Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81958
  • *Latest: otrok

  • *Total Posts: 491734
  • *Total Topics: 14472
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 149
  • *Total: 152

Facebook

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 207772 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2013, 04:24:53 PM »
Ashtweth from Panacea was good at compiling information from a project. And although Panacea's website is no longer, the internet never forgets, and I was able to find Ashtweth's large compilation pdf of the work Glen was doing back in 2009. I uploaded it to TK's mediafire account. It is 15M in size and contains 290 pages. All Glen's tests and images are in this document, as well as a lot of other stuff. Test #13 starts on page 197.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/lx2nnz9dnpg34tt/Rosemary_Ainslie_COP17_Heater_Technology.pdf

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2013, 04:49:35 PM »
OK,

I've found all the Test data and images from Glen's work (22 tests) on his own skydrive site here:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=6b7817c40bb20460&id=6B7817C40BB20460!120


...and Glen's livestream site that links to the above (links are near bottom of page):

http://www.livestream.com/opensourceresearchanddevelopment


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2013, 07:22:55 PM »
Here are posts where Glen notes a few mods, including a 15k to replace the 10k trimmer to achieve the 3% duty cycle.

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-100.html#post71373

http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-101.html#post71870

You make it sound like replacing the 10k trimmer was the only, and a trivial, modification. But that is not the case. FTC was modifiying AARON's circuit, which had already been much modified from Ainslie's three published claimed circuits. The link in the forum post you cited takes you to the Aaron circuit.

You will note that in Aaron's circuit, almost all the component values have been changed from the original values. FTC changed the 10k to a 15k IN THIS CIRCUIT, not the original posted by Ainslie.  Further, Mark E has tested the AARON circuit and determined that it too cannot make short duty cycles as diagrammed.

I don't know if adding 5 k of resistance could make the difference. Have you simmed this version to see if FTC is correct?

Where is the recirculation diode that appears in the EIT paper's version of the schematic?



Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3561
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2013, 07:29:45 PM »
TK,

I am not trying to make it sound like anything in particular. I simply restated what was posted in that link.

I have not checked Aaron's schematic nor Glen's update to any great depth. I did notice that Glen's updated schematic doesn't show a 15k trimmer pot.

I have simulated the original Quantum circuit. I used Groundloop's circuit and circuit board for my own testbed.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2013, 08:29:40 PM »
The data from Test #13 is the one they chose to use for the IEEE paper submission, as it showed the most "benefit" as I recall. The images from all the other tests would be nice, but Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 from Test#13 are really the only ones required, as they show the gate drive (CH3) (close to 50% duty cycle and between 200kHz to 400kHz frequency), Vcsr (CH1), Vbat (CH4), and Vdrain (CH2).

Attached is the "100ns" scope shot for that test (Fig. 6 in the IEEE submission).

ETA: Now that I've found Glen's cache of data, here also is Fig. 4:

Channel 2, the BLUE trace, is the Drain trace.  Right? And it is DC coupled in those shots, right?

What is the voltage expected at the DRAIN when the mosfet is OFF, and what is the voltage expected at the DRAIN when the mosfet is ON?

Both of the FTC shots you present show a LONG ON duty cycle and a short OFF time.  You can clearly see this in the behaviour of the Current trace, CH1 Yellow, and in the Drain trace, CH2 Blue. The Gate trace is SET to about a 50 percent duty cycle but because of the slow fall  time of the gate signal and the slow mosfet response, the Gate of the mosfet does not turn off at 50 percent but stays on much longer. The true duty cycle at the mosfet DRAIN... hence the current through the load.... is more like 60-75 percent or more ON.

The nice spike in the DRAIN trace is the mosfet turning OFF !!!

Also, Glen appears to be operating at over 400 kHz.

So he's using a different circuit than Ainslie ever claimed, not even one of the three she claimed, and he's operating at a vastly different frequency, 400 kHz rather than the 2.4 kHz she claimed.  SO what has this got to do with Ainslie and her claims?


And as I have just proven on my setup, driven by a FG, these settings produce a mosfet that is almost always ON, and I get a load current of a bit over 1.5 amps with Vbatt = 24 volts.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #19 on: August 25, 2013, 08:29:40 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2013, 08:53:48 PM »
The BLUE trace is the mosfet DRAIN trace. As we all know by now, in the high-side load configuration Ainslie used, the DRAIN voltage will be at Battery Voltage when the mosfet is OFF, and the DRAIN voltage falls to near zero volts when the mosfet (Rdss 2.0 ohms minimum) is ON.

