Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration, June 1 2013

[profitis]

@tk lol.i just made things about ten times easier for you and evry single electrofreak here man.you dont have to build any more circuits BEFORE you,re disapointed,cant you see this.maybe you knew this idono.apologies if im wrong.

[SeaMonkey]

You are not qualified to comment on Ainslie's circuit because you have not built it nor explored its various aspects in simulations or circuit theory analysis.

Whether or not anyone is "qualified" to
carry out any task is dependent upon
one's abilities.  I would not build the circuit
as it is now configured due to its instability
and unorthodox nature.  It is a novel circuit
to be sure; but one which is capable of
performing the beneficial functions with
efficiency and stability would be much
preferred.  Therefore, I'd isolate the specific
functions which have proven beneficial and
design a circuit to accomplish those functions
effectively and with the ability to respond to
"tuning."

The circuit as it exists has been explored and
found to be unstable.  The flaws which it
exhibits are correctable.  Exact replication
will not accomplish the desired outcome.

Someday, AINSLIE, your lies and insults will catch up to you and you will suffer consequences. I will continue to do all I can to make that day come as soon as possible, and every time you insult me in this manner.... you strengthen my resolve and you display your true nature.

I guess that explains everything...

[TinselKoala]

@tk lol.i just made things about ten times easier for you and evry single electrofreak here man.you dont have to build any more circuits BEFORE you,re disapointed,cant you see this.maybe you knew this idono.apologies if im wrong.

Do you really want to make things easier? Then do some actual work of your own, produce some kind of significant result of your own that demonstrates your point. Otherwise you are just emitting words.

Some people don't have to build, they can just use simulations or superior knowledge and experience with circuit theory to tell what's going on in a circuit. I'm not that good; I have to build.

But I have confidence in my knowledge, my skills and abilities....especially when I have some comparisons to go by..... and I know BS when I see it. When I start examining an issue and immediately uncover lies, huge errors, distortions and misrepresentations.... my BS meter pegs out. When I first examined the Ainslie performance claims by building and testing the first, Quantum magazine circuit back in 2009, I already knew that the claims were most probably bogus, due to errors and misinterpretations, but I wanted to find out why and how. And I did.... and instead of getting appreciation for my work, I was vilified for it and even banned from EF...... but as they ultimately found out for themselves and had to acknowledge, I was 100 percent right in everything I said about Ainslie and her circuit and her claims.

And I still am, and she cannot refute me with facts, checkable outside references or demonstrations of her own. Nor can you.

[TinselKoala]

Whether or not anyone is "qualified" to
carry out any task is dependent upon
one's abilities.

And just what are your abilities? Got any YouTube demonstrations of your abilities? Anything you've built yourself to show off? Why should anyone believe your purely qualitative hand-waving analysis, without some sample of your actual work to go by?

I would not build the circuit
as it is now configured due to its instability
and unorthodox nature.  It is a novel circuit
to be sure; but one which is capable of
performing the beneficial functions with
efficiency and stability would be much
preferred.  Therefore, I'd isolate the specific
functions which have proven beneficial and
design a circuit to accomplish those functions
effectively and with the ability to respond to
"tuning."

THEN DO IT.

The circuit as it exists has been explored and
found to be unstable.  The flaws which it
exhibits are correctable. 

THEN CORRECT THEM yourself, or show Ainslie how to do it. I have the feeling, though.... that YOU CANNOT. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

Exact replication
will not accomplish the desired outcome.

You should be talking to Ainslie, then, shouldn't you?

Because what we are doing here is pointing out those flaws and trying to get AINSLIE to correct them herself. But she cannot, because her claims are untenable and she has no clue about what she is doing. She is trying to PROVE HER "THESIS".... and that right there should tell you pretty much all you need to know about Ainslie and her approach to Science... or rather, her distorted view of what Science is.

The desired outcome is to get her to retract her error-filled mendacious manuscripts, issue errata and apologies, and either repeat the experiments and analyses properly or.... STFU.

I guess that explains everything...

No, Sea Monkey. That does not explain everything.  That explains my response to how Ainslie has made this issue a personal one, by continuing her outrageous insults towards me and others, when she is so manifestly and provably WRONG about so many things. You might think it's funny for her to continually call me "Bryan Little" when she has no support at all for her false contention, or to continue repeating her sexual slur "ickle pickle", but I do not. It pisses me off, and if she had any sense of decency or integrity she would not do it, and every time she does I will come back with PROOF of her ignorance, her mendacity, her overweening arrogance, her errors and her idiocy.

(And it also explains that you are a sock puppet Ainslie sycophant, without analytical skills of your own.)

[TinselKoala]

It looks like I have to repeat this post for the benefit of the blind.

I=V/R.
Voltage drop across "shunt" during Q1 ON times-- essentially DC---  is about 0.75 V, and the "shunt" is 0.25 Ohms. Therefore, the current flowing in the system is 0.75V/0.25Ohm == 3.0 Amperes.
(Correction: the drop is more like 0.65 V, so the current is around 2.6 amps.)

Hardly what I would call a "limited amount of current flow", since it is near the maximum that can be attained with a battery voltage of 49.5 volts and a total circuit DC resistance of a bit over 14 Ohms.

P=I2R.
With 3 amps going through the Q1 mosfet at a duty cycle of about 20 percent, the mosfet will be dissipating _at least_ (0.20) x (3 amps) x (3 amps) x 2 ohms Rdss == 3.6 Watts average. (Correction: with 2.6 amps current the average power dissipation in the mosfet will be around 2.7 Watts.) It will warm perceptibly but won't be stressed, even on the tiny original heatsink. And this is why they always limit the batteries to four or less when demonstrating the "high heat" mode: to keep the current in Q1 low so it doesn't overheat.

With 74 volts the mosfet should be conducting I = V/R = 74V/14 Ohms == 5.28 amps. At a 20 percent duty cycle it will be dissipating _at least_ (0.20) x (5.28 A) x (5.28 A) x 2 ohms Rdss == a bit over 11 Watts average. It will get hot but not in danger of failing completely if the run is short. If the frequency is lowered so that the mosfet doesn't have a chance to cool, as in the 160 second period used in Figure 1 with 16 or 18 seconds ON, the mosfet will have to dissipate over 50 Watts during that long ON time.... and will likely fail. Ever put your finger on an operating 50 Watt light bulb? Now imagine that power in a package the size of a TO247 device package.

All this is without considering the oscillations, which do warm the Q2 mosfets a small amount but don't affect the Q1.

WELL.  He's right of course.  But ONLY and PROVIDED that you don't ALSO apply our standard measurement protocols.  In point of fact he's OUT by a small factor of 90% because he's forgotten to factor in the duty cycle.  But that's TYPICAL.  And it's DELIBERATE.  And NOTA BENE - NONE OF HIS COLLEAGUES?  FELLOW CONSPIRATORS?  TROLLS?  have drawn attention to this LATEST DISTORTION.  And here's the kicker.  He also ASSUMES that we, on this side of the argument, will none of us notice this?  Clearly he entirely believes his spin that we're all of us IDIOTS.  Not that I, personally, mind this description - one little bit.  He's right.

Uh-huh. Another clear statement of mendacious distortion from Ainslie.... then she proceeds to rant and rave about her ERROR AND LIE, rather than the true facts of the matter. I don't apply "their Standard measurement protocols"? But... I am using AINSLIE'S OWN MEASURED DATA. It is to laugh.