Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie (Read 651883 times)

TinselKoala · « **Reply #270 on:** July 10, 2009, 03:33:11 PM »

Quote from: Groundloop on July 10, 2009, 07:21:13 AM

@TinselKoala,

Thanks for the kind words. No, the boards is not that expensive. Only 33 Norwegian kroner (approx. 5$ US) for a single board. I needed 2 boards myself for testing but it is always cheaper to buy 25 of them than just 2. I just give away the other 23 boards since I just need two of them myself.

As I said before, people can use different values for the timing capacitors and timing variable resistor if they like. Then the board can switch other duty cycles. It is always nice to have a switch anyway when researching different circuits.

There is a board in there for you also. Just PM GotoLuc. He will be receiving 15 of the boards by the end of next month.

Groundloop.

Heh, that's pretty cheap all right. No, I don't need one, thanks.

It's good that you left room for a big heatsink for the mosfet. With a 10-ohm resistive/inductive load running at 90 percent or more ON, you might even need a small fan to protect that expensive mosfet. Mine rose very quickly to over 120 degrees C in just a couple minutes, due to the usual factors. Increasing the load to 85 ohms keeps most of the power in the load, even at longer duty cycles, so the transistor doesn't heat as much.

Groundloop · « **Reply #271 on:** July 10, 2009, 07:44:06 PM »

@TinselKoala,

The mosfet you are using has an RDSon of approx. 2 Ohm. The one I will be using
has an RDSon of 0,01 Ohm. I will also run the 555 (with different parts) at a frequency
of 100KHz and duty cycle at 50%. Then the heat sink size will be perfect for MY usage
of the board.

I will also build ONE board with the parts shown in the RA papers and test that board.

Groundloop.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #272 on:** July 10, 2009, 09:44:04 PM »

Ah, I see.

OK, my main concern here is vetting the claims of Ainslie, so I am looking at the performance of the circuit at 2.4 kHz, and with the component values she specified as used in the experiment she reported where she claims to have gotten COP>17 with a duty cycle of 3.7 percent ON--which is impossible with the published circuit. As you will see.

Her claims are quite specific as to that experiment, and that is what I am examining.

But according to her there is wide latitude in general. The patent application says low freqs like 60-100 Hz,; she refers to 2.4 kHz as a "high" freq quite often...and she has said that most any transistor should work.

So you are planning to use some other mosfet as well? I see the data sheet for the IRFPG50 lists a Rds "on" of about 2 ohms, as you say, and the 2sk1548 is a bit higher.

What component do you intend to use that has Rds of 0.01 ohms? I don't think I could stick a piece of buswire in the transistor socket between the D and S pins and get that low.

Groundloop · « **Reply #273 on:** July 10, 2009, 09:56:43 PM »

@TinselKoala,

Sorry, I was a little off with the RDSon number.
The correct number is less than 0,004 Ohm.
STP80NF03L-04 FET N-ch 30V 80A TO220 RDSon <0,004 Ohm.
I will not go into what I'm planning to switch with this mosfet.

I will use the IRFPG50 in when I test the claimed COP>17 circuit.

Groundloop.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #274 on:** July 11, 2009, 01:08:47 AM »

Great minds think alike!
When I googled after reading above, that was one I picked as most probable, considering the package and the other components; I was surprised to see you working at such a low voltage, though. But high power anyway, that's an impressive little puppy indeed.
Good luck, whatever it is you're doing. I don't think I even want to know...

TinselKoala · « **Reply #275 on:** July 11, 2009, 04:33:42 AM »

I've just been reading the Ainslie thread at nakedscientists.
It seems the reception there wasn't very, well, receptive to her ideas.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.0

She really says some remarkable things there.

Such as this:

"No, I really do not know what a capacitor is. You can safely assume that there is no limit to my lack of knowledge especially as it relates to electric circuitry. I find all electric circuits quintessentially boring. It was just a means to an end. My only interest is in physics."

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644

HeairBear · « **Reply #276 on:** July 11, 2009, 04:54:26 AM »

So what are you saying? She's an idiot and your trying to debunk her with your replication?

TinselKoala · « **Reply #277 on:** July 11, 2009, 05:17:25 AM »

I'm saying that I do not like to be lied to, and insulted by the person doing it, simultaneously. Especially when they are ignorant and arrogant about it.

