Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[MileHigh]

Poynt:

Just a bit more brainstorming to get the old juices flowing.  Is there a valid "Plan B" with no isolation transformer required?

Why not just use the "high" side of the CSR and tile all references to that point?  Then you don't have to worry about isolating the function generator anymore.

The waveform across your CSR is then "inverted" but big deal, your DSO might be able to handle that minor detail?  I realize that your main battery voltage will get a tiny "boost" from the CSR itself but it's something that is relatively minor  (or you could compensate in a spreadsheet because you know the CSR voltage).  Also, would this not then allow you to measure the (negative function generator voltage - (50 ohm voltage drop)) voltage contribution?

It almost sounds to me that some captures and then exporting the CSV values to a spreadsheet would be necessary.  With the CSR voltage data (no extra wire lengths!!) and your battery voltage data, and your function generator voltage data (included the embedded 50 ohm resistor voltage drop), you would actually be able to "reconstruct" the actual drive voltage for the circuit during the oscillation phase.  Plus you have the valid CSR current without any corrupting parasitic inductance.

I realize that after all that work you should "compute" a steady negative offset voltage from the function generator.  This would be "satisfying" because you get what you expected, confirming your results.  So I suppose this is all optional because you already know ahead of time that the FG contribution is a DC offset voltage.

I know you have a complete mastery of what's going on and my comments may have a mistake or two.  My feeling is if you went with "Plan B" with common point on the high side of the CSR, then you will have enough data from your DSO to calculate the power contributions from the two voltage sources and the power dissipation in every component in the circuit.

Certainly the oddball function generator positioning complicates things.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

Why not just use the "high" side of the CSR and tile all references to that point?  Then you don't have to worry about isolating the function generator anymore.

Yes, that is another approach that would work. However I doubt Rose would agree.

[MileHigh]

Poynt:

Clarification on this:

Is the FG's own AC loop through the Q2 G-S also something that you also want to account for?
I'm not sure I know what you mean, but I think I'm going to say "no".

What I mean is that when you are in the FG OFF oscillation phase, is there any AC current to account for going through the Q2 gate-source capacitance?  (bold for correction)  The FG output is across these two points and due to the oscillations, is there any significant AC current flow here?

Sorry I can't remember all of the waveforms and details and I am just curious about that.  It may be minor or the question is inappropriate and you can ignore it.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

MH,

OK, I know what you mean now, and my answer is "no".

The only thing contributing power during the "OFF" phase of the cycle is the net mean (i.e. DC) current through the FG. The oscillations themselves carry no ability to cause dissipation in the load, or at least very very little.

[MileHigh]

Poynt:

And DO NOT tell us that we've erred in our ANALYSIS.  No Poynty.  We are referring to MEASUREMENTS.  We are specifically NOT referring to analsysis.  And IF those temperature measurements are WRONG then ALL our temperature measurements are wrong.  Which means that our measuring instruments are wrong.  And they ALL CONFORM TO EACH OTHER.  SO.  THERE MOST CERTAINLY IS UPWARDS OF 7 WATTS DISSIPATED OVER THAT RESISTOR ELEMENT DURING THE PERIOD WHERE NO ENERGY IS MEASURED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED BY THE BATTERY SUPPLY DURING THE ON PHASE OF EACH DUTY CYCLE.

Sigh.....

I was going to post this yesterday but my connection went down:

The ironic thing is that just a few weeks ago leading up to the presentation Rosemary was making long postings including a disclaimer about the possibility that her results were from measurement error.  She acknowledged that if this were to be the case she would withdraw her claims.  Now she has changed her tune, demanding that her results be "reproduced" and demanding where the probe positions go.  It's completely and totally ridiculous like usual.

If I was in Poynt's shoes, any more ongoing badgering from Rosemary would result in a temporary stop in the discussions.  He could then do his testing in peace which he has carefully planed out.  When all of the testing is done and the video clips made, release them all in one shot.  Then see what happens.

Then my recommendation for Poynt, TK, and others, is to walk away.  The test results along with TK's test results and other stuff could be archived online for any one that's interested.  TK has those zip files with the posting trail.  You could probably park it all on a freebie online storage site, or two.  Hey, I think that there is a big server farm in Sweden that is built right into an old underground Cold War nuclear bunker.  That is a "wrath proof" storage site.

What would be fun is if another Steorn came around and we could get into a new juicy debate.

MileHigh