PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-08-16, 13:48:58
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 29
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 429831 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3539
It's turtles all the way down
Hi h

Thanks for the analysis. Maybe try a few pF of coupling from a tap on the load resistor's inductance back to the gate or power supply of the 555 to simulate the spurious mode.

Other possibility is that it was induced from a ground loop back into the 555 from lead wire inductance.

I will defer to your knowledge of power RF circuitry, tho I have experimented a bit with RF in the past.



---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Yep...there has to be a feedback loop there somewhere or Nyquist was as wrong as Lenz, Faraday and Maxwell.   :o.

Hum
   
Group: Guest
Since Rosemary apparently reads all of our posts in almost real time these days and responds via her blog, I figure we may as well post her here in her own thread.  She's been complaining about not having a chance to defend herself against all us bad guys here.

Hey Rose, no one banned you!  You left of your own accord.  If you come back, I promise to be nice.  I'd even apologize for using bad language and making pushy demands of you.  I'm sure you'd be welcomed back by all, even your "antagonists" miss you (a little bit, sometimes, anyway).  You can say I begged you to come back!  How's that?

It would save us all this cross-posting and I, for one, really would like to see you present your latest stuff in an environment with public commentary.  Or, if you aren't up to that, maybe you could get yourself "a bench" thread where you could just ignore and delete any poster you don't like or agree with.  It would be almost as good as a blog taht allows no comments.  Yeah...you could only let the cheerleaders and unquestioning believers talk, maybe.  Sound good?


Quote

52 - the poynt of no return

Dear Readers,

Greatly amused at the even greater nonsense being referenced on our old 'erstwhile' locked thread. I see that the all the license of the 'rant room' is now liberally extended to any reference to me or my work. One would almost think that Poynty still intends to 'debunk' this circuit rather than submit it to serious analysis. I'm glad of this evidence of partiality. It reminds me that I must never actually refer to them in any serious context whatsoever.

And it also seems that the only reason that the thread was locked was because I dared defend myself against Glen - aka Fuzzy. He's that well known dyslexic that tried so hard to steal the invention by multiple unsubstantiated allegations against my good name. He struggles on - with a rather ham fisted attempt at wit. And now with the full endorsement of Poynty the Partial. And because they're all just nasty old men they all cackle away. Quite endearing in a sort of twisted way. Anyway - they may all post - apparently - in as defamatory a tone as they require. Just as long as I don't defend myself. Also just as well as it seems that this technology is progressed as much by notoriety as by serious research. And I only care that it's progressed.

And this is for that short but noisy list of toothless 3rd school 'nay sayers'. You guys have got a serious problem. You still need to explain how it is that we're getting all that 'ringing' if that's how you want to refer to it. I'm looking forward to an explanation that is not couched in such ponderous attempts at wit.

And Poynty. I think the public generally would appreciate it if you could 'debunk' the LT Joule Thief variant by showing similar waveforms - at LEAST. Anything short of that and we're all rather inclined to think that your experimental aptitudes are bereft. You've been posed some questions by Harvey the Wooly Worder - who has presented you with some uncharacteristically articulate posers. Let's see you wriggle your way around them. And PLEASE. Give us some relief in CLEAR SCHEMATICS. Where are your probes positioned and ON WHAT CIRCUIT and around what components? If you need to learn how it's done ask Harvey. Your references are somewhat confusing - compounded by your liberal use of inappropriate acronyms. Not good Poynty Point. Not good at all.

Kindest regards notwithstanding
Rosie

P.S.  Don't you think that "de-bunking" is a reasonable prerequisite to serious analysis?  I mean, if there is actual bunk in there, it should be weeded out prior to any serious analysis, don't you agree?  Let's get rid of any detectable bunk and see what's left to analyze.  Seriously.   :)  
« Last Edit: 2011-02-13, 19:46:22 by humbugger »
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3539
It's turtles all the way down
Regarding that blog, it would appear the only "cackling" going on is from none other.

Seems like the art of building a good breadboard is a lost art from all the clipleads flying around in youtube videos.

 For low frequency work I cut some copper clad with a dremel tool to provide power bus and ground plane.

