Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[eisnad karm]

Perhaps rather than arguing of measuring techniques a practical demonstration could be devised that either a small load could be supported while maintain the batteries or something continuously heated while maintaining the batteries. Without a practicle application or use it will remain just an academic argument.
Have the latest tests or Hypothesis been accepted for peer review in any publication or by ay institution? This is an honest question out of ignorance.
PS Hi Bill and Chris....I got sick of waiting up to three days to have posts approved so this is the new me.
Kind Regards
Karm

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And this post just highlights my concerns.

There are two separate "cycles" at play here, and this is part of your confusion.

The first cycle is that determined by the function generator. Let's call it "cycle1". The period and duty cycle of the function generator determines the period of time that the circuit is oscillating, and the period of time that it is not.

The second cycle is that determined by the period or frequency of the oscillation itself. Let's call it "cycle2".

You are concentrating on capturing multiple cycles of cycle1.  This is not 100% correct and not necessary in this case. If in fact there is no power dissipation during the "dead" times, then you should try to achieve either constant oscillation, or adjust the cycle1 to be much much shorter in time, perhaps 10 or 100 times longer than the cycle2 cycle time.  This way you are able to adjust the scope to capture sufficient cycles of both cycles (or just the one in the case of constant oscillation), and adjust for sufficient sampling to avoid aliasing errors. 

When the oscilloscope time base is set to capture a number of cycles of cycle1, when cycle1 is on the order of 100's of seconds, the sample rate is then insufficient to properly capture the much higher frequency cycle2 wave form. This is undersampling, i.e. information is missing.

Imagine a standard movie film that runs at about 25 frames per second. Now imagine that the projector bulb only turns on for one frame out of every 5000 frames that run across the lens. What do you suppose the movie will look like in such a case?

The mechanism turning the bulb on and off is analogous to your sample rate when the time base is set for 100's of seconds, and the running 25 frames per second is analogous to the 1.5MHz oscillation signal.

Actually Poynty - I'm beginning to see the problem.  You have COMPLETELY missed the point.  Now.  Just empty your mind for a minute and READ CAREFULLY or LISTEN CLOSELY.

The gate signal turns 'on' - a positive charge applied to the gate by the functions generator.  This allows delivery of energy from the battery supply.  Purely conventional standard switching function.  BUT.  Here's the thing.  It turns ON - or it applies that signal - FOR let's say 20% of 2.08 minutes - being 2.08 minutes x 60 for seconds x 20% = 31.2 seconds.  Therefore - for approximately 31 seconds - of each cycle lasting 2.08 minutes, THE SIGNAL AT THE GATE IS 'ON'.

During this time NO OSCILLATIONS ARE EVIDENT ANYWHERE, CERTAINLY NOT ACROSS THE SHUNT NOR ACROSS THE BATTERY.    THEREFORE NO ENERGY EVIDENT TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED FROM THE BATTERY.  THE SHUNT 'FLATLINES'.  YET THE SWITCH IS UNQUESTIONABLY 'ON'.   And again.  There are NO OSCILLATIONS ANYWHERE. 

THEN.  ONLY WHEN THE SWITCH AT THE GATE TURNS NEGATIVE - THEN ONLY DOES THE OSCILLATION START.  It then ramps up and ramps down for another plus minus 31 seconds.  GROSS APERIODICITY

THEN.  STILL WHILE THE SWITCH AT THE GATE IS NEGATIVE - THEN IT DEFAULTS TO A SMALLER OSCILLATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 60% OF THAT 2.08 minutes, being approximately 75 seconds.  Now we have PERFECT PERIODICITY for the first time.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES A FULL CYCLE. 

Please get your mind around this Poynty.  EACH CYCLE LASTS FOR 2.08 MINUTES.  There are 5 distinct phases during each cycle because the initial phase 2 of each cycle has 3 implicit phases.  It ramps up.  It steadies.  Then it ramps down.  OSCILLATION ONLY OCCURS during 80% OF THAT TIME WHEN THE SWITCH IS 'OFF'

And when you've managed that much then try this.  How come the battery is not discharging energy during the 'on' time when the gate signal is set to allow a positive current  flow?  How come the battery CAN discharge energy when the gate signal is NEGATIVE?

I've got a sneaking suspicion that IF YOU GET HERE then you'll probably looking at the actual conditions on this circuit for the first time.

Now to tackle your request that we get rid of those oscillations?  WHY?  They're extremely beneficial.

Regards, again
Rosemary

[poynt99]

@all:
Since Rose can't seem to grasp what I am saying, perhaps someone else would like to take a crack at explaining this to her. Furthermore, if I seem off-base, comment on that as well (not you Rose, you've clearly made your point on that issue).

@Rose:
You can bury your head in the sand Rose, but the truth of the matter will always prevail. You are extremely apt at misinterpreting a discussion, and putting your own words into people's mouths such as you have profusely done above. This makes it entirely impossible to get through to you, and it would seem that this is your preference, as it leaves you in the happy position that you appear to be more knowledgeable than those who actually have the background to comment. This, despite your repeated need to remind us all how inept you are at most things technical. Quite a dichotomy you have created within yourself.