Right?

I have annotated the FTC trace to indicate the Vbatt level on the DRAIN trace. Only when the mosfet DRAIN voltage is at or near this red line, is it OFF and not conducting.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2013, 09:32:30 PM »
Can you see everything you need to see in this shot below? The amplitude of the DRAIN spike is fully controllable by adding or subtracting inductance between the Load and the mosfet Drain pin. I don't have a 100x attenuating probe, or I could show 600 volt peaks here by adding a bit more inductance.

Any questions? The DC ammeter shows about 1.45 amps and the load resistor is heating like gangbusters.... as it should, since the mosfet is almost totally ON, even with the "50 percent" duty cycle sent from the FG.

That's right, I'm using the F43 to make this trace and its Duty Cycle is set to about 50 percent. The mosfet, due to its slow response time, is staying on most of the time, though, as can be clearly seen in the DRAIN trace.

The Blue cursor is at Vbatt of 24 volts wrt the Drain trace. The Green cursor is at 12 volts wrt the purple Gate Signal trace.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2013, 09:32:30 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2013, 11:08:28 PM »
She is still at it! Outrageous!

Quote
Guys - after all these years it seems that TK, Poynty and just about everyone engaged in refuting those Quantum paper tests had actually CONCEDED that there was a variable duty cycle - but that we could NOT have managed a 3% ON.  Who would have thought?

After all these years we've CONCEDED? What an outrageous liar you are, Ainslie. My video of June 2009 "refers". I demonstrate the variable duty cycle and the variable frequency of the schematic you published, and that it produces the INVERSE of what you claimed. Once again, your willfull ignorance has trapped you with your foot far down your throat, caught YET AGAIN in an outrageous lying misrepresentation of the facts.

Quote
I've asked Poynty to actually link me to those posts where he's claimed this.  TK you can forget.  He's written all over the place that we were applying a 90% ON.  And TYPICALLY he now denies this. 

Where's the link, Ainslie? You cannot provide it because I NEVER SAID THAT.

Quote
He stormed onto Energetic forum in 2009 or thereby with PRECISELY this complaint. 

Then it should be easy for you to provide some support for your claim. But you cannot. As usual you make claims without providing any support or checkable outside reference.

Quote
And 'Joit' - I think it was - actually wrote that he had built our 555 driver.  Interestingly Joit is Polish - I think.  His English was a bit compromised and I first read that he'd NOT managed it.  I immediately apologised to all and sundry - and was then ASSURED by Joit that INDEED he had found that our circuit config certainly COULD  manage the 3% that we claimed. 


And later, even Joit conceded that YOU, and HE, were wrong and I am right. It's an EASY CIRCUIT TO BUILD, Ainslie, and everyone who has built and tested it agrees, once they get over their mistakes.

EVEN AARON AGREES. See the image of his post below. If you are able to, that is.

Quote

We've now taken some photos of that 555 circuit.  Hopefully you can see all the components.  I'll be asking Steve Weir to do an analysis of that to determine whether the circuit was tweaked beyond the schematic in the paper.  I'm also sending those same pictures to an expert in electronics for a second opinion.  This because that expert is in Cape Town.  I can take the entire apparatus to him - as required - if the photos are not enough.  But I'm hoping that between Poynty and Steve - we'll get some informed opinion.

If the circuit is as diagrammed in the Quantum paper, then it cannot produce the duty cycle you claimed to use, and the article lies. If the circuit is different from the schematic in the Quantum paper.... then the article lies! It doesn't matter what your apparatus has on it NOW or what your duty cycle actually was, for the purposes of this single point.  The article gives a schematic that either was on the board THEN or it does not. Either way, the article lies, because the given schematic cannot produce the duty cycle claimed.

Quote
What angers me is this.  Jandrell insisted that the 555 driver was included in the paper - when according to many other advices - it should NOT have been included.  You will note that the claim is NOT related to that driver.  It is related to the applied duty cycle.  And in that paper we go to some lengths to advise all and sundry that the applied duty cycle will vary depending on the inductance of the circuit components.  We specifically state that this needs to be adjusted to each circuit in order to induce that oscillation.  NO duty cycle recommended for purposes of replication.  YET - Mark Euthanasius has written to advise me that no professional will EVER test that claim UNLESS they PRECISELY replicate our 3% ON.  WHY?  That effectively contradicts our own advices on this.  It's RIDICULOUS. 