 My favorite approach of late is to tack strips of copper foil to a good dry piece of wood. The tacks are nice solid places to hang your probes, and usually there is in excess of 50 megs or more between traces.

Copper foil wets really well, and can be repeatedly soldered without degradation of the joints. The art of "tacking" has also been lost with the use of those plugboards which I would never use for circuits carrying any appreciable current.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Yep

My whole benchtop is covered with 2oz copper G4 sheet ground plane I can tack bypass and filter caps to directly and I use that sticky-backed 3M copper foil all the time.  Darn stuff is expensive as hell these days.  I used to wind power transformers and inductors with 1" wide 2 mil copper between mylar or that amber-brown high-voltage high-temp semi-clear stuff (can't remember the name of it).  Bought a load of copper tape a few years back.  Good stuff.

Time for my noon nap now...see ya'll later!

Humbugger
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary's repeated taking of pot-shots at Poynt's measurement techniques and documentation are a testament to her cognitive dissonance.  She endorsed Lawrence's abysmal noise-filled under-sampled nonsensical waveforms of his JT testing, which did not come with any documentation, and stated that it looked like convincing evidence.  Now she bashes Poynt's clean waveforms that make sense and just got their final bit of tweaking.  Poynt has also posted images of his note book pages that show where he positioned his probes.

This behaviour is typical of how bad it can get in the realm of free energy.  It's like the old cliche about what happens when the free energy inventor is about to make his or her first public demo with independent reviewers to verify the claim.  Invariably the device "breaks down" just before the demo.  When clean and clear and unambiguous data is presented that refutes the claim, the believer can always have a cognitive dissonance breakdown.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-02-13, 21:37:46 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3539
It's turtles all the way down
Like the killer in a bad horror flick the alter ego of "Rosemary's Baby" keeps coming back to life for one more shot at killing the "good guy" which in this case is scientific truth.

Her blathering makes one weary to read it, so I don't.

build a better mousetrap and the world.........


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
No conclusions are drawn from the above study.  I believe it is a sound and accurate basis for comparing the expected "classic" behavior and well-understood mechanisms and interactions of the circuit to any and all other behaviors.

Its purpose is to provide a baseline understanding so that any perceived and/or real anomalies in the behavior of the actual replicated or original Ainslie hardware can be discoverd and analyzed and the source and/or mechanism for any free energy developed by the Ainslie circuit can be more easily spotted and attributed either to some known logical f@#kup in measurement or to the true discovery and demonstration of a COP 17 heater circuit.

For reference, the values used in the simulation are as follows:

Battery voltage 26VDC
Load resistance 10 Ohms
Shunt resistance 0.25 Ohms
MOSFET IRF740 Spice Model
Load inductance 40uH
Pulse generator 0-5V 100ns rise/fall time
Gate resistor 36 Ohms

Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed my Sunday morning exercise.

Humbugger

Good Stuff H!  O0

I've been through much of that in the past, but it is good to see another who understands the nitty-gritty of this circuit.

I was just composing another simulation to work out some power stuff, and I thought I would use the Ainslie circuit as a model. I've used a SWITCH part instead of a MOSFET. With a couple added parts, it acts very similar, and it is quite readily variable. Switch specs are: 1M OFF, 15m ON.

Here is the schematic and the Drain and battery current wave forms. Nice tiny pulse of charging current going back to the battery there. ;)

.99
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote
Dear Reader,

We have been debating how to do the demonstration planned for month end. The idea is to present unequivocal proof of what classically would be seen as an anomalous result. Our options are fairly wide. We can show a very high wattage dissipated. But the values off our data dump vary from between any extreme of negative loss from the battery to 11 watts for the 44 watts dissipated. This is in line with our previous test results and more specifically in line with that well publicised replication. It's the fact that it varies at all that worries me. It will, possibly, become contended - and I would prefer it that the results are unequivocally anomalous. Surprisingly, or perhaps because the wattage dissipated is higher - there's also evidence of a quicker recharge to the batteries which, as measured drifted north - to end up about 1 volt higher after a little over a 2 hour run. But it is also a fact that the one reading varies from another and I'm not sure that I want to spend time debating the measurements.

