PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Devices > Inductive Kickback Circuits > The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit
2024-11-27, 22:45:45
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 29
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 477226 times)
Topic Options img
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #200 on: 2011-02-21, 19:49:13 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote
Meanwhile - just to let you all know. I'm looking forward to that demo despite the scare that sits in the pit of my stomach and despite the sleepless nights. I've been largely reassured as the actual demo will be given by someone else. I'm reasonably satisfied I would not be equal to addressing a large group of people.

Might you inform the public about who will be conducting the demonstration, if not yourself?

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #201 on: 2011-02-21, 20:16:36 »
Group: Guest
How about those new 40V spikes across the 0.25 ohm shunt?  Seems like either those probes/grounds are down the wire a ways or those are normal inductive-wound sandbox resistors.  It sure is hard to second-guess any of it without being there on the bench.

Hum

P.S.  I got an email from Rose explaining why she wants to raise a lot of chatter on the forums but I dare not reveal what she said, lest I breach a budding new bit of trust.   :-X
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #202 on: 2011-02-22, 13:37:42 »
Group: Guest
I am only half-following this thing.  In Rosemary's latest post the new set of DSO captures yields the same miraculous conclusion:

Quote
The data dump taken off the multiple waveform screen shows a mean average current flow of -0.49 amps (negative ie. back to the battery) Not as dramatic as was seen yesterday.

If you know your Superman comics and are a Seinfeld fan then this smacks of the Bizarro World.  In the Bizarro World the world is shaped like a cube and not a sphere.  You put your money in the bank and you expect to lose money and not gain money from the interest.

Quote
The Bizarro World (also known as Htrae) is a fictional planet in the DC comics universe. Introduced in the early 1960s, Htrae is a cube-shaped planet, home to Bizarro and his companions, all of whom were initially Bizarro versions of Superman, Lois Lane and their children. Later, other Bizarros were created to add to the population including Wonderzarro, Bizarro Flash, "the Yellow Lantern", Bizarro-Kltpzyxm and Batzarro, the World's Worst Detective.

In the Bizarro world of "Htrae" ("Earth" spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states "Us do opposite of all Earthly things! Us hate beauty! Us love ugliness! Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizarro World!". In one episode, for example, a salesman is doing a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: "Guaranteed to lose money for you". Later, the mayor appoints Bizarro No. 1 to investigate a crime, "Because you are stupider than the entire Bizarro police force put together". This is intended and taken as a great compliment.

So in the Bizarro World when you hook your battery up to a resistive load you get current flowing into the battery and not out of the battery.  Old Rosie has never once mentioned anything about double-checking this measurement because you never double-check measurements in the Bizarro World.

Also, Rosemary's possible explanation for how to explain this phenomenon is in post #67 in all its glory.  That posting is right out of the Bizarro World.

It will turn out that the negative current measurement was all a big mistake!  Gosh! Darn!
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #203 on: 2011-02-22, 13:43:03 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Rose, I am curious;

Have you ever stopped to wonder why, when the MOSFET switch is ON, your scope shot shows zero current through the shunt resistor?

This can be verified by the fact that the power trace also shows zero power when the switch is ON.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #204 on: 2011-02-22, 21:28:40 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-02-22, 13:43:03
Have you ever stopped to wonder why, when the MOSFET switch is ON, your scope shot shows zero current through the shunt resistor?

That really plays into the "Bizarro" angle indeed.  I had scrutinized earlier captures and I thought I saw some DC current show when the MOSFET was supposed to be switched on.  In looking at some of the more recent captures it looks like there is no current flow when the MOSFET is supposed to be ON.

So what does that mean?  The ON-OFF polarity is confused again just like we saw nearly two years ago?  When the MOSFET is supposed to be OFF we have some positive feedback inducing an oscillation?  Or, when the MOSFET is supposed to be ON, some sort of feedback mechanism is causing the chopping of the MOSFET ON cycle.  The DSO is doing a polarity reversal somewhere?

The bottom line is that this this circuit consumes power from the supply battery and current flows out of the battery and into the load and the power consumption is positive.  In addition, the circuit goes into an oscillation due to a combination of some sort of positive feedback and capacitive and/or inductive circuit elements.

The only question is whether or not the "experts" will be able to figure this out as well as make proper measurements.  The elephant in the room is the fact that the shunt voltage and the apparent battery voltage have huge voltage oscillations associated with them and any undesirable and very small phase errors in the measurement will throw everything out of whack and make it look like the current and power consumption is negative when the truth is that both are positive.