Is that really what Mark E said? I don't think so. But that is really  immaterial. The point is that your Quantum article contains FALSE INFORMATION bearing your name. That doesn't disturb you in the least, does it.

Quote
What Poynty is NOW saying is that according to our schematic we could NOT have managed that 3% ON.  I neither know nor care.  What I intend showing is the actual switch that most CERTAINLY could manage a 3% ON.  I KNOW this because we specifically designed it to do this - as we saw that we could improve on results if we could also shorten that 'on' time. 

You don't care that the article bearing your name has false information in it. And you are PROUD of the fact that you don't care !

Quote

But here's the actual cause of my anger.  I'm angry that TK IMPLIED that we had inverted the duty cycle in his efforts to negate the claim.  I'm angry that he now denies this.

Are you going to hold your breath, jump up and down and turn blue? Stomp your feet, have a hissy fit? Your statement is so convoluted I'm having trouble parsing it. Yes, the schematic you published cannot make the duty cycle you claim and in fact makes the inverse duty cycle, and since you don't understand why the mosfet DRAIN voltage is HIGH when the mosfet is OFF, you don't understand why the "exact inverse" duty cycle is significant and CANNOT BE A COINCIDENCE. Plus, the high heat results you claim cannot be made with a true 3.7 percent ON duty cycle but are quite easy to make with the INVERSE 96.7 percent ON duty cycle. So be angry or don't be angry, I don't care BUT GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT, whatever you do, and stop lying about what people have said to you.

Quote
I'm angry that he denies that anyone has successfully replicated that waveform when there are multiple internet samples available and he's well aware of these.

And I'm angry that you claim that I have said that! You can't provide a reference, as usual. You've even claimed that I HAVEN"T REPLICATED YOUR WAVEFORMS, but of course I have. And I just a few minutes ago duplicated some more waveforms.

Quote
  I'm angry that Jandrell insisted that we take out those 2 x 17 hour comparative draw down tests - which would  have ENTIRELY proved the numbers that we were measuring.

Let's hear from Professor Jandrell about that, shall we? Your statements are not credible when you describe something that happened LAST WEEK much less eleven years ago.

Quote
I'm angry that Mark Euthanasius denies that we got accreditation that we published in our Quantum paper.   

You have never provided any evidence at all, so why should anyone believe you? You don't even get DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS right! Unless you provide evidence the default value is that you are simply wrong.

Quote
I'm heartily sick of them all.  There is ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT in terms of PUBLICATION to go beyond the facts that are presented.  And in presenting any such paper the standard is that the test is replicated - and IF the claim is found wanting then that paper is duly published that the claim can be investigated.  This NONSENSE - based on whether or not the facts in the paper may be slightly out or not?  It's ABSURD.  AGAIN and AGAIN, and again.  It does NOT need an applied 3% ON. And these modifications - these retractions that they call for?  It's SO FAR from standard procedure as to make their arguments and their demands COMICAL. That is NOT how published papers are assessed.  They're assessed under experimental conditions ONLY.


Again you are saying that it doesn't matter that your article contains false information. You are astounding!

Quote
IF anyone actually takes the trouble to test that circuit - then - REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL OF INDUCTANCE ON THEIR RESISTOR  - they WILL of a certainty - get it into that oscillation - that 'flop mode' - call it what you will - at just about any applied duty cycle - provided only that the frequency is ALSO adjusted.  You do NOT need a 'feed back' diode.  You only need to use a MOSFET as this has it's own intrinsic body diode.   And when you get it into that operation mode - that oscillation - you will see for yourselves what we are talking about.  There is a measurable over unity result - and that result is further PROVABLE under operating conditions where a battery WILL outperform it's watt hour rating.

Sorry for the rant
Kindest regards
Rosie

Just like it did on August 10 and 11. Right. You are making false claims that you cannot support with real, properly performed measurements in a well conducted experiment and you have already proven that, beyond any doubt.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2013, 04:17:41 AM »
Well well well.

According to Ainslie's "Debunking Troll 'Spin' as it applies to Science" thread, she has posted the promised photos of the original, formerly "lost", Quantum magazine apparatus.

Of course, one needs to be a logged-in member of that honeypot forum in order to see them.

I wonder what they will show. According to Ainslie they will show that the circuit IS the one posted in the Quantum article and they will show that it DOES make a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle as claimed in the article. Right? It's hard for me to wade through all her insults to determine just how those photos will refute me, but she claims they will.

A nice clear shot of both sides of the 555 board, as requested by .99, so that we can confirm the wiring. I can hardly wait to see it.

