Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[allcanadian]

@milehigh

I think that they could be considered to be extremely anomalous, especially since not a single replicator will get OU with the possible exception of Aaron.  However, unless Aaron gets his act together, he will forever be "challenged" and his results will have to be thrown out.

LOL, you seem to be in a very big hurry to discredit this and move on. You know I have worked months on a single circuit fine tuning every component,every element until it was just right. It is also documented that Moray, Tesla, Hendershot and others had spent 20 years to perfect circuits and here you are all hot and bothered because things are not happening as you would like them in the first few weeks--very strange.

However, for me, the really stinky one about you is when you said some something like, "We have letters from Fluke Instruments attesting to the fact that the measurements are accurate for our waveform."
No way Rosie, not a chance.
I have worked in the tech industry for more than 25 years and Fluke would never do that.  They would roll their eyes when that kookie request came in.  It simply would not happen and the first time I read that statement from you, I knew that there was something wrong.  I am not even going to go into the reasons why.

Fluke is a very reputable company that is based on the quality and accuracy of the measurement tools they build. I have owned and been involved with more than a few companies and if any employee of mine told a customer that they could not guarantee the quality or accuracy of a product I would have them fired on the spot--not only is it bad business, it is corporate suicide as word of mouth travels at near light speed in the business world. As well all measurement tools give statements of accuracy on all modes of measurement and I'm guessing they would probably guarantee that accuracy considering the fact they have printed it in every freaking manual of every unit they have ever built, what you suggest is absurd.
AC

[MileHigh]

Wilby and AC:

I think that she was referring to a digital multimeter and not a scope, at least that was what I was thinking when I wrote that.  Whichever it is, you sell a meter to an engineering company and you expect the engineers using it to be competent and understand it's limitations.  You are not going to bow-tow to a ridiculous request to certify that your piece of equipment can properly measure an unknown waveform that's part of their development project, even if they fax or email it to you.  It's simply ridiculous and you are letting your company be held accountable to a paper trail that you have zero interest in becoming part of.  Who knows what the ramifications of that could be in the future.  It's a ridiculous request that would not even cross the mind of a competent electrical engineer anyways.  The Fluke sales person or apps engineer taking the call would politely decline getting sucked into a paper trail for an unknown onesie customer.  That's the way it is.  Rosemary's request would be treated like "noise."

Now if General Electric was considering buying 5000 of your measuring devices for some application and wanted some assurances that might be a different story.  The next step would be to have GE send you the device that they want to use your meter on and go from there.

So yes, something definitely did not smell right there with Rosemary.

MileHigh

"I have worked months on a single circuit fine tuning every component,every element until it was just right."  - I am not surprised at all AC.

P.S.:  Me llamo Irving Shmitzelheimer-Poppanickallopollous

[allcanadian]

@milehigh

I think that she was referring to a digital multimeter and not a scope, at least that was what I was thinking when I wrote that.  Whichever it is, you sell a meter to an engineering company and you expect the engineers using it to be competent and understand it's limitations.  You are not going to bow-tow to a ridiculous request to certify that your piece of equipment can properly measure an unknown waveform that's part of their development project, even if they fax or email it to you.

Ok, I understand the context now, I forgot about the control techs I have to deal with and their issues,LOL. If your referring to any DMM trying to accurately measure any transient effects like in rosemary's circuit well that's a pipe dream. I have enough trouble finding adequate DSO specs let alone the DMM's which I would agree have severe limitations even on upscale true RMS models, basically anything outside the context of DC and domestic AC starts producing errors at a major rate, it's all bad.
AC

[qiman]

From Rosemary:

Thanks for the video Aaron. Yet again, it seems that I need to apologise. The published circuit clearly does not cut it and TK's complaints about the design appear to be valid.

So - let me again apologise to TK. Abject apologies about this. It does seem that the circuit design was erroneous and your comments regarding this were valid. I should, indeed, have had the circuit checked before publication.

And apologies to all those who built that circuit. The only thing that I can assure you is that the design is erroneous - not our test results. Hopefully Aaron can tweek the circuit to get the duty cycle function up to par - and yet hold onto that oscillation. It's just so much in line with our own findings here.

Sorry TK. Abject apologies. But run with that 'wrong' switch. It should, at its least, give the required waveform oscillations.


-----

My vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoQD0N3k1Jw


---

[Hoppy]

I've now tried a variety of inductors and inductive resistors and cannot see anything but the normal spikes expected from these. I've tried gate resistances up to about 10K but still no oscillations that Aaron describes.

Hoppy