Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[0c]

Looks like Rosemary thinks I'm in charge or something. 

Too bad nobody else does. 

[BEP]

I don't know if this is the case with Aaron's circuit but...

As most already know: With the wrong 555 circuit design or a fault in the circuit, like a bad connection or faulty part, if the pulse width is less than the 555 and circuit can handle the 555 will throw out a garbage signal that is about as 'aperiodic' as can be. Think 'noise'. Try getting a scope to sync to that 

Yes, the FET will happily go right along with the noise and amplify it too.

Can a FG be used to make the circuit behave that way, if it's not a trigger issue? Anyone?

Not an FG that is in good working condition.

Any chance the circuit is being driven into an avalanche condition? An FG will not cause this but can be the trigger to start such a problem in a bad circuit.

http://www.mourick.com/parasitic_oscillations.html#IMPATT-Schwingungen

I don't see the above linked info being related to this simple circuit - but who knows?

Edit>

Sorry 0C er - a - I mean 'BOSS'. I should have asked you before posting 

[TinselKoala]

0c, you da Boss, I guess.

BEP, that was an interesting article, and interestingly enough it addresses a different problem we have had with an IGBT project that is on the shelf.

I am fully prepared to believe that it is the 555 that is making the chaos in Aaron's vid. I definitely had to misuse my scopes to make the lost triggers that I showed. I still believe that Aaron is losing trigger, but OK, at least I now see a Mechanism for the oscillations observed...which are clearly not Parasitic oscillations as strictly defined.
Since the Duty-Cycle fiasco is still not settled (Rosemary being the only one who can really settle it, by showing her circuit) I have been using the FG exclusively for testing--that, or my hardwired version of Rosemary's circuit with shielded output lead, decouplers and 78L12 regulator. I have always tried to Avoid Oscillations in timer circuits so I just do those things automatically.

But now I see that I will have to reproduce yet another bit of bad circuitry to get the 555 to misbehave.

Because that's another conflict:

Rosemary has been saying that the duty cycle issue is irrelevant so FGs can be used to clock the circuit. But nobody (except Aaron who is using a very different 555 circuit) has seen the oscillations precisely like his--no matter what they do to the mosfet.

So, yes, at this point I am testing the hypothesis that the oscillations are NOT coming from the mosfet but rather from the improperly designed and operated 555 timer portion of the circuit. That will be much easier for both the simulators like .99 to emulate, as well as the hardware folks like me.

And, IF TRUE, it would be another example of poor work on the part of the original "investigators" who did not do a proper error analysis of their results.
And IF TRUE, the fact that it has taken six weeks to get to this point is because of the non-cooperation and active obfuscation of Rosemary and her crewe.

[TinselKoala]

doublepost sorry

[TinselKoala]

I see that AAron Love and Light is Yelling at me for using an "inductive" resistor as a shunt. It's a valid concern; that was the first one that came to hand.

But don't you think I'll try the same thing with a different resistor, as soon as I dig one up?

Isn't there a much "bigger" inductive problem with his choice of that Ohmite resistor as his load? Like 20 times bigger? Is Aaron going to do something about that?

So, the Circuit can be driven into wild oscillations, not by effects of the Mosfet but rather by the breadboarded 555. That, I have no problem with at all, and will be trying it myself later today.

I have always said that until I can reproduce the Ainslie waveform--and I have been working FROM ONLY VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS SO FAR--that heat measurements and so forth were moot.

Even so I have made a bunch of heat measurements using the FG at known NON-WILD oscillation duty cycles, and these will be a fine baseline, as they show no excess heat.

OK, now we FINALLY may be making some progress, no thanks to the obfuscators and confirmers, but rather by exploring a problem space and eliminating explanations that don't wash.

And never fear, Rosemary, once I am ready to show something on the Fluke-O-Scope, using all its fancy toy   bells and whistles, you will be among the many eventually to know about it, if you can ever figure out how to use your internet connection.

And then I'll show the same thing on a Real DSO, with features.

Oh, and about the Clarke Hess power meter: It was tested CALORIMETRICALLY with a complex signal electroMECHANICALLY heating water--an ultrasonic transducer, a very non-linear driver. The electrical power in (as measured by the Clarke Hess) agreed with the CALORIMETRICALLY measured heat output from the system.

Sorry to shout...but this method looks at input power to the D.U.T. on the Carke Hess, which is clean DC  and surely measureable by most any means, and the TOTAL HEAT OUTPUT of whatever is in the calorimeter.
Let that sink in for a while.

The accuracy of the meter used in this manner is TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of the d.u.t.'s output waveform. The test report from ETI can be considered a laboratory calibration of the instrument against a known NIST-traceable standard, and you can see from the ETI data that the instrument did quite well. Certainly well enough to use on a preliminary vetting of the device that will save the world from the Tyranny of Oil.

And why one would trust the general purpose microprocessor in a desktop computer, over the processor in the top-line product of a company that is an industry leader in power measurement...well, I guess there are Windows users, and there are other people, in the world.
Me, I trust the Clarke-Hess far more than some cobbled-together system of mismatched parts communicating over USB 2.0 with a MicroShaft OS in the way messing with timing and stuff.
Or even a professionally designed but still modular bunch of HPIB data bus hogs that take up a whole room and uses more power than...well, than your overunity DUT puts out, that's for sure. But if necessary I can put together such a roomful. And I can arrange for calorimetry if necessary. COP>17, remember? Your broom closet will be a good enough calorimeter for that.