But... what will be the verdict if the photos show some other circuit than what was claimed? What then? What if it even has wildly different components in it than are shown in the Quantum published schematic? Is it possible that Ainslie would carry out, YET AGAIN, another conscious deception as to the actual schematic in use, the way she did back in March/April of 2011? Surely not..... she is "honorable" isn't she?



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2013, 07:48:58 AM »
Well well well. It appears that the Ainslie troll has LIED TO US AGAIN.

Remember when she said this:
 
Quote
What I know is that we've got the equipment so will, at least, be able to present the ACTUAL 555 circuit for analysis.  And we will be doing so within the week.  And it is THAT circuit that we used in support of our results.  It's a 555 with a variable resistor to allow for multiple duty cycle settings.

And this:

Quote
Quote
Rose,
Having a closeup look of your 555 circuit is a great idea. Please take some high-res photos of both the top and bottom of the board, thanks.

Poynty - Not only will I show this but will show where the 555 timer is attached to the apparatus where we actually ADJUST the duty cycle as required. 

Guys - if you need any kind of a guide as to just how deep in a pickle is our little pickle just pay attention to his volume.  The rule is this.  'The deeper - the louder'.  And RIGHT now he's at full volume.   Most amusing.

Yes, most amusing, I am laughing out loud!

And this:
Quote
And within the next 48 hours I should be able to put up those shots of the test apparatus that we used for our demonstration of that first Quantum paper.  I'll be relying on Steve's genius to analyse the switch as I've been advised NOT to dismantle this.  Which means that the evidence will be confined to photographs.  But between him and Poynty - I'm satisfied that we'll get a fair report.

And THIS:
Quote
I intend retrieving this later on this morning and will then photograph it and will show the duty cycle switch where we adjusted for both frequency and duty cycle - AND -  the details of that circuit.  Poynty and Steve are well able to determine if it is designed to apply a variable duty cycle.  If it DOES show this - then TK - aka Tinsel Koala - commonly referred to  as Little TK or 'ickle pickle' WILL BE CALLED ON TO RETRACT HIS OBJECTIONS IN WHOLE AND IN PART.  As will MARK EUTHANASIUS.  THEN.  Under those circumstances our claims on this subject STAND.  And in the interest of impartial investigation into matters of science - as is widely claimed by both Sterling Allen and Mark Dansie - I INSIST that those retractions be made public.  That - after all - is only fair.

And if it DOES NOT show what you claim here? Who will be making a public retraction THEN, I wonder.

And this:
 
Quote
I intend retrieving this later on this morning and will then photograph it and will show the duty cycle switch where we adjusted for both frequency and duty cycle - AND -  the details of that circuit.[/color]

Quote
I'm done with this - short of posting those photos.  That should be completed later today.

 
Quote
I shall post those photographs tomorrow. 

Quote
We've now taken some photos of that 555 circuit.  Hopefully you can see all the components.  I'll be asking Steve Weir to do an analysis of that to determine whether the circuit was tweaked beyond the schematic in the paper.  I'm also sending those same pictures to an expert in electronics for a second opinion.  This because that expert is in Cape Town.  I can take the entire apparatus to him - as required - if the photos are not enough.  But I'm hoping that between Poynty and Steve - we'll get some informed opinion.

BUT NOW... we have this:
Quote
Quote
Rose,
May I repost these over at OU?

Absolutely NOT Poynty.  I would consider that a complete breach of the trust between us.  This is NOT intended for those trolls.

Rosie


I am laughing in my coffee. Ainslie does not DARE show the photographs, because they simply do not support her claims! Even though she promised, over and over, to do so!

And they especially do not refute ME in the slightest.

The published schematic in the Quantum magazine article is NOT the circuit of the apparatus that Ainslie has just "found". But she dare not show it because she knows it will subject her to even more ridicule than before. If that's possible, even.

Of course, anyone who is a member of her forum can download them. If they then leak to the public ... whose fault will it be, who can she blame? Certainly not Little Old Me. After all she promised to share them publicly, after all.

All the Ainslie quotes can be found on the last two pages of her "Trolling" thread. But where can the promised photos be found, I wonder?





Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2013, 07:48:58 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2013, 08:00:32 AM »
Quote
And guys, I might just add this point.  Our little TK with his MUCH VAUNTED skills in electronics - and NOTWITHSTANDING his unending boasts and brags related to his CLAIMED GENIUS - is SIMPLY UNABLE TO REPLICATE THE WAVEFORM THAT GLEN LETTENMAIER MANAGED WITH EASE. 

