Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Golly Poynty.  You totally disregard the classical measurements of the current from the battery - notwithstanding our use of classical protocols?        I grant you that the number needs to be verified.  I've referenced this.  The variation in the dc average voltage over the source shunt needs to be established over a longer time period.  But we have not deviated from classical measurement analysis.  If - over time - we then prove that the amount of current drawn is consistent with a nominal expenditure of energy from the battery - being less than the 4.7 watts or greater energy that is is being dissipated at the load - then the thesis is proven.

As it is we've not been able to establish a loss to the supply in this sum that is also evident in the partial reduction in the battery voltage.   But that reduction is nominal and, in itself, relates to the delivery of wattage measured to be in a microwatt range.  Let me remind you that the energy dissipated at the load is approximately 4.5 watts according to its heat signature.  And may I also remind you that we are dealing with a fully charged battery that may very well have had a surplus charge quotient.  It's a well known feature of battery vagaries that this surplus discharge has no real bearing on the energy expended by the supply.  I think the commonly recommended practice is to run the battery off a load for 10 minutes or thereby to discharge this.

And I'll say this again and as often as is required.  We have not established the gain in terms of any of the data that Fuzzy has recorded.  We've only extrapolated an indication that gains may be evident even using the most compromising of values that that data managed.  If and when we finally get to quantify the gain - it will be referenced accordingly.

I need Harvey to fill you in on the required inductive reactance sum.  It's way over my head.  But it'll only be apposite when we get the inductance value over Fuzzy's resistor/resistors.  I know you'll be equal to this and would be glad if you could, perhaps, just check out Harvey's math here.  I can't - and someone should - prior to submission.  Not that H can't do it.  Just that everything should be checked - for good order. 

Thanks for this Poynty.   

[fuzzytomcat]

Published Ainslie resistor specs:

- 10 Ohm ceramic wire-wound
- Length 150mm
- Diameter 32mm
- No. of Turns 48
- Turns spacing 1mm
- Inductance 8.64uH

If we input the dimensional specs as published, we get an inductance of 14.12uH.

Both my resistors have a turns spacing of 2mm, so it is curious why such a long core was used for the Ainslie resistor when the spacing is apparently only 1mm?

My estimate is that only about 55mm of the 150mm core was used if in fact the 1mm spacing spec is correct. This would yield quite a different theoretical inductance of 33.46uH as shown.

Fuzzy, what are the dimensional specs for your resistor?

.99

Hi .99

The Load resistor was a puzzling one for me and others as the South African company that manufactured it was closed several years ago, and all the resistors made have fallen into places that didn't return the items after testing ... thus the lack of materials, that being said. I did the only things I could through some reverse engineering which as you may know isn't a perfect science but one that has the highest possibility of being close or even correct at times.

There were things of reference as being certified as 10 ohms this was a given, second the diameter of the resistor was 32mm and third the 48 turns which was as everyone knows seemed odd for the 150mm length of the wire wound resistor, but no manufactured wire wound resistor has wires going completely to the ends because of the wiring lugs for the circuit connections.

I chose  Ni Cr "A" - 20 AWG wire which has a .634766 ohms per foot or 15.7538 Ft. = 189.0456 In. for 10 ohms + - 1% ..... but after measuring the wire resistance over and over with several meters the 10 ohms was 14.4829 Ft. = 173.7956 In. so thats what was used.

The 10 ohm (+ - 1%) prototype "Quantum" resistor ended up with these specifications -

Turns = 43
Borosilicate Tube OD. or Resistor Coil ID. = 32 mm
Resistor Coil OD. =  33.6256 mm
Resistor Coil Length = 85.7249 mm
Coil Winding Spacing = 1.2369 mm
Covering = Red High Temperature RTV silicone

Inductance = 20.4011 uH  ( ?? )

I do realize that the inductance was stated in the "Quantum" article as being 8.64 uH but no one that I can recall could actually figure out how to get that value on a 32 mm x 150 mm tube

Fuzzy

[poynt99]

Golly Poynty.  You totally disregard the classical measurements of the current from the battery - notwithstanding our use of classical protocols?

The oscilloscope data itself is what is in serious question--it is not even reasonably accurate and therefore not usable to obtain an accurate POS calculation.

Conceptually, the measurement methodology is correct, but the actual implementation is what is lacking. It's analogous to attempting to lift a 1000 lb. brick using only a 10cm long lever and small fulcrum. The concept is correct, but it will just not happen with these given tools. What is needed is a 10m lever and appropriate fulcrum, then the brick can be lifted.

The two "10m levers"  I am currently aware of that you can choose from are:

a) the filtered shunt as I've outlined several times, or
b) the oscilloscope current probe and one oscilloscope differential probe.

Paul's active filtered-shunt may be an alternative if designed and used properly with a non-inductive shunt.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The oscilloscope data itself is what is in serious question--it is not even reasonably accurate and therefore not usable to obtain an accurate POS calculation.

.99

Poynt you are now talking absolute nonsense.  I trust you can substantiate this argument with reference to your full knowledge of the capabilities of the instrument.  Otherwise the statement remains wild, speculative, reckless and possibly even actionable.  WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

EDIT Actually - if you are dismissing the evidence on the grounds of the chosen measuring apparatus then I suggest that the test process is outside the range of a dialogue here. Unless - as I've suggested - you can substantiate your argument that the TDS 3054C is not able to evaluate the voltage across the source shunt?

2ND EDIT May I remind you that the acronyms applied to your measurements are your own.  It's a pain to have to remember what you're referring to.  Please define the acronym in full and only use it when it's referenced twice in 1 post.  It is not common parlance and it's confusing at best.

[poynt99]

Thanks for the information on your resistor Fuzzy.

I would say then, based on my own measurements, that it's probably safe to say your resistor if and when measured, will come out close to the theoretical 20.4uH.

The one thing that will differ quite a bit between a commercial OTS resistor, such as the two I have, and the custom one Rose had made, and your custom one, is the inter-winding capacitance.

The relationship between capacitance and the distance between the conductors is mostly linear (first order effects), so we can conclude that Rose's custom resistor had twice the amount of inter-winding capacitance, and yours 1.66 times the amount compared to a typical OTS wire-wound resistor with 2mm turns spacing.

.99