Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[TinselKoala]

Thanks for the report, .99. Could the difference be explained by the fact that I only used a 25-volt main battery supply, with a short inter-battery jumper? This reduces the amplitude of the oscillations and allows the Q1 current peaks to be extended above them, I think.
I'll have to do some more trials with higher battery voltages, I guess.

Also I think the oscillations don't show up as much on my gate drive signal because I am feeding the signal to the scope from the FG with a direct unattenuated BNC connection, instead of from an attenuated probe at the circuit board itself. Probe and wiring layout issues also contribute to the slight slope seen in my traces when the Q1 mosfet is out-of-circuit: this slope changes quite a bit when I move the scope probe cable around. 

Meanwhile here's a video I made slightly over a year ago showing the use of a triangle ramp or sawtooth waveform gate drive stimulation, making "high heat" with little or no current flow.... apparently but not actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xs_ZsGhK9o

In my trials with Tar Baby I always measured the temperature of the 250 mL of mineral oil in the insulated oil bath, not the "temperature over the load resistor" in air that Ainslie cites, and I always take the data when the oscillations are turned off so that there is no RF interference with the electronic thermocouple thermometer's readings. So my temperature readings are reliable and meaningful, or at least much more so than Ainslie's, where she first hangs her element in the ambient air, then claims to "take water to boil" but never actually measures the temperature of the water, or apparently its actual volume, even. Ainslie's energy calculations based on her "taking water to boil" are completely bogus, because she has no idea at all how much of her power supplied to the load element actually heated water and how much was simply wasted and not accounted for, nor does she know how much water was actually heated to what temperature. However, in my experimental setup, I do know the answers to these points. I even know how much power my insulated container "leaks" vs. its internal temperature. Does Ainslie know the same about her setup? Not likely.

[poynt99]

Thanks for the report, .99. Could the difference be explained by the fact that I only used a 25-volt main battery supply, with a short inter-battery jumper? This reduces the amplitude of the oscillations and allows the Q1 current peaks to be extended above them, I think.
I'll have to do some more trials with higher battery voltages, I guess.

With 25V my results are pretty much the same; the ON current doesn't exceed the oscillation current. I think your oscillation level is about right from what I can see, but you may be right.

So in order for Q1 to produce the effect, it would either have to be blown open D-S, or the G-S junction is blown preventing it from turning ON. I tested the scenario if the body diode was still intact, and it doesn't make any real difference.

[picowatt]

With 25V my results are pretty much the same; the ON current doesn't exceed the oscillation current. I think your oscillation level is about right from what I can see, but you may be right.

So in order for Q1 to produce the effect, it would either have to be blown open D-S, or the G-S junction is blown preventing it from turning ON. I tested the scenario if the body diode was still intact, and it doesn't make any real difference.

.99,

Or that the gate and source leads of Q1 were reversed, which would change the schematic to all 5 MOSFET's being connected as per Q2, with no MOSFET connected in the Q1 position...

PW

[picowatt]

From the sound of it, "Donny" apparently remains confused about the offset numbers and the differences regarding their use in the LeCroy versus the Tektronix scopes.  She should seek out an alternate opinion...

Even LeCroy agrees that in FIG3, +12volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 and that the CSR trace shows zero current flow thru the CSR during that same time period.  Surely LeCroy understands how to read captures from their own scopes.

As suggested to her a long time ago, she should consult with LeCroy if she doubts that +12volts is being applied to the gate of Q1 in FIG3 or that the CSR reads zero current during that same time period.

Draw an arrow at one of the FG positive voltage  periods and another arrow at the CSR trace during that same time period, FAX it to LeCroy and ask them what the indicated voltages are at the time periods marked by the arrows.

I believe .99 even annotated a copy of FIG3 for her to do just that with well over a year ago.   

Is it really that difficult for her to admit to being wrong about anything?

A "scientist" would have verified and acknowledged the errors in FIG3 when they were presented, repeated the tests and corrected the papers a long time ago.  Instead, she accuses most everyone, but herself, of not acting in a scientific manner.

Her tactics to deny errors or impugn the integrity of those that question her data do nothing to support her claims, data or theories, but are instead, more damaging to their credibility and integrity than any individual or forum ever could be.

Oh well...

PW     

[poynt99]

.99,

Or that the gate and source leads of Q1 were reversed, which would change the schematic to all 5 MOSFET's being connected as per Q2, with no MOSFET connected in the Q1 position...

PW

Yeah, that would do it too.