Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[WilbyInebriated]

I'm getting rediculous here, spending too much time posting. It would probably take less time to just build the darn thing. May I ask how much time did it take you build the Ainslie circuit?

yes, you are, and it is ridiculous not rediculous   yes, it would have taken less time to just build it.

i like your last post where you describe what you 'would have shown' but never will. it is a convenient 'out' for you though...

[poynt99]

I posted the 1st & 2nd stage example circuits in this thread. So far nobody has shown interest in building it, but such circuits is almost electronics 101. As you know the filters can be as elaborate as one wants, but why spend lot of time designing something that's not necessary here, especially if nobody will use it.

Paul

Post something complete please, with connection points to the circuit indicated as well. A full schematic would be very helpful for them, as opposed to kluged-together web pages.

.99

[poynt99]

I've yet to find an ammeter that can handle the frequencies required.  And I'm not sold on your average values - not that they're wrong.  They're just not as accurate.

An ammeter may or may not be accurate for this measurement, although my extensive work previous to starting testing of your circuit indicated that it does the job well and perhaps even better than the oscilloscope. However, I understand that most academics would scoff at the idea. They do not understand that the meter does in real time what post-analysis does in terms of averaging the measurements in Excel. So I accept that using a DC meter directly would not fly with the academics, however, the filtered shunt with its built-in heavy averaging takes out any uncertainty that would otherwise trouble those same keen academics.

The proposed methodoloy - as mentioned - has been exhaustively evaluated by academics.  I have no desire to point you to them Poynty - because I know how lengthy such debates are and also because I've no desire to give their names out.  But check for yourself.  Just contact the academics at your own university.  They'll discuss it with you I'm sure.

Your proposed measurements protocol and general methodologis are fine - for replicators who can't get hold of the required instruments.  But I would caution against assuming it would also be fine for purposes of advancing the argument in any submitted papers.

I am referring to the thermal method of determining component power dissipations. Are you referring to the same above? If not, perhaps it's the DC average, and I am not certain who you would like me to talk to at my university or college about that? Instructors, professors? There are several electronics forums which are frequented by the aforementioned that would be glad to comment I am sure. What will it take? If I find 10 academics that validate the DC average method using the filtered shunt to determine POS, are you going to acknowledge and accept this or simply state that they are wrong, and your academics are right?

Is the thermal method of testing in Glen's setup in the works? All he needs to do is measure the MOSFET and shunt temperatures, then find the equivalent DC controls for each (1 test each), and you have it.

.99

[poynt99]

.99,

I'm getting rediculous here, spending too much time posting. It would probably take less time to just build the darn thing. May I ask how much time did it take you build the Ainslie circuit?

Thanks,
Paul

To do things properly, if you already have all the materials on hand, at least a day of building. I had GL's pcb for the 555 circuit, so that made this part quite easy.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt - with respect - this is getting a little boring.  Let me try this again.  The heat profile is established to determine the wattage dissipated at the load resistor.  We use this.  It's an empirical value.  It points to some value in excess of COP>1 - by a wide margin.  No need to evaluate the heat dissipated at the MOSFET.  It will only add to the value.  It's simply not required for the argument.

I'm entirely indifferent to the debate regarding averaged waveforms.  I'm doing what's required to established detailed values of power delivered by the battery.  Please feel free to debate this wherever you want and with whomsoever you want.  It will not change the required protocol that we have applied and will continue to apply.  Which does not negate the average.  It is simply not as accurate - is all.

SO.  We use the thermal profile to evaluate the wattage dissipated - and we use the detailed waveform analysis to determine the wattage delivered.  Always have and always will.  Both values carry the rare benefit of academic sanction.   And we're not about to alter these test parameters for you or anyone - as much as I respect your input here. 

Not about to change this Poynty.  Ever.