Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[ramset]

Wilby
I appreciate TK's efforts ,without men like him this forum would be all talk
He takes action gets to the point [no BS] ,can take on almost any job
,skills in many areas

TK I SALUTE YOU AND THE BIRD
Chet

[WilbyInebriated]

Wilby
I appreciate TK's efforts ,without men like him this forum would be all talk
He takes action gets to the point [no BS] ,can take on almost any job
,skills in many areas

TK I SALUTE YOU AND THE BIRD
Chet

so taking action by "replicating" a circuit and NOT using the correct/exact mosfet on the build and then saying it's "exact" ISN'T BS?

huh? well you and i seem to have a differing definition of BS i guess...

yes i agree on the almost any job statement, he is surely a "jack of all trades, master of none."

[TinselKoala]

OK, if it will make you happy, my replication is "nearly exact" since I did not use the IRFPG50 Mosfet.  Obviously. Shame on me.
However it certainly is more "exact" than anything anybody else has done--and the fact remains:
THE PROBLEM IN THE AINSLIE CIRCUIT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOSFET.

Since I stated that from the beginning, and I asked people to compare specifications and tell me logically why the choice of mosfet should make a difference--which nobody, including Wilby, has done--I would have thought it to be a non-issue.

However, I have now used 4 different MOSFETS now and they all behave similarly, with exceptions that I have noted. None of them are capable of re-inverting the duty cycle mistake that led Rosemary Ainslie to publish the wrong COP claim. And I have offered to test any mosfet that anybody will send me.
(The IRFP450 shows the long turn-off times, and I see from the data sheet that the IRFPG50 also has a long turnoff time. What this means for the inverted duty cycle is that the MOSFET Ainslie actually used will stay ON NEARLY 100 PERCENT of the time when driven by the 555 circuit she published.)

Now, as to my mastery or lack of it. There are one or two things that I have come close to mastering. They don't have anything to do with the issues here on this forum. In these issues, I am a dabbler, a dilettante. That's what makes it so embarrassing, when I am right and the "experts" are wrong.

And I'm still waiting for that retraction from Ainslie.

[ramset]

The Dude has skills
As far as Rosemary goes he's just Coasting [not breaking a sweat]

Chet

[TinselKoala]

it's not TK's madness that i have issue with, it's his method.

if TK is not willing to retract/correct his erroneous statement about his circuit being "exact" why should rosemary retract/correct her paper?

The answer to that, of course, is that I say what I say on a discussion forum, and she says what she says in published articles, the EIT paper, and patent applications. Her claim is false, mine is a slight exaggeration. My claim can be corrected simply by switching out the mosfet. Hers cannot be corrected so easily--her claim depends on an erroneous data input into calculations and would require re-running the experiment.

Would you care to make a little wager, Wilby?

If you can show a significant difference between the performance of the IRFPG50 mosfet used by Ainslie, and the 2SK1548 mosfet that I used in my replication, using the published circuit and parameters of Ainslie, I will gladly make a public apology to you. On the other hand, if the performance is substantially the same, you get off my back.

If you really think the mosfet makes a difference, you should take the bet.


(EDIT I was going to offer to bet money at odds, but I realised that would be unethical--like taking candy from a baby--. Sorry.)