I think what we will do is simply set the parameters to show the mean average of power delivered where all measurements relating to the delivery of the energy from the supply show negative values. This includes the mean average, the integral, and the math trace. These values are also consistently born out in the data dumps off our 200 MHz bandwidth and our 500 MHz bandwidth DSO's.

I'll be posting some preliminary updates here for that report. The down side is that we're dealing with smaller wattage levels again. But what I can do, after the demo, is show them the fuller range of benefits. I just want accreditation to be unarguable. And then - perhaps - just point at what still needs to be researched.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

So the power values are going to be cherry-picked using only the negative results, then "averaged" in a rather poor attempt at presenting credible evidence for your claim? That scheme didn't work with the replication and subsequent paper submission, and it's not likely going to work this time either Rose.

Here's an offer; send me your device and I will test it. Failing that, send me all the build specs and then I will build and test it. At least you will then have it properly tested and you won't have to go searching and cherry-picking through the data in a futile attempt to make your case. You will have solid evidence, one way or the other...completely scientific and objective.

Otherwise Rose, I predict you are setting yourself up for yet another hard fall. But what ever needs to happen, will happen I suppose.

I would strongly suggest you take me up on my offer. I will pay to ship the device back to you when I'm finished with the testing. You aren't going to get a better offer anywhere. ;)

.99
   
Group: Guest
Another interesting component to this drama is that the original "preferred oscillations," a.k.a the "harmonics," looked more or less like random noise superimposed on a quasi-regular single frequency waveform that was intermittently broken up.  I think we were in agreement that the cause of this was that the 555 was operating in a stressful electrical environment and the internal latches and/or comparators were hiccuping.  This was supposed to be the "secret sauce."

Now, in contrast, there appears to be a rock-steady oscillation of about 1.2 MHz with no random noise at all.  I can only suspect that the signal amplification associated with the MOSFET is feeding back to the gate input and creating an oscillator.  A laying on of a wet fingertip all around the circuit might find the source of that oscillation.

Even though the new setup is devoid of the original "secret sauce" "preferred oscillations" this is not mentioned.

So with some issues related to probe placement and the lengths of the wires used and the 1.2 MHz oscillation, there is the distinct possibility of a phase shift between the voltage and the current measurements.  This could throw the battery power measurements completely out of whack.

And of course it's worth repeating that there is an excellent chance that powering the new configuration with a capacitor/low-pass-filter setup would result in the identical oscillations and waveforms that she is seeing right now.  The fact that Rosemary absolutely refuses to even consider doing that and states that it will "kill the oscillations" is very revealing about Rosemary's thinking.  One can speculate that she refuses to try the alternative analog-based power measurement setup out of abject fear that the results will show no energy gain.

What a saga.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
It would seem that Rosemary has answered ponderings as to how and why her circuit oscillates continuously when the gate is driven “off”.  The explanation is verbose and bereft of any reference to feedback from output to input (classical condition required for sustained oscillation).  I cannot follow her explanation, personally, but she seems to have picked up on the notion of a conducting MOSFET body diode that I and others here have discussed just yesterday (but not as having anything to do with self-sustaining resonant oscillation) as being its primary determining factor.

She obviously likes that there has been acknowledgement of the body diode briefly conducting small snips of stored energy back to charge the battery and has now rationalized the body diode as being the secret sauce to explain the tendency to self-oscillate.  

Once again, her explanation is so entwined with abused terminology, her zipon theory and magnetic fields having material mass and a myriad of circular logic statements that it almost appears she is saying that the circuit will self-oscillate only on the benches of those who believe in her zipon theory…or something.  Like I said, I cannot make heads nor tails of any of it but I imagine it is thoroughly impressive and quite clear to her armies of loyal followers.

I paste a partial “concluding” quote from it below as well as the link to blog #53:

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/02/53-on-resonance-on-our-circuit.html

Quote
[bold]

…Therefore the resonance that is evident during the period when the gate signal is negative (bidirectional current flow) is also allowed only if there is the assumption of a dual charge property in the material of both voltage and current and if there is also a prior assumption of a material property in those magnetic fields. Only on the basis of this assumption can one then explain the evidence of resonance where the voltage is seen to persistently induce a counter phase voltage and its consequent current flow to discharge that voltage.