The whole thing is a tempest in a thimble.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-02-22, 23:27:16 by MileHigh »
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #205 on: 2011-02-22, 22:15:12 »
Group: Guest
Quoting Rosemary:

Quote
What is particularly sad is that this is certainly NOT a new discovery. It depends on those very Laws that have been forged by our Giants in physics. All I have done is suggested that these Laws are, indeed, universally applied.

I hate this Orwellian double-speak.  "My (alleged) over unity system respects the laws of conservation of energy."  It's pure self-brainwashing trying to put a square peg into a round hole.  It's cognitive dissonance.  Yes, you also have your "Dark Energy" card to play.  Whoopee.

Rosemary, the whole thing is a big mistake.  If your team of "experts" can ever get to the bottom of this then I know what will happen.  You will make a few postings where you profusely profess apologies to anybody that will listen.  You will positively be bursting with apologies.  This will transpire over a few days and you will truly be defeated and deflated.  It will be a bard and bitter pill for you to swallow, but swallow it you must.

Then it will finally be over and your proposition that you can get free energy by switching the current flow off an on to an inductive resistor will fade into obscurity.

MileHigh
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #206 on: 2011-02-22, 22:39:56 »
Group: Guest
Milehigh,

Do you really believe she would give up that gracefully?  The suspense is almost too much for me to bear.  The trouble is that no genuine academic "expert" is going to want to attach his or her name to this, whether they are debunking it or "verifying" the incredible claims.  Can you imagine anyone in academia taking the time to teach Rose enough so that she would truly understand that her circuit cannot and does not work as she has convinced herself it does?  I can't imagine it.

We were her best bet and she rejected all of our efforts and even ended up in bitter feuds with those who went the distance and replicated and tested and were ready to "believe".

Remember the little argument Poynt and I had about the shunt and the polarity/direction issue?  It's my best belief that Rose is measuring the current backward...actually an easy mistake to make.  She's so hung up in finding magical waveforms on her scope that she has overlooked some super-basic details.  She has still never shown the waveform on the drain of the MOSFET and her scope traces supposedly showing the battery voltage are obviously not the battery voltage.

She'll find a way to hide from any expert who tries to debunk the thing, I'm sure.  I don't see a graceful (or even awkward) and conclusive end to this saga any time soon, myself.  It would have happened long ago if it were going to go down that way.

Humbugger
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #207 on: 2011-02-22, 23:57:59 »
Group: Guest
Humbugger:

You make some good points there, and it has been a long haul for Rosemary.  I base my comments on past experience with Rosemary.  There have been a few times when profuse apologies burst forth from her like rain.  I think of the Magic Dragon losing his green scales.

The upcoming demonstration will be a milestone of sorts, but I suppose that it will not be a definitive milestone.  One question that I think about is how much substantive data will be presented to those in attendance.  I think back to her first new attempt to publish a paper about a year or so ago.  There was no power out vs. power in data in that paper!  All that it did was point to a few dozen DSO traces that were linked to on the Energetic Forum.  I was flabbergasted when I read it and have battled with Rosie about that one intermittently.  She insisted that the "proof" was in that paper and I insisted that all the paper did was highlight some squiggly lines.

Then there is another issue about the upcoming demo related to the "experts."  I have seen Rosemary refer to several people as "experts" or as people with "extraordinary abilities" or whatever.  Some of these people were clearly beginners that barely had any experience and others were clearly not experts.  Rather, they were people that were in her camp, and she was "embellishing" her descriptions of their true capabilities.  I can only guess that this was a combination of her inability to properly qualify people technically and her outright spinning about them to advance her cause.  So when we hear about the new generation of "experts" in South Africa I personally take those statements with a grain of salt.

I suppose that I am just frustrated with the whole thing.  When I see someone say, "I connected the battery and the resistor is heating up but I assure you that the current is flowing backwards and the battery is recharging" it's just a bit too much sometimes.  In a way it's no different from Steorn or Dr. StrangeSearl or poor street brawler Joe Newman pitching his giant "Newman Motor" in the back parking lot of some obscure shopping mall.

MileHigh
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #208 on: 2011-02-23, 01:33:04 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Here is something that has raised some concern for me for about the last week.

