Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thanks for the support there Neptune.  It's been a hellish week - ending with The Boss's call for some public attack on my work.  What's new?  I think he's either Mookie - whose got his own reach for OU and is simply hopelessly jealous.  Or it's our friend the cheesy Hamburger - who must be well compensated for those extraordinary efforts to destroy my reputation and our work along with it.  Or it's Harvey - who's that anxious to detract from the model that I suspect he wants it for himself.  LOL.   Extraordinary.  I've said it before guys.  When the average person comes up with any kind of OU claim there's immediate support.  I see it all over the place.  Lasersaber - Magsy, Lawrence, the Joule thief - cold fusion - and on and on.  And on our work - from the get go I've had a level of attack that has been unprecedented on these forums and on the internet.  It started with TK and has simply never stopped.  One could almost think that these results really, really matter. 

Anyway.  The good news is that I also know the most of you - at its least - tolerate these huge efforts of mine.  So.  Who cares?  It seems to come with the territory.  It would have been better to have had a disputable low wattage value that was poorly measured.  Then I'm reasonably sure no-one would have minded my ramblings. 

Anyway - to get back on topic - I've already got some interesting results.  I've let it run now for the last 3 hours just to see if there's a trend.  I'll post here later tonight.  Looking good.  Which means that some of you will be quite pleased and Poynty et all will have to fill their quivers and get ready for another barrage of barbed comments.

Oh well.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok Guys.  I'm exhausted.  I'll do the upload tomorrow.  But Poynty's right.  The probes across directly across the battery definitely reduce the battery voltage - by quite a bit.  But no ripples.  The same basic shape - as before with the same antiphase relationship to the shunt voltage.

Math trace still negative.  Actually what I'm hoping is that with the reduced battery voltage we'll get something closer to the fact.  The previous left us with a HUGE surplus that I simply could not reconcile with the wattage dissipated.  I didn't have time to fine tune and just settled for the first waveform that I found.  So it's not optimised.  But it's still interesting.  I also kept it on that LONG cycle - just to remind you all about it.  Very chuffed with this result.  Seems like we may have lost that embarrassment of riches and have something approximating the actual wattage delivered/dissipated.  Be nice if we can get these two numbers to tally. 

But the voltage definitely does not 'flatline' with small ripples as Poynty predicted.  In fact it's EXACTLY the same shape as before. 

I'll also do a dump and give you those results.  I'll factor in the inductance/impedance and I'll do one without.  You'll see a marked improvement in performance when we compensate for this. 

Anyway.  That's just about depleted my own energy levels.

Rosemary 

[cHeeseburger]

Ok Guys.  I'm exhausted.  I'll do the upload tomorrow.  But Poynty's right.  The probes across directly across the battery definitely reduce the battery voltage - by quite a bit.  But no ripples.  The same basic shape - as before with the same antiphase relationship to the shunt voltage.

Math trace still negative.  Actually what I'm hoping is that with the reduced battery voltage we'll get something closer to the fact.  The previous left us with a HUGE surplus that I simply could not reconcile with the wattage dissipated.  I didn't have time to fine tune and just settled for the first waveform that I found.  So it's not optimised.  But it's still interesting.  I also kept it on that LONG cycle - just to remind you all about it.  Very chuffed with this result.  Seems like we may have lost that embarrassment of riches and have something approximating the actual wattage delivered/dissipated.  Be nice if we can get these two numbers to tally. 

But the voltage definitely does not 'flatline' with small ripples as Poynty predicted.  In fact it's EXACTLY the same shape as before. 

I'll also do a dump and give you those results.  I'll factor in the inductance/impedance and I'll do one without.  You'll see a marked improvement in performance when we compensate for this. 

Anyway.  That's just about depleted my own energy levels.

Rosemary

Nice work, Rosemary.  So what turned out to be the elusive problem that took days to find?  Just curious.  Also, a few observations/questions:

1)  I assume you still have a hefty length of wiring in between the batteries.  Two things might interest you here.  First, find the ratio of how much the battery voltage measurement was reduced in peak amplitude by putting the probes at the end battery terminals.  Then compare that ratio (maybe 1/2 or 1/3) to the ratio between the total wire length and the wire length of what remains between the batteries.  I believe you'll find a strong if not exact correlation there.

Next, take your scope and look directly across the terminals of ANY ONE battery excluding ALL battery wiring.  I believe you'll see that there is only a very small ripple left.

2)  Please describe exactly how you will "factor in the inductance/impedance" when you do your "dump". 

Thank you,

Cheeseburger

[poynt99]

A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.

"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.

The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".

.99

[cHeeseburger]

A direct measurement across the terminal pairs of each battery will produce very little ripple.

"RIPPLE" is anything other than the expected DC voltage. The ripple in the current Ainslie circuit will of course always have the same "shape" no matter where it is measured in the battery line, but the ripple amplitude will diminish in accordance with how close the measurement is taken to the battery terminals.

The difference being, 60VDC with ~200V of ripple, vs. 12VDC (each battery) with perhaps 350mV of "ripple".

.99

In general, this is correct, that the "ripple" will vanish down to the true ripple resulting from current flowing through the batteries and the battery internal resistance.  Technically and specifically, though, the true battery ripple voltage is just like the voltage on a shunt resistor and can be predicted by Ohm's Law and will be exactly in phase (ripple peak at current minumum and vice versa).

The so-called "ripple" voltage that appears across the inductance of the wires, however, is not a function of Ohm's Law and is purely a function of the di/dt rate of change of current...NOT the magnitude or direction of the current itself and NOT the actual battery voltage, either..

It is therefore nonsensical to feed any of that signal into the scope as a power input voltage argument to be multiplied in real time with the equally and oppositely skewed di/dt signals coming from the inductive shunt.

I sure wish Rosemary would take my advice and consult with her Tektronix Applications engineer on this whole matter.  Maybe his or her advice would be accepted.

Humbugger