The level of resonance would be determined by the availability and size of path that is provided by the body diode during the discharge of negative current and by the resistance provided in circuit components. The negative path through the body diode would need to be sufficiently wide to allow for the unrestricted flow of current in the negative or anti-clockwise direction to secure that resonating condition. With this proviso, then the rate at which voltage collapses and regenerates, would be determined by the material where the voltage is localised. In the samples referenced it is evident that this occurs at approximately 1 MHz…

[/bold]

And thus the saga of Rosemary Ainslie and her amazing and widely-misunderstood circuit continues…or should I say “is endlessly and needlessly prolonged”.

Humbugger

P.S.  By adding some inductance into the gate drive path and fiddling with the load inductance, I was able to get the same kind of steady oscillation she shows.  Oddly, however, the model still had COP << 1, but my mouse got real hot!

Regarding her proposed cherry-picked testing just remember, this power measurement expert thinks you measure the battery voltage at the MOSFET drain!

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2224
@Humbugger
Quote
And thus the saga of Rosemary Ainslie and her amazing and widely-misunderstood circuit continues…or should I say “is endlessly and needlessly prolonged”.
One question I have is what harm is the debate over this circuit doing? None that I can tell and if nothing else it has made some like myself reconsider the finer details in electronics such as material properties, circuit geometries and field interactions other than magnetic fields which so many seem overly preoccupied with. Another question is does questionable terminology, theory or measurement techniques mean the circuit in question has no validity to it? The answer is no and many of the self-proclaimed experts here would seem to be confusing personal issues with electrodynamic ones as if a persons behavior could somehow effect the validity of this circuit if there is any. I know some like to pull out the BS "conspirancy theory" agenda whenever their motives are questioned but I fail to understand why so many here have such a preoccupation with putting this issue to rest, why the rush? Is this some kind of playground pissing contest to see who can shut down the thread first? In any case I enjoyed the debate when Rosemary was here because it made me consider things in a different light, right or wrong it made me think and from this I developed some new circuits in which real improvements were made. Which is one hell of a lot more than I can say for any of the experts here who tend to sound like a broken record repeating the same old monotone BS over and over which can be found in any textbook. Progess is not made by repetition or experience it is made by doing something different and this is where the supposed experts here have failed miserably.

Quote
P.S.  By adding some inductance into the gate drive path and fiddling with the load inductance, I was able to get the same kind of steady oscillation she shows.  Oddly, however, the model still had COP << 1, but my mouse got real hot!
Please tell me your not using a simulator, I tend to lose all respect for people who honestly believe a simulation can replace real world data. I run Multisim 8 at home for simple digital circuits and run Solidworks CAD/simulation/flow simulation as well as Ansys CFD at work for pet projects and can tell you from experience that anyone who knows anything about simulators understands there many limitations and nobody I know would use a simulator on this type of circuit.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
There are some fairly damning words there AC, and I take some of them as a negative personal judgment of me.

You are entitled to your opinion about me, about Rose, and about her circuit and it's merit, but I am more interested in fact than opinion.

Simulations for example are not perfect, I agree, but they are a hell of a lot better than the erroneous eyeball assessments most people make of their measurements. Also, it should be noted that it is only your opinion that a simulator is useless or shouldn't be used for analyzing these circuits, and I hope no one here takes that opinion as a fact. Sorry if you disrespect me for using and standing by my simulations. In my opinion, that's a poor metric to use for judging someone's technical ability.

This is all about measurement. It really ALL comes down to that simple and lone FACT.

I am by no means an expert in anything, including measurement. I have never proclaimed anything of the sort. But from MY OWN EXPERIENCE, I know that Rose and her team are not measuring their circuit properly. I have worked on the same circuit, and I am aware of many of the issues plaguing anyone that is brave enough to tackle them using an oscilloscope. These issues are not being addressed.

If I am able, I will attempt to illustrate all the idiosyncrasies of Rose's circuit.

