Testing the TK Tar Baby

[picowatt]

Note that in the post she is talking about taking measurements at the mosfet _drain_, something that doesn't appear in the scopeshots we have, except for a few.

(Ever wonder why she doesn't like to show the drain signal, since it carries so much information about mosfet performance? It's not because she ran out of room on the scope screen. It is because of this "anomaly" that she doesn't understand and cannot explain within her logic system.)

This, as I have tried to drive home, illustrates again that she doesn't expect the drain voltage to drop to the negative rail when the mosfet is ON. She thinks the drain voltage measurement should be high when the mosfet is on, since she's measuring the drain-load connection point and the load is ON when it's receiving voltage, right? Hence she's astonished when the drain voltage drops to nearly zero, indicating in her mind that the battery has discharged its entire potential in a few microseconds, requiring oodles and oodles of amps.
In this case, the inductance has nothing to do with her confusion. It is such a basic matter that you can't even believe that someone would make such a fundamental error... but it's true. She thinks that the drain voltage should be HIGH when the mosfet is ON, and the fact that she sees that it isn't is, to her, an enormous anomaly.

At least she finally spelled anomaly right.

TK,

I read the blogpost again.  First she seems to be saying that she is measuring directly across the batteries (by which I assume she means the connection points of the batteries to the circuit board, as all pictures I have seen look like the batteries themselves are too far away to probe directly).  In further describing how the probe is connected to the battery, she indicates the ground clip is on the batt neg, but then, you are correct, she indicates the probe is at or on the "drain".

Possibly she just mispoke, and meant the drain side (positive side) of the battery.

The only time the drain of the MOSFET's are pulled low would be when Q1 is switched on hard.  Even then, with 72 volt batteries, the drain would only pull down to 11volts or so (assumes 11R load and Rds=2R).

So I do believe she is actually discussing all that AC riding on Vbatt. 

PW

[TinselKoala]

@PW: The blog post is one more of a continuing string of Ainslie confusions. When the post was made, she indeed was talking about scoping the drain, but she "thought" she was scoping the battery voltage while doing this. I have a long history of discussion of this problem with her and a group of early replicators on the Energetic Forum (Aaron and Ashtweth and others) who also did not understand that in the configuration used, the drain voltage will be low when the mosfet is ON and will be at battery voltage when the mosfet is OFF.

Have you built and tested the 555 timer circuit from the original Quantum article about the COP>17 circuit? Where it is claimed they used a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle? They in fact used a duty cycle that produced a 3.7 percent HIGH voltage at the mosfet drain with the 555 timer, and nobody using a FG at the 3.7 ON specified settings, or their own 555 timers set at small duty cycles,  was ever able to reproduce her load heat results. But I did... by using a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle as actually delivered by the exact 555 circuit specified exactly in the Quantum article.

The drain voltage oscillations go farther than one would expect using Ohm's Law alone, due to the inductance effects, I suppose. The oscillations are superimposed on every measurement made; there is significant RF power, 5 watts isn't chopped liver in the near field.

Here's one of the few scopeshots that shows the common drains, the green trace. You can see the sag to the voltage you predict during the Q1 ON times, but during the Q2 oscillations it makes further excursions.

[TinselKoala]

And here's another showing the drains. Again, it's the green trace. Note however that in this trial there is NO positive gate voltage, the gate drive goes from zero down. So the Q1 is not being turned on, no current flows as is proper. During the Q2 oscillation times, the drain trace oscillates as do all the other traces. But this shot is also "wrong" because it shows the drain AC coupled.

[Magluvin]

MH,

You may be on to something.  That would explain her paper being on JNP.  Possibly just an operation to discredit LENR researchers as well.

I'll bet there is a lot on money involved, and quite possibly we are just communicating with some AI software that only spits out frustratingly non-sensical replies.  Sorta' like those search results we sometimes see when the page is just a mish-mash of words intended to attract search engines.

Yes indeed MH, you may be onto something...

This is possible. Back before one of her threads was locked, Romero's thread was kicking into high gear. And with what little she claims to know of electronics, she was bashing him as a fake then.  And for what reasons? To take some heat off of her?  Because his thread was booming and hers not getting the attn it deserved?

MH might have something there. And it seems she always wants personal emails from others. So that she can identify them? And try to scare them off with threats of exposure of the contacts she has gained if need be?  So, it is not impossible.

Mags

[picowatt]

@PW: The blog post is one more of a continuing string of Ainslie confusions. When the post was made, she indeed was talking about scoping the drain, but she "thought" she was scoping the battery voltage while doing this. I have a long history of discussion of this problem with her and a group of early replicators on the Energetic Forum (Aaron and Ashtweth and others) who also did not understand that in the configuration used, the drain voltage will be low when the mosfet is ON and will be at battery voltage when the mosfet is OFF.

Have you built and tested the 555 timer circuit from the original Quantum article about the COP>17 circuit? Where it is claimed they used a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle? They in fact used a duty cycle that produced a 3.7 percent HIGH voltage at the mosfet drain with the 555 timer, and nobody using a FG at the 3.7 ON specified settings, or their own 555 timers set at small duty cycles,  was ever able to reproduce her load heat results. But I did... by using a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle as actually delivered by the exact 555 circuit specified exactly in the Quantum article.

The drain voltage oscillations go farther than one would expect using Ohm's Law alone, due to the inductance effects, I suppose. The oscillations are superimposed on every measurement made; there is significant RF power, 5 watts isn't chopped liver in the near field.

Here's one of the few scopeshots that shows the common drains, the green trace. You can see the sag to the voltage you predict during the Q1 ON times, but during the Q2 oscillations it makes further excursions.

TK,

Yes, but during the Q1 on time, there are no oscillations, and assuming channel 4 in the capture you post is the drain, it does look like it is following Mr. Ohm quite well.  During the oscillations, there would be little DC drop observed, as even 250ma of Ibias would only drop the drain to 69 volts or so (assumes 72 volt batt, 11R load, 250ma Ibias).

So, most of that oscillation observed, even at the drain, is pretty much riding on DC close to the level of Vbatt.

And yes, I read up on the COP=17 thing.  It was rather telling that the heat signature was in close agreement with the inverse of the stated duty cycle, as you demonstrated.

PW