It is impossible to tell for certain from the angle, but one could conclude that the Drain pin is connected to the shunt, and the Source pin to B+. The shunt connection would be on the top side as shown by the dotted line, and the B+ connection on the bottom side, not visible.

The Source pin should be connected to shunt stud #1, but there is no top butt connector on that Source connection stud. It does appear however, that there is a butt connector on the top side at the Drain pin, and a butt connector on the top side at the shunt stud.

What is going on there Rose? Can you show us a better view of the shunt resistors and the MOSFET?

.99

NOTE: Save the picture and zoom in 200% to 300% for best viewing.

EDIT: Upon further contemplation, it would appear that the butt connector at the stud marked "1", was probably placed there as a convenient point for the shunt probe to clamp to. Therefore, I will also assume that the Source pin in fact goes to the stud marked "1".

The question remains however, is that row of studs at the "top" of the shunt resistors, connected to ground?
« Last Edit: 2011-02-23, 02:30:58 by poynt99 »


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #209 on: 2011-02-23, 01:57:16 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Oh, and one other question;

Is the side of the shunt resistors where I have marked "1" connected to the GND BUS?

Correct me if I am wrong Rose, but I would venture to say that your "shunt" probe is in fact measuring "ground", and not actually across the shunt resistors at all. This would also mean that the Source pin (if in fact it is connected to the Source) is connected straight to ground, rather than to ground through the 0.25 Ohm shunt.

Oooops!

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #210 on: 2011-02-23, 02:09:27 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
The above would explain why your "shunt" scope shot indicates absolutely no current when the MOSFET switch is "ON", and why oscillation appears on that same probe when the MOSFET is "OFF".

 C.C

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #211 on: 2011-02-23, 02:30:16 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
See the above reply #208 for an EDIT regarding the Source and Drain pin reversal.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #212 on: 2011-02-23, 02:38:30 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Which studs are connected to the Ground BUS; "a", or "b" ?

.99

EDIT: Is that a Gate resistor or a butt connector with a short wire crimped to it for connection purposes? See edited picture.
« Last Edit: 2011-02-23, 03:11:00 by poynt99 »


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #213 on: 2011-02-23, 13:49:58 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
OK Rose.

Thank you for confirming that point "b" is connected to ground, as it should be.

I can not explain then why your shunt current measurement indicates "zero current" when the MOSFET switch is "ON".

Would you be so kind to do so?

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  humbugger
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #214 on: 2011-02-23, 15:14:22 »
Group: Guest
From blog #71

Quote
...The claim is only this. We have both a negative mean and cycle mean average over our shunt that indicates that there is more energy returned to a supply than was first delivered. This is unequivocal. And it's a result that can be found at multiple frequencies and with a variety of settings from the functions generator. And this while the temperature over the resistor reaches a level indicative of 5 watts or greater being dissipated - depending on the frequency and setting at the switch."

Unequivocal?  Rosemary seems to do nothing but equivocate! [Verb: Use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself]

If the battery supply is 48VDC and the load resistance is 4 ohms, the expected power dissipation in the load at 50% duty cycle would be (48^2/4)/2 = 288W.  Even if the battery were only 36VDC and the load were 10 ohms, one would  expect 65W load dissipation at 50% duty cycle.

With the 48VDC reported battery and 4 Ohm load, the duty cycle would have to be reduced to below 1% before load dissipation would be expected to be 5W.  

None of this is even in the ballpark given what has been shown or discussed here lately.  The complete fog of Dark Energy thickens daily... :D

Humbugger
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #215 on: 2011-02-23, 19:24:08 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
The 4 Ohm load was just a guess on my part Hum.

As Rose has not provided any specs for that heater element (Ohms, rated Wattage, inductance, original intended use and drive voltage etc.), that is about all we can do.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #216 on: 2011-02-23, 22:59:07 »
Group: Guest
Quoting Rosemary:

Quote
Please note that the point at which these results move away from all classical prediction is when the mean average, the integral and the cycle mean averages of the shunt voltage shows a negative voltage. This is the moment when there is also clear evidence that the supply source is - at its least - conserving its charge. Proof is in the math trace that computes the product of the battery and shunt voltages.

Rosemary it's just your blind belief that the results move away from classical prediction.  You have one instrument taking one set of measurements on your device.  Since the results are not what the normal prediction would be, the next logical step to take is to double-check your measurements some other way.  This would be what any scientist would do if they got unexpected results.  They would do their due diligence and verify that their measurements were correct by implementing a different measurement method.  If they still got the same unexpected results, then they would triple-check their measurements.