Regards,
.99
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@HumbuggerOne question I have is what harm is the debate over this circuit doing? None that I can tell and if nothing else it has made some like myself reconsider the finer details in electronics such as material properties, circuit geometries and field interactions other than magnetic fields which so many seem overly preoccupied with. Another question is does questionable terminology, theory or measurement techniques mean the circuit in question has no validity to it? The answer is no and many of the self-proclaimed experts here would seem to be confusing personal issues with electrodynamic ones as if a persons behavior could somehow effect the validity of this circuit if there is any. I know some like to pull out the BS "conspirancy theory" agenda whenever their motives are questioned but I fail to understand why so many here have such a preoccupation with putting this issue to rest, why the rush? Is this some kind of playground pissing contest to see who can shut down the thread first? In any case I enjoyed the debate when Rosemary was here because it made me consider things in a different light, right or wrong it made me think and from this I developed some new circuits in which real improvements were made. Which is one hell of a lot more than I can say for any of the experts here who tend to sound like a broken record repeating the same old monotone BS over and over which can be found in any textbook. Progess is not made by repetition or experience it is made by doing something different and this is where the supposed experts here have failed miserably.
Please tell me your not using a simulator, I tend to lose all respect for people who honestly believe a simulation can replace real world data. I run Multisim 8 at home for simple digital circuits and run Solidworks CAD/simulation/flow simulation as well as Ansys CFD at work for pet projects and can tell you from experience that anyone who knows anything about simulators understands there many limitations and nobody I know would use a simulator on this type of circuit.
Regards
AC

@AC

Don't waste your breath.


---------------------------
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1469
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Quote
   
Quote from: allcanadian on Today at 09:02:04
@HumbuggerOne question I have is what harm is the debate over this circuit doing? None that I can tell and if nothing else it has made some like myself reconsider the finer details in electronics such as material properties, circuit geometries and field interactions other than magnetic fields which so many seem overly preoccupied with. Another question is does questionable terminology, theory or measurement techniques mean the circuit in question has no validity to it? The answer is no and many of the self-proclaimed experts here would seem to be confusing personal issues with electrodynamic ones as if a persons behavior could somehow effect the validity of this circuit if there is any. I know some like to pull out the BS "conspirancy theory" agenda whenever their motives are questioned but I fail to understand why so many here have such a preoccupation with putting this issue to rest, why the rush? Is this some kind of playground pissing contest to see who can shut down the thread first? In any case I enjoyed the debate when Rosemary was here because it made me consider things in a different light, right or wrong it made me think and from this I developed some new circuits in which real improvements were made. Which is one hell of a lot more than I can say for any of the experts here who tend to sound like a broken record repeating the same old monotone BS over and over which can be found in any textbook. Progess is not made by repetition or experience it is made by doing something different and this is where the supposed experts here have failed miserably.
Please tell me your not using a simulator, I tend to lose all respect for people who honestly believe a simulation can replace real world data. I run Multisim 8 at home for simple digital circuits and run Solidworks CAD/simulation/flow simulation as well as Ansys CFD at work for pet projects and can tell you from experience that anyone who knows anything about simulators understands there many limitations and nobody I know would use a simulator on this type of circuit.
Regards
AC


@AC

Don't waste your breath.
 
 

Bravo.

The magnetic fields exist internally and externally. That is all you need to look at. The OU does not come from a transition of any thing else. I never heard Hutchison mention electrons. The TPU is a self destructing transformer made from 2 Tesla coils. The control keeps it 'Bang off'. This is why you have seen many different sizes. Any arguments? Because if you look at anything else you'll spend an inordinate amount of time tracking the nepharious, mystical flying whatever... And it won't be simple. I guarantee it.

