COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Aaron]

another vid

Harvey, I'll post another vid later showing what my original video showed - the best I can...and it will be what was claimed to be false triggering. I'll simply zoom out on the time to fine detail of what it looks like.

And a few other details.

[Aaron]

misc

Resonance vid...

I removed the vid for now until I get it verified. MH may for once be right about something about it being refresh rate on the scope.

I removed it so nobody is misled by it and I removed my pic of the "resonance".

I know what it looked like on the analog scope.

I'm using a much bigger resistor so it may be more of a challenge.

[sprocket]

Harvey, thanks. Not sure what to make of that waveform - first, it was produced after I blew the mosfet, so although the faulty device was still in circuit when I snapped that pic. its contribution should have been minimal! That said, before I sent it to Silicon Heaven, and with the motor attached as described, I was getting all sorts of similar waveforms, plus the massive ringing voltage, but it was hard to know what was going on and I didn't have much time to experiment before it blew. A new batch of mosfets will help elucidate things

[witsend]

Answering TK here. (post 925 and others)

"But to do quantitative masurements on an analog scope requires a bit of skill and some math ability. So it's no surpise to me which type Aaron and Rosemary prefer." (me)

Am relieved to see that you have not actually refuted the Fluke's measurements albeit that there is so much implied in this post. Speak more clearly to your implications here and I think you would probably have answer to it in Court. Why then, may I ask, do you never use it? It allows an immediate and reliable reference to the DC value that your LeCroy seems to contradict. Could it be that you are anxious to distract your armchair audience?

It appears that my 'banning' on your thread and on the OU.Com forum has now been established through my email address. We have advised Sefan through his PM system. Yet nothing is done about this? I must presume therefore that you require that monologue to emphasise your bias. Which makes me wonder what are the real intentions of that forum in the first instance.

EDIT And thanks for providing that link to my blogspot. I owe you for all that gratuitous exposure. I am inordinately attached to the logic applied to the field model and would be gald to share it more broadly.

[rave154]

rosemary, i was looking for an online version of Newman's book in pdf form ( which i have on my HD but is 90 MEG or so, so impossible to send )....and.....i guess the Library Angels stepped in, becaus ei just found a post by someone with this...

MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service

Newmans whole book in PDF, 95MEG

:-)

[witsend]

Many thanks Rave. Will check it out

[witsend]

@ Harvey,

It's become abundantly apparent that you choose not to engage in technical dicsussion with anyone except those below your perceived level of technical knowhow. You've avoided debate and discussion with anyone that has opposed your ideas. Since you have chosen to avoid any technical discussion with me regarding several of the issues I've brought up, I'll leave you alone to your own vices.

I am interested in technical discussion with anyone willing and brave enough to go the distance. I do not know everything, and I openly stated that at least once here. But no one does. We are here to learn form each other, but no learning can occur if each party is not willing to discuss, defend, and comment on our and each other's viewpoints (which I have been trying to get others to do here). Making blanket esoteric statements without backup is an open invitation to questions, and one should expect it. I am not an expert, contrary to the notion Jibguy is trying to portray that I profess of myself. But I do know what I know, and what I need to learn, I try my best to learn.

Focus on the technical and be prepared to back it up, otherwise it's just a useless cat fight.

Any takers?

.99

I'm a taker - as a matter or fact. But I'd like to set some ground rules. I've asked this before and at the risk of repetition - ad nauseum - please comment on the possibility of the the switch inducing a second cycle of energy and in terms of inductive laws. Then I'll have the comfort of knowing that you - at its least - understand the counter argument. How's that as a kick off point?

[Harvey]

Harvey, thanks. Not sure what to make of that waveform - first, it was produced after I blew the mosfet, so although the faulty device was still in circuit when I snapped that pic. its contribution should have been minimal! That said, before I sent it to Silicon Heaven, and with the motor attached as described, I was getting all sorts of similar waveforms, plus the massive ringing voltage, but it was hard to know what was going on and I didn't have much time to experiment before it blew. A new batch of mosfets will help elucidate things

LOL - Self resonance at its finest! with a G to S short circuit functioning as an FET 'emitter follower' (well source follower I guess). Some crazy switching there to be sure. Thanx for the clarification

[Aaron]

battery charging

Without the diode, the voltage spike at the coil is easily 10 times the plus voltage. And with the diode, it was about 4 times the voltage.

