Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[WilbyInebriated]

By the way, all you experimenters: If you want spikes and more "battery charging", as well as more heat in your loads, you should try the 2sk1548 mosfet. It works better than the irfpg50 and it's about half the price. I found this out early on by doing side-by-side comparisons, and it was very amusing to see the troll hoisted on his own tiny petard, as it squeaked about my "not having" what I had sitting right in front of me.
Plus there's this:
Ctrl-v.  See it jump?

Now, as to Aaron's "oscillations": I think you can see that every claim that he made in his last picture of his "oscillations" can also be seen in this picture, and since you can see the scope's settings and you know where I always take my readings, you can extract some useful information from the image.

early on? lmfao, relatively speaking of course right? it took you over 30 pages of tripe before you posted your "findings" about the irfpg50 and you probably never would have, had i not rode your ass trying to get you to adhere to decent scientific method.

plus there is this:
ctrl-v. see it jump...

Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?

If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.

If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.


(EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)

you're a fool, QED

LMFAO  giddy-up...

[TinselKoala]

"CONCLUSIONS
A large number of oscillator applications can be implemented
with the extremely simple, reliable, inexpensive and
versatile CMOS oscillators described in this note. These oscillators
consume very little power compared to most other
approaches. Each of the oscillators requires less than one
full package of CMOS inverters of the MM74C04 variety.
Frequently such an oscillator can be built using leftover
gates of the MM74C00, MM74C02, MM74C10 variety. Stability
superior to that easily attainable with TTL oscillators is
readily attained, particularly at lower frequencies. These oscillators
are so versatile, easy to build, and inexpensive that
they should find their way into many diverse designs."

From http://www.fairchildsemi.com/an/AN/AN-118.pdf
which describes square-wave oscillators built from inexpensive CMOS inverter chips.

[TinselKoala]

"Significant difference" in this context clearly means OVERUNITY performance. And the two mosfets do not differ significantly in this respect.

You is da fool, monkey.

(And of course much of the tripe to which you refer is your own guts hanging out, sliming over this one single point. And you are STILL on it.)

[WilbyInebriated]

"Significant difference" in this context clearly means OVERUNITY performance. And the two mosfets do not differ significantly in this respect.

You is da fool, monkey.

(And of course much of the tripe to which you refer is your own guts hanging out, sliming over this one single point. And you are STILL on it.)

no it doesn't. your words and meaning are quite clear, i can dig up all the rest of the relevant posts and drag your confabulation into the light or you can fess up.
that's a pretty lame ass stretch of any confabulation, even from you.

wrong again you're still the fool.

the tripe was you making excuses for why you couldn't get a irfpg50, or stating how it wouldn't make a difference...

ctrl-v. watch it twitch

Hey, Nertz. Thanks for doing that--have a drink on me!

I've finally gotten around to running some comparisons between the IRFPG50 and the 2SK1548.
Heh.
From a "traditional engineering" viewpoint the 2sk1548 diode performs MUCH better in this circuit...that is, if things like THD and proper pulse tracking concern you. The long turn off time of the IRFPG50 really messes with the signal at these excessively short (using the FG) or LONG (using the 555) duty cycles.
The IRF unit does seem to heat up less than the 2SK, but that's just an early impression.
I think if you are into spikes in your signal, the 2SK might be a better choice here too. It turns on and off better than the IRF unit (not surprising, is it, looking at the data sheets and considering the gate capacitances). And since it turns on and off with faster rise and fall times, it produces a higher inductive pulse from the coil. I think. Maybe.

So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that. The 2SK1548, when properly cooled, outperforms the IRFPG50, as far as I can tell. And it's smaller. And quite a bit cheaper. And locally available.

you're a fool and a liar caught by your own words, QED

i missed that public apology you promised, although in fairness i didn't demonstrate it for you, i let you stuff your foot wayyy down your throat and then prove yourself wrong. but that's classic tk "science"

[Hoppy]

I have attached below the scope shot of the normal waveforms for Aarons Ainslie circuit mod, taken across the shunt resistor (top trace)@ 0.1V, 1mS and between drain and source (lower trace) @ 20V, 1mS.

The overheating of the mosfet was very likely caused by a locking-up of the 555 into a 'high' output condition, caused by high voltage spiking from the 220uH inductor. Lower value inductors would probably also cause interference to the operation of the 555 and this is why all good designs should be opto isolated at the output. Interferance can be minimised but not eliminated by using seperate supplies and 'star' earthing. I can detect erratic pulsing from the scoped waveform even when using the 10R, 8.9uH inductive resistor.

I'm hoping that we can move on now and all accept that this oscillatory effect is caused by a poorly designed interface between pulse generator and mosfet switch.

Hoppy