In regards to simulators I made a light beam product for a race track. I Karnaugh mapped it, simulated it, built and it worked flawlessly. I mean tight! Until the Live run day. Come to find out that a person with a flash camera at a certain place in the room would falsely trigger the reader constituting random results. It would happen maybe twice a session. Arghhhhhhhhhhh! It was a light reflection and bouncing problem. The testing had to be done real. I fixed the problem and now the product truly does work flawlessly for 3 years. It has garnered quite a bit of attention from police and fire teams. No matter what you do 'It has to be stable!' Otherwise you don't have a product.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
I think that we got a big clue from Rosemary about what's going on in her circuit and the 1.2 MHz oscillations:

Quote
Just out of interest that beautiful waveform entirely disappears at below 36 volts from the supply

So her supply voltage is quite high, it looks like it is 72 volts (6 x 12 volts).   She only gets the 1.2 MHz oscillation above 36 volts.  So she has to push the supply voltage way way up, and that's increasing the gain in her MOSFET-based circuit.  The increased gain eventually becomes high enough to initiate the output-to-input feedback loop to start the oscillations.  It's the same thing like getting feedback between speakers and a microphone if the speaker volume is loud enough.



From looking at the above graphic it appears that we are seeing the types of voltage spikes associated with interconnect wire inductance that we have been discussing recently.  When the current is flowing you can see that the shunt resistor voltage is bumped up a bit and the battery voltage dips low.  Then when the shunt current makes a quite sudden drop down, that's when we see the battery voltage spike up.  That would be consistent with a length of wire from the battery positive to the device power input terminal discharging its stored inductive energy.  If the probe monitoring the battery voltage was placed on the device power input terminal and not on the battery terminal you would see these positive spikes.

The key point here is that the big positive spike in battery voltage is a fake-out.  It is not representative of current flowing back into the battery and recharging it.  It actually represents current sill flowing out of the battery. The big positive spikes are due to the interconnect wire's inductance discharging and attempting to push current into the device itself when the MOSFET is switched off and resisting any attempt for current to flow.  That resistance to current flow results in the wire inductance raising the potential into a high spike.  It's just the "Inductive Laws" in action.

This is all just a preliminary analysis and the information available is incomplete so I cannot be sure about my comments.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
At this point in time, the world has far less information about what Rosemary is actually playing with on the bench than ever.  The 555 is gone.  There is a battery of unknown voltage.  There is a MOSFET of unknown type and there is a load of unknown resistance and inductance.  All we are seeing is evidence that the function generator is serving only to start and stop the parasitic oscillations.  It appears now to be running at 50% duty cycle and the oscillations occur when the gate drive is low (off).

The circuit and the waveforms bear no resemblance to all that went before.  The oscillations are obviously caused by layout parasitics working together with the MOSFET parasitic capacitances and the load inductance.  Nothing at all remarkable, quite ordinary, infact.  The remarkable thing here is that the circuit and waveforms seem to change daily and radically.  Anyone trying to keep up by replicating hardware would be completely lost by now, with no information forthcoming.  This is the reason, @AC, that anyone trying to make educated guesses as to what she is doing would be insane to try to do it in hardware at this point.

Still, all we have is endless babble, vicious personal attacks against Poynt, Milehigh, myself, ION, etc. and an unlimited supply of meaningless scope shots.  Oh, and increasingly wild performance claims.

While on the one hand, Rose goes to great length to assure us all how she is surrounded by experts of the highest credibility and acumen, I found the single sentence buried in her recent rantings against Poynt to be the most revealing thing Rosemary has probably ever uttered:
 
"And, God willing, they may yet have a look in and check out the facts for themselves"

"Poynty Point, I will pass on your offer to debunk - but thank you. I have infinitely more confidence in the expertise of real experts. And they abound in our own country. And God willing, they may yet have a look in and check out the facts for themselves. With respect, and unlike you, they do not offer gratuitous abuse and nor, thankfully, do they apply the level of editing that you seem to enjoy in your own data capture - ably asssisted as you are by your excessive use of a simulator. In any event I rather rely on their professionalism and very much doubt that they'd indulge in the character attack that you seem to actively encourage. You should exercise more restraint in this mission of yours to DENY THESE OUR RESULTS. That way one could still accuse you of impartiality. Do you really think that that staff memebers here do not have the required expertise to establish whether or not a result is due to a badly soldered joint - or to incorrect probe positioning - or to inadequate data capture??? What are you thinking Poynty?"

