Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better

Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg 

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html

[TinselKoala]

if you're referring to the correct fet, about time... 
was that so hard? and now you are 'bulletproof', barring anymore of those ee101 mistakes. 

if you were not referring to acquiring the correct fet, all i can say is "damn, it's like pulling teeth or something."

Build the circuit as shown in the Quantum paper. Look at the duty cycle produced by the timer portion.
Then, tell me who has made the ee101 mistake.

Then, once you've done that, tell me logically why I should bother to do any more testing, since the ORIGINAL Ainslie circuit produces the WRONG duty cycle.

And while you're at it, tell me why Stiffler has made ee101 mistakes in every post he's made over there.

[TinselKoala]

Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better

Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg 

And as I said in an apparently unread reply to one of Stiffler's posts over there: his mosfet isn't turning off properly and so his duty cycle, once again, is LONGER by far than the 3.7 percent specified AS PRODUCING THE OU EFFECT by Rosemary Ainslie.

But this seems to be OK, as far as the "replication police" are concerned.

But there has still been no explanation of the fundamental issue: the Ainlsie paper is WRONG--the heating produced was not accomplished with a short ON duty cycle as claimed.


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html

[TinselKoala]

Well whatever the DOC meant by the above, its getting better

Moving closer
From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Thumbnails
cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-aosc002.jpg 

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-5.html

Stiffler's frequency: 239 kHz
Ainslie's frequency: 2.4 kHz
Stiffler's gate drive duty cycle: about 18-20 percent
Ainslie's CLAIMED duty cycle: 3.7 percent
Ainslie's ACTUAL duty cycle: 96.3 percent
Stiffler's MOSFET effective duty cycle: around 30-40 percent
Stiffler's gate drive from FG
Ainslie's gate drive from specified 555 circuit
Stiffler's mosfet source power 12 volts from regulated supply
Ainslie's mosfet source power 24 volts from batteries


So I ask again: what does Stiffler's work have to do with Rosemary Ainslie's circuit and the claims made in her paper?

[TinselKoala]

Here's some more information, for whatever it's worth.

I have been testing the circuit with, in addition to my Philips and Tek oscilloscopes, a FLUKE ScopeMeter 199, as reportedly used by Ainslie.

Here's what I found: In addition to the "trace invert" setting, the "duty cycle" display function also may be set to read percent high or percent low. And the 3.6-3.7 percent value is about as low as it will go. In fact when I first hooked up the scope to my Ainslie circuit, using the FG setting "eyeballed" as I have been, it immediately read "3.7 %" .

Very suspicious, that I was able to "accidentally" set my duty cycle, by eye, exactly to the tenth of a percent (one part per thousand). This number is simply the shortest that the Fluke will report under these conditions. It may not be accurate at all.
Also, with trace invert and duty cycle polarities set properly, monitoring Channel B at the point indicated by Ainslie, the 555 timer circuit driving---the FLUKE scopemeter indicates 3.7 percent ON.

But of course, since it is indicating HIGH or battery voltage at this 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, what it really is indicating is that the LOAD is ON, conducting current, for 96.3 percent of the time.
At monitoring point A, the current-viewing resistor, the FLUKE isn't getting enough signal to lock onto a duty cycle or frequency value at all. So I must conclude that her Duty Cycle and Frequency information came from "B", the load--where "HIGH" or battery voltage means that the load is OFF, not conducting...

Just like I said.

And, just like I said, the FLUKE exhibits false triggering and gets the frequency and duty cycle wrong, in response to those inductive ringdown spikes and complex waveforms induced at HIGH (not low) gate drives.
This accounts for the reports of "random chaotic" oscillations and changes in duty cycle and frequency READINGS that were reported.

Sometimes you need a digital storage oscilloscope, and sometimes you don't. They have their advantages and their limitations.

So, the Ainslie paper is wrong; her misunderstanding of her own circuit and the use/abuse of the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter are contributing factors; the load heats plenty, just as the papers claim, but the calculation of input energy is flawed because the wrong duty cycle was used in the calculations.