the plate here and use this fine opportunity to PROVE ME WRONG and get rid of me forever? According to Ainslie it is very simple to make these traces. I agree-- it is very simple, all you have to do is remove the Q1 mosfet or use one that is blown. But that is not what Ainslie claims in the manuscripts; her entire house of cards depends on this scopeshot being taken with fully operational mosfets wired as shown in the circuit she claims to use.

Where are Ainslie's supporters now? THE SCOPESHOT IS BOGUS, therefore the papers are bogus, therefore the "thesis" is not supported, therefore Ainslie must retract, issue errata, and apologize for all those years of insults and mendacity.

Thanks Mark, and don't forget the long and hard work that .99 did on simulations, and all the extremely patient attempts he made at explaining her circuit and fundamentals of measurement and circuit operation to her. And of course, going back years now, we credit the work of FuzzyTomCat, Harvey, and her other former collaborators who now no longer support her or her claims.

Now she is harassing professors at UCT who aren't snapping to attention and bowing to her demands. But she forgot to send Professor Peteresen a copy of the letter she wrote to somebody called Bryan (or is it actually Brian) Little at the same time, so I'll reproduce it here. And I just might send it along to the good Professor as well, so that he can understand a little more about just what he's dealing with.

This, among other reasons, is why the Ainslie affair must be taken seriously and must be dealt with. She isn't just some crackpot posting on internet forums, she is actually harassing people in the real world and often winds up threatening them with her lawyers, while at the same time accusing them of things like burglary and computer hacking. And the scopeshot Figure 3 is the key. She cannot reproduce this scopeshot with functioning mosfets and the circuit claimed in the papers!

If it were possible at all, she could have done it in five minutes with the apparatus shown in the recent photos on PESN.

But she cannot, and nobody else can either. It would have taken her less time than it took her to write these two letters. But she cannot. The scopeshot, the interpretation of it, the papers based on it, and the claimed support for her "thesis".... all are nothing more than "horse manure" coming from the claims of Rosemary Ainslie.

(Notice how she says she will "respect" the decision, and then in the very next breath she proceeds to disrespect it and demand a reversal.)

Now Ainslie has had Sterling reproduce her "open letter" to Mark right there in the main article on PESN, including her continuing libel about Bryan or Brian Little .... while at the same time they are censoring my comments.
I placed this comment there just now, but I doubt if it will pass the censors. Sterling is evidently happier with Ainslie's lies, false claims and errors than he is with knowing the Truth about her and her silly project.

Sterling
I AM NOT BRYAN or BRIAN LITTLE, and you should do a little fact checking before you allow Rosemary Ainslie to libel third parties on your website.
Ainslie lies whenever she uses that name in reference to me. She can give you no evidence or support for her continuing nonsensical claim that I am Brian or Bryan Little and you really should be careful about what you print from her. Can you imagine your legal position if someone who actually IS Bryan or Brian Little should decide to take offense at Ainslie's continuing libels concerning him? Just check her forum threads for a long series of her references to Brian or Bryan Little, in the most insulting language possible.

The Paper2, Figure 3 scopeshot cannot be made with functioning mosfets in the circuit claimed. She has been challenged on this ever since posting the claims over two years ago and has NEVER provided any evidence that the mosfet Q1 is functional when Figure 3 was made. The by far most probable explanation of that shot is that the transistor is blown and to go any further without CONFIRMING THAT IT IS OPERATIONAL is just silly. However you can see for yourself how Ainslie is avoiding providing that confirmation. She has the necessary apparatus, as shown in your photographs. Why does she not simply perform some demonstration that repeats the Figure 3 traces and then shows the mosfet is functional? If it were possible at all, I could do it in five minutes. But she does not do so because she cannot. Nobody can!

Sterling, if you sign an ironclad NDA with me including a penalty clause, then I will happily reveal my personal identity and contact information to you. Rosemary Ainslie has no regard for the truth and proves it every time she uses the name Brian or Bryan Little in her continuing series of insulting posts that refer to me. She cannot address the real issues and problems with her claims and manuscripts so she has recruited you and your PESN in order to attack me and her other critics with ad hominem abuse, and you are complicit by publishing mendacious "letters" from Ainslie like the most recent one above.

Will Ainslie ever provide the evidence that the Figure 3 scopeshot was made with all functioning mosfets and in the circuit shown in the paper? No, she cannot. Will any of her supporters.... if there are any.... come to her aid and do so themselves? NO.... because they cannot!
Will Ainslie ever provide any evidence for her assertion that I am somebody called Brian or Bryan Little? Of course not, she cannot, because I am not!
Will Ainslie ever apologize to me or to Brian (or Bryan) Little for all the insults and libels she has committed against us? HAH. When hell freezes over, maybe.

There it is people, the huge hole in Ainslie's claims, the giant Smoking Gun that blows her papers, her claims, and her "thesis" right out of the water: the Q1 mosfet is blown when Fig.3 scopeshot was made, the heat in her load is residual, any "large heat" result depends on Q1 working (as she has acknowledged herself) and the claims made in the papers, and the papers themselves, must be withdrawn and errata statements published.

