Electric OU: Tar Baby and the Ainslie Figure 3 Scopeshot Problem
Here’s the problem: Rosemary Ainslie’s scopeshot reproduced as Figure 3 in her first manuscript shows what many believe to be an impossible condition, IF the mosfets are all functional and wired as shown in her schematic.
The yellow Current trace appears to indicate NO current flowing, even though the Gate drive signal to the Q1 mosfet is at least 10V, more like 12 V positive.
Here I use Tar Baby and Ainslie’s scopeshots compared to mine to illustrate the problem and one possible solution to it — the mosfet is missing or open due to heat stress or otherwise inoperative in the circuit claimed.
The next issue is that, IF Ainslie’s mosfet is actually open or missing, then the conclusions based on the data from the apparatus are null and void, and so are the claims arising from them. Therefore the manuscripts should be withdrawn and errata, and apologies, issued wherever appropriate. It is my strong contention that this is the case.
SO…. for the past two years, ever since her papers were posted to the internet in various places, she has been challenged to demonstrate that these scope traces can be made as she claims. She has promised over and over to show this test, in the most insulting terms addressed against me possible… but has never done so. Most recently she announced in several places including PESN that she would have a demonstration on June 1 2013 and stream it over the internet. This would have been an ideal opportunity for her to show her mettle. And it appears that she did show her true mettle: she flailed and bailed, no demonstration occurred (just as I predicted), yet she still gets plenty of publicity and website hits for it.
Why not? If I can do it in fifteen minutes with full explanations in complete and understandable English sentences (if a bit accented), why can she not?
I know why.
You can find the official “publications” of Ainslie’s manuscripts by searching Andrea Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics website. Notice anything peculiar? Compare the schematics in the two papers, describing the exact same experiment. Persons who know mosfets will prefer the schematic in Paper 2…. but Ainslie has assured us that this is a mistake, and the schematic in Paper 1 is the correct one, and in fact a very similar schematic is known to have been used by her in her March 2011 demonstration video (which I have preserved for educational, critical and forensic use.)
So why is the “wrong” and very misleading schematic in Paper 2 still there? (As of June 1 2013).
The schematic I show in this video is taken from her Paper 1, and with the exception of the battery voltage and its probe, is the same as what I’m using here. My “shunt” is 0.3 ohms, I am using 24 volts because I don’t have room on the bench for four batteries, and I’m monitoring the Gate drive signal instead of the battery voltage with the direct hookup to the Function Generator, and the scope’s other channel probe is across the “shunt” just as shown in the schematic. However, Ainslie’s “Black” FG output lead is not as shown in her schematics but rather at the common circuit ground point where the negative battery lead is connected to the scope probe grounds. The experienced EE person will also see what is wrong with that, IF the CVR is supposed to be showing the actual current in the circuit.