So, the plethora of experts she so highly praises and has such unquestioning confidence in, to date, haven't even shown up to have a look!  I have only two questions about the whole exercise:

1.  Are there any such experts or are they yet one more imaginary consruct of Rosemary's deluded ego?

2.  Assuming they are real and that God is willing and they do check it out, will we hear from them or will we just hear more endless positive glowing reports from Rosemary saying that all the experts are amazed and in complete agreement with any and all of her findings?

My guess is that Rosemary will do all of the reporting herself, no names of any experts will be proffered (as always) and, despite her reports of unanimous agreement amongst all the experts that she has indeed accomplished the miracles she claims (flavor of the day), no product embodying any such breakthrougfh invention will ever materialize in any form and no details will ever be released that would allow validating replications to be accomplished.  She's gotten away with this pipedream for ten years now...no reason she won't conyinue in the same vein for another ten years.

That should provide @AC and those who have learned so much useful knowledge from Rosemary with an even more wonderful and insightful education.  I'll be expecting great things from you in the future, AC.

Humbugger
   
Group: Guest
...

1.  Are there any such experts or are they yet one more imaginary consruct of Rosemary's deluded ego?

2.  Assuming they are real and that God is willing and they do check it out, will we hear from them or will we just hear more endless positive glowing reports from Rosemary saying that all the experts are amazed and in complete agreement with any and all of her findings?
...
Humbugger

Looks like Rose and Lawrence share the same delusions. One can really be 100% sincere and yet 100% sincerely wrong! Doesn't matter how you explain things, if there is nothing there is NOTHING! Until they can prove otherwise, the result is still Nothing! It's not stray capacitance and it's certainly not bad solder joints. Plain simple.

cheers
chrisC
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
MH,

What spikes and dips are you referring to?

My gosh Rose  C.C

Hummy, not only is the story changing, but the circuit characteristics as well. The other day it was oscillating at about 1.85kHz, and now it is at 31.25kHz.

So you have rejected my offer Rose. Ok, whatever suits you best. I wish you the best of luck, and I look forward to reading the endorsements and technical write-ups from all those experts you have retained on hand.  O0

.99
   
Group: Guest
MH,

What spikes and dips are you referring to?

My gosh Rose  C.C

Hummy, not only is the story changing, but the circuit characteristics as well. The other day it was oscillating at about 1.85kHz, and now it is at 31.25kHz.

So you have rejected my offer Rose. Ok, whatever suits you best. I wish you the best of luck, and I look forward to reading the endorsements and technical write-ups from all those experts you have retained on hand.  O0

.99

Perhaps the link for the scope capture didn't work when you looked at my last posting.  A reload might do the trick.  Amber for the current and pink for the "battery" voltage.

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Perhaps the link for the scope capture didn't work when you looked at my last posting.  A reload might do the trick.  Amber for the current and pink for the "battery" voltage.

MileHigh

All I see is wild resonant oscillation during the OFF time...what do you see?  ???

.99
   
Group: Guest
All I see is wild resonant oscillation during the OFF time...what do you see?  ???

.99

What I think I see is that during the OFF time the MOSFET is still switching fully (or nearly) ON and OFF.  It looks like the OFF to ON transition (current waveform)  is sharp such that you see a single-pixel-wide glitch at that time.  I am assuming that there is a fast low to high transition at the MOSFET gate input that creates the glitch.  That transition lines up with the shorting out of the positive voltage spike on the "battery" voltage.  Note also that  the "battery" voltage spikes start to increase when the ON to OFF transition is at it's fastest.  If it's due to inductance in the wire from the battery positive terminal it means that the big positive spikes in the battery voltage are not actually there across the battery terminals..

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
What I think I see is that during the OFF time the MOSFET is still switching fully (or nearly) ON and OFF.  It looks like the OFF to ON transition (current waveform)  is sharp such that you see a single-pixel-wide glitch at that time.  I am assuming that there is a fast low to high transition at the MOSFET gate input that creates the glitch.  That transition lines up with the shorting out of the positive voltage spike on the "battery" voltage.  Note also that  the "battery" voltage spikes start to increase when the ON to OFF transition is at it's fastest.  If it's due to inductance in the wire from the battery positive terminal it means that the big positive spikes in the battery voltage are not actually there across the battery terminals..