What you are calling "undersampling" is not undersampling. You are confusing the concepts of "sampling", and "capturing" enough cycles; they are not nearly the same thing.



.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Pointy.  I know exactly what you've been trying to say.  I'm not that much of an idiot.  I'm just using this to refute your IMPLICATIONS being that we're hiding behind averaging in order to promote the evidence.

You're trying to point out that 500 000 data samples over 2.08 minutes requires an averaging that 500 000 samples against 1 second - for instance - DOES NOT.  It's a simple argument.  You just didn't find the words.  Strange.  I wonder if it's because you struggle with concepts.  I suspect that's the problem.  Like most engineers you cannot put into words what I - with this 'idiot' mind - find relatively easy.  LOL  I guessed that your object was simply to cast those generalised aspersions.  But since the subsequent two posts of yours I'm rather more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.  You were genuinely trying to explain things.  A noble effort - and a heartfelt appeal to the general public to come to your rescue.  Good gracious Poynty Point.  Even I was beginning to feel sorry for you.  Whatever next?

However, it was an ill chosen complaint compounded with your coupling of that delivery with your characteristic flair for making an observation and a criticism in the same breath.  In this instance it was also just SO out of line that I thought the time had come to show you that I am well able to fight my oorner.

In the first instance - you called it UNDERSAMPLED in order to imply that the Le Croy is not able to manage a correct caculation.  Actually you didn't IMPLY it.  You stated it as a FACT.  BUT -  IN FACT the machine is well able to give an accurate result over an extended timebase.  Indeed, as an average it is, in fact, MORE dependable than otherwise.  Therefore the result is NOT undersampled in the sense you were desperately trying to convey.  It absolutely carries the manufacturer's warranty of accuracy.  AND WHAT IS MORE it is recommended over 'small sample' values. 

In the second instance you were assuming that if we were to look at the waveform detail - then you were hoping that we would thereby LOSE the advantage of that negative value over the cycle mean and the mean averages.  These numbers are meaningless on their own.  I'm well aware of that too.  But what they DO indicate is that there is a MORE current being returned to the battery than was initially delivered by the battery.  Your expectation was to find that that devil in the detail.  A clear evidence of more energy in the delivery than the return.  Well.  I shall bore you with a series of posts when I've finished here - that will show you that those REPEATED AND DETAILED SCREEN SHOT DOWNLOADS - ALL STAY NEGATIVE.  Our argument is greatly enhanced if we were to do our power calculations over such small evidence.  But hang ten and I'll get back here.

FINALLY.  I am sick to death of that attitude of SUPERIORITY where you just assume that you KNOW ALL and that I, be contrast KNOW NOTHING.  Not only, by now, should it it rather evident that I'm well able to assess power measurements - but that I also know my way around the scope meter.  If you therefore persist in these disgusting slurs against my competence then I will most certainly RETURN that attack with as much insult as you offer me.  It is inappropriate to this forum - to our efforts in this promotion - to the general requirement for courtesy and good manners - and to the courtesy required in the discourse of science anywhere.  It reflects VERY BADLY on your own integrity - and it is rather disgusting that you and your dogs should find the time and go to the trouble to slur me as you do.  I am an old lady.  I do no-one any harm.  I have a passionate interest in physics.  I do not need to have Grown Men try and orchestrate a baseless attack on me.  It's a kind of thug like bullying by a little group of self-opinionated idiots - that is entirely INAPPROPRIATE.  Do you really think that the most of our readers here approve it?  I AM NOT DELUDED.  I AM NOT INCOMPETENT.  I AM NOT AN IDIOT.  For you to persist in these efforts to try and show me up as such is DISGUSTING.  And I think it would behoove you to bear this in mind when you discuss anything at all with me.

If I have a fault it is that I am most anxious to advise all and sundry that I am an amateur.  And I do this for good reason.  It is in the hopes that other amateurs that may read here may then be encouraged to realise that physics in general and electromagnetics in particular - are not the province of the super intelligent.  It only needs an average competence to wrap one's mind around these concepts.  You and your 'thugs' on the other hand  - seem to need to complicate it out of mind.  I suspect it's because you wrongly assume that everyone will then think that you're very clever.  In fact - the more complicated you make things the more stupid you appear to be.

Regards,
Rosemary

I'll attach those downloads when I've done them.  Just know - Poynty Point - THEY'LL ALL BE NEGATIVE.  IT'S IN THE WAVEFORM.  THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.  SORRY.  BUT THAT'S HOW IT IS.  BUT YOU SHOULD BE GLAD TO SEE ALL THAT EVIDENCE.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty this is for you.  I've tried to get the shots at precisely their transition.  So check the time of the downloads for an indication of their duration. 

I may have to split this into at least 2 posts.  Here goes.