Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

BEP:

Take a second stab at the answer if you want to.

There is a generic issue with places like these forums.  People speculate and espouse theories, and what is normally implicit is that you have at least some level of mastery of the subject at hand to draw upon to formulate your theories.

So if people want to speculate about gravity and hypothetical interactions with an interferometer, or whatever the case may be, then they should at least have a sound understanding of how gravity works don't you think?  They should know how an interferometer works, don't you think?  The same principle applies to electronics or physics or chemistry or just about any branch of knowledge you care to mention.

It's about a measure of intellectual honesty, and effective and honest communication with your fellow man.  It's about being real or just being a poseur or poseuse.

I don't know if you talk about gravity a lot around here or on the EF, but if you do, can you answer the question?

Rosemary:

I know a lot about physics, but not much about the most esoteric branches of physics.  What that means in the context of this forum is that there is a good chance that I know more about physics than the average contributor here.  I just don't talk the esoteric mumbo-jumbo physics talk, I leave that to the people that know relatively little about physics to do that.  However, I can smell the bullshit from a mile away.  I am knowledgeable enough to know when I am reading junk and seeing physics buzzwords being bandied about in a meaningless junk science manner.

For what it's worth, I have gone through the derivations and learned all about Schrodinger's equation and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and I know about electron shells and covalent bonds and relativity and bouncing balls and levers and why the sky is blue and stuff like that.  I know about semiconductor physics and nuclear physics and optics.  But I can't rattle the hard stuff off from the top of my head, I am not a physicist and I don't pretend to be a physicist.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary:

I know a lot about physics, but not much about the most esoteric branches of physics.  What that means in the context of this forum is that there is a good chance that I know more about physics than the average contributor here.  I just don't talk the esoteric mumbo-jumbo physics talk, I leave that to the people that know relatively little about physics to do that.  However, I can smell the bullshit from a mile away.  I am knowledgeable enough to know when I am reading junk and seeing physics buzzwords being bandied about in a meaningless junk science manner.

For what it's worth, I have gone through the derivations and learned all about Schrodinger's equation and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and I know about electron shells and covalent bonds and relativity and bouncing balls and levers and why the sky is blue and stuff like that.  I know about semiconductor physics and nuclear physics and optics.  But I can't rattle the hard stuff off from the top of my head, I am not a physicist and I don't pretend to be a physicist.

MileHigh

  If you know all that you know much more than I do.  MileHigh - you're very clever.  In the deep dark recesses I actually quite admire you.  We need your sauce to lend flavour to what would otherwise be a boring thread.  But you do tend to get rampant.  And ruthless.  It's destructive.  No-one could be less qualified than me to comment on just about anything but I refuse to let you imply that I do not know whereof I speak.  Just because one does not know something to your level of expertise is not to imply that they know nothing.  And very often I get it that you don't understand things - conceptually.  You have your weakness there Mr MileHigh and Climbing.  Even if you deny it.  And the likes of you and TK have caused more pain than warranted.   

   But some of your posts excel.  I actually print them out when they're that good.  And admitedly, those are also usually the 'bad' numbers.  EDIT   

[poynt99]

Hi .99

EDIT- I just noticed ......... your simulation goes positive first not negative first like in the Fluke 123 ScopeMeter shot ..... the wave form is reversed from mine a "negative dominate"

Indeed Glen,

I'm working on that...and the second wave form across the shunt also. btw, It looks as though the settings must have changed quite a bit going from the load shot to the shunt shot. The frequency appears to be about double.

.99

EDIT: Actually, the frequency is about 1/2, not double. The drive interval on the shunt scope shots is about 16us spacing.

[poynt99]

.99:

Could it be something like the choked 555 manages to output a feeble pulse feeding off the charged 100 uF capacitor.  Each time it manages a pulse it sucks the life out of the cap and goes back to sleep until enough juice is available for the next choke cycle.  This gives the MOSFET a bit of a tickle and excites a ring down across the coil-resistor?  You indicated that MOSFET is never even switched on, so are you implying a capacitively coupled energy transfer across a capacitive junction?  I don't have the fire in my belly to truly follow what's going on here.

MileHigh

MH,

No 100uF required. I did not use one (is there one there Glen?). Yes the "drive" is coupling through the MOSFET capacitance to the load resistor. With only a few hundred millivolts G-S the MOSFET is OFF.

@Glen et al. Please if you can remember for the future, it would be quite beneficial when posting scope shots (such as your shunt voltage) to include in the shot another trace such as the G-S voltage as a reference. Thanks.

.99

[fuzzytomcat]

MH,

No 100uF required. I did not use one (is there one there Glen?). Yes the "drive" is coupling through the MOSFET capacitance to the load resistor. With only a few hundred millivolts G-S the MOSFET is OFF.

@Glen et al. Please if you can remember for the future, it would be quite beneficial when posting scope shots (such as your shunt voltage) to include in the shot another trace such as the G-S voltage as a reference. Thanks.

.99

Hi .99

I really do understand what your talking about and tried to be thorough enough in my posting to add information for the replication, and to start some kind of a standard for future testing posts that others replicators and observers could use as a example ..... and did miss information that would have been helpful as your suggestion indicates ....

I'm sure there will be more testing coming available in the very near future, and it's very helpful to have as much information and references as possible to back up each finding.

Thanks,
Fuzzy
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit- I didn't remove any components in the 555 circuit .... the 100uf capacitor in the current setup photo can be seen the big fat green one ........ the 100uf capacitor can also be seen in the photo posted in the prior test using my Tektronix 2445A scope as location reference 

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Picture007.jpg
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/Picture078.jpg

2nd Edit - You will also notice in the first photo that the scope probe is not connected to the Mosfet shunt .... this was the short time for checking, verifying connections and settings I mentioned earlier also when we disconnected my Tektronix 2445A Oscilloscope (mute device) and reconnected the probe lead to the Mosfet shunt