Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

The jury is still out on whether an ammeter gives an appropriate number.  At best the consensus is that it may give the polarity bias indicating whether or not there is a net loss to the supply.  Aaron ran this test - not to duplicate a number but to show that the ammeter does - indeed - show a negative result.  This should have been enough.  Now it appears that the number shown needs also to be proven to be correct.  That will never happen.  There is no ammeter made that can handle the frequencies of this switching circuit.  You are resetting those goal posts and I suspect the object is to put them entirely out of reach.

To answer your question as to why I'm getting rattled.  I am very happy with discussion.  I am happy with data that is collected that contradicts or approves the evidence.  What I find absolutely distasteful is when points are made by implication and innuendo.  And I do not hide my head in the sand.  I rather think that is something that you are all doing and will hold to this impression until I see a real interest in the data as is appropriate.  That it may yet need proof from a calibration run on the instrument is acknowledged.  But if that calibration run is completed?  What then?  Where will you put your next objection?

Lets resume this discussion after Aaron repeats the tests post calibration.

Hoppy

[Hoppy]

You thought what?  Take the trouble to read my post to Hoppy.  I don't feel like repeating my argument.  I would NEVER place a bet on the potential accuracy of any Ammeter reading at these frequencies.  You should know better yourself.

Edit I would add that it was your requirement to use an ammeter at all.  It's rather reckless to assume that it will ever do more than show a polarity bias.  And to run the test with ammeters in series will seriously distort the values of the experiment as Aaron is dealing with really low current values.  The small value of a series resistor in the ammeter would definitely distort the overall values in that experiment.

Rosemary,

But we did not expect Aaron to reduce the power dissipated in the circuit to a level that the meter could not register! As I said earlier - please think hard about this because both you and Aaron claim that the circuit is returning more to the battery than it is taking, whist the inductive resistor is running hot. Surely, this is a case of Aaron moving the goalposts, not us!!

Hoppy

[poynt99]

You thought what?  Take the trouble to read my post to Hoppy.  I don't feel like repeating my argument.  I would NEVER place a bet on the potential accuracy of any Ammeter reading at these frequencies.  You should know better yourself.

Edit I would add that it was your requirement to use an ammeter at all.  It's rather reckless to assume that it will ever do more than show a polarity bias.  And to run the test with ammeters in series will seriously distort the values of the experiment as Aaron is dealing with really low current values.  The small value of a series resistor in the ammeter would definitely distort the overall values in that experiment.

The ammeter test was inconclusive because of the low current level.

Stating that an ammeter's shunt will distort the values more than the shunts presently being used in the circuit is ludicrous.

I have given a better option several posts ago on the EF forum. Did you catch it? I specifically stated that for the least degree of interference and detrimental influence to the circuit, it would be better to measure the DC VOLTAGE across the same shunt the scope was connected to. So the ammeter argument is moot at this point.

If the voltmeter still can't read anything across the shunt, then a milli-voltmeter such as the one Luc has, ought to be used.

The scope's interpretation of the mean current value is still inconclusive until post self-calibration and the test re-run, and it can be verified by a second instrument such as the DC voltmeter.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The ammeter test was inconclusive because of the low current level.

Stating that an ammeter's shunt will distort the values more than the shunts presently being used in the circuit is ludicrous.

I have given a better option several posts ago on the EF forum. Did you catch it? I specifically stated that for the least degree of interference and detrimental influence to the circuit, it would be better to measure the DC VOLTAGE across the same shunt the scope was connected to. So the ammeter argument is moot at this point.

If the voltmeter still can't read anything across the shunt, then a milli-voltmeter such as the one Luc has, ought to be used.

The scope's interpretation of the mean current value is still inconclusive until post self-calibration and the test re-run, and it can be verified by a second instrument such as the DC voltmeter.

.99

No Poynt - absolutely NOT.  I refuse to believe that any voltmeter anywhere will improve on the accuracy of the Tektronix.  Sorry.  I simply will not do this test nor recommend that it be done.  It is crazy.  I need Jibbguy here to argue this.  But even I, as an amateur, know that you're now asking for inferior data to prove what?

[MileHigh]

All:

Quite a spirited debate.  I think the backdrop to this whole thing is that Rosemary and Aaron keep on insisting that the circuit is "unconventional" and they are in "new undiscovered territory."

Those points have no substance behind them and are rooted in ignorance.  I am not using that term in a pejorative way.

Every comment I have seen on the forums or on a YouTube clip where people are experimenting (or playing with depending on your point of view) with coils, capacitors, transistors, etc, where the experimenter says that they are in uncharted "unconventional" territory are simply not true.  The same thing applies to the phrase "this is an open system, not a closed system."  Simply meaningless.

With respect to instrumentation, any astute experimenter knows that as you get to the lower limits of the measurement scale of the instrument, the less accurate the measurement is.  This is especially true of digital instruments like digital multimeters.

I get two Brownie Points because I read the user manual for the DSO and in my posted spec for doing the COP 17 measurement I specifically state that the probes and the instrument itself be calibrated (I forget the terminology for the second calibration step).  Speaking of being rude, Rosemary, that spec was a considerable effort on my part in an effort to help you and Aaron and you never acknowledged it.  I can clearly see Aaron using my suggestions and never acknowledging them.  It is really quite a sad state of affairs.  In fact, if Aaron had used my test spec as a basis for starting his measurements, chances are the COP 17 issue would have been resolved two weeks ago with the results showing a COP of less than one.

The simple truth Rosemary is that Aaron's testing skills are very limited.  For example look at this:

Do you honestly believe that all the circuit sees in a amp meter is a resistor like a shunt? None of the extra components in the meter are seen? I know for a fact that that all of these meters take away from the circuit because the output reduces anytime a scope (no matter which one) or even simple multimeter is hooked up to it. I can be taking readings with one scope, hook another up and the other scope can be seen to take away from the readings...hence the concept of SAMPLE.

This is Aaron revealing his limitations by his awkward phraseology that would never be spoken by engineers and technicians doing research in an electronics lab.  You put that together with the "negative wattage" results and the credibility is simply not there.  Hence the desire to push Aaron in the right direction in search of the real truth.

I certainly hope that he does the capacitor test!

MileHigh