Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

RA circuit (minus the 555 of course).

Negative current spikes at the MOSFET Source lead (200mA spikes at the Drain lead)

Any guesses how/why? (hint at EF post?)

.99

[TinselKoala]

Uh-huh. I have no problem with simulated free energy. Or simulated battery charging.

It's the reality that I have trouble with.

Here is a clear demonstration of Aaron's little circuit--which clearly shows that when the mosfet drain is HIGH the mosfet is OFF. OR, conversely, when the mosfet drain is LOW the mosfet is ON.

So, when any clock, a 555 or a FG provides a positive pulse to the mosfet, it turns ON and conducts, and the Drain goes LOW. When the FG provides a low or zero voltage to the gate, the mosfet turns OFF and the Drain goes to battery voltage--that is, HIGH.

So, if one monitors the mosfet drain like Joit, or equivalently, the load at point A in the Ainslie circuit, one will see a 3.7 percent HIGH duty cycle...when the mosfet is OFF 3.7 percent of the time.  And, since that's where the circuit is supposed to be monitored according to Ainslie...the conclusion is inescapable. When Ainslie says the circuit is running at a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, she WANTS the mosfet to turn on for that short interval. But--as we all now know, that's backwards. When the Drain has a 3.7 percent HIGH duty cycle, the MOSFET is ON 96.3 percent of the total time.

That sort of thing can really mess up your energy balance calculations, if you are doing them by hand instead of having the scope's math function do it. Even then, the scope must be set right, and read right, and more importantly, interpreted correctly.

NOTE: at about :18 I mistakenly call the negative rail the positive, and at about :50 in the vid, I refer to the LED's cathode, when I should have said "anode". Sorry about that. The circuit is correct as Aaron posted it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSFS99SaZTA

[poynt99]

Uh-huh. I have no problem with simulated free energy. Or simulated battery charging.

It's the reality that I have trouble with.

I'm not saying this is going to push the RA circuit ou I have no trouble with PSpice behaving itself, in fact I'm confident it can't show ou. It's the users that can mess things up and obtain incorrect results.

For now it's an observation, and I feel it is the parasitic capacitances around the MOSFET that is providing the path.

I'll be doing an analysis of the RMS power in them there spikes to see what gives.

.99

[TinselKoala]

I'm not saying this is going to push the RA circuit ou I have no trouble with PSpice behaving itself, in fact I'm confident it can't show ou. It's the users that can mess things up and obtain incorrect results.

For now it's an observation, and I feel it is the parasitic capacitances around the MOSFET that is providing the path.

I'll be doing an analysis of the RMS power in them there spikes to see what gives.

.99

Yup, I totally agree. In fact you can see in my latest vid, at reallly rreallly low frequencies, there is so much gate capacitance that without the proper pull-down resistor the mosfet actually does leak a bit. It's doing this at higher freqs too, you just don't notice it as much. And the Ainslie circuit relies on whatever's coming from the FG to pull the gate back down. Maybe that's OK--in circuit my mosfets seem to be quenching properly-- but in this case I'm not so sure.

And then, in the real circuit, there's the DC offset problem. If the FG is used, most FGs of course want to make a positive AND negative pulse train, with the zero voltage level being in the middle. The DC offset control of my Interstate F34 allows me to set the offset up==so that the bottom is at zero, not some negative value.
The 555 timer does not have this problem in its present configuration--it always generates a positive pulse and the baseline is at ground. Or zero, which may not be the same unless you take pains to make it so.
If one's FG cannot be set for a full 5 or 10 volts DC offset, you will have to use a diode or something to keep the negative going part of the pulse out of your gate drive.
(Not "you", point99. I know you know this stuff. I mean "you" all out there who are trying to replicate Ainslie's experiment.)

One big difference I have noted wrt mosfet type: the IRFPG50 is sslllooowwww in this circuit. The 2sk 1548 does much better in making spikes and turning off correctly, and it's only about 2.50, compared to 8 bux or so for the IRFPG50. The 2sk runs hotter--because of all that spikyness sloshing around in there, I imagine. But on a heat sink you can run the 2sk at full 96.3 percent ON, just don't touch it, you'll burn your fingers. The IRFPG50 runs cooler, so it's not making the intense spikes that the 2SK does--by taking it's own sweet time to turn off.

This effect is shown in the video from last night. I put in a 3-pole dt slide switch, and another mosfet socket and heat sink. So I can switch the mosfets with the circuit running and observe the effects.

2sk1548, I think your spice didn't have that one. You could also try 2sk1365, 2sk1120, or 2sk1934, to see the effect they have on spikyness and heat dissipation.

Thanks, poynt, I really appreciate your taking the time, you and Chet both, to communicate over there. My blood pressure would not take it at all. I come from a culture that sees facts more important than style or "politeness", and we try to give as good as we get, in the "diss" department.
If anyone wants to criticise me, I don't mind as long as the criticisms are supported with data and reasoned argument. I'm ugly, my feet smell and my nose runs, I park on a driveway and I drive on a parkway, but I do know how to use and interpret an oscilloscope, most of the time.

Speaking of time, did you know: Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.

[poynt99]

TK, all.

No flyback diode.

Spikes are up to about 540V. IRFPG50 is 1000V MOSFET, which may in fact be why it was chosen.

I can see now the possibility that with the Quantum circuit, they may have intentionally left out the flyback diode. If what you want is large spikes back into the battery, then it would appear leaving the diode out maximizes this effect.

A power dissipation measurement on the load and shunt resistors showed there is very little change with or without the flyback diode connected. Power from the supply had little change as well (but was not a precise measurement).

An analysis of the power spikes from and to the power supply is as follows (without the flyback diode):

RMS forward power from supply ~ 1.82W (15.2us/50W pulses)

RMS reverse power to supply ~ 27mW (277ns/-40W pulses)

PERIOD ~ 416us

That's about 1.5% power returned to the battery.

Note the displayed wave form is inverted  (i.e. + is- and - is +)

.99