Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

If you want to skip ahead (not recommended) you can ponder the next question and its branches.

The Load Resistance/Inductance.

How was the 0.00864 milliHenry inductance determined?
Was it measured, or calculated from the physical dimensions of the resistor as given in the paper?
How was it measured?
(A calculation from the physical dimensions gives nearly the exact figure quoted...)

The reason for this question is that 8 microHenries is a quite small, not a large, inductance, and most loads being used by me and by others will be much larger than this value. Larger inductances, much larger, OTO hundreds of milliHenrys, will make much better charging spikes and "shockingly" higher voltages in this circuit. Why was the extremely low inductance resistor used in your experiment ?

[Gauss]

The whole deal is that Lindemann&Co wanted to have Witts stop the debate about the Witts water heater... And they managed that and then started the RM thread in reply. So no, RM belongs to Lindemann´s group and nobody else. Sorry that we got that debate in this thread.

Just keep advancing TK!

And folks, the Thrapp-Witt discussion is a bit OT here; there are several threads on those fraudsters already; I personally don't think that Witt is Witsend, although both seem a bit witless to me. Nor do I give some rat's sass for conspiracy theories unless they have some foreground effects. In this case, that is the Ainslie file, the foreground effects are far too flimsy and transparent to hold up to any deep background conspiracy. IMHO, of course. And of course we all could be part of the conspiracy.

That being said, I may have a new hypothesis concerning the Ainslie circuit and data, thanks to the flailings of the great scientist and seer Err-on.

The original Ainslie circuit published in full (except, curiously, the crucial diode) in the Quantum article includes a 555 timer, which I and others have shown produces an inverted duty cycle--that is, it makes the mosfet turn ON 96 percent instead of 4 percent. Using the battery and load parameters cited in the experiment, this 96 percent duty cycle produced far too much heating in my load, whereas a true 3 percent duty cycle seemed to mimic Ainslie's heat profile closely.

I have long been puzzled by this "error". The numbers are too close for coincidence, particularly in the freq and duty cycle of the timer.

But---I obtained these results using 12 volts Vcc supplying my 555 timer circuit, as apparently specified in the Quantum article's circuit.

Aaron's "work" using a series resistance -- or a low battery voltage-- in series with the 555 power supply, runs the 555 at a lower voltage than is normally considered adequate. When I tried this on Aaron's circuit I was able to make some strange oscillations happen when the mosfet is off, but these oscillations can't transfer power to the load, as the mosfet isn't turning on at all from them.

BUT:: Using a series resistance in the power supply to the ORIGINAL 555 timer circuit, delivering the flipped duty cycle (which gives a 4 percent High signal at the mosfet DRAIN, remember--up is off here--)  "turning down the volume" of the 555 signal, reduces the mosfet's gain to the point where only a small average current passes, even at 96 percent duty cycle.

(The 100R pot in the gate is nowhere near enough to do have this effect. Even a 200K pot here won't turn the gain down enough at 96 percent ON to limit load heating.)

No, I haven't made any "aperiodic resonance", I still think that is false or lost triggering on scope signal, but at least I have come up with a rational explanation that seems to fit the facts better than "it's a misprinted circuit diagram".

And I just came up with this possibility a couple of hours ago, using the small light bulb so that I could easily visualize what was happening to the current in the load as the 555 power level, the duty cycle, and the gate attenuator were changed. I haven't taken any quantitative heating data in this configuration YET. I sure would like to know just what waveform to use, but for now I will set up with 95 percent ON from the  Quantum 555, at low voltage to the timer, and look for some mode that doesn't heat the load or the transistor TOO much.
So the point of the above is this: the original 555 timer could well have been used in the original experiment, if it was underpowered or attenuated enough to reduce the transistor's gain by a large margin.

Unfortunately it seems that inadequate records were kept of the original experiment.

So maybe Ainslie should repeat her own experiment, with modern equipment and better record-keeping. I'm sure there won't be any objection to that--after all, she still has the original apparatus, and she's getting her Fluke-0-Scope fixed...and it's an easy experiment to do, after all.

COP>17, remember?

[Yucca]

@.99

Just popping in to tip my hat to you, I see you´ve just banned youself  from energetic forums RA thread because your postings were to no avail and the time taken posting was eating into your valuable life. After all one can only talk to a wall for so long until boredom sets in, I´m suprised you lasted as long as you did!

Your postings were all logical and concise and on the seldom occasion that you were in error you admitted it quickly without any drama. Unlike your "opposition" who were frequently in error and at the same time overly dramatic, almost like an amateur magician flurrying one hand to distract from the sloppy palming taking place in the other hand lol.

It´s so funny how a cult has formed around something with no real substance over there, if something special were happening then very few words would need typing, just a detailed experimental method (including 6 axis photographs of the build) along with with the results (scoped power input over a meter shunt and simple water bath calorimetry output measurements). Instead the discoverer feels no urge to even replicate, one has to wonder why?

Rest assured, I´m sure you will dream better now that you no longer visit the asylum.

[ramset]

Rosemary
I was broad sided By a bad guy, can't access the internet [using a buddies comp]
have fresh armor coming tomorrow.
Chet
PS
I hear 99 threw himself on his sword![not good]
PPS
I have a feeling my problem came from looking at something "BAD" [you know politics!!]
And not these forums

TK sorry I get distracted When things aren't moving forward[We need a red face guy over here]

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary
I was broad sided By a bad guy, can't access the internet [using a buddies comp]
have fresh armor coming tomorrow.
Chet
PS
I hear 99 threw himself on his sword![not good]
PPS
I have a feeling my problem came from looking at something "BAD" [you know politics!!]
And not these forums

TK sorry I get distracted When things aren't moving forward[We need a red face guy over here]

No new problems here, I hope everything works out OK for you internet-wise. My email server has been unusually slow for some weeks now. I'm sure we are not being scanned. After all, when a government says something isn't so, you've got to believe them, right?

I'm not distracted. More like disgusted. But at least I've shaken the bugs out of the experimental apparatus and am confident in the data coming from it. It turns out, surprisingly, that small time offsets in the trigger points of the stored current and voltage waveforms do NOT seem to affect the energy integration math in the LeCroy. Either that box is smarter than it looks or it really doesn't matter much, as long as one is plus or minus some small fraction of a ringdown cycle in the time alignment of the two stored traces.
If this is correct it means that I can actually get reasonable energy flux calculations even with the LeCroy's single functional channel, by using stored voltage and current waveforms taken sequentially on that single channel and doing the math on the stored traces as in the demonstration video.
Plus I've done a bunch of DC baseline temperature profiles, so that I know how the load+calorimeter behaves with a given power input--in fact I know this so well that I can use the system as a crude power meter. Give it some unknown power from zero to 40 Watts, tell me the curve of the time-temp graph over an hour's time, and I'll tell you the average power dissipated within a few tens of milliwatts.
And I've done a few actual experimental measurements and compared the heating graph obtained, with the graphs of DC heating. Using the scope measurements to read instantaneous input V and I, and calculating "roughly" the average power based on these measurements (in the ordinary way using a calculator not a fancy scope)...the load heating I have found with the Ainslie circuit is always a bit LESS than is the case with the same DC power levels. Some energy is undoubtedly lost in heating other components in the circuit.
But I will be the first to "admit" that it is very difficult to know, in this case, just what waveform I am supposed to be using, and since I am not finding OU heat (nor battery recharging, unfortunately) I am obviously using the wrong waveform.

How con you argue with that? Mon.