Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Poynt you are now talking absolute nonsense.  I trust you can substantiate this argument with reference to your full knowledge of the capabilities of the instrument.  Otherwise the statement remains wild, speculative, reckless and possibly even actionable.  WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

EDIT Actually - if you are dismissing the evidence on the grounds of the chosen measuring apparatus then I suggest that the test process is outside the range of a dialogue here. Unless - as I've suggested - you can substantiate your argument that the TDS 3054C is not able to evaluate the voltage across the source shunt?

Sorry, I keep forgetting to make certain allowances.

Actually, the oscilloscope itself is quite capable and it is not at fault. The problem lies with the probes used that are connected between the circuit and the oscilloscope.

The type of probe currently being used is what is lacking.

To reiterate, the oscilloscope option requires the use of a current probe and a differential probe. Then the measurements have a chance of being accurate if the probes are used properly.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty  - ONLY YOU REQUIRE A DIFFERENTIAL PROBE.  IT'S AN ARBITRARY AND UNNECESSARY REQUIREMENT. 

Please note that the actual probes used and the method by which they are applied to the circuit is STRICTLY IN LINE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS DETAILED BY TEKTRONIX

You need to take your argument on a different tack.  This one is absolutely not acceptable. Your comments regarding the inductance over the source shunt are relevant and much appreciated.

[Harvey]

Interesting that my new meter measures almost bang on to the theoretical values for both my inductive resistors (20mm used in my tests, and 30mm not yet tested)

There's definitely something not right with the published Ainslie resistor specifications however.

.99

That is interesting since the formula's we've been using all these years is (N²r²) / 9r + 10l or in your syntax (N*N*r*r) / ((9*r) + (10 * l))

Ok...I have just corrected this post - a usually refers to area in most equations while d is often used for diameter. I knew something wasn't right with what I saw there - but having looked at it again, I can see a=diameter 

Silly post this is 

[Harvey]

Published Ainslie resistor specs:

- 10 Ohm ceramic wire-wound
- Length 150mm
- Diameter 32mm
- No. of Turns 48
- Turns spacing 1mm
- Inductance 8.64uH

If we input the dimensional specs as published, we get an inductance of 14.12uH.

Both my resistors have a turns spacing of 2mm, so it is curious why such a long core was used for the Ainslie resistor when the spacing is apparently only 1mm?

My estimate is that only about 55mm of the 150mm core was used if in fact the 1mm spacing spec is correct. This would yield quite a different theoretical inductance of 33.46uH as shown.

Fuzzy, what are the dimensional specs for your resistor?

.99

I have discussed this with Rosemary exhaustively, and the problem is that the actual spacing may in fact be a misprint. Rosemary assures us that the entire surface was used for winding save a bit on the ends for the terminals. However, the exact gauge of wire and the material in that wire are unknowns. You may wish to try 48 turns spread evenly across the 130mm (leaving ~10mm on each end for the terminals) and see what the inductance works out to.



EDIT: Also, I might add that the resistor used for the original apparatus that we are trying to replicate was an off the shelf item at the store Rosemary purchased it from - that particular resistor model was not custom made.

[Harvey]

Poynt,

You seem to be hung up on the differential probes. The reality of it is this, using those probes is step in the wrong direction. The differential probes available for purchase have various voltage and bandwidth restrictions that call into question whether or not we may miss some of the actual energy signatures important to our calculations. At the moment we are not in a position to procure them either. Now, realistically, do you honestly propose that the data provided by Channel 2 and Channel 4 in our tests is anything but accurate?

Regarding the Current Probe, yes I do agree that having one would be a comfort toward validating the voltage drops we are seeing across the CSR*, but with a truly non-inductive resistor of high tolerance (say 1%) we may actually be more accurate than the current probes available. The reason for this, is that the current probes are driven by inductance and this circuit has a very unconventional inductance signature due to the aperiodicity and multi-harmonic nature of the resonant action. Using an inductive Current Probe outside of a Faraday Cage would always raise the question as to whether it was introducing its own induced values into the readings.

I have considered placing the load resistor in a cage, but we would then have to ensure that the cage itself is not interacting with the resonant nature of the resistor or absorbing the energy we would like to have converted to heat. Thus we end up with a cage several feet in diameter to be happy and that is probably outside the scope of this endeavor at this time. A small cage over the circuit may be a good test however, if the load resistor is at a moderate distance. All things considered, the 'bakers rack' behind the resistor in Glen's tests no doubt becomes involved on some level with the magnetic field traversing it. At some point during the month Glen will probably relocate the test to ensure it is consistent and environment independent.

The existing data collected is highly accurate and usable for presentation once we have the precise inductance for both the load resistor and the CSR. It is unfortunate that the manufacturer of the CSR did not include any inductance specifications for use pro tempore. If you have any resistors of that exact model, we could use your measurements pro tempore - but eventually, we will need to accurately measure (calibrate) the specific devices used.

Regarding the inductive reactance - if we know specifically the true inductance of the parts, we can then accurately extrapolate the expected current in a specific instance in time. This would also give us the ability to accurately determine the phase shift of that current relative to the voltage during charging and discharging of the magnetic field (inductors). With those two pieces of information, the instantaneous power could then be accurately calculated. To digress just a moment here, have a quick look at my post of Broken KCL Data . This data was obtained from Aaron using his NDW* circuit and it clearly shows oscillation between the load resistor and battery during periods that the timer and CSR are inactive. Therefore, in that unique configuration, he is running in an open loop mode which apparently allows current to flow in and out of the B(+) while no current flows in and out of the B(-). If these particular events had resulted in small signal amplitude in the mV ranges, I may have dismissed it entirely. But those values are upwards of 8V. There are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding this arrangement.

*CSR: Current Sensing Resistor (aka shunt)
*NDW: Negative Dominant Waveform
KCL: Kirchhoff's Current Law

Cheers,