Has anyone done long hour testing on battery recharge by taking the diode and charging an equal battery(s) as the front power battery?

[Joit]

Aaron, not directly, i did use a Power Supply and my transformer, to charge up 4x 9V Blocks. At last it worked well.
But as usual, did need to do some adjustment. I think gotoluc did make a Vid about it, that he did charge some at parallel up.
But i could not compare consume from the Source to the charge,
Right now i need to recharge my LA Batteries, seems they are damaged, one is for sure, got it at worse Condition as a Gift.
I still play around with them at the Circuit, and strange, it seems it loads Ah up, lesser the Voltage. but well, i did put some heavy Magnets to Minus, probatly, that does kind of rectifying.
Sometimes i think, i do strange things, or there are really more Cells damaged.

Other thing, you said, with the Quantum Timer Circuit, you only could get 50% Dutycycle?
Seems once more, i need to do a direct compare to this both.
But anyway, i still got it, and cant complain about it.

Harvey,
this Statement at OU is again not, what i have said at last.
I said, The Circuit from the Quantum WORKS, the Problems THEY got
with have the right Duty Cycle at a certain Frequency was, that you need to adjust at the Gate Pot too, then you can come too, what you want.
And as Aaron had shown, it does not much matter, with what Cycle you get osscillation.
But they only wanna SEE and BELIEVE, what they want to see, no matter, what is said after, and only keep, what suite them best.
They are actually no Researcher, they are only Debunker.
I doubt, they will find any special once, when they dont have a done, ready Circuit to rebuild.
And even then, i am not sure, if they will debunk this too.
There cant be nothing more worse at doing research and behave like this.
Now they moaning around about Scopeshots, even, when you actually only can see what the circuit does,
when you have a rebuild, and not just theoretical Phrases.
You see, they still are quit about any positive Things at it,
just moaning around, and let do others the Work for them, for a NO, Thanks.

[poynt99]

I'm a taker - as a matter or fact. But I'd like to set some ground rules. I've asked this before and at the risk of repetition - ad nauseum - please comment on the possibility of the the switch inducing a second cycle of energy and in terms of inductive laws. Then I'll have the comfort of knowing that you - at its least - understand the counter argument. How's that as a kick off point?

Rosemary,

No offense intended, but I will have to pass on your offer. You and I have already exhausted each other's points "ad nauseum" (or at least I have with you), and it would be fruitless in my opinion to continue. You and I talk apples and oranges, and at times completely different languages, for which I apparently have no translator for, nor you for me.

.99

[witsend]

Poynt - this is quite funny. I've looked through the previous posts. Tedious in the extreme. Over 20 by my best count. Thus far not one acknowledgement of our argument from you. Yet again. Do you understand my point? Just a yes or no would be good? I dare not repeat the question. It'll drill through the internet and develop it's own crazy form of resonance. It'll deafen our readers and I'm trying not be shrill.

[poynt99]

Poynt - this is quite funny. I've looked through the previous posts. Tedious in the extreme. Over 20 by my best count. Thus far not one acknowledgement of our argument from you. Yet again. Do you understand my point? Just a yes or no would be good? I dare not repeat the question. It'll drill through the internet and develop it's own crazy form of resonance. It'll deafen our readers and I'm trying not be shrill.

Either I do not understand your point/question/argument, or you do not understand my points/answers/arguments. Or both.

.99

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Why don't they show themselves

Hi all,

It seems to me the people who want to disrupt do not want to show who they really are, I wonder why!!!!!!!!! I use my own name, Aaron and Peter as well, how about coming clean?

Mike

[Peter Lindemann]

Great idea!!

Hi all,

It seems to me the people who want to disrupt do not want to show who they really are, I wonder why!!!!!!!!! I use my own name, Aaron and Peter as well, how about coming clean?

Mike

Mike,

Great idea!!! Is it possible to limit this thread just to people who use their real names? That way, it can settle down to being a quiet "replication thread", since all of the disrupters, hiding behind their anonymity, will be forced out.

I vote YES.

Peter