Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

 MileHigh  responce to vid and AC comment
Aaron and Allcanadian: I am looking at Aaron's clip right now and it is a pretty good first go at it. I may comment more later but permit me to raise a red flag about a pressing hot issue in this clip:

> Thank you for finally showing the self-oscillation that Rosemary stated was required. I was starting to wonder if all the so-called experts here and were ever going to figure it out.

Here is a clear example where you are misunderstanding the information the scope is giving you. In the clip, the "self-oscillation" is simply the scope loosing it's triggering for a fraction of a second and you are seeing the waveform being displayed free-running with no trigger. How can you make this mistake, it should have been the first thing that entered both of your minds when you saw this!

TK also made the same mistake in one of his clips. The triggering was on the rising-edge ringing in one of his setups. Very occasionally the scope was triggering on the lower-amplitude falling-edge ringing. Once in a while a falling-edge spike was caught by the trigger circuit. This created a composite display that flashed back and forth between the two waveform snapshots and he speculated that it was the random oscillation effect.

> It should have been obvious from the start that there was no way in hell the 555 timer could hit the true resonance of such a small inductance in the inductor/resistor

A stand-alone inductor has no innate resonant frequency associated with it unless you are referring to stray capacitance in the coil and immediate surroundings forming an LC resonater. Also, you must keep in mind that this is a pulse circuit, and by definition, there is no resonance associated with the normal operation of this circuit. All the ringing that you see are standard problems that you see in just about any circuit. The ringing effects are somewhat exaggerated by the fact that you are breadboarding it.

MileHigh

[ramset]

AARON TO MH
Your red flag is misleading and is not a red flag.

If it is a problem with the scope, there would be no difference in the operation of the circuit. When it goes into the oscillation as shown on the scope, you blatantly ignore the fact that the battery voltage rises at that point.

Again, the self-oscillation shown on the scope is CORROBORATES with measurable changes in the circuit so any claims of scope goofiness is misinformation.

If the issue is with the scope, none of that should happen.

Please don't mislead people with false analysis. No amount of technical jargon about scope function changes the FACT that at those points - 100% of the time the scope shows the oscillation, the batter voltage climbs meaning the effect is there and it is NOT a problem with the scope.

The change in battery draw during the oscillation is not a small difference relative to what is being drawn, it can be 16 times different. One test showed 500mv over the shunt and instantly during self oscillation as shown by the scope, it dropped to as low as 30mv.

Aaron
p.s.
p.s. The draw from the battery with the scope DETACHED is the same as the reduced draw when the scope shows the self-oscillation. So the scope isn't even in the picture.

I can watch the draw and know if I am in self oscillation or not WITHOUT THE SCOPE DETACHED.

I can watch the draw and when not in oscillation, I can hook up the scope and see that it corroborates with the draw showing the non oscillation.

I can then watch the draw and when it is obviously in self-oscillation, I can hook up the scope and guess what, it corroborates and shows me the self oscillation.

The scope issue brought up is bogus and not based on any facts whatsoever.

I've never seen so many people scared of the truth in all my life.

Please no more pen jockey ideas or technical explanations as they have no basis in reality. Do the experiments and post them, otherwise, keep your uninformed distracting opinions to yourselves.

This thread is for duplication of the circuit and constructive talk of the results even by people not duplicating. I don't mind "skepticism" but outright misinformation will not be tolerated so please give it up.

[ramset]

 MileHigh 
Aaron: A few more comments about your clip:

The shut resistor is comparable to the resistance of the coil-resistor. I know that this is your fist shot at it so it is understandable. However, it limits the current through the circuit and affects the overall operation. The baddie here is that it is pushing the source pin voltage of the MOSFET way up above ground as the current starts to flow, which will make the "on" signal from the 555 start to drop relative to the MOSFET gate input.

The first thing that is noteworthy is that there are two separate time constants associated with the rising waveform across the coil-resistor when the MOSFET switches on. It may be related to the shunt resistor being too large, I don't know. The big point is that it is not supposed to be there, the circuit clearly shows that. You should try to find out why it is there and explain it.