And I have demonstrated several, shall we say, misstatements of fact, in the Ainslie material. The report of the performance of the circuit in question, for example.

Build it and see for yourself.

And read the thread at nakedscientists, yourself. That's why I posted the link.

I'm quoting her words. I built her circuit. What is there to debunk? The circuit does not even do what she says wrt the duty cycle it generates, and her power/energy calculations depend on the duty cycle.

I have actual facts that can be verified by anyone, unlike her claims.

She is not telling the truth about the work done on her circuit, and she displays appalling ignorance of basic science facts and methodology.

HeairBear · « **Reply #278 on:** July 11, 2009, 05:29:09 AM »

Then you admit it is a personal issue with you and her which in turn makes you biased...

TinselKoala · « **Reply #279 on:** July 11, 2009, 05:48:52 AM »

Quote from: HeairBear on July 11, 2009, 05:29:09 AM

Then you admit it is a personal issue with you and her which in turn makes you biased...

I admit that I built her circuit in good faith, then I noticed the very clear and blatant discrepancies, and when I began, very politely, to discuss it with her, she responded with a great deal of disrespect, and still will not acknowledge that she is wrong.

Yes, it has indeed become a personal issue. But I am always ready to be corrected by DATA.

If you can find any fact that I have stated that is WRONG, please tell me so that I may correct it.
If you find any fact that Rosemary has stated that is WRONG, please let her know, and see how far you get.

Come on, you seem to have a lot to say, Heair Bear. PROVE ME WRONG. For goodness sake.

(And before you bring up some particular mosfet part number, I will just ask you this: How do you know what's sitting on my bench?)

HeairBear · « **Reply #280 on:** July 11, 2009, 06:03:14 AM »

Thank you for the offer, I would rather not beat a dead horse.

0c · « **Reply #281 on:** July 11, 2009, 06:37:28 AM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 05:48:52 AM

(And before you bring up some particular mosfet part number, I will just ask you this: How do you know what's sitting on my bench?)

Wilby came through after all?

TinselKoala · « **Reply #282 on:** July 11, 2009, 08:13:16 AM »

Quote from: 0c on July 11, 2009, 06:37:28 AM

Wilby came through after all?

Of course not, the prevaricatious hamadryad. He probably is still waiting to be stiffed by the Ebay seller. Meanwhile Mr. Postman brought my DigiKey order. 56 bux plus tax and customs for 10 of those puppies. But I can use the ones I don't smoke in the Ains-lie, in the Groundloop/Gotoluc H-bridge to build a mean DRSSTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-ibD9YeUrE

IceStorm · « **Reply #283 on:** July 11, 2009, 08:17:07 AM »

Quote from: HeairBear on July 11, 2009, 06:03:14 AM

Thank you for the offer, I would rather not beat a dead horse.

Its simple what you have to do , can be made in 3 parts

Part #1
Build the circuit, take no more than 10-15min of your time, hook up your oscilloscope to it and came back to the forum and re-read what TinselKoala was saying about the circuit. I must agree the longest part will be to read what TinselKoala wrote but im sure you are able to do that.

Part #2
go here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=23243.msg255644#msg255644
and here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html

Read all what Rosemary said about the circuit, that will reveal her background too(Maybe not) and what she know about the circuit and the principle behind it.

Part #3
Tell me where the dead horse is now ?

Best Regards,
IceStorm

Paul-R · « **Reply #284 on:** July 11, 2009, 04:02:27 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 11, 2009, 05:48:52 AM

I admit that I built her circuit in good faith, then I noticed the very clear and blatant discrepancies, and when I began, very politely, to discuss it with her, she responded with a great deal of disrespect, and still will not acknowledge that she is wrong.

I wonder if you know any more about this Physics than you do about Lawrence Tseung's
Physics.

What is pathetic is that you do not care to learn.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie (Read 651883 times)

TinselKoala

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Groundloop

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

TinselKoala

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Groundloop

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

TinselKoala

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

TinselKoala

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

HeairBear

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

TinselKoala

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

HeairBear

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

TinselKoala

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

HeairBear

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

0c

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

TinselKoala

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

IceStorm

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

Paul-R

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie