Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[TinselKoala]

Sound of crickets chirping...

Note the date.

[MarkE]

Sound of crickets chirping...

Note the date.

That would have been the beginning of last week.  Maybe the reason that she got so uppity last weekend is that she's seen the results and doesn't like what they show.  Something caused her to go all Tasmanian devil and then silent.

I was thinking about the data you have been collecting and thought it would be a good idea to compare the heat output against a couple of things that we think that we know about the circuit.  The power contributed by the function generator should be:

P_FG =  4*V_{FG_INTERNAL}*V_BATT-

The power contributed by the battery should be:

P_FG =  4*(V_BATT+*-V_BATT- + V_BATT-²)

The power dissipated by the resistors should be: 

P_HEATER = R_HEATER*16*V_BATT-²

The efficiency during Q2 only periods while snubbed should be:

Efficiency_snubbed ~R_HEATER*-4*V_BATT-/(V_{FG_INTERNAL} + V_BATT+ - V_BATT-)*1/(DutyCycle)^0.5

The efficiency during Q2 only periods while with the oscillations should be:

Efficiency_snubbed ~R_HEATER*-4*V_BATT-rms/(V_{FG_INTERNAL} + V_BATT+ - V_BATT-)*1/(DutyCycle)^0.5

During the oscillations, the rms value of BATT- voltage, IE loop current is greater than the average value.  This explains the improved heating performance unsnubbed versus snubbed.  Plugging the numbers in and comparing to the heating results should be revealing.



All measurements are referenced to Q1 source as 0V.  IE the values of V_BATT- will all be negative.

[TinselKoala]

I'll have to work through that a bit later on. Right now I have other things going on.

I did one run with just the F-43 FG driving the load directly, no intervening circuitry or meters or power supply, using the typical 1 kHz and 10 percent HI duty cycle, with the same open circuit voltages I've been typically using for the "full waveform" runs that show both Q1 On current and Q2 Oscs, produced by a "zero offset" symmetrical stimulus from the FG.  This produced a stable temperature rise of 4.5 degrees C over ambient. Plugging this into the calibration plot, and extrapolating the calibration data down to zero at the low end, I see that this 4.5 degree C rise equates to an equivalent DC power at the load of just about one Watt, close enough.

I've just completed two runs of the SWeir board configured as the Quantum-17 circuit, one mosfet only and driven by positive going pulses, 24 volt supply. First I used a 3.7 percent HI duty cycle at 2.4 kHz from the DP101 Pulse Generator, and obtained a final stable rise of 5.6 degrees C over ambient. Then I "flipped" the duty cycle and used 95 percent HI from the F43 (the DP101 doesn't like to make long duty cycles, and the F43 was unstable at over 95 percent.) The final temperature rise was to 85.6 degrees, for a stable over-ambient temperature of 60.1 degrees C.

Note that in Ainslie's various reports of the original Quantum Magazine experiment she cites a temperature rise over ambient of around 52 degrees C, using what she claimed was a 3.7 percent duty cycle at 2.4 kHz. However, as I have repeatedly shown, the schematic she published as being the exact circuit used, CANNOT produce a 3.7 percent duty cycle but rather CAN make the exact inverse, 96.3 percent ON, and since Ainslie doesn't understand that the Drain of the mosfet is LOW when the mosfet is ON.... I believe she made the error of reading the Drain duty cycle as indicating the mosfet was ON 3.7 percent of the time, when in fact it was ON 96.3 percent of the time.

And look at the results I have obtained. Certainly our load cells are different.... but not that different! Not so different as to allow Ainslie to get 52 degrees rise where I only got 5.6. But when I used the 95 percent ON duty cycle I got 60.1 degrees rise.... much closer to Ainslie's cited 52 degree figure.

Now, when I was using the Fluke 199 scopemeter back in 2009/2010, I determined that the 3.7 percent figure was pretty much the minimum value that it would calculate for a duty cycle. Shorter values than that would usually "default" to a reading of 3.7 percent; rarely did the scope ever indicate less than that even when I knew the percentage was less. One can infer that Ainslie's ScopeMeter that she used in those days performed similarly.

It is my conclusion, once again, that in the Quantum-17 experiment Ainslie actually used a duty cycle of over 95 percent ON, instead of the 3.7 percent she reported. This is based on several items of fact: First, the schematic she published is capable of the 95 or greater percent ON but is NOT capable of the 3.7 percent ON. Second, Ainslie and others like Aaron Murakami repeatedly made the error of thinking that a HI voltage at the mosfet DRAIN meant the mosfet is ON. I addressed this issue in several really elementary videos back in the day. Third, the actual power heating runs that I have performed agree much better with Ainslie's reported temperature data when I use the long duty cycle, and when I use the short duty cycle I do not attain the temperatures Ainslie cites, not even close.

[TinselKoala]

I really have to laugh when I see Ainslie referring to my instruments as "arthritic" or she thinks I should get a "better" function generator. She thinks that if it has numbers in boxes, therefore it is better. LOL! The Interstate F43 is the envy of modern cheapo digital FG users; it has a 40 volt p-p output capability and 20 volts of offset available, it has a straight DC output setting as well as all the normal waveforms; it has a chassis ground isolation switch, a Frequency Analyzer output, a VCF input where it can be controlled remotely, and a Step Calibrator function. And it can be repaired if it fails. My analog scopes may not be as _precise_ as Ainslie's Etch-a-Sketch DSO, but they are certainly more _accurate_ because I am using them correctly and I am backing up their readings with cross-checks with other instruments. And my Link DSO is just as precise as Ainslie's toy within its bandwidth, although it only has two input channels.... and I know how to use it properly.

Witness Donovan Martin attempting to read a frequency on the Ainslie kit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6659TrVblYE

(The Ainslie oscilloscope constantly displays the frequency of the triggering channel; all he had to do was to establish a stable screen and then read the number off the display. You cannot even turn this reading off, it is always there.)

[MarkE]

The magazine article was definitely written around a ~96.3% on time instead of the 3.7% on time reported.  Like you noted, there is no way to get even remotely close to the timing listed in the article with the schematic the posted.  But the complement duty cycle: 96.3% is easy to get at the stated frequency of 2.4kHz.  And poof!  There go the claims of 17X gain.  The real duty cycle being 26 times greater than they thought, 17X gain represents an approximately 65% efficient circuit.  That poor efficiency can be attributed to switching losses when they dialed the gate potentiometer to a bad setting.  All of this you have reported before.  And I went through the 555 circuit very thoroughly.

Your current results back up the results that you have obtained and reported before.  It is only Ms. Ainslie who remains self misinformed.

I think that we have covered the equipment issues before.  It is nice to have a instruments that can record and print out numbers.  That doesn't help much when the instrument is connected to something that the observer does not understand.  Based on the June 29th demonstration, it is very apparent that the infamous Figure 3 was the result of Ms. Ainslie and her collaborators misconnecting their test equipment.  Their new, modern equipment couldn't prevent operator error.

Maybe Ms. Ainslie will come through and report on the tests she said that she had been doing.  Then we will see if once again she offers conclusions that aren't supported by good data.  Her recent silence suggests all is not well.