By the way... Ainslie, ignoramus.... have you been able to figure out the month, yet?

It is JULY.... a month during which neither an EQUINOX, nor a SOLSTICE, occurs. Not even in South Africa.


And, evidently, it is a month during which NO TESTING OF A NERD CLAIM occurs, as well.

   I like Tesla believe that the discovery of the electrical capacitor was the greatest discovery ever made by man.  He proceeded very logically to improve capacitors from glorified leyden jars and plate capacitors to the electro-dynamic capacitors which became known as his Tesla transformers.  By using electical parametric oscillators he could basically store time.  It would take hours to discharge a battery into a Tesla transformer.  The Tesla transformer could then be discharged within microseconds.  Converting hours of input into milliseconds of output.  If one is incapable of realizing the ramifications of power amplification please go back to making linear devices.  Tesla's parametric oscillators were the first variable frequency drives.  In his patent of electrical distribution that I posted previously in this thread  his motor loads were amplitude modulated driven.  The signal from the generator or circuit biasing plant riding on the highfrequency carrier generated in the spark gap.  The whole entire system is a parametric oscillator fed from input ORIGINATING in the frigging spark gap where the real deal is happening.  I thought that TK and possibly others would have noticed the signal from the generating plant riding the carrier frequency generated in the sparkgap.
  I would also like to post that in the pn junction of any solid state device that gain from ambient radiation is achievable.  Unfortunately when this occurs the device resitive elements can not handle the power and very expensive components designed to distribute energy not collect it go pop.   

Just in case there are some technically capable lawyers reading here, I will review just one of Ainslie's many deceptions, a most egregious one.

The public Demonstration video, posted by Ainslie on her "doozydont" YouTube account, contains several clear photographs of the apparatus being demonstrated: the same one used to generate the data reported in Ainslie's manuscripts that were submitted to various peer-reviewed scientific journals.  In these photographs the BLACK output lead from the Function Generator can clearly be seen to be connected on the BATTERY side of the current monitoring shunt resistor.

As has been amply demonstrated and acknowledged by many different people, this location allows one of the current pathways of the device to bypass the current monitoring shunt resistor entirely. This current path, which contains substantial, non-negligible power circulating in the device, is therefore NOT COUNTED by Ainslie and her team in the accounting of energy and power flows in the device.

Clearly, this invalidates the data from the current monitoring resistor and thus invalidates any power or energy calculations based on them. And of course it invalidates any claims or conclusions based on those calculations and data for the trials shown in the demonstration video.

There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that the correct location of the BLACK function generator lead was used in the trials reported in the posted manuscripts. Since the public demo was expressly designed to illustrate the performance of the trials detailed in the papers..... it is very likely, in fact almost CERTAIN, that the data in the papers were also obtained with the FG's BLACK lead connected in such a manner as to bypass the current monitoring shunt resistor. This of course invalidates those data, the calculations based on them, and the conclusions drawn from the calculations.

EVEN IF THE CURRENT BYPASSING THE CVR IS TINY..... the very fact that the FG lead was positioned where it is in the Demo video nevertheless invalidates the data, and if it was also so placed in the trials reported in the manuscripts, these data are also invalid.

Yet there is no mention of this difficulty at all in any of the posted versions of the manuscripts. Only several different schematics are posted, depending on how old the versions of the manuscripts are: There is a single mosfet version with the location of the black FG wire omitted entirely. There is another similar version claiming 5 mosfets in parallel, but still only showing one symbol and omitting the FG black wire.  There is yet another version showing the Q2 mosfets on the RIGHT side and the FG's black lead correctly positioned, and yet another showing the Q2 mosfets on the LEFT side.

It is this latter schematic that we are now assured was the one used for the trials in the manuscripts. But.... as an analysis of the scopetraces in Figures 3, 6 and 7 show, either this schematic was NOT used in some of the trials or one or more of the mosfets was inoperative or disconnected somehow... invalidating the data, the calculations, and the conclusions based upon them.

All of this, dear lawyers, is fully documented and can be checked, by simply having your EE consultants look at the gate drive signal and the current trace response in the Figures 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the latest edit of the first manuscript. In Figure 5 the mosfet is behaving as it should if wired according to the schematic and is functional. In the other figures, it is not, and considering the history of the trials, likely has blown from overheating... OR a different schematic than claimed is being used. Either way, the data and claims are invalid.

