Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

Hi Hoppy,

If the top trace is your shunt resistor trace then it looks to me like you have your MOSFET duty cycle inverted, it's almost always on when it should be almost always off.  Making a measurement between the drain and gate is an unusual measurement and I cannot get that one.  Depending on where you put your probe hot and ground leads, you will get a regular or inverted pulse.  The drain and gate voltage should be opposite polarities all the time.  You would be much better off looking at the drain voltage relative to the circuit ground.  That should be high and pulse low when the MOSFET switches on.

I really don't think that you need opto-isolators either.  The main reason for using opto-isolators is to decopule your core logic from power switching devices that are switching 120 or 240 VAC mains power.  That ensures that the user of a device can never be electrocuted as well as protecting the logic core.  In the case of this experiment, the MOSFET gate input gives you perfectly acceptable isolation from the 24-volts supply.

TK:

I haven't played with a 555 in eons.  What I do know is that all a 555 does is charge and discharge a timing capacitor through a resistor between two thresholds, which are fixed 1/3 and 2/3 of the supply voltage.  The thresholds track the supply voltage if it moves up and down.  Therefore the device has very good timing immunity from any supply voltage changes.  I think the biggie issue is component value selection.  Ideally you want to use "Goldilocks" component values, but certainly there is wide latitude there also.  "RC" is your time constant, so a 100 MOhm resistance coupled with 10 nano-Farad capacitor will give you one second.  However, that is a ridiculously large resistance and a ridiculously small capacitance.  Just waving your hand near the chip with those values will probably affect it.  Switching to 1K ohm and 1000 uF will give you the same time constant of one second and be much much more robust.  Beyond that, decoupling the 555 chip ground and Vcc as per standard practice and you should be fine.  At the same time I concede that you have probably played with 555s much more than me, I haven't touched one in 25 years. (That's good ammunition for the other guys, bring it on!  lol)

I can feel the "You're not doing the experiments!" wrath coming my way.

The funny thing is how many amateur experimenters blow transistors and chips like they are popcorn kernels popping or something.  It is rare that someone actually investigates why, they just replace the part or try a different part number in the same setup.  Johnny should try to figure out _why_ the part blew.

MileHigh

Hi MH

Apologies, the probe was in fact between drain and source. I have now corrected this.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you about this type of circuit not needing an opto-isolator.

Hoppy

[forest]

109 pages 

What are the conclusions ?

[WilbyInebriated]

Wilby:

The MOSFET is just acting like an on-off switch.  As a general statement, there is no reason you can't substitute one type of MOSFET with another.  Obviously there are different MOSFETs designed for different applications, and I assume the main property that distinguishes them is power handling capability.  I am also going to assume that there is a trade-off between power handling capability and switching speed and/or gate capacitance.

So don't get sucked into the "cult of getting it exactly identical" like happened in the Mylow fiasco, there is no logic whatsoever in that.  In fact, I think that this cult is nurtured and promoted by Bedini and Bearden and all of the others in the "Top Ten" free energy gang.

Look at the example of "Bedini's Kromrey Converter."  A bunch of replicators are struggling.  Nobody can get the same results that are showed in one of the EFTV DVDs.  They obsess if their shafts are the right diameter or if their generator coils have the right number of turns.  They are assuming that it will only work if they have the correct identical "magic" configuration, and then like magic, they will have an over unity device.  It is all complete crap, and the "Kromery Converter" is just a fanciful variation on an alternator, and will never in a million years become an over unity device.  So there is no point in arguing about the choice of MOSFET, you are wasting your time.

I will remind you again, this is all about an inductor discharging.  We have demonstrated to you and others that an inductor gets its energy from the battery, not from anywhere else.  It is as ridiculous as saying, "Every relay in existence is an over unity device."

It would be wonderful for Aaron and Peter to actually follow through and prove it for themselves.  Four months of posting and bickering and fantasizing over what in reality is a grade 12 physics lab experiment.  Do the lab, record your results, go home and crunch your measurements and write out your lab assignment and hand it in to your teacher.  What should be three hours worth of work translates into four months and thousands of postings with acid-trip-like fantasies and acrimony and bickering on two web sites.  What a fishbowl!!!

Meanwhile it appears that Rosemary is bailing out, just like I predicted, and will watch silently from the sidelines.

There is no resonance, that's a fantasy, this is a pulse circuit.

MileHigh

blah blah blah, you don't have any idea what is being argued between tk and i, so read the whole thread or stfu with your assumptions and misdirection. i don't give a rat's ass for your assumptions or tk's for that matter. tk made a claim after lambasting me to show him the difference tween the specified fet and the one he had on hand and used instead. he was wrong and now he is confabulating another asinine excuse as to what he 'really meant'. his words are there for everyone to read. he is a liar. plain and simple, but i hardly expect a sycophant like you notice a little detail like that.

did you notice that it took your hero over 40 pages to get around to testing the SPECIFIED fet? did you notice his plethora of asinine excuses for why he couldn't? did you notice his effing laughable hypothesis regarding the specified fet vrs. the one he was using?

why don't you start from post 1 and read on from there, get caught up a bit, otherwise you almost look as asinine as tk when you open your mouth to assume something.

[Asymatrix]

Wilby, How about you do some experiments and post the results.

[WilbyInebriated]

Wilby, How about you do some experiments and post the results.

because this is tk's little singing and dancing bear show. we are critiquing his hack of a replication and lack of proper scientific method...

why don't you?