You would think that someone who has been working with MOSFET's for ten years or more would by now at least be familiar with the standard abbreviations, acronyms, and nomenclature used to describe MOSFET parameters and performance...



Look 'em up!

 

It is astounding how she lies, isn't it?

Yes, what use is a simple technology that can transmit large quantities of usable power easily and cheaply to moving assemblies without wires, commutators or physical contact at all?

What use is a technology that can transmit large quantities of usable power through barriers like vacuum and fluid seals, container walls, across space... with no wires, no windows, no physical contact? What possible use could something like that be?


And the ridiculous canard that I can't explain the oscillation that I am using... it is as though she is projecting her own absurd inadequacies on me! What insanity she spouts in her delusions. 

I produce, control and utilize the oscillations that I understand and explain, perfectly well enough to create absolute wonders with them. Wonders that are so far beyond Ainslie's feeble and incorrect comprehension that she is afraid even to witness them.... much less attempt to explain them using her silly, childish delusion of a "thesis".

She also lies when she refers to my calculations of efficiency, power and energy. She knows nothing of how these parameters are actually determined: witness her ridiculous silly claim of a COP > INFINITY in a device that requires batteries to operate and will NOT RUN without them at all. Nor does she acknowledge my hard work performing manual power and energy computations on Tar Baby's performance... nor even the FAR STRONGER EVIDENCE than she has ever produced of a negative mean power measurement: the actual DECREASING ENERGY INTEGRAL that I showed from Tar Baby using a sophisticated Tektronix DSO that makes her Etch-a-Sketch LeCroy look like a Barbie playtoy.

In short, Ainslie is in full character, misrepresenting and lying about the work of others, insulting and bloviating, all in one short post.
Short, I am quite sure, because she has not yet imbibed her daily beverages which inevitably loosen her tongue in the early afternoon. There will be much longer rants and screeds later today, I'm sure, as she begins to feel her cups.

What is all the more astounding is that Ainslie has apparently not perceived a critical fact: I am in everyone's crosshairs. I've been a skeptical curmudgeon here for some time, and not just with Ainslie's crude kludge. EVERYONE who looks at my posts and my work is watching very carefully for me to make a mistake, to err, to stick my foot in my mouth with some ridiculous claim or unsupported "debunk" of something that actually isn't bunk.

Whenever I so much as make a typo or number transposition, I get numerous PMs, hostile and friendly, telling me about my error. If I should make an error in theory, or practice,  those that know better than I do in these matters will always let me know about it instantly, with references and proper refutations. And if they are correct I always acknowledge it, and learn from my errors.

Ainslie is the only person who continually _claims_ to find fault with my work, my statements, my analogies, my posts in general. Yet she NEVER refutes me with actual facts, checkable references or demonstrations of her own. NEVER, not once has she ever been able to refute a single thing I've said about Tar Baby, about her apparatus, or about electronics or physics in general.

Ainslie has no support whatever for her constant criticisms and insults against me personally and my work here. She is the ONLY person who criticises me on these substantive issues. Even her pet troll Wilby cannot refute any of my facts, no matter how much he complains about the logical errors he is projecting onto me, and ignoring in himself and especially in Ainslie. Yet, I have references, documents, outside links, demonstrations and REPEATABLE experiments that illustrate amply everything I have said about her and her bogus claims.

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 path 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!

This stupid claim of hers that the battery is "disconnected during the oscillation  phase" is ridiculously easy to put down, like the sick puppy that it is.

And here is how to do it.

Set the function generator to its longest period, the two minutes plus period, with the 20 seconds of Q1 ON, no oscillation, time. This mode has been shown by Ainslie, and has been claimed to be the desired, long oscillation, mode of operation. And... this gives you well over a minute, maybe two, to perform the test I am suggesting, DURING THE OSCILLATIONS.

If the battery is entirely disconnected from the circuit during the oscillations as Ainslie claims (and claims to believe) .... then it should make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER if ... you reach over and actually DO ENTIRELY disconnect the battery by pulling off the alligator cliplead connecting it physically to the circuit.

Right?




Now watch those goalposts start moving again..........

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 23, 2012, 06:11:07 PM
Yes, what use is a simple technology that can transmit large quantities of usable power easily and cheaply to moving assemblies without wires, commutators or physical contact at all?

What use is a technology that can transmit large quantities of usable power through barriers like vacuum and fluid seals, container walls, across space... with no wires, no windows, no physical contact? What possible use could something like that be?

Yes, what possible use could something like that be ?

A self enclosed pressure housing, with on demand fuel generation powered wirelessly, chamber detonation spark powered wirelessly, and fluid shaping creating supersonic thrust through a blow forward ECV nozzle valve, gravity return. No holes means no seals, no seals means no leaks. The added bonus being a controllable electrical oscillation, for experimentation with resonance effects on electrolytic phase change during fuel generation, for those interested.

A question, is a single coil and a cylinder compatible for wireless power transmission ? How about two cylinders axial sleeved ? What importance does relative angle make to efficiency of power transmission ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ODW-ntPHSU