Rosemary Ainslie Circuit Demonstration June 29, 2013 Video Segments

[TinselKoala]

Well.

OK Guys,  that rather interminable conversation with Poynty has hopefully come to a close.  The idea is that he simply present us with his argument.  Not sure when this is likely to be forthcoming - but he's apparently done DEFINITIVE? tests that have yet to be published.  These include PROOF that the oscillation does NOT move through the battery and onto the element resistor.

Is that true, .99? Did you ever state that you have "PROOF that the oscillation does NOT move through the battery and onto the element resistor?"

Or is that a confabulation that Ainslie came up with, from somehow confounding the fact that the true battery voltage isn't actually oscillating?

Certainly there IS an oscillating AC current experienced by the load itself during the Q2 oscillations and nobody has ever said otherwise, that I can tell. I've even shown that LEDs are lit up in both directions by this oscillating current at the load. SO once again she is doing that very characteristic Ainslie thing: she makes up something that someone didn't say or mean, and then she goes on attacking that fake "fact' that she just made up.

One thing which is an ongoing concern of mine is that he's using a wire wound resistor and - at best - can get between 5 and 7 watts dissipation. 

Wrong again. The resistor can be driven as hard as he likes within its power handling capacity, using Q1 ON times, and this has nothing to do with "wirewound resistors" vs. single wires. Does Ainslie forget that her first, COP >17 claims were made WITH A WIREWOUND RESISTOR? The low power figures refer to the power in the oscillations only, and this is the same for her circuit, his circuit, my circuit, and everybody else who has built and operated the circuit. You do not get high heat or power dissipation in the load from the oscillations alone.

We get in excess of 50 watts using 'apparently' the same amount of energy.  I have hinted at this before. 

Another false statement, as demonstrated on June 29th. The higher heat is done with MUCH MORE applied energy, and significant Q1 current, as indicated by her own scopeshots. She is still believing her own fantasy of the Figure 3, 6 and 7 scopeshots, which are bogus.

Our element resistor has NO WINDINGS.  It comprises a single wire positioned INSIDE and not OUTSIDE the body of the resistor.  And the inductance on that resistor element is negligible.  Therefore I'm NOT entirely satisfied that we're comparing apples with apples.  But out of respect for the sheer volume of work that he's already done - I think it fair to hear his objections related to measurement.

There are other concerns.  But as promised - the floor is his.  Let's hear his argument.

Kindest regards
Rosie

"Out of respect" in a post dripping with sarcasm and disrespect. "Kindest regards" when she really wants us to drop dead.And 2.23 microHenry is not a negligible inductance.

[poynt99]

Well.

Is that true, .99? Did you ever state that you have "PROOF that the oscillation does NOT move through the battery and onto the element resistor?"

I certainly did not and have never said that the oscillations don't move through the circuit, including the load resistor. Of course they do, but the oscillations themselves aren't what's causing significant heat dissipation in the load resistor.

What DOES cause heat dissipation in the load resistor? During the ON phase, it is the average current through Q1, the battery, and the load resistor (assuming >+3V Gate drive). During the OFF phase, it is the average current through Q2, the FG (including its internal 50 Ohm resistance), the battery, and the load resistor (assuming >-3V Source drive).

[TinselKoala]

I think we have Yet Another gross distortion and misrepresentation emitted by Ainslie, again claiming that .99 said or claimed something that he did not say.

What Poynty has advised me (likely also to be contradicted) is that the maximum heat he can dissipate is in the region of 7 watts.  And that's also with serious current being applied during the 'ON' time of that duty cycle.  We - correspondingly - can get upwards of 50 watts when we apply our 'maximum' current during that same period.

When we have "serious current being applied during the 'ON' time of that duty cycle" we do indeed dissipate a lot of heat at the load resistor. Ohm's law gives the value, in fact. With an 11 ohm load at 5 amps, ALL of us, Ainslie, me, .99, whoever builds the same circuit and tests it will get the same results! This isn't VOODOO, it is basic electronics. P = I²R == 5x5x11 == 275 Watts, and with a 20 percent duty cycle that is 55 Watts average power dissipation in the load. 6 amps peak current gives 396 Watts and a 15 percent duty cycle gives just under 60 Watts average power dissipation in the load. Hers, mine, yours, .99's, anybody who has a load of the proper power handling capacity, driven by the same input, will have the same power dissipation! This is NOT VOODOO.

Now... if Ainslie distorts and misrepresents things that are happening +right now+ and for which there are plenty of references and documentation.... just how likely is it that we are hearing the Full, True, and Correct story of all those tests by BP and whoever, and bursary awards and fired engineers and all that, which happened a decade or more ago and for which there is absolutely no checkable reference or documentation?

"Do the math" (tm RA)

[TinselKoala]

And Guys, the next part to this argument is more subtle.  Hopefully you'll be able to follow it.  Poynty has isolated Q2 on a schematic.  This is a valid representation of the circuit - EXCEPTING that it does NOT show the connection of the source leg of Q2 to the Gate leg of Q1.  He then argues that the resulting oscillation is because of the plus 4 volts applied to the gate of Q2 which results in the MOSFET IRFPG50 being 'half' on and 'half' off.  Which then, in turn, accounts for that oscillation.  IF this were the whole of the argument then with the application of plus 4 volts to the Gate of Q1 we would also be able to generate that same oscillation.  As their conditions would be equivalent.

Clearly this is NOT the case.  Because with that same plus 4 volts applied to the Gate of Q1 restricts ANY current flow at all - during the ON period of the duty cycle.   There is something in the vagaries of that attachment of the Q2 Source to the Gate of Q1 - that is needed to induce that oscillation.  And this is what we've attempted to explain in Paper 2.

Attempted, and FAILED, because Ainslie has no clue about the actual observations, much less explanations for them! The cartoon "attempt" at explanation in Paper 2 doesn't even have the mosfets hooked together properly!

She doesn't even remember that THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED when their Q1 drive was in the 4-6 volt range! This Q1 oscillation caused them over an HOUR of confusion and obviously STILL DOES confuse her. Even though S.Weir figured it out in seconds once he got enough cooperation from them to see the screen.

I am astounded. Flabbergasted at the sheer and utter inability of this woman to THINK and reason and even state the true facts of a demonstration!
She hasn't even watched the video record of the demo-- and then she does her typical thing: she makes up something that ISN'T TRUE AT ALL, then she proceeds to attack her own misrepresentations and idiotic interpretations of things she can't even remember properly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAz1Snh75HY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51TOzZeFTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PitNm44_bE

[TinselKoala]

Look! Polly Parrot has discovered the terms "integration" and "derivative". It's too bad she has never had exposure to the calculus... because then she might actually have some understanding of the fundamental terminology.

She had apparently never even heard the term "integration" outside a racial context (South African Apartheid) until I told her that was what she was trying to do with her spreadsheets back in 2009. And now she's discovered "derivative"... without knowing what it means or how the word is properly used.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/math/derint.html


And she apparently doesn't even realize that her LeCroy is one of those "wonderful" instruments that can do this math live and on-screen __when it is properly set up__ to do so. Nor will she recall, or acknowledge, that the very same thing can be done, with a bit more trouble, on analog oscilloscopes. I wonder how she thinks people did power analysis before digital scopes were invented. No...scratch that..... it's clear that she doesn't think about issues like that at all.

But it matters not that she is totally ignorant mathematically. You can be the most expert mathematician in the world, and if you are given garbage data with which to calculate, your results may be "correct".... but they will be correct garbage, nothing more.