New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[TinselKoala]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPFoL2V5GkE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tReHHljgdjQ

[poynt99]

TK,

The idea, if I understand the outline correctly, was to allow their team to adjust the FG settings to however they wished until they were happy with their wave form and Pbat results. Then it was to be left alone for the bulk of the following tests.

Sure, Phase 5 was not performed (until today after the demo), but neither was Phase 4 either today or yesterday. The most important tests WERE performed and the results were black and white.

So obviously the FG setting is not that critical when all they are doing is making sure there is virtually no current from Q1 (hence the <+4V pos. excursion), and ensuring there is a nice oscillation in Q2 with an associated negative MEAN Pbat of some starting point value. Every MOSFET is going to have a different Vgs, so matching the FG voltages to the mV is overkill. If anything you may want to just try to match their Pbat value with your own setting, or perhaps match the V-swing on the battery or CSR trace.

I've given you the FG values as per the settings used for the demos yesterday and today, so what's the problem? The only one you need to adjust is the negative excursion, and it is going to be between -14V and -15V, as per the scope shot, which I have attached here. There are also 3 other scope shots Steve captured.

.99

[poynt99]

TK,

Further to the Phase 5 scope shot, you will notice that the positive excursion shown is close to 5V magnitude. Unfortunately, this shot was taken after the demo had been declared "over", and Rose was tweaking the settings on the FG in anticipation of trying that other test with the Q1 oscillations.

Obviously during the demo testing the POS excursion could not have been set to 5V (it was actually set to about 3V as seen in the "Phase2_function_generator_preferred_settings.png" scope shot). So it is possible the negative excursion was something other than -14V or -15V. We DO know that the OFFSET setting for this shot was at the original position for the testing. Analyzing the scope shot, it appears to swing from +5V to -14V. If the setting used in the demo testing was with a +3V positive excursion, and the OFFSET was not changed, the negative excursion would have been -12V, if I have done my math correctly.

So, I submit that the FG settings used for the demo testing were:

FG Frequency: 1kHz
FG Duty Cycle: 20%
FG POS: +3V
FG NEG: -12V

I also know that the OFFSET was NOT adjusted to the full negative setting except for the "Phase2_function_generator_max_negative.png" scope shot.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

The idea, if I understand the outline correctly, was to allow their team to adjust the FG settings to however they wished until they were happy with their wave form and Pbat results. Then it was to be left alone for the bulk of the following tests.

Yes, that is right and that is what was published and what was agreed to by all parties. So why wasn't it done? 

Never mind, I know why.

Sure, Phase 5 was not performed (until today after the demo), but neither was Phase 4 either today or yesterday. The most important tests WERE performed and the results were black and white.

So obviously the FG setting is not that critical when all they are doing is making sure there is virtually no current from Q1 (hence the <+4V pos. excursion), and ensuring there is a nice oscillation in Q2 with an associated negative MEAN Pbat of some starting point value. Every MOSFET is going to have a different Vgs, so matching the FG voltages to the mV is overkill. If anything you may want to just try to match their Pbat value with your own setting, or perhaps match the V-swing on the battery or CSR trace.

You are missing the point. An experiment examines the effect of an Independent variable under the control of the experimenter, upon a Dependent variable that is the "output" measurement. In this entire Ainslie affair, the only real "independent variable" is the Function Generator Setting! A real scientist would have, in fact, plotted the relationship between the negative offset voltage and the resultant computed negative power product (or correctly computed one) to find the "optimum" setting for whatever effect was desired! This might have taken an entire afternoon, to generate a proper series of plots of the relationship between the _exact_ FG settings and the observed calculated power. The same thing should have been done relating the FG settings to the heat output measured at the load resistor ! This might have taken an entire day to do... by a team of real experimenters who understood how to elucidate the behaviour of a circuit.
Instead, after THIRTEEN YEARS.... we now have a single data point: a function generator setting and a corresponding power output. But how do we know that this is optimum? We do not. Perhaps Ainslie just needs to tweak the offset a tiny bit more or less, or use a tiny bit more amplitude, for her magic to appear in spite of the proper measurements. Without knowing the relationship.... you are hand-waving just as much as she is.

I've given you the FG values as per the settings used for the demos yesterday and today, so what's the problem? The only one you need to adjust is the negative excursion, and it is going to be between -14V and -15V, as per the scope shot, which I have attached here. There are also 3 other scope shots Steve captured.

.99

The problem -- in addition to the basic IV-DV thing -- is that my input was not accepted, it was ignored, I was frozen out, and even now you don't think that the issues I have identified are important. That is a problem. How many hours do you think I have expended, working and explaining all features of this circuit to whomever was interested, and using accessible equipment and procedures? I have made _half a terabyte_ of instructional and research video material on this circuit alone.

Another problem is that there is seemingly no video record of anything significant. Today's demo showed at least 45 minutes of setup and scrambling around, and the really important stuff happened, apparently, after the feed cut off.... and probably would not have happened at all if I wasn't jumping up and down about it. And yesterday.... by the prophet's beard. I will never get to see whatever happened then.

How would YOU feel, .99, if you had not been allowed to be there, yesterday or today, and could not get a simple basic measurement done that would take three minutes for a competent "team" to perform? You have done a lot of work too.... and S Weir is only there because one of his friends read _my posts_ on another forum and got interested. So for me to be "cut out" by the newcomers is really galling and I know that you felt the same way when you thought you might not be allowed to participate.

[TinselKoala]

TK,

Further to the Phase 5 scope shot, you will notice that the positive excursion shown is close to 5V magnitude. Unfortunately, this shot was taken after the demo had been declared "over", and Rose was tweaking the settings on the FG in anticipation of trying that other test with the Q1 oscillations.

Obviously during the demo testing the POS excursion could not have been set to 5V (it was actually set to about 3V as seen in the "Phase2_function_generator_preferred_settings.png" scope shot). So it is possible the negative excursion was something other than -14V or -15V. We DO know that the OFFSET setting for this shot was at the original position for the testing. Analyzing the scope shot, it appears to swing from +5V to -14V. If the setting used in the demo testing was with a +3V positive excursion, and the OFFSET was not changed, the negative excursion would have been -12V, if I have done my math correctly.

So, I submit that the FG settings used for the demo testing were:

FG Frequency: 1kHz
FG Duty Cycle: 20%
FG POS: +3V
FG NEG: -12V

I also know that the OFFSET was NOT adjusted to the full negative setting except for the "Phase2_function_generator_max_negative.png" scope shot.

Thank you for proving my point.

The settings used are unknown, and can only be inferred or guessed at from the circumstances.

"We DO know that the OFFSET setting for this shot was at the original position for the testing"
Actually I don't think you know even that much. The knob was set back to the "dot" on the bit of tape during the public feed ... but the power value was different slightly the second time it was set back to the dot. So the setting was probably off a little bit. Without actual measurements you can't know!

You can know this though: Unlike your HP pulse generator, the FG that Ainslie uses sets the amplitude Peak-to-Peak. This means you cannot simply leave the offset set to "negative 12" and then freely vary the amplitude knob so that the positive voltage goes from three to five volts... without also resetting the offset knob to maintain your "negative 12" or whatever. Even if the knob is on the negative stop, changing the amplitude will still change the voltage (or current) levels at both the HI and the LO portions of the signal until the actual rails of the FG are reached.