Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

tk

i see you tossing the word 'exact' or 'exactly' out in a few of your posts. maybe you need a refresher?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exactly

did you drop the $10! for the correct fet yet? i should think after your $1000 U.S. equiv. offer to mylow? and your own admission that you spent $900 and 80hrs of your time on it (mylow's wheel) you wouldn't be so pompous as to expect us to think you can't cough up the $10! for the correct fet for this 'debunking'. i should also think you wouldn't want to leave this fet issue open for contention whatsoever. nice work as usual.

What I do with my time and money seems to be, last time I checked, My Business.
And even you should be able to tell that the problem I identified has NOTHING to do with the choice of MOSFET, as long as all are N-channel. And all the ones I used are.

If you are so concerned, why don't YOU build the circuit, or just send me any MOSFET you would like me to test.

But I can tell you this: ANY mosfet of the correct voltage and current ratings will produce heating of the load that looks just like what Ainslie reported, if the duty cycle used is 96.7 percent ON.

Once again, it seems that people who refuse to go out and assemble any components on their own are attempting to criticize the work of those who actually do build and test things.

So, at this point, I would be glad to hear explanations, even from you, wilby, as to the cause and effect of the DUTY CYCLE ERROR in Ainslie's work that I found. Until this issue is resolved the question of the MOSFET is irrelevant.

(Your hero DrStiffler is cracking me up, over on that other forum. His "replication" is wrong in every respect, every post he's made since I've been looking has contained severe errors and absolute asinine reasoning--"I'm not even going to try her 555 timer circuit because..." for totally invalid reasons. He's using wrong voltages, regulated supplies instead of batteries, wrong captions on his scope shots, wrong monitoring points, mistaken reads of the circuit diagram, and he doesn't even seem concerned when it's pointed out to him. It's pretty hilarious when an English-speaking reader reads his posts and mine, looking for real information on a "replication" of Ainslie's published work.)

[ramset]

Tk
It does not seem like Stiffler is replicating the circuit [or even trying to].
He seems to be trying to replicate or enhance an" effect" .

Chet
PS he refers to "interesting findings" in the first 10 minutes of a test he performed.
_____________________________________________________________________

HERE
Run with oscillation
This is of course not what I should be doing, but I wanted to see if that 50V hash would do something that would not make sense.

Anyway as it turns out it is 'ho hum', here is the data from the run, 31.4% eff. is what one might expect, but more to come that we do not expect.

Tmin qa qc Vs Is Q = c m dq ein (J) CEC
0 26.4 28.50 12.00 0.022
10 26.3 29.90 12.00 0.020 117.236 151.200
20 26.3 30.02 12.00 0.018 10.049 136.800
30 26.5 31.00 12.00 0.018 82.065 129.600
40 25.8 31.90 12.00 0.018 75.366 129.600
50 26.3 32.00 12.00 0.018 8.374 129.600
60 25.6 32.00 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600
70 26.0 32.50 12.00 0.018 41.870 129.600
80 25.4 32.50 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600

334.960 1065.600 0.314339339

Gate pulse was 37uS and the Drain pulse was 72uS

Sorry the Greek symbols do not come across, but qa is the ambient temp, qc is the cell temp and of course Vs and Is need no further. What is so very interesting is that first 10 minutes.

[TinselKoala]

Yes, Chet, I saw that post, thanks for putting it here, where some discussion might actually happen.

Feel free to explain the post. All I can get out of it is that his MOSFET's turn-off time is unusually long and his load warmed up some.

Oh, and the "ho-hum" part, I got that.

But what it's doing in a thread that is supposed to be about replicating a specific Ainslie circuit, that I don't get.

[WilbyInebriated]

What I do with my time and money seems to be, last time I checked, My Business.
And even you should be able to tell that the problem I identified has NOTHING to do with the choice of MOSFET, as long as all are N-channel. And all the ones I used are.

If you are so concerned, why don't YOU build the circuit, or just send me any MOSFET you would like me to test.

But I can tell you this: ANY mosfet of the correct voltage and current ratings will produce heating of the load that looks just like what Ainslie reported, if the duty cycle used is 96.7 percent ON.

Once again, it seems that people who refuse to go out and assemble any components on their own are attempting to criticize the work of those who actually do build and test things.

So, at this point, I would be glad to hear explanations, even from you, wilby, as to the cause and effect of the DUTY CYCLE ERROR in Ainslie's work that I found. Until this issue is resolved the question of the MOSFET is irrelevant.

(Your hero DrStiffler is cracking me up, over on that other forum. His "replication" is wrong in every respect, every post he's made since I've been looking has contained severe errors and absolute asinine reasoning--"I'm not even going to try her 555 timer circuit because..." for totally invalid reasons. He's using wrong voltages, regulated supplies instead of batteries, wrong captions on his scope shots, wrong monitoring points, mistaken reads of the circuit diagram, and he doesn't even seem concerned when it's pointed out to him. It's pretty hilarious when an English-speaking reader reads his posts and mine, looking for real information on a "replication" of Ainslie's published work.)

i don't care what you did or said on who... it's not really EXACT or EXACTLY until you get the right fet, REGARDLESS OF THE SPECS SHEET OR KNOWN FET BEHAVIOR. why would you even leave it open for discussion or debate by 'believers' unless you're nothing but an internet 'tick' that feeds on such juvenile drama? why not get the right fet and put it all to rest. why use words like EXACTLY when IT'S NOT EXACT? i would expect better, even from you...

why do you always avoid the explicit point being made with some bullshit excuse?  i've asked you this before, are you mental?

once again, it seems one of our members here who thinks he runs in more 'erudite' circles, is making ee101 mistakes and bitching and crying about others not building, all the while talking about how his non-exact build is exact...

you're missing the point. i agree with you on the fet issue. THE POINT IS, (read slow and careful here so you can comprehend this) you can tell me whatever you want, just don't tell me it's exact until it is...
so at this point i would love to hear your explanation of how your circuit is exact.

stiffler isn't my hero. which is one of the reason i asked you to do one of your 'debunkings' on his circuit. if i recall, when i did ask you that, you went off on some tirade about stalkers and trolls, etc.
then you made up some bullshit about how he was scared of you and so you couldn't put up a youtube video on your own channel 'debunking' him for some asinine reason...
i can find the posts if you need me to. i know you're really busy being a pompous ass that makes EE 101 mistakes like forgetting about the invert switch. 

[WilbyInebriated]

Oh, and the "ho-hum" part, I got that.

if you're referring to the correct fet, about time... 
was that so hard? and now you are 'bulletproof', barring anymore of those ee101 mistakes. 

if you were not referring to acquiring the correct fet, all i can say is "damn, it's like pulling teeth or something."