Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims

[MarkE]

Here's a screenshot of the SWeir Q17 "Shifting Paradigms" board with MarkE Gate Boost measurements, running at about the same settings as the "Ainslie Style" measurements taken above:
Note the "average" of the Vcsr (inv) trace is computed by the scope as 0.24 V. Dividing by the 0.25 Ohm value of the CSR we get an average current of 0.96 Amps.
Next, the DMM readings obtained simultaneously with the scopetrace:

What?  Clean measurements don't show the "benefit"?  How could that be?  Clean measurements show that the DMM average really is a good average.  Again, how can that be?

The measured giant current spike disappears when using a wide bandwidth current sense, almost, almost as though the measured current spike in Ms. Ainslie's set-up is, is, is an anomaly caused by poor measurement set-up. 

And then there is the disappearance of the big positive going voltage spikes.  Where did they go off too?  What is so different about Steve's board?  Oh, that's right, it has decoupling capacitors across the battery connections at the board.  Now, it may just be a rumor, but I have heard that capacitors can present a pretty low impedance to AC signals, especially MHz and faster signals.  I heard another rumor that wires being inductors can present a pretty high impedance to AC signals, especially MHz and faster.  So, could it possibly be that those voltage spikes are themselves from a relatively high impedance source, such that when they encounter an even higher impedance load: like wires back to the batteries, there is little attenuation, but when they encounter a low impedance load like the capacitors on Steve's board they are highly attenuated?  Just because that is what circuit theory tells us, can we believe that it is so?  What will we tell the zipons?

Then there is the small matter of Ms. Ainslie's own measurements taken at the batteries last August 11.  Gee those measurements look a whole lot more like your measurements using Steve's board.  Imagine that.

[TinselKoala]

I could be wrong, but I think the above traces might be from a Q2-oscillation portion of a waveform. My present tests are strictly using the Q1-only "Quantum-17" setup, to conform with what Ainslie is now claiming her "team" is testing for her.


Now, let's do a little sanity check. I'm going to break this up into several posts because I'm referring to some images.

First, let's take a look at the Math trace on Ainslie's recent scopeshot, computed by multiplying, in realtime, the Vbatt and Vcsr values. It's not displayed at a very good resolution and the values haven't yet been divided by the 0.25 ohm CVR value but the shape of the trace is clear and we've seen this trace at better resolution before.

The trace produces a negative mean power product, of course. But it is undeniable that the load heats up under these drive conditions.
And well it should. The total circuit resistance is around 13.5-14 Ohms or so and the battery supply is 36 volts, so when the mosfet is ON a considerable current flows as shown on the Ainslie graph.... but isn't really reflected in the Math "instantaneous power" trace.

[TinselKoala]

Now let's take a look at my traces, using the Plain Q17 circuit and the MarkE Gate Booster.

The Link DSO can only display 2 live traces, but the data can be dumped into a spreadsheet and the same Math trace can be calculated, just as Ainslie's LeCroy does internally. I plotted the first thousand data points (out of 32k total) on the Math trace, it only captured two complete cycles but I think it's clear that I am seeing here the very same "negative mean power product" that Ainslie produces from her measurement setup, and for the same reasons. The "mean power product" here is about -2.15 Watts for the entire 32k data set, which is equivalent to 20 full scopescreens worth of data.

Yet my load gets warm nevertheless, as well it should.... since it has around 13.5 - 14 ohms total resistance and a supply of 33-36 Volts, and the mosfet is "ON" for around 1/3 of the time. Yet this clearly present power isn't visible in the computed Math "instantaneous power" trace. Just as in Ainslie's measurement system.

[TinselKoala]

And finally let's go to the Steve Weir "Shifting Paradigms" board with its precision 0.25 ohm, properly connected CVR and its on-board Vbatt filtering. The same input settings as before give us these scopetraces and spreadsheet-computed Math (Instantaneous Power) traces.  Finally we see something that makes sense! A realistic amount of power is shown during the "ON" times and there is no "negative mean power product", the mean power computed across all 32k samples is about 31.3 Watts.
The peak power is right around 80 Watts, just as it should be with a supply of about 33.3 Volts and a total circuit resistance of about 14 Ohms.

[MarkE]

I could be wrong, but I think the above traces might be from a Q2-oscillation portion of a waveform. My present tests are strictly using the Q1-only "Quantum-17" setup, to conform with what Ainslie is now claiming her "team" is testing for her.


Now, let's do a little sanity check. I'm going to break this up into several posts because I'm referring to some images.

First, let's take a look at the Math trace on Ainslie's recent scopeshot, computed by multiplying, in realtime, the Vbatt and Vcsr values. It's not displayed at a very good resolution and the values haven't yet been divided by the 0.25 ohm CVR value but the shape of the trace is clear and we've seen this trace at better resolution before.

The trace produces a negative mean power product, of course. But it is undeniable that the load heats up under these drive conditions.
And well it should. The total circuit resistance is around 13.5-14 Ohms or so and the battery supply is 36 volts, so when the mosfet is ON a considerable current flows as shown on the Ainslie graph.... but isn't really reflected in the Math "instantaneous power" trace.

2-3us is kind of a long ring-out period.  It could be a result of Miller capacitance and weak gate drive.