Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Glen,

I'm trying to download a file from your test #3 but Rapidshare seems to be quite overloaded these days. I don't remember ever having to try several dozen times to obtain a download slot in order to download something before. What gives?

http://rapidshare.com/files/289473645/2us_520V_10_05_09_.xlr

It might be an idea to switch to one of the other free upload/download sites?

I'm doing this number crunch for Rose. Still the question remains, why is no one doing this over there? Why are the results from the number crunching not being posted?

.99

[poynt99]

Indeed - in this test #3 -  the negative wattage delivered  - your term POS - is significant.  The evidence points to OU,

I am trying to download some data from that test but Rapidshare is too busy it would seem  Quite frustrating indeed. POS is "power output from supply". IMO the evidence of OU is not conclusive.

How do you explain the measured 2.3818W vs. actual 1.3W discrepancy in my results I posted? (see a few posts back or so). The real 2.3818W produced a TRAA of about 13ºC, whereas the actual TRAA was only about 7ºC

And please give us some details on the size and shape of  your load resistor - at least.  I've been holding my breath here for so long I'm now in danger of passing out.  Ta Poynty.

Rose I posted the load resistor data a long time ago after you had asked:

Rose asked about the resistor I'll be using:

Length=165mm, Diameter=20mm
No. of turns=64 (2mm spacing)
R=10.1 Ohms, Inductance=29uH (will confirm with a better meter)

.99

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af166/poynt99/Resistor/resistor001.jpg
http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af166/poynt99/Resistor/resistor002.jpg

.99

[poynt99]

OK, downloaded (finally) Fuzzy's data from Test #3: "2us_520V_10_05_09_.xlr"
and crunched the data in my format:

POS = -1.2897W (power output from supply)
PIL = 96.6282W (power in to load resistor)
PIM = -98.7811W (power in to MOSFET)
PIS = 0.8632W (power in to shunt resistor)

Final load resistor temperature: 130ºF

Glen, Rose, all, please pay close attention to this one point:

Apply 97W (the measured PIL) of pure DC power to your Quantum resistor and measure the resistor's final temperature. If it is higher than 130ºF (and I am 100% certain it will be), then this 97W PIL measurement is erroneous.

And that is the point I have been stressing here; the data is not valid. Nor is my own, as my results are the same.

But don't take my word for it, do the 97W DC power test and prove it to yourself. As a check, input about 1.3W (or in your case about 4.5W) pure DC to the resistor and note the final temperature. Then ask yourselves, "How can the empirical results be argued?"

.99

[poynt99]

MH, thanks for the post. You bring up some valid points:

The load resistor dissipative energy per cycle could be done just by looking at the current as I mentioned before.  The squared current = (0.0544/0.25) = 0.2176 amps squared.  Therefore the power dissipated in the load resistor is about (0.2176 x 10) = 2.176 watts.

The theoretical maximum power that can be dissipated in the resistor with a 3.7% duty cycle and 25V supply (with about a 4V drop across the MOSFET) is about 1.63W.

I can't remember if you are using a 0.25 ohm resistor and I don't think that you posted the precise measurements for the load and shunt resistor values either.

What about any 555 switching power being coupled into the MOSFET also?

I am using a 1% precision current sense 0.25 Ohm 5W resistor for the shunt.

Indeed power coupling from the 555 was my very first suspicion, but I double-checked the current draw with and without drive to the MOSFET and there was a negligible difference. So it appears there is no significant power being sourced by the 555 circuit into the load or MOSFET.

The 1.302 watts pure DC power compared to the POS power of 1.173 watts seems to be showing something unusual in the DSO measurements again.  The fact that both runs generate the same real world heat power is also indicating that the DSO measurements are having a hard time.

I would agree, and would suggest that the results from the scope data acquisition not necessarily be taken as gospel. When someone can prove that the measured PIL is equivalent to the empirical PIL, then I will retract that statement. I have described how to check the two against each other in the last few postings.

I am going to make some speculative tweaks based on your first test run.  You assume the POS power has to be the load power of about 1.3 watts plus the shunt power of about 0.05 watts plus the power dissipated in the MOSFET.  Let's say for example that the MOSFT dissipated power is 0.15 watts.  Then the speculative POS = 1.3 + 0.05 + 0.15 = 1.6 watts.  That's the best I can do, ballpark you true actual power consumption from the battery or power supply to be about 1.6 watts.

Indeed I would agree that this is probably well in the ballpark.

I feel confused and I am a bit surprised that the data is not falling nicely into place.  However, I sense that you are iterating on the analysis and will converge on the real solution.  That's the hard part that newbies, and free energy enthusiasts and believers seem to always skip, they see numbers that look good and think that they have cracked it.  It is wise to not be too hasty in cases like these.

I am disappointed as well. It just goes to illustrate that switching circuits can be quite tricky to measure, especially when the inductance is so relatively low in comparison to the stray and parasitic inductance from the wires themselves. Remember, SPICE does not allot any inductance in the connecting wires, they are ideal, i.e without impedance, and I am sure this is why the results are different. The load resistor being inductively wound acts simultaneously as a transmission line and delay line. In fact, with switching circuits such as this, all connecting wires should be treated as such. It is these real world artifacts that is causing the data (and hence results) to be skewed (i.e negative net power and erroneous power data). I agree 100% with the rest of that quote.

.99

[poynt99]

My Ainslie Circuit Test Plan. This is essentially what I am following.

It may not be perfect, but at least I wrote and posted one. 

Notice in the photo on page 4 the wave forms on the scope. This is what is responsible for the skewed negative power in the MOSFET when we multiply those two wave forms together. That represents a -2250W (~150ns) power spike and over one cycle amounts to about -0.84W.

The investigation continues...

.99

Edit: We are multiplying those two values together in Excel, not the scope.