@Sparks: when you scope the secondary output of a spark-gap TC that is properly operating, you _only_ see the pure RLC ringdown. It is one of the most beautiful sights that nature produces. There is nothing of the "generator" in the signal at all. It is purely the injected power, sloshing back and forth between the coil's distributed capacitance, the main cap bank, and the coil's distributed inductance, with a little bit (as little as possible!) being dissipated in the distributed resistances with each "slosh".
If you are seeing anything but this pure, sinusoidal but exponentially decaying signal in the secondary.... your TC isn't working right, probably because your spark gap is not quenching properly and is still conducting when it shouldn't be.

Tesla made many significant improvements in spark gap technology, sadly neglected in today's low voltage electronics. He knew that the cleaner the cutoff and the more complete, the better and purer ringing he would get from "striking" his resonant secondaries (and tertiaries). You can see the progression, from simple adjustable or fixed multiple gaps, through blown gaps, magnetic gaps, even high-speed rotary mercury-wetted gaps. The entire point was to get clean cutoffs, to allow the tank circuit to ring unimpeded by noise from the primary.

(EDIT:  When the spark is out, the primary tank and secondary resonator tank really is _disconnected_ from the generator or other power supply.)

I see she likes to get on people for not providing links or full quotes, as she herself provides no links and snips out only a portion of a post to add to her threads.  Such hypocrisy...

I see from your last question to .99 that you have grasped nothing .99 said about Q2's DC conditions.  Can't wait 'till he tells you that he most certainly does mean that drawing.

So, exactly, what do you find lacking in my response?

As you have thus far been unable to understand the simple DC conditions .99 has been discussing with you, do you think I, or any other reader, find it surprising that you do not understand my response?  You do believe "capacitance" is real don't you?

And by the way, I do not think I am anxious about anything.  You are the one having problems grappling with the how and why of your circuit.  This is more obvious with each of your posts.  If you had actually listened and learned to all those you have flamed and argued with in the past, you might actually have a better idea about what's going on in your circuit.  But, instead of learning, you chose to leave a trail of disgruntled people whose knowledge and skills you insult as if YOU are the true expert.  And in the end, with no one left standing beside you, you demonstrate to all just how limited your skills with basic electrical circuits, let alone electronics, truly are..

If you would step down from your self-appointed throne, you might actually learn something.   

Here is a repeat of the posts:

Quote from: picowatt on July 23, 2012, 12:25:49 PM
The quote:


"It seems that picowatt is rather anxious to challenge our claim that the battery is disconnected during the oscillation phase of each switched cycle.  Effectively he is relying on the assumption that the energy is either FROM the battery or FROM the function generator - OR BOTH. And that it NEVER adds to the general efficiency of the system.

He needs to substantiate this ALLEGATION.  And until he does - then I think we can ENTIRELY discount his opinion.

Regards,
Rosie"


Frankly, you have a very crappy attitude.  If you want to learn what is happening during the oscillation phase and understand the AC current path, then get off your "know it all" pedestal and just ask.

I particularly like this part:

"He needs to substantiate this ALLEGATION.  And until he does - then I think we can ENTIRELY discount his opinion."

This is not an allegation.  Its called "electronics".  Is this how you ask someone to teach you?  Such attitude.  If this were the rules, so to speak, your opinions would have been ENTIRELY discounted a long time ago.  I, for one, am still waiting for you to address the Q1 not turning on in FIG3, 6, and 7 issue.  But you don't, so should we just dismiss in entirety all of your opinions?  Possibly that would indeed make the most sense.   


After seeing you struggle with the simplest of concepts regarding your circuit's DC conditions, I will not waste my time trying to teach you "why" the circuit oscillates.

However, if you are only asking about how the AC currents pass thru Q2 while the circuit is oscillating and as Q2's on state is modulated, the AC current path is, for the most part, thru Coss, Ciss, and Crss, the intrinsic MOSFET capacitances.  This has already been discussed.  The three main MOSFET capacitances, Coss, Css, and Crss represent significant AC paths from the drain to the source of Q2.  These are very significant and very real capacitances, well documented in the IRFPG50 data sheet.  It is thru these capacitances that the bulk of the AC current flows during oscillation.

Next time you want to know something, drop the snotty attitude and just ask...


ADDED:

As I caught up on reading the thread this morning, all in all it was pretty ugly, with all that non-stop battling and threatening.  But, there was one good chuckle to be had.  That was the reference made to a bunch of EE's and tech's pretending to be particle physicists.  The only person pretending to be a "particle physicist" around here is definitely no EE or tech!