Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, you mentioned that you couldn't get that massively-long mark-space ratio to work properly anymore a few pages back - is that the reason you had to get another one, or was it just for the shorter duty-cycle?

Hi Sprocket.  Yes indeed.  The really interesting test will be on this Tektronix - because it's able to give a 5% duty cycle 'on' or 'off' which I'm looking forward to testing.

Take care of yourself Sprocket.  I love your posts.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Agreed np,

However imho, the most practical CSR placement least prone to error or influence is in the negative leg of the battery, and as close as possible to the battery as well.

As pointed out in a previous post with diagram, this also provides a very convenient configuration to allow the scope probes to span both the battery and the CSR, and provide for the same lead "common".

.99

[poynt99]

We have still not tested the Tektronix.  Hopefully I'll start on this soon.  It's a Tektronix CFG280.  Not new out the box - but fully tested and fully calibrated.

Regards,
Rosemary

Thanks.

I'd be interested in hearing about the results with this generator as well.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I think we all can agree on the established fact that a net MEAN negative CSR voltage would seem to indicate a net current going back into the source battery.

A question to Rose, and any of the readers here (it would be interesting to hear any thoughts on this):

Is this apparent reversed current going back toward the source battery a consequence and product of the circuit operation itself, or is battery chemistry involved and somehow required to produce this reverse-current effect?

.99

Not sure if I'm allowed to venture an answer here.  My own take is that just as there's a quantifiable energy in the battery - and a quantifiable amount of this generated to flow as current through the circuit - in the same way the circuit material has that same quantifiable amount of energy which is also then generated to flow - but in the opposite direction.  The two currents forge their own path to their own separate sources.  Therefore - regardless of the battery chemistry - this energy keeps getting routed back to where it belongs - the one postive - back to the battery to discharge it - then the one negative - back to the circuit material that generated it.

Therefore there may or may not be time for the electrolytes to entirely reposition or whatever the term is.  But the current - the actual material current flow - is compelled to return there.  Which is also why I do NOT think that a capacitor would work.  It would separate the current flow from the source and I'm not sure how it can then know where to return.  But I'm open to correction.  I know that some small test was done on this during this last week and it did seem as if the capacitor did not retain any charge.  But I was not there to see the test and I am not in receipt of the full results. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary   

[nul-points]

Agreed np,

However imho, the most practical CSR placement least prone to error or influence is in the negative leg of the battery, and as close as possible to the battery as well.

As pointed out in a previous post with diagram, this also provides a very convenient configuration to allow the scope probes to span both the battery and the CSR, and provide for the same lead "common".

.99

yes - i'm with you on the common ground advantages - but perversely my gut feel says try at least 1 change-out test for minimal feedback at the gate - maybe with minimal monitoring just to get a 'go/no-go' type handle on any contribution to anomalous operation from a 'source-ended' gate drive

...anyway - for the moment, it sounds like Rosemary & team may be trying the earlier DC gate drive suggestion, so i guess we need to 'watch this space'!