Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims  (Read 317861 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1005 on: April 14, 2014, 09:43:31 PM »
Here's the graph of the Instantaneous Power curve from the spreadsheet data. This is the first thousand samples, equivalent to ten microseconds of data, ten horizontal divisions on the scope screen. (The screen above is from the middle of the 32k samples of data, whereas the graph below is the very front.)

This is the red "Math" trace that would appear on my Link Instruments DSO scope if it could display it.

Note that this is the "AINSLIE METHOD". I am NOT claiming that these are "valid" measurements indicating true power values in the circuit. These are traces which reproduce the effects of stray inductances on the measurements; they are "replications" of the Ainslie-type measurements, only better, due to the Gate Boost circuit which provides sharper and higher-amplitude spikes.  This is the Instantaneous Power trace that averages to -2.153 Watts because of the large amplitude of the spikes.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1006 on: April 14, 2014, 10:15:40 PM »
The DMM readings taken during that run:

 :o 8) ;)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1007 on: April 15, 2014, 10:42:17 AM »
Winzip says the zip file is corrupt.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1008 on: April 15, 2014, 01:34:05 PM »
So it is, the forum seems to be doing something to the .zipfile. And I can't edit the original post, the window has expired.

Quite right, I can't get a big .zip file to work properly through the forum's storage and download process.

So try this link for the spreadsheet file:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/5odvhg1rwjgdh2d/Q17PlainBoost04141.ods

and this for the raw data dump from the scope:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/9tocskc3n1ikiig/Q17PlainData_0414_1.zip

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1009 on: April 15, 2014, 05:16:08 PM »
Here's a screenshot of the SWeir Q17 "Shifting Paradigms" board with MarkE Gate Boost measurements, running at about the same settings as the "Ainslie Style" measurements taken above:
Note the "average" of the Vcsr (inv) trace is computed by the scope as 0.24 V. Dividing by the 0.25 Ohm value of the CSR we get an average current of 0.96 Amps.
Next, the DMM readings obtained simultaneously with the scopetrace:

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1010 on: April 15, 2014, 08:34:13 PM »
Here's a screenshot of the SWeir Q17 "Shifting Paradigms" board with MarkE Gate Boost measurements, running at about the same settings as the "Ainslie Style" measurements taken above:
Note the "average" of the Vcsr (inv) trace is computed by the scope as 0.24 V. Dividing by the 0.25 Ohm value of the CSR we get an average current of 0.96 Amps.
Next, the DMM readings obtained simultaneously with the scopetrace:
What?  Clean measurements don't show the "benefit"????  How could that be????  Clean measurements show that the DMM average really is a good average.  Again, how can that be?

The measured giant current spike disappears when using a wide bandwidth current sense, almost, almost as though the measured current spike in Ms. Ainslie's set-up is, is, is an anomaly caused by poor measurement set-up

And then there is the disappearance of the big positive going voltage spikes.  Where did they go off too?  What is so different about Steve's board?  Oh, that's right, it has decoupling capacitors across the battery connections at the board.  Now, it may just be a rumor, but I have heard that capacitors can present a pretty low impedance to AC signals, especially MHz and faster signals.  I heard another rumor that wires being inductors can present a pretty high impedance to AC signals, especially MHz and faster.  So, could it possibly be that those voltage spikes are themselves from a relatively high impedance source, such that when they encounter an even higher impedance load: like wires back to the batteries, there is little attenuation, but when they encounter a low impedance load like the capacitors on Steve's board they are highly attenuated?  Just because that is what circuit theory tells us, can we believe that it is so?  What will we tell the zipons?

Then there is the small matter of Ms. Ainslie's own measurements taken at the batteries last August 11.  Gee those measurements look a whole lot more like your measurements using Steve's board.  Imagine that.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1011 on: April 15, 2014, 10:37:25 PM »
I could be wrong, but I think the above traces might be from a Q2-oscillation portion of a waveform. My present tests are strictly using the Q1-only "Quantum-17" setup, to conform with what Ainslie is now claiming her "team" is testing for her.


