Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Rosemary Ainslie]

  Hi MileHigh    yet again.  I left out a critical point in your post.

Your reference to 'counterclockwise current flow  being miniscule?  I thought we'd disproved that one. We've found it to be equal to if not greater than the clockwise - under certain test parameters.

 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt - Hi.  I'm referring to your post 1845 on the previous page.

Regarding sundry explanations for the 'negative before positive' waveform.  I can't comment.  All I know is that the battery apparently gets energy delivered to it rather than from it.  And I cannot believe that this is conventionally acceptable.  But I'm open to correction.  All I know is that the wattage required to be returned to the battery - at whatever stage - must be at least great enough to breach the resistance of the battery - wherever that energy originated. I just very much doubt that there's enough energy stored in the capacitor - the mosfet - at any of the legs of the 555 or anywhere at all.  Unless it comes from the resistor itself.  There - at least - there'd be enough energy stored - if indeed it was first stored.

But I get it that this is not a conclusion that you share or are ever likely to. 

This bright auspicious day is defintely clouding over.  More's the pity.   

[poynt99]

Hi .99

I'm a bit confused here are you talking about the "Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator Circuit" here ...... http://www.energeticforum.com/67702-post2627.html  because if you are Harvey has also asked for the source waveform superimposed with the drain waveform for timing comparisons .... I could try to accommodate both requests yours and his given the time with the loaned Tektronix Scope I'll have this weekend, and I can duplicate the "Tektronix TDS 3054C Testing - Part #2 Post" that was done several weeks ago http://www.energeticforum.com/68575-post2766.html
Aaron does have the first made prototype 10 ohm Quantum replication resister, but I now have a new same configuration untested one that will be used for testing.

If your talking about the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit" which was the last posting of mine at Energetic http://www.energeticforum.com/69546-post2834.html the 10 ohm load resister is on a 24 VDC battery bank no 12 VDC on the "Source" only the 555 circuit  ....

Did you notice the flat line amplitude of Channel 1 (A1) went up 34 mV (x10) when the 24 volt battery bank was connected from the first photo showing the 555 pin #3 output

At any rate I'm going to make the best of the kind gift of the use of the Tektronix Scope that Lisa from Tektronix has arranged to further the data, understanding and the verification of some findings of both circuits.

Fuzzy

Glen. I am referring to your post #2834, which is the COP>17 post I guess. What I'm asking for is simply to take the load resistor off the +24V battery (or supply) and tie the load resistor to circuit ground. The end of the load resistor that used to be connected to +24V will now be connected to circuit ground.

That's the only circuit modification I was asking for. Then re-run your tests and observe the same points again on the scope, i.e. the 555-3, and the load shunt voltages as before.

If there is a significant difference between these new scope shots and those in your post #2834, then this would indicate to me possible resonance in the battery. If the wave forms are quite similar to those in your post #2834, then this would be further evidence that a) the MOSFET is not conducting when connected to a supply, and b) that the MOSFET is only acting as a "capacitive" component in the circuit while in this mode of operation. In fact regardless of how the wave forms look (i.e the same or different) between the two scenarios, I still maintain that a) and b) are true.

Regarding the 34mV increase you mention, do you mean from 28mV to 66mV (38mV increase)? Isn't that A1 number referring to the trigger setting?

.99

[fuzzytomcat]

Glen. I am referring to your post #2834, which is the COP>17 post I guess. What I'm asking for is simply to take the load resistor off the +24V battery (or supply) and tie the load resistor to circuit ground. The end of the load resistor that used to be connected to +24V will now be connected to circuit ground.

That's the only circuit modification I was asking for. Then re-run your tests and observe the same points again on the scope, i.e. the 555-3, and the load shunt voltages as before.

If there is a significant difference between these new scope shots and those in your post #2834, then this would indicate to me possible resonance in the battery. If the wave forms are quite similar to those in your post #2834, then this would be further evidence that a) the MOSFET is not conducting when connected to a supply, and b) that the MOSFET is only acting as a "capacitive" component in the circuit while in this mode of operation. In fact regardless of how the wave forms look (i.e the same or different) between the two scenarios, I still maintain that a) and b) are true.

Regarding the 34mV increase you mention, do you mean from 28mV to 66mV (38mV increase)? Isn't that A1 number referring to the trigger setting?