I am not sure if I want to be involved in any way TK. Often people want me involved so they can use my name, like saying its been University tested as they were standing on the front lawn of University at the time.
To be honest I am not technically qualified to do any evaluation, and my friends and engineers who are I rather not risk introducing them to her.
However there is one really smart guy I know in South Africa who might just be interested in testing. He is a very bright electrical engineer and knows many of the tricks used by over unity claimants (South Africa is full of them). I will send him an email and see if he is interested.
Mark

Mark, when you contact your friend in SA, please send him the links to Ainslie's papers, but most definitely send him the Figure 3 scopeshot and the schematic I posted right above, so that he can judge for himself whether or not the Figure 3 shot is possible to produce with that schematic and a properly functioning Q1 mosfet. The mosfet is getting +12 volts, roughly, to its gate during the 16 second ON portion out of the 160 second total period, yet is passing absolutely no current during this time. And it's on the "heatsink" shown in the photo below! I've also included the data sheet for the IRFPG50 mosfet that she uses, for your friend's convenience.
This woman really needs reining in. I was hoping you would help to do it, but I can certainly understand why you would not want to have further contact with her. Anyone who is critical of her winds up being flamed, insulted, and even threatened legally and yes, even physically by her, however empty those threats might be.
The heatsink that Ainslie was using on the Q1 mosfet at the time the Fig3 scopeshot was made:
(This photo was taken by her before the Q2 mosfets on their large heatsinks were added to the circuit. The March 2011 Demo Video shows that this heatsink was still in use then, and the Figure 3 scopeshot was made after the Q2s were added (obviously) but before the March 2011 Demo. This is the heatsink she used for the trial described in Figure 3, no doubt about it.)

Well, I am probably "banned" too, since my most recent comments seem to be vanishing. Isn't that great? They flame and libel, take stuff out of context, make false claims without any support, and don't even allow replies to direct communications by the parties concerned.

Mark E. seems to be still allowed to post, but I don't know if he reads here.

Yes, thanks PW, I believe that I generally do include the "missing or disconnected" options whenever I say things like "not according to the schematic claimed".  And unlike some others, I don't make up new definitions for terms like "disconnected" or "isolated" or "floating".

However, if you consider the 16-second ON periods, the 73+ volts supplied, and the tiny joke of a "heatsink" used on that mosfet you will also have to agree that the mosfet can easily fail due to heat stress. In fact a friend who understands heat transfer requirements made an educated approximation and gives it less than a minute of life on that heatsink if the thing is kept ON for the entire time instead of being allowed to rest. Turning the FG "duty cycle" knob approximately 1/3 of a turn, and leaving it there for less than one period at the frequency shown, so that the mosfet stays fully ON for over a minute (35 or 40 percent duty cycle and a 160 second period) will almost certainly result in an open Q1 from overheating, right away, and with the FG settings exactly as shown in the scopeshot, the heat will still build up in the mosfet and it will fail, it will just take a bit longer. And the only way the circuit can produce high heat in the load is to have the Q1 mosfet on for substantial amounts of time. It is important to realize also that Ainslie used the tiny heatsink for that shot, and the much larger heatsink now visible on the photos at PESN is a new addition. Why? Recall that she has claimed several times in several insulting posts that the mosfet does not heat up. Of course, failed mosfets do not heat up, and in fact cool off rapidly when they are no longer conducting. And further, recall that she has _never again_ shown a case where the entire six batteries were used in "high heat" mode. The previous demo video even disconnected one of the 5 to leave only four, and the present photos show only _three_ batteries in use to make the high heat, and the Q1 is on a much larger heatsink!

I _know_ the shot was made with something wrong, and thus the conclusions and claims based on it are wrong. I _strongly believe and contend_ that the thing that was "wrong" is that the mosfet failed from heat stress, rather than being disconnected or missing entirely or miswired. I "trust" that the schematic we have been given is, finally, the correct one used, although I do recall the month long deception that Ainslie engaged upon in March and April of 2011. I believe that there exists a fair body of circumstantial evidence that supports this belief.  One such bit of evidence can be seen in the sequential series of scopeshots taken just before Fig3, which are available for view (no thanks to Ainslie) at
http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/
The SCRN numbers are the filenames assigned by the scope and the scope display includes the date and time of the screenshot. I think you can actually see this, or another, mosfet failing.

And I _know_ that there is an easy way to resolve the situation: Have Ainslie repeat the scopeshot under full scrutiny re schematic, connections, mosfet integrity and so forth. It would take you or me less time to do that demonstration than it took us to write our last two posts, and you know it. If... that is.... it were possible to do it at all.

And even further: Why do you think she added the four Q2 mosfets in the first place? She originally was working with the single mosfet with the same other parts. But she kept blowing mosfets! Somebody told her to add four more in parallel on heatsinks to handle the current! And when she did, she accidentally miswired them! Therefore, she still has the same overheating problem in the single transistor as before !
It is a comedy of errors, when you have all the information and start assembling it in chronological order.
 

TK,

I agree with all that you say, particularly when considering Q1 having to dissipate up to 60 watts or so when turned on, and some of the ugly waveforms that were seen just prior to Q1's on current changing to zero.

I also agree that a Q1 failure is a definite possibility, but to be clear, based only on the scope shot of FIG3, we can only know for certain that Q1 is not connected or functioning as per the schematic.  If, for example, they reversed the Q1 gate and source lead, they would have made a 5 MOSFET Q2 array and the waveforms would as well look like those in FIG3.

As for the whole sordid tale, and the reason they attempted to parallel aditional FET's (and did so incorrectly leading them to accidentally discover their common gate oscillator), all is very likely just as you suspect.

Note that in FIG5, where Q1 is functioning correctly, it looks like Vbatt is closer to 50 volts.


PW

Oh... thank you "poynty point" , I am laughing so hard I can hardly type.


In case you miss the humor, she is telling you that she will answer questions, then she doesn't. She is telling you that she will get her "colleagues to engage", then she doesn't. She is telling you right out front that she doesn't understand or know how to operate a critical item of her equipment, and she is telling you that she actually has no idea how things were set during the trial described by Fig. 3!