Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[0c]

However, we've seen these departures before, from others.

Hey, I'm still here, working on 2 years now. It shouldn't take too much effort to get rid of me, though. All you need to do is "PROVE ME WRONG". Of course, that might be difficult. Except for a whimsical device name, I have not made any "impossible" claims, merely suggestions for some investigations of what I consider to be unusual phenomena.

Now Harvey has something far more interesting sitting on his coffee table than this Ainsley circuit or that other suitcase thingy.

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

The simulators and companies that use them are not manufacturing non-equilibrium thermodynamic EM circuits that recycle the energy over and over so what is the point of their simulators simulating things that are not even being manufactured? There isn't.

Using these simulators on non-equilibrium circuits is about as pointless as using an English dictionary to translate Chinese. It just isn't going to happen.

It's very easy for you to try to claim that an inductor discharging its 1/2 L i-squared energy through a resistor and a diode is a "non-equilibrium thermodynamic EM circuit" but the truth is that's not the case.  You have absolutely nothing to back up that statement with or give you justification.

Here is your attempt at justification, "recycle the energy over and over."  No, that is not the case at all, you are deluded.  Just like you are deluded when you state that a bouncing ball is COP > 1 because the "energy is being recycled."  You need to take a grade 8 physics class.

I have seen you mention this "concept" for many examples and they are all not true.  It's like you have a card up your sleeve that you try to play or have some kind of "escape clause" so that all the conventional theories don't apply.

It's all nonsense, a fantasy.

Make your measurements properly and that's what you are going to find out.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

they most certainly are NOT the real thing, they are the simulated thing, hence the word "simulation".

you can't make your model "precisely" like the actual real physical world. for one, you don't know all the parameters. second, your desktop pc has nowhere near the MIPS required to even come close to containing all the parameters even if they were all known, which they aren't.

there, now you are a little bit wiser. 

and it's desirable... wtf is with all you self proclaimed experts that can't effing spell?

WilbyInebriated, or is it CaptainScat, whichever, I see you've joined the fray over at EF.

You've not rested much of a case at all. You just nit-pick to death everything anyone says in true troll fashion. Guess you've made it to my ignore list.

Farewell.

.99

[TinselKoala]

Hey, I'm still here, working on 2 years now. It shouldn't take too much effort to get rid of me, though. All you need to do is "PROVE ME WRONG". Of course, that might be difficult. Except for a whimsical device name, I have not made any "impossible" claims, merely suggestions for some investigations of what I consider to be unusual phenomena.

Of course, I was referring to other departures, most directly to MyLOW, since I see some similarities between him and Ainslie. But there have been others. I might be having a departure of my own, soon.

Now Harvey has something far more interesting sitting on his coffee table than this Ainsley circuit or that other suitcase thingy.

And yet he's spending a lot of time setting up simulations and posting technical stuff on that other forum, concerning the Ainslie circuit. I am having trouble grokking the fullness of his post where he looks at the instantaneous power waveform of a simulated inductive ringdown, takes the rms value of this decaying power waveform and multiplies it by a time interval...and then appears to be claiming an increase or an excess in energy over an earlier, input, time interval. However his calculation, although it has the units of energy, does not correspond to any physical reality. The power dissipated in that ringdown--the energy that went into heating stuff up during its time of ringing--is entirely represented by the area under the very first peak at the beginning of the ringdown. This energy sloshes out of the inductor as its field collapses, and it goes into the distributed capacitances--or a single cap, or another inductor, whatever-- of the rest of the circuit. Then it sloshes back into the load inductor. But a little is lost as heat. So the second peak is not as high as the first peak. And this process continues until the entire energy in the first peak--the "spike" if you like--is dissipated. Reduce the resistive and radiative losses and a ringdown can continue for a long time. This does not mean the energy continues to increase!!
This decrease in amplitude from peak to peak in the instantaneous power waveform is the power dissipated, and all that power in the first peak is dissipated over the entire ringdown as the energy sloshes back and forth. Harvey is taking the waveform of the entire ringdown, "rms" ing it by simply multiplying its "average peak" value (whatever that is) by .707, then further multiplying that figure, which represents no physical quantity, by the ringdown time, and then is comparing that nonsense number to the input energy.

This, by the way, underscores a point I made much earlier, the significance of which is underappreciated.
That is, it appears that by using Ainslie's energy calculation methods, the longer one runs the experiment the greater the COP becomes. This, of course, is non-physical behaviour and points strongly to calculation error.
I could be wrong about this; I always try to leave "higher math" to the experts. But certainly Harvey's calculation behaves this way, and maybe that's what he's trying to illustrate.


(AND in further comedy news: I see that Aaron has mounted his mosfet, which doesn't get warm, on a heatsink. I wonder why?

And he has made Yet Another Revision of the 555 circuit.

It will be extremely amusing if he blows the input preamp of that nice borrowed scope. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for him.)

[MileHigh]

Hey TK:

In the school of "keep it simple" here is the rebut for Harvey's analysis:

Boing!  lol

MH