Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

That is more going back to the batteries than what left the batteries.

Suppose that you check and I am right in what I just said in my previous posting.  If I am right that should be a sobering moment, for everybody.

I have a peace offering for your consideration:

If you want to bounce ideas off myself, TK, .99 and anybody else about your testing with the DSO, then that would be fine.  I am going to go out on a limb and assume TK and .99 would also say yes.

That's it, keep it simple and drama free, and we can try to work together.

What do you say?

MileHigh

[WilbyInebriated]

Similarly, can you demonstrate how NOT using the specified mosfet will result in a different conclusion to the experiment, i.e. that the circuit is overunity, rather than underunity as demonstrated?

that wasn't the conclusion being posited by tk. he had concluded (apparently before he started his hack of a 'replication') it was perfectly ok to substitute a mosfet based on data sheets. i called him on it. he didn't actually voice this conclusion until page 2.

OK, several points to address.
First, yes, when I can find them I will use identical components to Ainslie's circuit. Her MOSFET is kind of pricey and will have to be ordered; the one I'm using is...well, you can look up the data. It's pretty close, good enough for prelim testing. I will replace the shunt with .25 ohm today.

he then made an asinine hypothesis (see below for how that turned out) about the irfpg50 performance, never once specifying 'over unity performance'. i called him on it. he then asked if i could show how it would perform any different on page 11.

The answer to that, of course, is that I say what I say on a discussion forum, and she says what she says in published articles, the EIT paper, and patent applications. Her claim is false, mine is a slight exaggeration. My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easily--her claim depends on an erroneous data input into calculations and would require re-running the experiment.

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.)

please take note of these words...
My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet.  Hers cannot be corrected so easily
here he is referring to his claim of no difference in mosfet performance, let alone OU, and her claim of over unity which he was calling erroneous due to the duty cycle issue.
and these words...
significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used
note no mention of over unity performance, just performance. why oh why do i have to hammer this in? oh yeah, the slow ones...
they (tk and his merry band of sycophants) all jabbered for a while pretending how smart they are and then, asymatrix quantified it once again as being non relative to over unity performance by saying this on page 24.

Please tell the class why a slightly different FET will make a huge difference, let alone create OU.

tk did not amend this to being specifically relative to OU performance. while they (tk and his merry band of sycophants again) continued to jabber about how smart they are and how little i know, etc. i waited for him to get around to actually testing this experimentally. when he finally did, on page 42 i might add. he found this out.

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.

take note of these words...
So there goes my hypothesis that the two transistors would perform pretty much the same. I was wrong about that.

he did however, try to claim he 'meant' over unity performance later. much later. page 108 actually.

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

i called him on that too.

i have shown this again and again. are you so slow that you want me to show it yet one more time?

[forest]

Modify the circuit to change path of inductive flyback away from MOSFET
then back to heating element, make heating element highly self-inductance

[MileHigh]

The shunt resistor:

It's just supposed to be a very small resistor that is small enough to not affect the rest of the circuit so that you can measure the voltage across it to deduce the current flow.  You don't want it to be too small because then your analog scope will not see it well or DSO will not "use all of the bits" in the analog to digital conversion.

Magnacoaster:

There are lots and lots of "MEG" type OU products out there and they never pan out.  So the expectation is the same for Magnacoaster.  The current question is did the Dragon's Den TV show angel investor cough up the cash?  This was contingent upon a successful real demo done with independent verification of the technology.  This was many months ago and there was no announcement of a partnership and investment so draw your own conclusions.  On the technical side, I stumbled across the user manual for his product and in his battery diagrams he shows big car batteries wired in parallel.  You would be crazy to do this so in terms of the harsh engineering criteria pass/fail this guy fails the litmus test with flying colours.

Boguslaw:

Shortly : ask yourself , how RESONANCE is at all is possible ? When you struck a rod at correct frequency and it sings very long - isn't that an unexpected miracle ?

It's not a miracle because it's the same resonance ring-down that you see in an RLC resonant oscillator.  The stiffness of the rod is like a spring, and that represents the size of the coil.  The mass of the rod is like a capacitor - the speed of the moving mass is like the voltage across the capacitor, and the amount of mass is like the size of the capacitor.  The fact that the rod does not sing forever, is because there is some energy lost in the mechanical hysteresis loop of the rod.  This is like the resistance in the electrical RLC resonator.

When you hit the rod you put energy into it.  The rod stores that energy by singing.  The stored energy goes back and forth between the moving mass and the compressed spring.  When the mass is moving its fastest, the spring is completely decompressed, and all of the stored energy is in the moving mass.  When the mass has stopped moving, the spring is at it's maximum compression, and all of the stored energy is in the spring.

Just like in the electrical version the energy goes back and forth between the capacitor and the coil.  When the capacitor voltage is at it's maximum, there is no current in the coil, and all of the stored energy is in the capacitor.  When the capacitor voltage is at zero, there is maximum current in the coil, and all of the stored energy is in the coil.

So in both cases, energy is just going back and forth in a nice smooth sine wave pattern.  Resonance is just energy smoothly moving back and forth between two things that can store the energy.

At the same time, the form of the energy is always transforming back between two different states in a sine wave pattern.  In the above examples the two states are a moving mass and a compressed spring, and a capacitor with voltage across it and a coil with current going through it.

That is the key to understanding resonance and it applies to almost anything that resonates.  If you don't understand it, it is worth reading through until you do understand it.  The prize is five Brownie Points.

MileHigh

[allcanadian]

@newbie123

You guys are still trying to  argue with Wilby?    Heh..  Come on!   It's like trying to reason with a 3 year old!!
Just put him on your ignore list, and stop wasting  your time.
Cap-z-ro is pretty much the same way....   
@Wilby and Cap'n:
This is a big boy thread.  Why don't you guys go play in  the  "truth" section.

Well-----, they were arguing with Rosemary, then almost everyone else including each other and now milehigh is arguing with himself I guess? As he is critiquing points from another forum who's members are most likely not  even here, LOL. Im not so sure this is a "big boy thread" in any sense of the word.
AC