Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[fuzzytomcat]

Been working on Fuzzy's wave forms. Here is the load wave form (with his for comparison).

Average of the wave form is about 0.218mV. That is somewhat strange. It should be 0V 

Glen, I noticed for all the other scope shots with the 3054C, the drive interval seems to have been about one half (i.e. double the frequency) to about 4us. Did you change the settings for the two shots, i.e the one on the Fluke and those on the Tek?

Also, those are across the shunt? I feel you must have changed the settings because the voltage is quite high in comparison to the previous load voltage shot on the Fluke. With only 250mV across the load, we shouldn't be seeing 100-150mV on the shunt. But then maybe you're into some strange mode.

****For the sim I included the output section of the 555 (4 resistors, and 4 transistors according to the National LM555 spec sheet), to confirm something about the series supply resistance. This greatly affects the drive capability of the 555 and is what is partially responsible for the "choked" drive to the MOSFET. In fact the MOSFET isn't conducting at all in this mode. All the excitation seen in the inductive resistor is supplied by the 555 itself.****

.99

Hi .99

I remember not messing at all with the Fluke 123 ScopeMeter once it was hooked to the load resistor during any testing, it was left connected we just watched it, the figures jumping up and down a lot with that oscillation wave form the same. We were both surprised of the overall difference just using the 10 Ohm prototype "Quantum" resistor (a short time for checking, verifying connections and settings) wondering why. You can actually see in the overall layout photo a resistor (4K) sticking streight up in the positive rail bread board connected to a wire with a red end and a yellow alligator clip holding the both together ..... I feel something was going on with the circuit because of the 10 Ohm "load resistor" each one ( 10, 100, 225 watt and the prototype ) makes the circuit react different it seems.

Fuzzy


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT- I just noticed ......... your simulation goes positive first not negative first like in the Fluke 123 ScopeMeter shot ..... the wave form is reversed from mine a "negative dominate"

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I have no clue what you are talking about.  If you are trying to imply that I should be able to tell you that the specs for the inductive resistor don't make sense just by eyeballing it that is totally ridiculous.  Nor am I a coil nerd.  Plus that question should be self-posed, don't you think?  You own the paper, you merit the bold typeface.  How come there was no precise measurement of the 10-ohm inductive resistor for your thermal profiling if we assume that it was a +/-5% resistor?  Say cheese.

MileHigh

"cheese"    and sorry.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hey witsend,
I used to be a computer technician and programmer.  I don't know how much control the Moderators have over the software, but if they don't, a software rewrite is in order.  Expensive.
Well, hartiberlin is running the show.  I don't used the specialized feature much, anyway.

--Lee

Sorry Lee.  I missed this entirely.  I just sort of hoped that the more petitions the more likely that there'd be some action. 

[BEP]

BEP:

Forget about gravity theory for a second, and how about just understanding how it acts for starters?  If you understand how it acts you have a lot of insight into how it works.

Wrong.

MileHigh says that you are a MillionMiles off base with that statement.  Super wrong.  It's a pie-in-the-sky statement.

The format of the above statement tells me a discussion with you is pointless. So my interference with your 'thought process?' ends with this:

Clearly I mistyped when I said I also knew people who think they know. It should have also included many who think they know and are not known by me, like you.

Another mistake I made was using the word 'attraction'. I use such like 'gravity waves' and 'attraction' because those are words most will understand. In fact, gravity has absolutely nothing to do with attraction or waves like ocean waves AND certainly nothing to do with particles of gravity.

Oh, I give up.

It does appear you've done some reading. Maybe it is time for some thinking?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Wrong.

The format of the above statement tells me a discussion with you is pointless. So my interference with your 'thought process?' ends with this:

Clearly I mistyped when I said I also knew people who think they know. It should have also included many who think they know and are not known by me, like you.

Another mistake I made was using the word 'attraction'. I use such like 'gravity waves' and 'attraction' because those are words most will understand. In fact, gravity has absolutely nothing to do with attraction or waves like ocean waves AND certainly nothing to do with particles of gravity.

Oh, I give up.

It does appear you've done some reading. Maybe it is time for some thinking?

BEP  Truth is that MileHi's comfort is only on circuitry.  He knows very little physics by his own admission.  It's just he thinks he has a nose for insecurities and piles in with a rather reckless abandon.  But there's certainly charm in all that confidence.