.99

Hi .99

Ok no problem .... I'll see what I can do on your reasonable request ... you just had me confused with the 12V reference.

As for the Channel 1 (A1) the first photo with both scope probes connected ( Channel 1 & Channel 2 ) only power was connected for the 555 #3 pin wire lifted from Pin #3 to Mosfet and Channel 1 (A1)
auto tripped at 28 mV with no power trace centered on line shown. 

The 24 V power connected now auto trips at 66mV count down from top of wave form ..... new trace centerline, up from scope photo #1 amplitude change +34 mV ..... new trace 0 point.

I also got the TDS 3054C from Lisa at Tektronix she made arrangements for me not just to have the oscilloscope for the weekend but for a entire week  .... with all my gratitude for the loan and extended time from Tektronix.   There is a difference between my 2445A and the TDS 3054C and today I'm just getting acquainted with the new features available this exceptional unit has, and will start actual testing tomorrow for both 10 ohm 100watt (standard store bought) and my prototype quantum replication load resistors

Glen 

[MileHigh]

Wouldn't it be funny if Lisa of Tektronix quit her job and by some miracle her emails were ignored and the office got caught up in some big diversions and only realize six months from now that they don't know where their older-generation DSO's went to?  lol  One can always dream.

A few hot tempers today.  Rosie, I think there is some room for strong debating, after all we are all adults.  Some people were hot under the collar across the Great Divide.  So in the spirit of debate, Aaron's recent comment about "AC and "DC" capacitors is one of those drop-dead knockout comments.  It's a startling moment where you do a double-take if you are a newcomer to the thread and you have a decent knowledge of electronics.  It hits you.  This guy ain't real.

Very briefly about Glen's waveforms, you can see when the gate pulse drops halfway on the only real sharp edge the coil-resistor does a discharge then the negative spike rounds the corner and it goes back into a holding pattern.  At this point the MOSFET is partially conducting like a resistor and dissipating power and the coil-resistor still has some kick left in it.  The the gate waveform continues dropping, and the coil-resistor does another discharge-relax cycle, but much more irregularly.  On top of the whole thing you can clearly see a higher frequency sinusoidal oscillation, not sure where that is coming from.  It looks like a small-signal feedback oscillator is happening being driven by the MOSFET.  It is definitely not decaying, or at least you can't see if it is decaying in the time slice of the middle scope shot.  Then there are a few outposts of a much higher frequency oscillation.

It's all very interesting - and yet at the same time from another point of view it is all very uninteresting.  If you investigate the standard setup first - great.  Then as opposed to dropping some components in and turning some trimpots and looking for unusual waveforms, what you really should be doing is a controlled increase in the 555 oscillation frequency.  You play with RC time constants that get smaller and smaller where as you go up in frequency you make sure that the 555 keeps operating "normally."   You wan to see a clean square wave start to make a transition to a sine wave, clean and stable.  When it really starts to look like a sine wave you have gone too far.  You back off on the frequency so that the waveform gets rounded falling and rising edges but still has short flat tops and bottoms.   That's it, you have pushed the 555 as far as it can go and you make measurements here.  Perhaps you make measurements at 60% of the "maximum" frequency and 20%, just to see if there is any interesting COP action going on.

I am going to assume that the MOSFET has more bandwidth than the 555, but I am too lazy to check.  That means that whatever square or squarish waveform the 555 presents to the gate input, the MOSFET itself will not round that off and turn it into a sine wave itself as far as the coil-resistor goes.

The whole point being to push the 555 but not have it go nuts like people here seem to like to do.  The reason for this is the following:  There is arguably nothing to gain with a crazy waveform - no matter how crazy it is it is really just a series of sine waves at different frequencies all blended together.  There is no needle in a haystack search for a "special" waveform that will give you COP > 1.  With that in mind, why not just do an orderly increase of 555 gate excitation frequency until you reach the limit of the 555's ability?   When you do this it's basically the frequency spectrum of a square wave with a fundamental frequency of "f" exciting the MOSFET.  The higher the fundamental frequency of the square wave, the more the harmonics start to drop off and it starts to get rounded edges.

In other words, as you increase your square wave frequency, you have an idea of what the excitation looks like in the frequency spectrum, and that is interesting when you look at the response from the coil-resistor.

That's how I would do it.  I would want to have control over the 555 no matter how fast it switches.

MileHigh