Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Thanks, Poynt99, for providing that, along with your annotations.

Interesting. I am "assuming" that the color/channel assignments are the same as Ainsile typically uses:
Yellow: voltage drop across the CVR ( which? The "noninductive" arrangement on the demo board?) This channel is displayed at 1.19 Volts per division !! Aren't Digital Scopes wonderful! You can set them to make the traces as difficult to read as possible!
This is clearly obfuscatory. It is impossible to read the actual level of the Current from this trace, and even the Numbers In Boxes are useless, displaying the "mean mean" and the max and min "mean" or average values of this trace.
Blue: Gate signal from FG (or 555 or other source?) at 50 volts per division! Got something to HIDE, Ainslie?
Purple: Vbatt (from where? the noninductive battery connection shown in August, or at the board itself?) and at 100 V/div to capture the peaks.... and only the peaks are displayed in the parameters box, not the much more useful _average_ or true minimums and maximums. It's not even possible to tell how many batteries were used. The peak current of just under 2 amps would seem to indicate that only two batteries were used but since the mosfet is still in its linear operation region, not turning fully on, perhaps 3 batteries were used and the circuit resistance is just higher than normal.

Red: Math trace making the spurious calculation and displayed at 500 v/div. Useless. But it shows negative values! Miracle of Mismeasurement!

I note that the scope's timebase is set to 1 microsecond per division and that the operating frequency is about 187.2 kHz, as confirmed by the numbers in boxes. The Gate drive duty cycle appears to be about 25 or 30 percent HI. The mosfet itself is not fast enough to properly turn fully on and off at this frequency so it's not showing that much real "ON" time itself.

So once again we have a garbage scopeshot. The Current trace displayed at 1.19 V/Div, with "max and min means" displayed !! The Math is showing a spurious value due to the attempts at integrating the spikes.... from non-deskewed probes, most probably, without any filtration. The Gate trace is displayed at 50 v/division so that the total displayed amplitude is less than one full division -- not very informative. The math trace at 500 V/div is just silly. This is done to get the spurious peaks to stay on the screen. Good luck getting proper Math values if any portion of the trace is offscreen vertically.

So once again we have a scope screen that is more obfuscatory than informative, and the information that is actually needed must be extracted painfully by interpreting trace positions with odd scale values, rather than by using cursors or properly obtained parameter measurements.

I also note that the Gate drive signal is the triggering channel and the trigger is set to -24.0 V !! The Blue Gate drive signal is set to 50 Volts/division ! The Gate signal appears to swing about 20 volts p-p and has the extreme negative offset that her FG is capable of.  Curiously.... the gate signal risetime is a bit under 400 nanoseconds. This seems very slow to me for a "square" wave pulse. I can attain 10 ns or better risetimes at that frequency. Is Ainslie using the triangle ramp setting again, as she has tried to use before?

Will someone PLEASE teach these people how properly to display INFORMATION on an oscilloscope? I declare: You get more real and usable and valid information from my ANALOG SCOPES and my narrations, than you do from Ainslie's Etch-a-Sketch LeCroy abuse.

The battery voltage and current traces look like they are still taken across large inductances.

[MarkE]

Uh-oh.... now she's threatening to cut off Poynt99 from her "open-source" project.

Meanwhile... she still can't get her own story straight. Did Poynt99 imply anything by posting the scopeshot? Does she "stand by" the Math trace waveform, or does she SPECIFICALLY state it to be "irrelevant?"

You decide. And think about this: just who is _actually_ performing "Ainslie's" experiment, actually, anyway? Not her, certainly. Can you imagine the incompetent and ignorant Ainslie programming the scope, running a trial, saving a data file to the USB stick, then transferring that into a spreadsheet for analysis? Yeah... sure she did. Right.

So she's threatening poynt99 now for posting data that she has promised to publish???  Ms. Ainslie seeks to continue shrinking her strange little world.

[minnie]

   Ah!
       

[TinselKoala]

The battery voltage and current traces look like they are still taken across large inductances.

They are. All the effort of the past years has been wasted on the Ainslie mob. They have learned only what to _avoid_ if they want to show their "negative power product".

Using the SWeir board I get a nice flat VBatt trace showing only the little dips when the current is flowing, no ringing, and the Vcsr current trace is also clean with no ringing or overshoots. Needless to say, that kind of data won't give them the spurious negative power product.

In order to get the scopeshot below I had to eliminate the SWeir board and go back to using just an isolated mosfet, clipleaded in place. I used a 0.25 ohm CVR made from 2 parallel 0.5 ohm Ohmite non-inductive resistors and to get even the magnitude of ringing shown I had to be very sloppy, connecting far from the bodies of the resistors.

(In the scopeshot below, the "frequency" measurement is reading incorrectly due to the ringing. The distance between horizontal cursors across one complete period is seen to be 5.26 microseconds, giving a frequency of about 190 kHz. The Philips freq. counter read 187 kHz.)

The Link DSO has a prettier display than Ainslie's Etch-a-Sketch, doesn't it? It's too bad that it only has two channels.

[TinselKoala]

Isn't it hilarious? Ainslie cannot understand the basic process of _calibration_.

When a DSO and a DMM give the SAME VALUES for a certain measurement.... as I have repeatedly shown over and over, with strong underpinnings from Poynt99 and Steve Weir, as well as plenty of empirical proof..... she doesn't seem to understand that this means that the DMM is JUST AS ACCURATE as the oscilloscope. She rejects the DMM reading but accepts the scope reading when _both values are the same_ within some small, actually quantified error range. It is to laugh! The woman is severely challenged (and severely deficient) when it comes to using the thinking function of that wrinkled Little Brian... er, I mean "brain"... of hers.