Somewhat less than competent.  Clearly.  Certainly CONSIDERABLY less than he likes you all to think?  I've said it before - and OFTEN.  When anyone tries to advance any impression of 'excess intelligence' it's simply to hide their lack of this. SELF-EVIDENTLY our little pickle is somewhat bereft. 

Again,
Rosie


Yes... again, Rosie, you lie. Falling behind, too. Poynt99 posted the "approved" waveform from Glen up above, which by the way is made at a very different set of settings than you claimed, and in just a few minutes later I posted my own duplication of it, using the same scope settings (as far as possible) on my DSO, with a FG driving the circuit, NOT the 555 timer that Glen used. The settings Glen used are nothing like what you reported in the Quantum article, though.
I even used the mosfet you _specified_ but apparently _did not actually use_. There is no problem duplicating your RAW DATA when you REPORT IT CORRECTLY and there never has been. But you haven't even had the common courtesy to do that!

Self-evidently you are a lying troll and you cannot refute me, and not only that, you can't even make a coherent factual challenge.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2013, 11:34:11 AM »
Well well well. The "lost" apparatus that Ainslie "found" in the shed DOES NOT HAVE THE CIRCUIT PUBLISHED in the Quantum magazine article. SWeir took the time and trouble to trace out the actual present configuration of the "found" apparatus.

Not even close. There are major differences throughout, but the 555 timer circuit is nothing like what is in the Quantum article. The actual circuit in the apparatus DOES produce a short ON duty cycle, with limited adjustability. Only a single pot is used, with a fixed "on" time. The pot controls frequency and since the "on" time is fixed, the duty cycle is also varied at the same time. The range I get with my casual breadboard build of the "lost" circuit is from about 6 or 7 percent ON at around 200 Hz at the low frequency end, up to a bit over 1 percent ON at a little over 2 kHz.  I don't think the circuit can produce the exact 3.7 percent at 2.4 kHz claimed, but it can get a nice short ON time at around 2 kHz. Allowing for the usual 20 percent tolerance in cap values, maybe it could make the exact parameters claimed.

HOWEVER..... the published schematic in the Quantum article is very different and shows 2 potentiometers for independent adjustment of frequency and duty cycle. The apparatus itself also has a second potentiometer, that has been connected to something at some time, but is now not connected to anything. What can this mean? Can it mean that the 555 circuit that is in there NOW isn't the one that has always been in there? That's what I think it means.

But regardless of that: the published schematic is very different from what is in there now. (The power section is different too, but we shall leave that for later.) Now I would like a moment of silence, in memory of ALL THOSE HOURS, days, weeks and months that ALL THOSE PEOPLE wasted, discussing a false schematic, trying to get the false schematic published under Ainslie's name to work properly as she claimed. And all this time, the actual apparatus was just a few footsteps away, not "lost" at all.

Now perhaps we can move on, and get some kind of explanation as to why Ainslie might believe that this rat's nest would work, when the 5 mosfet apparatus didn't.  Did I mention that the apparatus doesn't even have the same mosfet part number as what she has been claiming all this time? That's right, apparently not only was the 555 timer not as claimed in the article, but not even the mosfet itself was as claimed.

I think there are a lot of former "replicators" that are getting pretty steamed up at this point. Or they would be, if they knew about it and still cared at all. This deception of Ainslie's even tops the March-April 2011 deception about the 5-mosfet schematic!


(ETA: The circuit certainly cannot even come close to the frequency shown in Glen's scopeshots. It tops out at a bit over 2 kHz, and Glen's shots showing the "Ainslie approved oscillations" are at around 400-500 kHz.)

ETA2: I made an error in my build of the circuit just now, the frequency range I reported above isn't correct. I had a capacitor stuck in the wrong hole on my breadboard!

The true frequency range is quite a bit higher... so I don't think it can go as low as 2.4 kHz, OR as high as 400 kHz but is actually somewhere in between. I'll make more precise measurements after I've had a bit of a kip.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2013, 02:22:01 PM by TinselKoala »


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2013, 12:18:54 PM »
While we are at it....

Ainslie says:
Quote
And Guys, apparently Mark Euthanasius subscribes to the adage  that 'unusual claims require unusual proof'.  There is NOTHING unusual in back electromotive force.  What's UNUSUAL is that no-one before has has taken this much trouble to prove that it's a source of energy.  And ALL we're doing is suggesting that certain assumptions related to back electromotive force - be REVISITED.


