Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Hi Glen.

A synopsis of your results and conclusions would be helpful in supplementing the posted scope shots etc.

Would you mind?

Much appreciated.

.99

[poynt99]

A "MEAN" Meter - Part 3

This time we push the scope and meter a little, and see how they handle a FM signal modulating between 250kHz and 1MHz, at a rate of between 100 to 200 Hz.

You may be surprised at the outcome (jibbguy may even be starting to get the picture  )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70sPnpG2JO4

.99

[MileHigh]

Rosemary and Harvey:

I enjoyed the YouTube clip but I confess that it was somewhat hard to follow with all of the traces being shown.  It looked to me like the MOSFET was on by a very short time followed by a reverse current time through the body diode.  It was interesting how the reverse current was of a higher magnitude than the forward current.  Of course you can't really draw any conclusions from the YouTube clip, it is not apparent what kind of load the current is flowing through and the resulting energy dissipation, etc.  I am also intrigued as to why the circuit did not stabilize into a regular repeating pattern.  There was not enough information there for me about the whole alleged "negative dominant waveform" business.  None the less, it is really cool to see Spice crunch down the modeling and solve for the time-based formulas.

Rosemary:

For the interferometer experiment, the deforming aluminum block changes the distances between the different optical components bolted to it over the course of one revolution resulting in the moving interference pattern that you see.  It is as simple as that:  The setup is supposed to have each component in the optical path of the LASER beam at fixed unmoving points, and that is not happening, they are in fact moving.  Anyone that understands interferometry will expect the type of interference pattern that you see in this case.  The whole thing is a mistake.

,99:

Thanks for the refresher course on dual-slope integration.  The second slope is when you "negatively" integrate with the voltage reference and then time how long it takes for the output to "zero cross", correct?

With a high quality op amp operating at unity gain (for example) the bandwidth of the op amp must be very very wide, giving you super-duper integration.  (I love scientific lingo lol)

For Rosemary and Aaron and others:  As .99 said (I think) the multimeter operating in this mode is basically a super high bandwidth analog computer supplemented with a digital timing device.  An analog computer has a quasi-infinite voltage resolution, far surpassing the 10-bit quantization of the DSO.  By the same token the time resolution during the integration itself is also quasi-infinite, far surpassing the sampling rate of the DSO.

Also, I assume that the same process applies when averaging voltage across a shunt resistor to measure the average current.  Again, this would be extremely accurate.  You can't measure RMS current unless you have an analog multiplier squaring the input waveform.

What some people may not be aware of is before the era of digital computers reigned, there were analog computers.  A Moog synthesizer is a form of analog computer.  But there were and are real analog computers that can simulate differential and integral equation functions and actually compute useful results.  Again, all of this is with quasi-infinite resolution.

MileHigh

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi Glen.

A synopsis of your results and conclusions would be helpful in supplementing the posted scope shots etc.

Would you mind?

Much appreciated.

.99

Hi .99

Well .... going into a testing situation using a circuit and equipment your familiar with but knowing that basically your going to be doing new blind testing with highly accurate measuring equipment and ...

1) a load resistor used a the basis of this replicated circuit but one that I had never used

2) a second test with a untested prototype of a replication of the original Quantum resistor

The part that to me was very surprising was normally the 555 "Power Adjustment Potentiometer" would stall out using the 10 ohm load resistor between 900 to 1,000 ohms, this would include both "made" resistors used, my (20-22 uH) and Aaron's (64.7 uH) original.

The prototype 10 ohm ( 8.64 uH ? ) Quantum resistor "replication" was very odd surprising both Aaron and myself because we couldn't stall the 555 we added first 1000 ohms than another 1000 ohms removed that and added the 4,000 ohm resistor between the 555 pot and the 1N914 diode positive rail and ended up stalling around 4,800 + - ohms and running fine at 4,688 ohms ??

Why the big difference in only changing the 10 ohm "load resistor" and having to add so much series resistance to the circuit at the 555 pot ?? I'm still thinking about that one ....

There are still some things I never saw before using the Tektronix TDS 3054C that my Tektronix 2445A scope sampling rate was just to slow including doing any fine adjustments, a high sampeling rate Oscilliscope must be used for this particular "Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator" circuit for any end results worth recording.

The Rosemary Anislie COP>17 Heater Circuit is a totally different circuit and I'm sure most any Oscilloscope can do the job, thats the next circuit for me to work on so I can get to my other projects.

Fuzzy

[BEP]

BEP - I take it that you're able to vary the apparatus so that the laser is external to the 'measured surface'?  How then does one keep it focused on a rotating mirror?  Does it also move somehow?  in synch?  Sorry if the question is elementary.  I just can't get my head around it. 

EDIT - actually - maybe this could be done with a mirrored sphere?

A mirror is placed at the center of a rotating table. This mirror/prism splits the laser. One beam is returned to the transmitting head (built-in receiver on the head). The other beam is sent to the edge of the table and returned with a mirror to the center mirror/prism and back to the transmitting head. Any shift between the first and returned beam is displayed as X micron displacement.
The fun part is this only works if the table rotates on the horizontal plane - like the M&M experiment.

If the table is rotated so the table shaft is horizontal the measurements are useless unless you calculate the center of the variation range.

The other point is this.  I understand the implications as it relates to aether - being that the original Michelson-Morley experiment could not prove the existence of this based on analysis of these interferometer measurements.  Correspondingly, if there are variations to the interference patterns then this would - conversely - prove the existence?  Is this wrong?  If, in turn, this aether 'field' is proven - then my assumption is that this - in turn - may be the source of a field that allows the propogation of light through space.  Is this also wrong?

If proven - my own assumption would be that this could be the 'dark' fields that are identified as 'extant' by our astrophysicists.  But that may, indeed, be a personal bias and not based on the actual conclusions to this test.  Please enlighten us.

I can't say if you are wrong or not. I suspect more experiments will prove NASA's triple threat satellite system will be found out as a waste unless they perform measurements with the triad directly in-line with the Earth, Moon and Sun then at right angles to that line and all angles in between.

The thought of measuring ripples of distortion with the satellites and their communications part of that distortion is absurd. The net effect should be nothing. Gravity waves or particles? Gimme a break...
The only thing distorting is time and with that 'c'.