From Rosemary posted at OU.com today...
Guys - I've just read through Hamburger's long awaited debunk courtesy a simulated number. He's his own best critic. Here's a sample. 'I love to pierce it incisively until they are naked, if not bleeding.' Golly. From where I sit I'm still unscathed and fully dressed. He needs to revisit some of his claims. One proposal is that the MOSFET is fully turned on at some stages to allow for the - as he puts it - stellar - or was that solar? - increase in output. This would mean that our little embedded Zener would have to take the full value of 60 amps, during the 'off' time and the transistor itself - something marginally less than 60 amps, during the 'on' time. Pretty robust for something that's rated at plus/minus 6 amps.
The "it" that I love to pierce, which she conveniently declines to quote, is the cloud of obfuscating bullshit suurounding and concealing the truth of the way the circuits operate and the real measurements of Pin and Pout. As with almost everything she writes and publishes, there isn't much one can do except speculate and guess as to what is really going on on her bench.
The "proposal" that there may be times when the MOSFET is turned on and that maybe that was what was happening when Rosemary saw such huge heat in the load that she always quickly shut the experiment down was fully qualified by me as pure speculation and an educated guess. Where she get this 60A number from anything I wrote is a complete mystery.
Obviously to anyone with 1/10 of a brain, with a DC supply of 75V and at minimum a series resistor (the load) of 11.11 Ohms, the maximum current in the circuit would be I=E/R or 75/11.11 which ain't by my math 60A nor did I ever say anything of the kind. What I said was clear and that was that each MOSFET would only have to support 1.33A if indeed they were all fully turned on and that there would then be only about 500W in the load resistor at most.
She is obviously taking full advantage of the fact that I cannot post a reply over there to totally falsify what I said, take quotes out of context and otherwise generally further the game of obfuscation and lies. Where does she get this totally off the wall stuff? 60A? Where did I say any such thing?
But that aside - of interest is this obsessive need to disprove this. I think that what he finds most objectionable is that I am a self-confessed clutz who has no right to advance anything at all. He's right of course. But it's precisely because I am THAT mediocre that I have every confidence that this technology and these concepts can, eventually, be understood. I rather rely on this fact. Here's the thinking. If I can get my head around them - then anyone can. It clearly does not require brilliance. Just a little bit of common sense. And I'm the FIRST to admit that we've shown nothing new.
Getting huge amounts of heat without any drain from the power source is what Rosemary thinks and claims she has demonstrated. That would be something new. It defies all forms of commion sense and the basic laws of physics and all the observations of electrical engineers and physicists for the last 300 years. There is no "eventuality" involved in understanding just how Rosemary's circuit works...that is what I'm trying to clearly show. It is all very well understood and predicatble and not overunity.
It seems that the simulators do exactly what we show. The difference again is only in this. Humbugger dare not show the actual values applied to the sundry components. He tells us that he tweaks them. And, self- evidently, he tweaks them to favour under unity. Which is hardly surprising given that he seems to base his sense of self-worth - on an effective argument to deny all. And he DARE not show the phase relationships between the shunt and the batteries - this because they'll cancel out and dribble to death in no time at all. He then shows what he calls 'rosiewatts' and - far from being rosy - they're rather sick. And they seem to cost way, way too much. One thing that springs to mind is that he justifies increasing the measured inductance at the shunt from 110nH to 110 nH x 4. By rights this should divided - as that's the TOTAL that is measured. And so it goes. An adjustment here - a oversight there - a variation everywhere. What's new.
The values in the sim were taken directly from Rosie's published schematics wherever possible. Where I deviated or added best guesses it was fully explained exactly why in every instance. She does not ever show super-critical and important things like the inductance of the battery wiring, but has given some indications that allow us to estimate it from the lengths of wire she has used. Even Stefan Hartman (probably after reading my posts here) pointed out to her that the sole reason she keeps seeing hundreds of volts AC as the "battery voltage" is simply due to the long battery wiring scheme and her measuring point at the wrong end of these long wires.
Her remarks about me adding the four reported shunt inductances are totally incorrect. That would add up to 440nH and I fully explained that all I did was add a few nH to her total of 110nH to account for the wire lengths as observed in her picture of the bench setup, I think I clearly said I used 180nH, but, as it turns out, the value here makes extremely little or no visible difference to the circuit operation; only the falseness of the current measurement waveforms.
Regarding me "tweaking" any values, I'll say two things:
1) The circuit immediately ran in the very same mode as Rosemary's and with very nearly the exact same waveforms she reports, including continuous oscillations, the very first time I turned it on.
2) Where I tweaked was only to slightly adjust the amplitude of the voltage on the load resistor to closely match her reported 40W output heating power. I fully explained that, as well and it didn't take much of any tweaking. In fact, what I tweaked was simply the estimation of her battery wiring inductance which no one including her knows the true value of anyway! Her implication...make that outright statement...is that I spent a great deal of time tweaking values so that the circuit would not show overunity. That is complete bullshit. The very first and only power in/out measurement estimates were directly and honestly reported with a complete explanation of the method used. It's not as if my initial testing yielded copious amounts of overunity and I spent huge efforts trying and finally succeeding to tamp that down to 75%. Now watch her leave out the first 4 words of that last sentence and quote it in her blog and a post over at Hartmann's site.
The circuit is simply operating as a linear oscillator and the output is running into a tuned network consisting of the load inductance, battery wiring inductance and MOSFET output capacitance. It is operating in what RF design engineers (of which I am one) call class C operation and the expected and measured efficiency is exactly in agreement with well-known data gathered both theoretically and emperically over a hundred years of RF power design work by many experts and academics.
Regarding daring not to show the "phase relationship between the shunt and the batteries", there is no phase relationship. The batteries are a DC voltage. In fact, the tiny AC ripple that is actually present on the batteries due to their finite internal resistance is indeed exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the current, as would always be expected, since the lowest points of the battery ripple obviously will correspond to the highest points of current draw and vice versa. This will be true no matter what circuitry is being evaluated. It's called Ohm's law.
Humbugger
Author
Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit (Read 477176 times)