On the contrary. As usual Ainslie has not done her homework. Any reader of this thread can point to literally dozens of experimenters and devices that attempt to "prove" that BEMF can be utilized as a source of energy. Almost all of them have done a much better job of it than Ainslie has. John Bedini even seems to be making a fairly good living at it, with many different models of motors and solid state circuits that try to do what Ainslie claims is "UNUSUAL". Most of those researchers actually  know the difference between a Watt and a Joule, too!

Quote
But for all that - IF as is suggested - we require UNUSUAL PROOF - then we've SUPPLIED IT.

No, Ainslie has not SUPPLIED any UNUSUAL PROOF. What she has done is CLAIMED various things. All of the claims that have been tested properly have been shown to be FALSE. Without solid evidence, any CLAIMS that Ainslie makes can safely also be taken to be FALSE, since she has a 100 percent track record of fails.

Quote
We got accreditation from experts within multiple companies all of whom are LISTED and PUBLIC.  The onus is not on me to PROVE that accreditation.  It is on him to DISPROVE it - if he's so inclined.

Wrong again. Anyone who makes such assertions needs to provide the evidence. I can claim that General Electric has bought my design for the modified Dirod for a million dollars, twelve years ago. Is it up to you to disprove that, if you contest it? Have you called every single possible person at General Electric who might have had something to do with it? Well then, you must believe me.    NOT.
The kinds of "accreditation" that Ainslie claims will always include a written, signed report with real data in it. Ainslie has never provided a single bit of evidence of any kind for these claims. And we know how she garbles things said to her last week... much less twelve or fourteen years ago.

Quote
Again - under all decent methods of science investigation - the authors are not called LIARS.  They are innocent UNTIL PROVED GUILTY.  For some reason Mark seems to see a need to UPEND this civilized approach to things and call all and sundry LIARS - unless proved otherwise.  And this JUSTIFIED?  SOMEHOW?  Because we've got an UNUSUAL CLAIM?  I think not.

That's right, Ainslie and Martin are not called LIARS because of their unusual claim. They are called LIARS because they have been proven over and over to be LIARS.

- Ainslie claimed to hold a Patent, when she actually had only filed an application and never pursued it further. Her claim of a Patent was a lie.
- Ainslie claimed that she DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO, or make it public, referring to the March 2011 demo video... but she did  post it to her YouTube account, did link to it on this forum and in her blog. Her claim that she did not post the video was a lie.
- Ainslie and Martin claimed in the video and for a month afterwards that there were five mosfets in parallel. This claim was a lie.
- Martin claimed that the oscillations could not be simulated. He lied, and even showed false data while doing it. As soon as the correct circuit was revealed the oscillations were simulated with ease, and in the most recent demonstration but one, Martin admits that the oscillations can be simulated in software. His earlier claim that they could not be, and the presentation of the false data, was a lie. (The data was a lie because it did not accurately represent the actual circuit in the software.)
- Ainslie published the Figure 3 scopeshot that is impossible to make with the hookups claimed. The publication of this scopeshot, and the claims made around it, are lies, that still persist in spite of her left-handed "retraction".  She repeatedly claimed that she could reproduce the shot... which was a lie.
- The Quantum magazine article presents a schematic and makes claims about it that are false. Ainslie has known about the objections to that schematic since at least 2009 and has never until now done anything about it other than claim that IT WAS THE SCHEMATIC USED. Now we see that the apparatus she claims was used, has a completely different schematic. Here, Ainslie has lied for over four years about the actual schematic in the apparatus.
- Ainslie refers to people by names that do not belong to them. Every time she asserts that TK is someone named Bryan Little, she lies.

Every one of these lies, and many more, are fully documented in Ainslie's Permanent Record by images of her posts and references to the actual proofs that they are lies.

Quote
Again,
Rosie

And again and again. There is one sure way for Ainslie to avoid being called a liar... and that is for her to tell the truth.

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1465
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2013, 12:54:03 PM »
I am trying to figure out what is motivating her,
Anyway will publish the article soon. There is nothing there and where she could have held a lot of respect in letting go gracefully it is a shame to go out bitter and non accepting.
Mark


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2013, 02:21:08 PM »
I made an error in my build of the circuit just now, the frequency range I reported above isn't correct. I had a capacitor stuck in the wrong hole on my breadboard!

The true frequency range is quite a bit higher... so I don't think it can go as low as 2.4 kHz, OR as high as 500 kHz but is actually somewhere in between. I'll make more precise measurements after I've had a bit of a kip.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2013, 02:21:08 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: