Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[fuzzytomcat]

By the same token from Glen's same data, the power in the load yields a result of +95.9W. Power from the battery 9.38W.

Overunity or not, that much real power in that resistor would yield a much higher temperature than the reported 140ºF or so, so the two numbers are not believable imo.

Both numbers, i.e. the -87.43W (MOSFET) and the +95.6W (load resistor) can not be true indicators of the real power in the circuit.

Some may already see this leading to something: indeed, if the load, MOSFET and shunt powers are added together, the result yields precisely the power from the supply.

My results are similar, although using a much higher sample rate in my results has yielded more realistic values.

.99

Hi .99

I'm curious why having in your possession a Tektronix TDS 784A and a Tektronix TDS 3012B both if not mistaken have the capability of acquiring and recording images plus data but you haven't posted anything at all ??

The only other person to post any results besides myself was TK which he has now been completely debunked and has for some reason fell totally silent on the forum ....

I have posted six (6) complete tests with images and extensive data in just two weeks including  replication information .... what ever the test results were, not altered in any way, for the world to see and discuss openly and freely.

At this point in time it would be helpful to the whole "open source" community for you not to withhold valuable information that could further our understanding of this circuit ....

PLEASE POST SOME DATA FROM YOUR TESTING

Thanks in Advance ....
Fuzzy

[poynt99]

Fuzzy,

I would very much like to post my results. I have been obtaining results for a week now, but I have no confidence in any of it as of yet. As such, I have not posted them.

I am getting much closer as you may be able to tell from my last few posts here.

I have posed a thought-provoking question as a result of my tests, for which no one has yet to provide an answer. Why have there been no similar observations to mine by anyone else??? Where are all the power calculations? If they were performed completely and correctly, there would be others asking the same questions. I have used your own data to crunch the numbers and no one but myself has made the negative MOSFET dissipation observation

Do the number crunching and explain the results.

Obtaining some results is one thing, but validating them is quite another. I am in the process of the latter.

.99

[poynt99]

Harvey, Fuzzy, Rose...anyone?

Please post a simple summary of your results from Glen's test run "2_40us_520V-01_10_08_09.xlr". (I have already done this number crunching as I mentioned, has anyone else?)

Indicate:

POS = power output from supply
PIL = power in to load resistor
PIM = Power in to MOSFET
PIS = power in to shunt resistor

...and pose a conclusion based on this summary of results.

Thanks.

.99

[WilbyInebriated]

poynt is correct, obtaining results is one thing, validating it is another.

fuzzy is correct in stating "At this point in time it would be helpful to the whole "open source" community for you not to withhold valuable information that could further our understanding of this circuit..." and is to be commended for posting six (6) complete tests with images and extensive data in just two weeks including replication information, regardless of the results and not altered in any way, for the world to see and discuss openly and freely.

to maintain credibility, i think you should man up and do the same poynt. the only thing you have shown so far is a sim. how about some quid pro quo? data is data, are you scared to let people see it? let us crunch your numbers, peer review and all.

thanks.

edit:
"Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries." - from the wiki, emphasis mine.
the only contributor to this thread at OU that has met this definition is fuzzy.

that is what tk, yourself and the rest of the merry band were/are attempting here isn't poynt? peer review? and the shoe doesn't fit the other foot... imagine that.

[poynt99]

I'll post my present results (despite the glaring inconsistencies) after I see someone respond with a summary as I requested above in post # 2037.

Meanwhile, I'm still in data validation mode.

.99