Now, let's do a little sanity check. I'm going to break this up into several posts because I'm referring to some images.

First, let's take a look at the Math trace on Ainslie's recent scopeshot, computed by multiplying, in realtime, the Vbatt and Vcsr values. It's not displayed at a very good resolution and the values haven't yet been divided by the 0.25 ohm CVR value but the shape of the trace is clear and we've seen this trace at better resolution before.

The trace produces a negative mean power product, of course. But it is undeniable that the load heats up under these drive conditions.
And well it should. The total circuit resistance is around 13.5-14 Ohms or so and the battery supply is 36 volts, so when the mosfet is ON a considerable current flows as shown on the Ainslie graph.... but isn't really reflected in the Math "instantaneous power" trace.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1012 on: April 15, 2014, 10:44:55 PM »
Now let's take a look at my traces, using the Plain Q17 circuit and the MarkE Gate Booster.

The Link DSO can only display 2 live traces, but the data can be dumped into a spreadsheet and the same Math trace can be calculated, just as Ainslie's LeCroy does internally. I plotted the first thousand data points (out of 32k total) on the Math trace, it only captured two complete cycles but I think it's clear that I am seeing here the very same "negative mean power product" that Ainslie produces from her measurement setup, and for the same reasons. The "mean power product" here is about -2.15 Watts for the entire 32k data set, which is equivalent to 20 full scopescreens worth of data.

Yet my load gets warm nevertheless, as well it should.... since it has around 13.5 - 14 ohms total resistance and a supply of 33-36 Volts, and the mosfet is "ON" for around 1/3 of the time. Yet this clearly present power isn't visible in the computed Math "instantaneous power" trace. Just as in Ainslie's measurement system.



Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1013 on: April 15, 2014, 10:54:18 PM »
And finally let's go to the Steve Weir "Shifting Paradigms" board with its precision 0.25 ohm, properly connected CVR and its on-board Vbatt filtering. The same input settings as before give us these scopetraces and spreadsheet-computed Math (Instantaneous Power) traces.  Finally we see something that makes sense! A realistic amount of power is shown during the "ON" times and there is no "negative mean power product", the mean power computed across all 32k samples is about 31.3 Watts.
The peak power is right around 80 Watts, just as it should be with a supply of about 33.3 Volts and a total circuit resistance of about 14 Ohms.


Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1014 on: April 15, 2014, 11:51:34 PM »
I could be wrong, but I think the above traces might be from a Q2-oscillation portion of a waveform. My present tests are strictly using the Q1-only "Quantum-17" setup, to conform with what Ainslie is now claiming her "team" is testing for her.


Now, let's do a little sanity check. I'm going to break this up into several posts because I'm referring to some images.

First, let's take a look at the Math trace on Ainslie's recent scopeshot, computed by multiplying, in realtime, the Vbatt and Vcsr values. It's not displayed at a very good resolution and the values haven't yet been divided by the 0.25 ohm CVR value but the shape of the trace is clear and we've seen this trace at better resolution before.

The trace produces a negative mean power product, of course. But it is undeniable that the load heats up under these drive conditions.
And well it should. The total circuit resistance is around 13.5-14 Ohms or so and the battery supply is 36 volts, so when the mosfet is ON a considerable current flows as shown on the Ainslie graph.... but isn't really reflected in the Math "instantaneous power" trace.
2-3us is kind of a long ring-out period.  It could be a result of Miller capacitance and weak gate drive.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1015 on: April 15, 2014, 11:54:11 PM »
Now let's take a look at my traces, using the Plain Q17 circuit and the MarkE Gate Booster.

