View Single Post
Old 07-07-2009, 07:36 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
@Aaron: I would be very glad to see your replication videos and data and hear your explanation of why the duty cycle problem that I have identified, makes no difference to you.

But regardless of that, if you would bother to actually read my posts you would have seen that I am NOT using the INCORRECT 555 timer circuit from AINSLIE's publication, and instead I am using a FG that can deliver a duty cycle that is known and trusted. And I have replicated some heating in the load. I have also compared this heating with heating produced by a straight DC source providing the same continuous power input as the Ainslie circuit provides on average at 3.7 percent ON.
There is no observable difference in the final temperature reached or the rate of temperature rise.
Thus, there is nothing that my build of the Ainslie circuit does, WHEN DRIVEN CORRECTLY AT 3.7 PERCENT ON, that isn't also done by straight DC at the same average power level.

This much at least is true:
"The self-oscillation has been said to increase the efficiency but is not necessary but in either case, Rosemary's circuit went into self-oscillation and yours didn't so you can't say you replicated it. And because you can't, doesn't mean it is Rosemary's fault. You haven't even used the same mosfet."

In several of her publications she says that the mosfet isn't critical. Nevertheless I have tested now 4 different mosfets, and I will be glad to test the IRFPG50 as soon as I obtain one. And the "self oscillation" -- which has been variously described as "random non-periodic" "chaotic" and yet at the same time "resonant" do we know what's being talked about here, if there isn't a screen shot of a scope trace, and nobody else, NO MATTER THE MOSFET, is unable to reproduce it???? How do you know that I'm not seeing the same thing she was, but labelling it differently (like false triggering of the DSO)???

Would anyone care to place a little side wager? I say that the IRFPG50 mosfet will produce substantially the same results that I have gotten with the 2sk1548. Anybody say different? I'll even give odds.

Now, if someone would only tell me what the correct circuit is, that made the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper--because they both describe the SAME experiment but describe DIFFERENT CIRCUITS---??

Something isn't right here, and it has nothing to do with my attitude.

Now-my question again:

It's a simple question: Is the circuit diagram in the Quantum article correct or not?

Please answer yes or no.

If the answer is "Yes, it is incorrect", don't you think it's appropriate to make a correction?
Especially since that article has been around since 2002, and who knows how many people have tried to build it, find what I found, and then go on to simply dismiss Ainslie as someone who doesn't know what she's talking about---

If the answer is "No, it is the correct circuit used in the experiment"...then there are some more severe problems.

So which is it? Is the circuit correct or not?

Last edited by TinselKoala; 07-07-2009 at 07:48 PM.