Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Isn't it hilarious? Ainslie cannot understand the basic process of _calibration_.

When a DSO and a DMM give the SAME VALUES for a certain measurement.... as I have repeatedly shown over and over, with strong underpinnings from Poynt99 and Steve Weir, as well as plenty of empirical proof..... she doesn't seem to understand that this means that the DMM is JUST AS ACCURATE as the oscilloscope. She rejects the DMM reading but accepts the scope reading when _both values are the same_ within some small, actually quantified error range. It is to laugh! The woman is severely challenged (and severely deficient) when it comes to using the thinking function of that wrinkled Little Brian... er, I mean "brain"... of hers.

Ms. Ainslie clearly does not understand electronic measurements.  I doubt that there is much of anything about electronics that she does understand.  Her latest rant against poynt99 is based on poynt99 presenting a scope shot with his very mild recommendations.  She went ballistic because it didn't include her interpretations.  That's lunacy.  She is free to publish, and she did whatever interpretation of the data she likes.  Going all feral because poynt99 correctly pointed out her math scale is way off from being useful is just silly.

BTW I see that the rise and fall times are pretty anemic in the Ainslie scope shot.  A simple current boost circuit would sharpen that up and make things much more interesting oscillation wise.



Her scope shot tells me that her measurements are flamed out again as they have been in the past.  Put a $5000. oscilloscope in the hands of someone who doesn't understand what they are doing and the results are little better than if they had just drawn what they wanted to see on a $10. Etch-A-Sketch toy.

[TinselKoala]

MarkE said,

Her scope shot tells me that her measurements are flamed out again as they have been in the past.  Put a $5000. oscilloscope in the hands of someone who doesn't understand what they are doing and the results are little better than if they had just drawn what they wanted to see on a $10. Etch-A-Sketch toy.

Actually.... her spurious "results" are much _worse_ than if they had actually used a 10 dollar Etch-a-Sketch. I've never actually seen anyone actually interpreting an actual Etch-a-Sketch drawing to indicate actual overunity performance! Actually (tm DM). Yet Ainslie happily sets up her scope and her measurements to repeat the spurious ringing and overshoot amplitudes and interprets them in her preferred fashion. There is no doubt a special circle of Hell for oscilloscope abusers and Ainslie is bound for the very center of it.

Ainslie has once again demonstrated that data which do not conform to her expectations and desires are eliminated from consideration.

She cannot use the _actual_ "Standard Measurement Protocols" requiring proper Vbatt filtration or the proper _actually_ noninductive CSR arrangement or the proper Math display, because those things result in the actual disappearance of the "negative power product" upon which her silly claims actually depend. Actually (tm DM).

[minnie]

  Koala or Mark,
               what's a CVR?
                      Thanks John..

[TinselKoala]

The Gate boost circuit is interesting. Ainslie, however, is using a considerable negative offset in her FG settings, even though the Q1 is only turned on by the positive portion of the signal.
What is really "anemic" is the turn-on time of the mosfet itself in response to the gate signal. It's not completely obvious from the traces shown above, but looking at the Drain trace makes it clear that the mosfet isn't really turning fully ON until the very end of the gate pulse.

The amplitude of the ringing is sensitive to the negative offset value, so I'm not sure what effect the Gate Boost circuit will have. But I'll be finding out before too much longer.... since I have 2n2222a and 2n3907 transistors in stock.

Meanwhile here's another screenshot, showing a bit more amplitude on the ringing. This is just regulated by the negative FG offset and the amplitude setting. I'm using about 20 v p-p with -15 to around +5 V amplitude. Again, the frequency and duty cycle measurements are thrown off by the ringing, but I've positioned the cursors so that the period of one cycle can be read.

[poynt99]

I think you may be missing a flyback diode across the load? You'll notice that the ringing doesn't go below zero.

Attached is one schematic of a sim I did long ago. I also attached a sim scope shot showing the ringing with the truncated bottom.