The Link DSO can only display 2 live traces, but the data can be dumped into a spreadsheet and the same Math trace can be calculated, just as Ainslie's LeCroy does internally. I plotted the first thousand data points (out of 32k total) on the Math trace, it only captured two complete cycles but I think it's clear that I am seeing here the very same "negative mean power product" that Ainslie produces from her measurement setup, and for the same reasons. The "mean power product" here is about -2.15 Watts for the entire 32k data set, which is equivalent to 20 full scopescreens worth of data.

Yet my load gets warm nevertheless, as well it should.... since it has around 13.5 - 14 ohms total resistance and a supply of 33-36 Volts, and the mosfet is "ON" for around 1/3 of the time. Yet this clearly present power isn't visible in the computed Math "instantaneous power" trace. Just as in Ainslie's measurement system.
Those oscillations really look like Miller capacitance to me.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1016 on: April 15, 2014, 11:58:28 PM »
And finally let's go to the Steve Weir "Shifting Paradigms" board with its precision 0.25 ohm, properly connected CVR and its on-board Vbatt filtering. The same input settings as before give us these scopetraces and spreadsheet-computed Math (Instantaneous Power) traces.  Finally we see something that makes sense! A realistic amount of power is shown during the "ON" times and there is no "negative mean power product", the mean power computed across all 32k samples is about 31.3 Watts.
The peak power is right around 80 Watts, just as it should be with a supply of about 33.3 Volts and a total circuit resistance of about 14 Ohms.
I would be interested, and I am sure Steve would too, to see how things look probing the current sense at the compensated test point on the test board.  I expect that the negative spikes will be further attenuated.  Even that nice precision current shunt resistor that is on the board still has enough inductance to cause peaking on fast edges.  The compensated test point exhibits flat bandwidth, presenting an even more accurate waveform.  You should use a 10X probe with it to limit probe capacitance effects.

The other thing that you should do and can do with these traces is first subtract the current sense voltage from the battery voltage.  That board uses the Q1 source as the common.  So the battery voltage is reading the battery plus the current sense.   Given the 8 bit resolution of the oscilloscope, it won't make a lot of difference, but it should flatten out the power during the off intervals.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1017 on: April 16, 2014, 02:06:22 AM »
Here's the comparison between the two probe positions, the "uncompensated" one designated for the Scope, and the "FComp" one which is supposed to be for a DMM, I think. I slid the VBatt probe over to the TP3 to make the reading. See the "normal" and the "FComp" probe point images below. I didn't invert the traces for this shot, so that the numbers in boxes would be easy to interpret.

The FComp position does reduce the negative ringing even more.

It will take me a while to do the trace subtraction shots you recommend. I know that the board works that way, I've just been too lazy to set up the subtraction on the scope.

All these recent shots are using the MarkE Gate Booster, with +15 V supply from the HP721a.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1018 on: April 16, 2014, 03:04:10 AM »
Here's the comparison between the two probe positions, the "uncompensated" one designated for the Scope, and the "FComp" one which is supposed to be for a DMM, I think. I slid the VBatt probe over to the TP3 to make the reading. See the "normal" and the "FComp" probe point images below. I didn't invert the traces for this shot, so that the numbers in boxes would be easy to interpret.

The FComp position does reduce the negative ringing even more.

It will take me a while to do the trace subtraction shots you recommend. I know that the board works that way, I've just been too lazy to set up the subtraction on the scope.

All these recent shots are using the MarkE Gate Booster, with +15 V supply from the HP721a.
I think that Steve's original intent for the FComp was for DMM filtering.  I think he changed his mind.  My recollection was that he and Josh spent an evening or two tweaking and testing boards they had built up.  I saw some really clean capture waveforms.  I may have one around here someplace.

Offline orbut 3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Rosemary Ainslie Quantum Magazine Circuit COP > 17 Claims
« Reply #1019 on: April 16, 2014, 07:17:39 AM »
It looks like Ms. Ainslie can't suffer polite an reasonable people today.
Could it be influenced by the lunar phase?