You are not telling your audience where the scope ground and signal leads are connected also, and that could be relevant. If the scope ground lead is "far away" from the coil-resistor other potentials in the interconnect wires may be affecting the waveform. Ideally you would put the scope probe directly across the big coil-resistor.

Note that the reverse-voltage coming out of the coil-inductor after the MOSFET switches off is about -0.6 volts, just like I stated it would be. You can clearly see this in all of the scope shots. This is a very very important fact that should not be overlooked. When the coil discharges it generats a potential directly related to the effective resistance across the coil. In this case, the diode clamps the output voltage from the coil-resistor inductive discharge to -0.6 volts.

Yes, there is a pretty big looking negative spike at the very beginning of the coil-resistor discharge cycle (the instant the MOSFET switches off). HOWEVER, I already indicated that a lot of this could be associated with the breadboarding. As the circuit builds get better and better with every new iteration you can expact that spike to decrease in energy and amplitude. If you got this build down to a refined printed circuit board layout with eveything done just right, there is a decent chance that that first big spike would be become a tiny tiny whisp, barely noticable in a scope shot.

Since you are not scoping the current across the shunt resistor in your first go at it, at this point in time we don't know if there is any current flow associated with that first big negative spike. In a way, the point is moot anyways, because any curent flow from that spike would not be in the right direction to charge the source battery.

It's hard to tell in the clip, but if you see distinctive ringing associated wth any of the spikes, then they are not necessarily ringing spikes directly from the coil. The interconnect wires themselves can ring because of a whole mess of stuff about impedance mismatching between the source, the impedance of the transmission line associated with the wires themselves, and the load. It all comes into play when you are dealing with square-like waves. If you could match all of the impedances in the "wire transmisson line system" then at least all of the ringing associated with the wires themselves would go away.

Aaron, thanks, a very good first clip overall. We got to see some guts at work!

Also many thanks to TK, who has been working on this project and has done a multitude of clips filled with relevant information.

MileHigh

[TinselKoala]

@MikeHigh: You said, in reference to Aaron's vid:

"Here is a clear example where you are misunderstanding the information the scope is giving you. In the clip, the "self-oscillation" is simply the scope loosing it's triggering for a fraction of a second and you are seeing the waveform being displayed free-running with no trigger. How can you make this mistake, it should have been the first thing that entered both of your minds when you saw this!

TK also made the same mistake in one of his clips. The triggering was on the rising-edge ringing in one of his setups. Very occasionally the scope was triggering on the lower-amplitude falling-edge ringing. Once in a while a falling-edge spike was caught by the trigger circuit. This created a composite display that flashed back and forth between the two waveform snapshots and he speculated that it was the random oscillation effect."

Don't tell me you too have missed the entire point of my triggering videos!!

It has been my contention FROM THE BEGINNING that false triggering was what was being described by the Ainslie camp as "random resonance, aperiodic oscillations, Hartley self-oscillation" or whatever. Look back and you will see that this is true, and this is what I have been trying to show the whole time. Ainslie has even said that one of my FALSE TRIGGERING illustrations has gotten me "almost there" to win the OU Prize.

When I say in the video "that looks like ..random aperiodic hartley blueberry cake with creamcheese" my voice, to me, sounds dripping with sarcasm.

I guess my sarcasm and irony is just too subtle for some folks. Aperiodic random resonance? Give me a flimping break.

[TinselKoala]

I will say this one time. Most of us already know it. Some of "us" should really meditate on it.

You Cannot make reliable measurements on a spiky circuit like this with cheap handheld DMMs. Not the kind that need to be made, that is.

A reliable power meter that will indicate accurately on this kind of circuit costs many thousands of dollars. But it is worth it, and if anybody really wants to know what's going on in Rosemary's circuit, just rent one of these for a week and hook it up. Of course, someone will have to tell you what her circuit is, first...since nobody really seems to know.

http://www.clarke-hess.com/2335.htm