Figure 5 "refers".
Period given by Ainslie is 684 ms. Actual period read from scope is about 680 MICROseconds.... call it a typo on her part and give it 684 microseconds (not ms). The Q1 ON time, measured by my calipers, appears to be around 130 microseconds. 130/684= a bit over 0.19, or approximately 20 percent.

Spin on that.

@PW: I do not have a bench supply that will do 72 volts with current regulation, unfortunately. I can use batteries and a fuse, but for obvious reasons I am hesitant. I don't have any spare IRFPG50 mosfets, and I sure don't want to damage my F43 again. But as I've seen, the gate clamping voltage behaves just as you have said. The clamped vs. missing mosfet gate signals do differ in another way, though: in the clamped signal with Q1 present and on duty, the rise and fall portions have a little bump where the diode switches, (I think) and this is absent from the trace when the mosfet is out of circuit.
I may try it with six batteries anyhow.

I never considered the probe misplacement before either, until someone on another forum suggested a shorted CVR as the explanation. When I simply shorted my CVR with a standard cliplead jumper, though, I got almost the same trace as without the "shorted shunt".... because a standard cliplead just isn't really much of a short, compared to a 0.3 ohm CVR, I guess. But moving the probe really did the trick.

Popcorn at the ready I am not sure what I will be viewing ?
Taming of the Shrew, Mission Impossible or The Nutty Professor?
However I will behave I said I would remain in the corner till it is over.
I wish Rosemary well, I think we would all secretly want to be proved wrong one day. The odds ar against it
I read an interesting blog today that illustrates that point


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html


I wonder if PESWIKI will cover it???


PS when you turned your device of all the sexy blonde women put thick glasses on and school mistress clothes, any explanation TK

Scope data from the March 2011 video:

The first scopeshots that are clear enough to discuss are at 2:46. It can be seen that there is no current indicated on the current trace on the LeCroy scope.... but it is difficult to see the Gate signal on this scope. Fortunately.... for us..... a Tek scope was being used simultaneously, and its trace appears at 2:48. Here it is easy to see the Gate signal trace, and easy to see that there is _no_ positive voltage being applied. The signal only goes from the zero baseline, down to the negative fuzz at -4 volts. The way it is displayed on the Tek screen is deliberately mendacious, because you have to know how to read a scope and look carefully at the image to see that it has no positive voltage component.... hence is not expected to turn Q1 on at all, and it doesn't.
The period here is 100 ms (cursors on the Tek, FG set to 10 Hz) and the duty cycle is 50 percent or very close to it. Too bad they aren't turning Q1 on, with that five batteries.
At 5:00 you can see the raggedyness of the traces displayed during the oscillations on the LeCroy. This is a symptom of massive undersampling and/or aliasing, and there is no guarantee of math accuracy under those conditions.
And notice the howling lie in the narration at this point: "If we put these values in the simulator, we obviously cannot get the same results." What say you about THAT, .99!
At 5:37 we see the temperature display on the Fluke meter. Fluctuating! And we know from my videos that a similar Fluke meter, with an identical thermocouple, but using an external thermocouple adapter, is susceptible to RF from the circuit and may not be giving accurate results if read during oscillations. So this reading is questionable and should be repeated.... plus there is no guarantee that the water temperature is what is measured, nor that it was raised to its temperature using the displayed settings.
In the second part of the video the narrator points out proudly that there are now only four batteries, giving about 49.5 volts... .but he doesn't explain why this was done.... a _glaring omission_.
Now... at 7:50 you see a clear shot of the Tek screen displaying the Gate signal..... and you see the mendacity. It is displayed to look just like the gate trace in the first Tek screenshot.... but look where the zero baseline marker is. The Gate trace is now showing about 6 volts positive during the "on" times, whereas before it never went positive at all. And the Current trace is not displayed. Then the camera seems to _carefully avoid_ the LeCroy, as it swings over to the again unstable temperature indication on the Fluke. At last, at 8:35 we see the LeCroy's current display, showing just what we expect: massive current flowing during the Q1 ON times, consistent with high heat in the load. Too bad they didn't do this with SIX BATTERIES...... or monitor the Q1 temperature.
But again... the camera work at this time seems to be quite deliberately avoiding showing the Current Trace !!

In short, there is never anything like the Figure 3 scopeshot shown in the March 2011 video, and what IS shown is rather damning. Is it any wonder she recently removed this video from her YT accounts, in a belated attempt to cover up the truths it reveals?

Quote from: markdansie on June 28, 2013, 03:28:06 AM
Popcorn at the ready I am not sure what I will be viewing ?
Taming of the Shrew, Mission Impossible or The Nutty Professor?
However I will behave I said I would remain in the corner till it is over.
I wish Rosemary well, I think we would all secretly want to be proved wrong one day. The odds ar against it
I read an interesting blog today that illustrates that point


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-b-alexander-phd/there-is-no-free-energy_b_3499480.html


I wonder if PESWIKI will cover it???


PS when you turned your device of all the sexy blonde women put thick glasses on and school mistress clothes, any explanation TK

You're lucky you aren't closer. Within a hundred miles or so, it makes them all gain about forty pounds, too.

(Colonel Alexander is a scary dude.)