MileHigh

LOL,

No way, not that slower than molasses IRFPG50!

The Drain is probably oscillating just as badly (and a lot higher in voltage), and those little spikes you see might be the differentiated leading or trailing edges of VD getting through to the Source via the inter-lead capacitance, which is relatively high not only in MOSFETs, but in this model in particular.

Trust me, that baby ain't switchin'.

.99
   
Group: Guest
I am more likely to trust you on this one than I trust myself!  lol  I didn't even think about the MOSFET switching speed itself.  Just plum forgot.

It looks to me like you could reverse-engineer the oscillation mode if you had the goods.  Funny how you almost always end up dealing with the exceptions instead of the norms with this stuff.  I could never have been a hard-core analog guy.

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3180
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I always enjoy a challenge when it comes to doing something in PSpice.

From Rose's blog, post #58:
Quote
Dear Reader

I am not sure that the waveform can be duplicated on a simulator. I'd be interested to see if this is, in fact, possible. Perhaps our Poynty can give this a go. I am delighted, in any event, to see that it's being denied on the basis of a faulty IRFPG50.

Indeed I can, and I have... for the most part. And you may want to pay keen attention to my findings.  ;)

There are 3 differences in the wave forms however, which I will explain below.


osc_repl01.png is greatly representative of the "phenomenon" that Rose is seeing in her wave forms. Specifically, this is in regards to the high amplitude oscillation present on the battery line (and Drain) and shunt measurement point during the period of time in the switch cycle where the MOSFET switch is "OFF".

The difference #1 one will observe here between this and Rose's wave forms, is that the ringing is damped (i.e. falls off in amplitude with time) with my wave forms, while in the wave forms Rose posted, the amplitude appears quite constant.

The cause for the constant amplitude ringing in the wave forms Rose posted, is that the MOSFET VGS and VD are in phase. VGS is being "modulated" by the "noisy" signal on the Source pin, caused by the high impedance path back to the battery. This has the effect of applying negative feedback, and since the MOSFET is a voltage controlled resistance, the D-S resistance is also being modulated in such a fashion to "compress" the Drain voltage. Think of an AGC type control.

osc_repl02.png is a zoomed-in portion of the ringing. Difference #2 is that the phase shift in my wave forms is 90 degrees, while Rose's show 180 degrees. This clearly indicates that there is a second order network in the actual circuit.

I have not included all the parasitic components around the MOSFET, so this may account for the single-order phase shift, vs. second order. With more time, I am fairly confident I could recreate this effect also, however, for the purposes of this post it is not required, as will soon become evident.

The #3 difference is simply the slow ramp-ON and ramp-OFF of oscillation shown in Rose's wave forms, vs. the sharp ON and OFF transitions seen in my simulation wave forms. For the simulation, I have used an ideal switch, and so it does not exhibit this ramp effect. It is interesting to note that Rose's wave forms clearly indicate that the circuit exhibits ringing, even when the switch is ON.

Here is where you will want to pay particular attention Rose:

There are primarily two causes for your present circuit to exhibit this unusual ringing effect:

1) The presence of an excessive battery cable length. This introduces a relatively large amount of inductance into the circuit, and effectively causes the battery to "float" relative to where you are taking your measurement points, i.e. near the MOSFET (see the attached photo of Rose's setup).

2) The presence of a completely blown, or severely damaged MOSFET body diode. With the low impedance heater coil and much higher supply voltage than before (24V in previous tests, now about 48V), the MOSFET body diode is experiencing repeated high energy avalanche, to the point it has evidently caused damage internal to the MOSFET currently installed in your circuit. I am 90% certain, that if you were to replace that MOSFET with a known good IRFPG50, you would see some very different wave forms, at least until that one sustains damage as well.


So there you have it Rose. I strongly encourage you to replace your MOSFET and see for yourself. With a proper working body diode, those lengthy oscillations have no chance to persist as we see in your wave forms.

.99
« Last Edit: 2011-02-19, 00:18:19 by poynt99 »
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 29
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-08-16, 13:48:58