You are on such thin ice clinging to one suspect measurement.  This represents a complete and total failure on your part to follow the scientific method and do your own due diligence by double-checking and triple-checking your results.

Meanwhile, Poynt has mentioned that your current waveform shows no current flow when the MOSFET is supposed to be switched on.  I don't believe that you have commented on that either and it makes your measurements that much more suspect.

Personally I am 90% confident that setting up a low-pass filter with a big capacitor to measure the current flow into your circuit would result in the identical waveforms that you show on your DSO, and it will show that the net current flow is into the load, not back into the voltage source.  However, you stubbornly refuse to even consider doing this and keep on referencing the "magic battery" effect.  You would end up with a conflicting set of measurements.  The DSO would show a net current flow back into the voltage source, and the capacitor-based test setup would show a net current flow into the load.

The capacitor-based low-pass-filter current measurement method would resolve this issue once and for all.

The other thing that is somewhat frustrating is your moving target with respect to your claims.  From what I recall 10 years ago was that the claim was the current flowed into the load, but the power dissipated in the load resistor was 17 times greater than expected.  Two years ago the claim was still that current flowed into the load, but you made no concrete COP claims, you just pointed to a bunch of DSO captures.  And now this time you have stumbled across a measurement anomaly that appears to show net current flow back into the battery.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-02-24, 01:50:27 by MileHigh »
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #217 on: 2011-02-24, 21:04:45 »
Group: Guest
Some comments about Rosemary's first new DSO capture:



So this is roughly a 38 uS / 26 KHz gate signal.  The gate signal is being being provided by a function generator and the frequency is relatively low.

So why is the gate signal so miserable and drooping with an exponential decay?  I can't fathom it, it almost looks like it is a capacitively coupled signal that's too slow for the coupling.  Why is there a decay at all, when the input to the MOSFET is an open circuit after you charge the gate capacitance?

A 26 KHz square wave provided by a function generator should look like a pretty clean square wave if you ignore the spurious oscillation for a second.  We should be seeing a clean square wave with the spurious oscillations superimposed on it when the gate signal is low.  We are barely seeing a semblance of that.  I'm baffled and what about the university lab "experts?"  Surely they must be concerned about the abysmal condition of the gate signal?

Then there is the "elephant in the room" question:  There is apparently no current flow when the MOSFET is supposed to be ON.  At least at the beginning of the distorted gate ON signal the gate voltage is high, but no current flow is seen.  I also note that the drain voltage remains high when the gate voltage is high.  That doesn't make sense, the drain voltage should be low when the gate voltage is high.  This is in agreement with the shunt resistor showing no current flow.  So what's gives here, the MOSFET only appears to be switched on when the spurious oscillation takes place?

I defer to anybody else to enlighten me here because I am stumped.

MileHigh
   
img  MileHigh
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #218 on: 2011-02-24, 21:19:31 »
Group: Guest
The second new DSO capture:



So the big revelation here is that the drain voltage is almost identical to the battery voltage.  The oscillation frequency is about 1 MHz which is not particularly high in frequency at all for digital logic.  I have a feeling that that's not considered super fast even for a MOSFET but I will defer to Poynt and others on that.

One more time I can't fathom the drain voltage and the battery voltage being nearly identical.  The inductive resistor sits between the battery positive terminal and the MOSFET drain terminal and we are supposed to be seeing a voltage drop across it.  Can the battery probe be in the wrong place?  Are the batteries nearly discharged and they are super high impedance and we are operating in the "extreme fluffy" zone?  Is the 1 MHz oscillation high enough in frquency to just bypass the inductive resistor because of the stray capacitance associated with it?

The high voltage spikes have to be coming from an inductive component somewhere.  I assume that it's the wire between the battery positive terminal and the inductive resistor itself but I am not sure.

I also can't think of an explanation for the current apparently going negative during this time with those negative spikes.

I am not an expert on MOSFETs, but it almost looks like the MOSFET is being switched on from a small puff of charge that charges the gate capacitance for about 0.4 uSec before it dissipates and then the cycle repeats itself.

I am pretty baffled again.

Ultimately, I think that all of this is explainable and some of what we see in these DSO captures is not really what's happening.  The limitations of the equipment and the people using the equipment always are factors that you have to consider.  There is a form of "uncertainty principle" at play also.  There is simply no way that the net current is negative.  This is an absolute that could be proven with a capacitor-based low-pass-filter setup to measure the supply current.

