New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[TinselKoala]

(dup post)

[TinselKoala]

As anyone can see from looking at the schematics I attached above, the Quantum magazine circuit _without_ the 555 timer is just exactly the circuit given in the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet as the "Unclamped inductive test" circuit. With the exception of the place where the "Black" FG lead will wind up when it is subbed in. The inductive test circuit has the FG Black output on the correct side of the current sense resistor and the Quantum circuit has it at the common circuit ground, the main battery negative terminal. We know that the latter arrangement creates a current path that bypasses the current sense resistor, so the current values gained with this arrangement will not indicate the total current.

So are we to believe that the plain old unclamped inductive test circuit in the back of the IRFPG50 data sheet -- and in the data sheets of many other mosfets as well -- is Over Unity and nobody noticed before Ainslie did? Or is it the 555 timer that makes it OU, makes it special?

[gmeast]

@Gmeast:
Are you saying that you used the same component values and the same schematic that Ainslie published, and you were able to make it make a short ON duty cycle, at 2.4 kHz as she claimed?

If so, I would really like to see some scopeshots. Because your claim is at variance with _every body else_ who has ever built and tested that circuit, in hardware or in simulation. Perhaps you have erred; I can't believe that all those people including .99, SWeir, MarkE, the folks at Energetic Forum, and many others have erred and you are right.

Now, when you DID start out to build her circuit, the very first thing you noticed was that the 555 timer "didn't work", and you asked if anyone else had actually built the circuit. Remember that? I do.

The paper makes the claim that the published 555 timer circuit was used. If this is not the case, then the paper is wrong, it is making a false claim and her plea for replications is... disingenuous to say the least. If the 555 timer circuit WAS used, then the duty cycle claimed in the article is impossible. If some other duty cycle was used... then the paper is wrong and her plea for replications is.... well you know.

What are the other alternatives? Please explain.

The duty cycle issue was brought up, hashed over and, I thought, settled in 2009. That is, dear GMeast, Ainslie has known since 2009 that the circuit published would not make the duty cycle claimed. Yet... she let you proceed without even warning you. I think this is dishonest, you may not. What do you call it?

(By the way.... she has always insisted that the 555 circuit WAS USED, until just the past couple of weeks. If she had in fact used a FG instead... .why in the world did she NEVER MENTION it back in 2009 when everybody and his brother were "replicating" this circuit? I know why, and in your heart I think you probably do too.)

The component values were NOT the same. The component relationships were, however. To give me more flexibility, I replaced one of the fixed resistors with a potentiometer (as a variable resistor). I never took a scope shot, nor will I now because that stuff was torn down long ago, besides I had my digi-PWM which is far superior in its utility to the 555 but not as energy thrifty as the 555.


I never really set out to build HER circuit since I had messed around with the Inductive Resistor Heater concept in the distant past ... long before ever hearing of the Quantum article or Rosemary Ainslie. I simply resurrected an old project and posted where it seemed appropriate ... big mistake!


I don't have anything more to add than that.


Regards,


GME

[TinselKoala]

Thank you for your honest answer.
So, you did NOT use the same component values, you also installed a third variable resistor. You do realize, I hope, that that makes it a _different circuit_ than what Ainslie claimed. So of course I don't need to see a scopeshot: you aren't claiming to have used her circuit to make a short ON duty cycle at all, so I have no argument with you on that issue.

Now, think about this: The circuit in the schematic she posted produces the frequency she claimed to use very easily, and it produces the _exact_ inverse duty cycle range. Can you come up with a scenario that would cause that to happen by accident?  I mean say someone  intended to make a 4 percent ON duty cycle, and made a mistake in drawing the schematic or selecting components, so that actually the exact inverse resulted?

Here's what I believe, and why. I think that Ainslie and her team did not grasp, at the time, that in her circuit the voltage measured at the Drain will be HIGH, at battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF, and the drain voltage drops to near the zero voltage level when the mosfet is ON. I think she expected that ON means HIGH and OFF means LOW measured at the drain. The reason I think this is because it was very clear, in 2009 when the issue was being discussed on Energetic Forum, that people like Aaron and Ashtweth also thought this way, along with Ainslie herself. It got to the point where Aaron suggested a simple circuit to test the facts, so I made a video for him showing the fact with a simple switch and a mosfet and a voltmeter.
So, the 555 timer in the magazine makes a perfect 3.7 or 4 percent HI drain voltage in her circuit, with no problem at all. The problem is that this results in a duty cycle at the LOAD of 96 percent ON.

Why don't you ask her what the Drain voltage is when the mosfet is ON and when it is OFF, and see what kind of answer you get.

[gmeast]

Thank you for your honest answer.
So, you did NOT use the same component values, you also installed a third variable resistor. You do realize, I hope, that that makes it a _different circuit_ than what Ainslie claimed. So of course I don't need to see a scopeshot: you aren't claiming to have used her circuit to make a short ON duty cycle at all, so I have no argument with you on that issue.

Now, think about this: The circuit in the schematic she posted produces the frequency she claimed to use very easily, and it produces the _exact_ inverse duty cycle range. Can you come up with a scenario that would cause that to happen by accident?  I mean say someone  intended to make a 4 percent ON duty cycle, and made a mistake in drawing the schematic or selecting components, so that actually the exact inverse resulted?

Here's what I believe, and why. I think that Ainslie and her team did not grasp, at the time, that in her circuit the voltage measured at the Drain will be HIGH, at battery voltage, when the mosfet is OFF, and the drain voltage drops to near the zero voltage level when the mosfet is ON. I think she expected that ON means HIGH and OFF means LOW measured at the drain. The reason I think this is because it was very clear, in 2009 when the issue was being discussed on Energetic Forum, that people like Aaron and Ashtweth also thought this way, along with Ainslie herself. It got to the point where Aaron suggested a simple circuit to test the facts, so I made a video for him showing the fact with a simple switch and a mosfet and a voltmeter.
So, the 555 timer in the magazine makes a perfect 3.7 or 4 percent HI drain voltage in her circuit, with no problem at all. The problem is that this results in a duty cycle at the LOAD of 96 percent ON.

Why don't you ask her what the Drain voltage is when the mosfet is ON and when it is OFF, and see what kind of answer you get.

The success of my circuit is at an operational duty cycle of around 24% and nearly 500,000 Hz. I won't ask her anything, because I don't care. You now know what little information she shared with me before she stabbed me in the back with all of that poynty-head crap. So please don't ask me anything else ... I don't know anything more.


Regards