Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[markdansie]

Let us not become too dependent upon
the "show and tell" disinfo which is far
too abundant on youtube and many of
the forums.

The circuit in question has proven to be
flawed and its dissection into bits of
meticulously detailed minutia has not
accomplished much more than honing
the technical and analytical skills of those
who delve into exact replication.  While
that can be said to be a positive development,
there is more to be found "outside the box."

Absolute BS, this is how people cop out and the scam artists keep stringing people along. It is also for those wit ha discontent with reality and accepting their belief systems may be flawed. Without a foundation of truth and solid evidence you are building a house of cards with no foundation.


@Profitis, I am not sure why you did not volunteer and assist Rosemary with your skill set, what you do is called fence sitting. I rather deal with people who may have different views to mine but are solid where they stand. I piss a lot of people of but I stand true to my convictions.
Kind Regards

[SeaMonkey]

You won't discuss the actual issues in Ainslie's work, you won't present any of your own in support of your claims and ideas, you just want to play psychologist, apparently to stimulate a response from me. And of course I am happy to do so, to point out what it is you are doing and why. They say "don't feed trolls" and they are right.

I'm really not too much interested in
quabbling about Rosemary's work per
se; rather, what can be done to improve
upon the concept by modifying certain
operational parameters?

For example:  The heating element which
functions as both a resistor and an inductor
may not be ideal for the experimentation as
it exists.  What could be done to increase the
inductance optimally to possibly enhance the
energy exchange?  You have the answer to that
question tucked away in your cranium if you'd
contemplate the matter for several microseconds.

Then, should one apply continuous or discontinuous
techniques to the critical elements?  Low frequency
or high frequency; low duty cycle or high duty cycle?

For some the drama which takes place here is their
cup of tea and they participate with relish.  Frankly,
the drama is not my bag - I'd prefer the discussion
to focus on technical matters without the efforts
to diminish someone's character.  Sure, a little good
natured banter is one thing, but descending too far
into the lower realms to hurl the smelly muck doesn't
do much to favorably impress the reading audience.

It is fashionable in the forums these days to refer to
anyone who disagrees in some manner as a "Troll."
I understand the need for such in the minds of those
who are being scrutinized and take no offense.

Yes, something good may come of this yet!

[poynt99]

Looks like the demo has been moved up to 08:00 MDT.

[TinselKoala]

Whatever else profitis might be, he's smart enough not to touch a Tar Baby and hug her to his breast.


Now, can we please get back on topic, instead of doing exactly what Ainslie wants, which is to bury hard facts under post after post of useless blather?


Interested parties will please note that Tar Baby uses the exact circuit posted in Ainslie's "paper" 1, with the same IRFPG50 mosfets, and an inductive-resistive load that measures 10.2 Ohms. When I applied the full six batteries in series, at an applied voltage of 75.4 V, and gave the mosfet gate a verified input signal of +12 volts, the mosfet turned ON as expected and the scope trace of the Current Viewing Resistor ("shunt") indicated a voltage drop of 1.8-1.9 volts. During this ON period, no oscillations happen and the current flow is DC for as long as the mosfet is ON, so AC impedance is irrelevant and the resistive elements and wires are just that: resistors and wires, not inductors. So a straight DC Ohm's Law calculation is valid, for the ON times of the mosfet. The Current Viewing Resistor I am using is a Dale precision power resistor, 0.3 Ohms 2 Watts. It is not marketed as a "low inductance" resistor.... but I am concerned with the DC current here so its inductance is irrelevant.
So.... doing the math, we find that a voltage drop V of 1.8 Volts, across a resistance of 0.3 Ohms, I = V/R, so I = 1.8 / 0.3 == 6.0 Amperes. During the ON times, as driven by the verified 12 volt Gate signal and with the six batteries in series, the Q1 mosfet was observed, measured and verified to be carrying 6.0 amperes, AT LEAST. Working this backwards to find the total circuit resistance in the ON state, we get R = V / I or 75.4 / 6.0 == 12.57 Ohms. Adding the known resistances of the circuit components as a check gives 10.2 (load) + 0.3 (CVR) + 2.0 (Minimum Rdss of the mosfet) == 12.5 Ohms.

The rated Rdss (drain-source resistance) of the IRFPG50 mosfet is 2.0 ohms but can be higher. Power dissipation in a resistive element is given by P = I²R, that is, Power in Watts is equal to the Current SQUARED, times the Resistance of the element. So the mosfet, during its ON times, will be dissipating AS HEAT a power of 6 x 6 x 2 == 72 Watts. If it has a 10 percent duty cycle it will average a bit over 7 Watts..... but if the _frequency is low_ it will still overheat because it is inadequately heat-sunk. To dissipate 72 Watts a TO-247 package needs active cooling: a fan and a proper heatsink.


Is it Saturday yet? Can I get a witness?

[TinselKoala]

Looks like the demo has been moved up to 08:00 MDT.

Where did you see that announcement?

And how are people supposed to watch it, without an invitation?


And, as an aside, it appears that the ignorant insulting wench STILL CANNOT READ what is printed in black and white, nor interpret her own oscilloscope traces.... but she is extremely adept at casting the juvenile and puerile insults.