Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Poynt,

The sole purpose of a differential probe is to provide a real time view (and subsequently a single storable value) of the differential across a given component where all the terminals under test are at a potential that cannot be referenced to ground.

That is incorrect. I suggest you do the reading and some thinking. You're missing some important and critical factors.

You seem to have some mental hurdle here that prohibits you from seeing that the results are identical in the tests I outlined.

I assure you in this case, both statements are incorrect.

I suppose that you have fooled yourself into thinking that the reference wire on each probe is somehow affecting the data in a single probe arrangement thinking that the coaxial shielding on the differential probes would not do the exact same thing.

I have certainly not been fooled into thinking anything. The technical know-how is out there and it speaks for itself. It would be wise to read and heed it's advice. You are beginning to head in the right direction. The reference lead is one major factor involved in skewing the acquired data. This is a crucial point, but there are other advantages to using the diff probes. Do some reading and thinking about them and the limitations of the single-ended probe when applied to this particular (and many other) application. This is one case where actual first-hand hands-on pays off dividends.

The fact of the matter is that the single ended coaxial shielding is more susceptible to influence and demands a very good CMRR on the two inputs to account for it.

This is incorrect. The coax shielding is equal in each case. Two problems with the single-ended probe are the reference lead, and when making quasi-differential measurements with two probes, the oscilloscope's input amplifiers CMR is not sufficient to obtain accurate measurements. Differential probes were developed for several very good reasons, and ignoring them is a poor judgment call. Did you even read the article?

Use two conventional scope probes (with their ground leads connected only to each other) and the built-in channel summing capability of an oscilloscope. This is known as a quasi-differential measurement. Unfortunately, the passive scope probes in combination with the scope's amplifiers lack the CMRR (common mode rejection ratio) to block the common mode voltage adequately. This setup cannot capture the measurement with good accuracy.

Differential Probes have their place, but they are not needed in this analysis, nor would they offer any real advantage at the data collection level. To say that they would be more accurate is the same as saying the single probes are not accurate, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

I'll emphasize again that first-hand experience with this circuit suggests otherwise. The lack of knowledge, insight, and first-hand experience with this circuit would lead one to compose such a statement. The truth is the statement is wrong, and a distortion of what I have said. The P6139 probes are fantastic probes, there is no question about that. They are accurate, but they are not the suitable choice for the type of measurements we are attempting to make here with the oscilloscope.

Looking forward to the results of your home-made differential probe kit - too bad it will not be usable in any scientific paper without first having it properly calibrated and documented by NIST or the like.

Are the P6139 probes NIST traceable?  Too bad for whom? I have no issue or interest regarding  NIST documents, the use of my diff probe, nor the submission of a paper.

.99

[poynt99]

ION and Grumpy.

I appreciate the contribution of much-needed objectivity, and support. Thanks.

.99

[poynt99]

Poynt,

Another note that you should consider very carefully - especially considering your posts regarding it which leads me to believe you know exactly what you are doing in this case - is your use of ad hom.

That would be a mis-interpretation of the intent of my posts.

Your repeated attacks against the character and qualifications of the group involved in replicating the Ainslie effect is bad form in any country and any scientific circles.

If it is the former, then keep your opinions regarding the expertise of other to yourself unless you can prove your argument has validity on the data itself.

I will make something very clear, and make no mistake about it: Be careful of what you are accusing me of. I have made no such attacks against anyone in this group. What I have done is pointed out several technical issues regarding the measurement techniques being utilized, and their associated deficiencies. I've suggested sound measurement alternatives based on published technical papers and my own first-hand experience with this apparatus. I have pointed out the need for a higher level of measurement standard based on my own results and the results of the data presented by the Ainslie team, which obviously and clearly by anyone's standards, are not usable. If I have attacked anything, it is the quality of the data if you will, but that's all.

I pointed out the weakness in your arguments with real substantiation. I leave it to the audience to judge for themselves the level of your "expertise". The fact that you choose to continue touting the errors that you do is your prerogative, but expect them to be questioned if and when they are made. I have yet to see the substantiation of these erroneous statements.

.99

[Grumpy]

ION and Grumpy.

I appreciate the contribution of much-needed objectivity, and support. Thanks.

.99

You have a lot of heart, .99  - almost 300 pages and you are still sluggin'

Here is some more of that "much-needed objectivity":

[PaulLowrance]

Hi,

I'll answer these questions, but please note that I am trying to not spend time on the Ainslie case.

Paul, I will admit here that this is the first post from you that I have carefully read so as to ascertain your approach. There are several things in your approach that need to be addressed.

1. Battery drain curve calibration for:
a) Continuous DC
b) Pulsed DC
c) Oscillatory AC
d) Aperiodic Oscillatory AC

My experiments have shown me that battery efficiency does not change by any appreciable amount if it is connected to a static load, or if the load is turned on, off, on, off at any rate so long as the amount of current is kept low enough. Obviously battery efficiency is related to parameters such as the average current, peak current, and temperature. The tester can verify this with a simple test. Unless we're talking about a lot of current, there's no concern here. Just remember that a battery is DC, not AC.

2. Thermocouple TC curve calibration reference

That's the testers responsibility. I have no way of knowing what thermistor or temperature probe they would use. I use 402 SMD thermistors. Don't have the part # on hand, and don't want to become that involved.

3. Ambient dissipation characteristics (thermal resistance) for:
a) Load Resistor
b) Power Transistor
c) Thermal Paste or Sil-Pad
d) Power Transistor Heat Sink

Given the nature of this particle testing method, those are irrelevant since the experiment is based on *relative* measurements compared to the control experiment. The temperatures of the components in both the control and main experiment are at the same temperature.

4. Allowed error margins e.g. 8°F on Battery case? Or is that a fluid measurement of the acid?

The battery temperature is not that important in this test because after the battery is used in the Ainslie circuit the battery is then given at least 1 day to settle down. I mentioned 8°F just as a precaution to not over heat the battery, and other obvious reasons.

5. Is there any need to monitor the ambient during your test or just as long as it is within "a few degrees"?

Yes, it says in the description to log the ambient temperature during the mosfet & load temperature measurements.



Regards,
Paul