MileHigh
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #219 on: 2011-02-25, 05:04:11 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Rose,

Thank you for the scope shots including the VD trace.

Yes, it is indeed strange that the Drain voltage trace would appear to be quite similar to the Vbat trace. There should be an offset of your Vbat voltage when looking at Vbat, yet there is none. There should be a measurable shunt current when the MOSFET is on, yet there is none.

May I suggest that someone from your team trace out the build while comparing it to your schematic? Something regarding the wave forms is not quite right, and leads me to believe that something is not connected as it should be, assuming that your new circuit is essentially the same as before, minus the 555 circuitry. We can not see many of the connections because they appear to run under the base of your apparatus. A photo of the top and bottom view would be quite helpful.

Just trying to help here Rose.

Thanks,

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #220 on: 2011-02-26, 03:47:40 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Rose,

There may be something wrong with the way your present apparatus is built, and I can not comment any further on the strangeness you are seeing until I can verify with my own eyes how everything is wired together. For that, I would need to see a clear photo of the top and bottom of the apparatus. Also important is to see a picture of the wires leading down to your batteries on the floor, including a closeup of the batteries.

If you could, that would be great. Hopefully, seeing the entire layout from these photos, it will become evident as to the source of this strange circuit operation.

A close up of the shunt resistors and function generator model would also be very helpful. Thanks. ;)

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  ion
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #221 on: 2011-02-26, 14:34:24 »
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
I did a little testing on a FETcircuit and was able to prove the possibility of a wirewound (inductive) resistor load and some gate inductance (1-2uH) as the cause of parasitic oscillation. I can get the circuit to easily oscillate in the burst mode even without a 555 or pulse generator drive. Substituting a carbon composition of equivalent value (10 Ohms) for the driven resistor kills the oscillation. Eliminating the few uH of inductance in the gate lead also kills the oscillation. It oscillates very readily with my hand wound "official Ainslie resistor" around 40 uH) and other much smaller wirewound resistors or with the carbon composition if an additional 2.2 uH is added to it.

Interestingly, the inductor position does not seem to influence oscillation, even rotating by 180 degrees, so this may rule out transformer coupling and point to capacitive shock excitation of the tuned circuit  comprised of the gate capacitance and gate inductance.

I will also have to  try a shielded inductor to prove the possibility of shock excitation due to FET drain-gate capacitance.

The burst mode is easier to achieve if the bias regulator circuit is eliminated, as the slight drop in battery voltage shifts the bias enough to key the oscillator off.

Adjusting R3 to the bias sweet spot creates the burst mode oscillation, above that a steady oscillation. It is clear that the pulse generator 555 circuit may be acting to "key" the inherent oscillation and not necessary to oscillation, therefore an external signal generator will act as a keying element.

Oscillation is in the 2-5 MHz region depending on inductance of L1 and L2. Off time is a function of bias setting.

With all the clip leads and long wires people use in replicating these circuits, it is easy to see how a parasitic oscillation mode may occur.
« Last Edit: 2011-02-26, 17:34:13 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #222 on: 2011-02-26, 18:36:23 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Thanks for this testing ION.

Hopefully it will help determine what is going on with Rose's circuit.

I don't see any gate bias (DC) in the gate drive wave forms, however, your test does provide a possible clue as to the cause. By chance are the Source and Drain wave forms 180ยบ out of phase like the traces Rose showed?

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #223 on: 2011-02-27, 01:09:46 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
One thing that seems quite apparent now Rose, is that your MOSFET switch isn't "switching" at all.

Look at your SCRN0243.jpg from your blog #73. If the green trace truly is of the MOSFET Drain voltage, VD, then you can see for yourself that when the function generator is trying to go "HI" to turn on the MOSFET, the VD voltage remains at the battery voltage, which of course means that the MOSFET is either not ON, or only partially ON.

Can you explain why this is?

.99

PS. This confirms that there is indeed no shunt current when the MOSFET is supposed to be ON, as I mentioned already a couple times.


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  poynt99
Re: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit « Reply #224 on: 2011-02-27, 01:28:45 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Not quite what we are seeing here, but helpful nonetheless:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igRqMU2r-v0[/youtube]

Thanks TK.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 29
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 22:45:45