Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

You know, Jib, I agree with you almost, well, 96.3 percent. 

You might see that there are some things I know for certain, there are some things I am pretty sure about, and there are some things I speculate on, and there is a whole lot of stuff I have no idea about. I usually try to indicate, one way or the other, where I am on that continuum when I make statements of fact. When I come up with something (like the first discovery of the duty cycle issue) that seems odd or weird or unexpected, the FIRST thing I suspect is that I have made an errror.
Like that one. How many rrrrrrs are therrrrre in errorrrr? But here's the thing: I have learned that one should suspect error even more strongly when one gets results that are exactly as predicted and that are in line with one's theory. That is when error is particularly dangerous, and sadly that is where so many of us fail. To fail by confirming one's theory!! See how strange that is. No wonder high-school dropouts don't get it. Why, I even dropped out of 5 colleges and universities before I got it.
The general topic here is "cognitive bias" and there are many of them. There is even a formal study of the field, in social psychology mostly but getting more and more interdisciplinary as time goes on and scientists gradually figure out how to think.
The Adam Curtis documentary, The Way of All Flesh, relates a very interesting story along these lines. I can't find a link right now but it's out there.

The main factor that gets me in the Ainslie case is that she, once again, has apparently not done her homework, and that causes this profound misunderstanding of basic electricity and power measurement, coupled with her overweening holier-than-thou attitude about the whole thing. It would be OK if she was right once in a while--but to have her insult me when I am trying to do exactly what she's been asking for, without even addressing the theoretical aspects at all--that burns me up. In this case it really is about being right, because she dissed me while saying I was wrong and essentially full of crap--when we now know the inverse is true.      
She now says she wants to just forget the Quantum article, put it to rest. But in the EIT.pdf paper, she says:
"
EXPERIMENT
The following test was published in Quantum Magazine October edition, 2002.
RL
Rshunt
BAT 1
D1
Q1
0V Reference
OSCILLOSCOPE
0V Reference
CHA
CHB
Figure 1 Circuit schematic diagram
A 24 volt battery, (BAT 1) is applied in series with a 10 Ohm wire wound
resistive load (RL). A flyback diode, (D1) is placed in parallel with (RL) thus
connecting it back to the positive terminal of the battery. At the junction of the
diode and the inductor is an N Channel power MOSFET, (Q1), connected, in
turn, to a 555 switching circuit with variable duty cycles and frequency"

You see, she herself in the EIT paper refers to the Quantum article--and in fact it is the only searchable reference in the paper. And you will note that the flyback diode is not in the quantum article but is in the EIT paper. In the Quantum article it specifically talks about the mosfet's internal diode.
So, we don't just have a misprinted circuit diagram. We have 2 different descriptions that go with the diagrams in the 2 publications.
And we have Ainslie's statement to Ramset that she always uses or used 555 timers, not function generators...yet the EIT paper shows a FG pulse symbol and doesn't mention the clock at all---the other instruments are given, but no FG--because she used the 555 timer.

Hey, I'm still perfectly willing to accept that it is the diagram that is in error, if she will only correct it and say once and for all what the actual circuit, including whatever clock, was used to make the experiment described in these papers.
Once we've put that issue to bed, then I will move on to the power and energy calculations. Because even the folks over there are starting to realize the holes in her logic.

I just read back over that thread, and do you realize this: Most of what is actually known about that circuit comes from DrStiffler, Henieck, Hoppy, poynt99, and TK. Others seem to be working with other circuits altogether, or simply speculating without any builds or tests.

Traffic continues. Did you see my new video showing off the broken LeCroy?
--TK

[TinselKoala]

Dear Aaron:

Congratulations on receiving your new Ohmite high-power wirewound resistor. I'm sure you will be very happy together, in love and light.

Oh, have you had a chance to measure its inductance? Remember, the number you are trying for is 8.64 microHenries. That would be .009 on my meter here, .011 if you count the lead inductance. I hope yours is closer than mine is.

May you find whatever it is you are really seeking. Or whatever it is you really deserve.

--TK

[TinselKoala]

 

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-20.html#post60414


Joit, for goodness sakes please watch my video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXielVyBauo

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie's recent answer to Joit and poynt99 shows that she is becoming less certain that she is properly in control.

I think it's time to have her explain the relationship between the mosfet conduction state (ON or OFF) and the oscilloscope trace at point A, or directly at the mosfet drain.

She says the 555 issue is irrelevant-- but of course it is not. It shows her profound misunderstanding of what's going on in her circuit. If she agrees that Joit's trace shows a 3.7 percent on duty cycle for the load, then clearly she has been constructing and performing and analyzing her experiment(s) incorrectly. That is, WRONG.

I have made and uploaded Yet Another Video showing the relation between the load conduction or not, the mosfet conduction or not, and the duty cycle, as produced BY THE FUNCTION GENERATOR, so there is no doubt that my trace is like Joit's, and it means when the drain trace goes HIGH, the mosfet is OFF and the load is not energised. This video should be clear enough for even a child to understand. And look, no 555 timer, just a FG--even though she used a 555 timer in her experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhIDnjmPjW4

[TinselKoala]

OK, Rosemary, we really need to know.
It seems likely to me that the data in the EIT paper (why do you call it the IET paper? The filename on your website is EIT_paper.pdf, is it not?), I say it seems likely that the data was collected using a 555 timer making the inverted duty cycle. You don't think this matters--but it does. Since you did not use a scope's integration function to integrate an instantaneous power waveform, but likely used the assumed duty cycle figures in your calculations with the spreadsheet, it is possible that this error crept in somehow in spite of your care and expertise in circuitry and measurement.
So we really really need to know: what duty cycle was used, and how do you know? Because if you agree with Joit, you are waaaaayyyyy off in your calculations.

Or are you prepared finally to say, in spite of your constant denials to this point, that the MOSFET and the LOAD are OFF when the signal is high at point A....

Because you must acknowledge this, if we are to believe your calculations, which perforce used the duty cycle figures you gave.

This is one reason that the 555 "error" is so significant. You used the wrong duty cycle figures in your energy calculations, not because the 555 is wrong, but because you have this misunderstanding of the state of the mosfet.

Or so we must assume, until you correct us, not with more words, but with actual data. You mentioned you still had the apparatus from the original experiment. Methinks it's time to dust it off and fire it up, to see what kind of duty cycle yours makes.

Come on, I've shown you mine. Let's see yours, Rosemary.