Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

lol  How does one get a wattage value without the computation of current?

The value of the CSR is assumed to be approximately 1 Ohm for all current calculations. It will soon be shown what the correct value is however.

Regardless of the value of the CSR (anywhere from 0.25 Ohms to 2 Ohms for eg.), the trend being shown will be the same, i.e. the net average power declining in negative amplitude, and heading towards a positive value.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Continuing with the battery voltage probe placement closer and closer to the battery array, the results continue to show a declining negative average power in the battery array.

The first test run in this installment is with the voltage probes placed across the battery array and CSR (V1-3), completely eliminating the long battery wire leads. The power computation comes to -20W.

The second test run is with the battery voltage probes across nodes (V1-2), which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires. This power computation comes to -17.5W.

More to follow.

.99

Still with this question here.  How does one determine the current flow through the battery without computing the value of current?  Please note.  You have stated that you managed this without the use of the CSR.  What did you use to determine current flow?  If you want us to assume that this is a serious exercise then you need to explain how you managed this calculation.  And correctly you need to show us precise points on a schematic and show that schematic here together with the waveforms and the math traces - as you did the others. 

And you've now obviated ALL reference to instantaneous vi dt which is the second point of the report.  We do NOT need a negative voltage across the shunt to prove a negative wattage as indicated in the negative math trace referenced repeatedly.  I think you need to LOSE that AVERAGING that you are now relying on.

Regards
Rosemary

Added. 
And more added.  This is what I'm referring to.  Your quote 'which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires.'

[poynt99]

How does one determine the current flow through the battery without computing the value of current?

The instantaneous current i(t) through the battery is determined by the instantaneous voltage v(t) across the CSR (denoted by "VCSR" in all the scope shots), divided by the CSR resistance.

If we use 1 Ohm for the CSR resistance, the instantaneous current i(t) is equal to the instantaneous voltage v(t) across the CSR. For the sake of illustration, I have used (and noted) 1 Ohm for the CSR value for most of my computations.

Therefore, the instantaneous and average power results are based on the instantaneous voltage across the CSR (which represents battery current directly), times the instantaneous voltage across the battery array (at various points as noted on the schematics and text throughout).

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Poynty
You seem to be implying that the voltage values vary depending on where you position the probes - as stated hereunder.

Continuing with the battery voltage probe placement closer and closer to the battery array, the results continue to show a declining negative average power in the battery array.

This would be expected.  What you are NOT doing is showing us precisely what changes you have made to your probe positions.  We need a schematic showing this.  We also need to see the same graphic waveforms and math trace values.  Please provide this.  Else there is no knowing what you are doing.

Then you state that you completely eliminate any copper between the CSR and the battery - hereunder.  Not sure how we can manage this without interconnecting leads - nor even why we should bother if this is giving us a benefit.  In any event ...

The first test run in this installment is with the voltage probes placed across the battery array and CSR (V1-3), completely eliminating the long battery wire leads. The power computation comes to -20W.

Now you get to a computation of -20 Watts - which, incidentally, is still in excess of our own results.  We're looking for a value closer to -7 watts when we have a zero discharge from the battery.  This is in line with Test 1 of our report.

Then you go on to say the following - which makes no sense at all.

The second test run is with the battery voltage probes across nodes (V1-2), which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires. This power computation comes to -17.5W.

The puzzle here is that there is absolutely NO WAY you can evaluate any power delivered by or returned to the battery if you are NOT basing this on a wattage computation.  And for this particular computation you actually REQUIRE the evaluation of current.  And for this, AGAIN, you NEED the CSR factored into that product or you are not applying vi dt.  Nor are you showing us the variation to the oscillations and the math trace that we have rather grown to rely on, for this computation.  Did you make a mistake?  Or did you somehow run the PSpice program without reference to current?  Or did you simply ASSUME a 1 Ohm value to the shunt resistor and factor this into your analysis?  You see Poynty?  We are now dealing with allegations of yours and - dare I say it - implications.  This is hardly scientific.  It certainly is NOT good reporting. And what you are implying - or in fact stating - is that the there is a steadily reduced amount of energy being returned to the battery as one eliminates the inductance on the circuit.  Frankly - that's hardly surprising.  It's certainly consistent with our own findings.  BUT.  We have NO idea if you are even getting that oscillation on these new results.  Nor do we know it's amplitude nor its frequency.  All this was presented before - in clear schematics and downloads that were also VERY READABLE. For some reason you are now hiding this information.  And, consequently we now know nothing except what you are trying very hard to IMPLY.

Then you tell us - rather enticingly - 'more to follow'.  But what we actually got is only this.

The instantaneous current i(t) through the battery is determined by the instantaneous voltage v(t) across the CSR (denoted by "VCSR" in all the scope shots), divided by the CSR resistance.

I trust that you're not presuming to educate the most our readers here because I'm reasonably satisfied that we all know a little about elementary power analysis.  But what is confusing is that you now state that you have IN FACT factored in the current flow based on the CSR's resistance.  So.  How then do you justify your previous denial of this?  Here is that statement again.

'The second test run is with the battery voltage probes across nodes (V1-2), which eliminates the voltage across the CSR, and is therefore directly across the battery array and the associated battery jumper wires.'

Was this an error?  Did you not in fact mean this?  Which leaves the most of us wondering WHAT you IN FACT meant.  Please advise.

Anyway.  Moving on.  You then write ....

If we use 1 Ohm for the CSR resistance, the instantaneous current i(t) is equal to the instantaneous voltage v(t) across the CSR. For the sake of illustration, I have used (and noted) 1 Ohm for the CSR value for most of my computations.

Does this mean that you have ASSUMED a value for CSR?  And since it's compatible with your previous computation - then can we ASSUME that you are factoring in the required impedance because that oscillation is still there?  You see Poynty Point?  We no longer know what you're referring  to because you are NOT showing us the values directly off your simulation program.  And - in any event - you have either computed current correctly or you've computed the current incorrectly - and we will NEVER KNOW.  Again.  This speaks to a certain want in accurate reporting - with respect.  It would give you the license to say what you liked and claim what you like.  We have supported our own evidence with copious screen downloads.  May we impose on you to do the same?  That way we can compare applies with apples.  And it would then lend a certain credibility to your reports of a 'diminishing' benefit - which is otherwise lacking.

And as for this following statement ...

Therefore, the instantaneous and average power results are based on the instantaneous voltage across the CSR (which represents battery current directly), times the instantaneous voltage across the battery array (at various points as noted on the schematics and text throughout).

Very confusing.   

The instantaneous power would be based on vi dt.  Average voltage across the shunt and the battery has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with vi dt.  I seem to recall that you averaged the power but NOT the actual voltage values.  Please advise.  Because if you HAVE averaged the voltages across the battery and the load then you have factored OUT the benefit of the 180 degree anti phase relationship of both battery and shunt voltages that ADDS to the general benefit.

However, the good news is that you're now getting towards the values that we ourselves compute during the oscillation phase of each duty cycle.  Still WAY too much measured benefit on your side.  But hopefully you'll get this to more realistic levels in due course.   Meanwhile - may we all impose on you to show us those waveforms.  I would have thought that screen downloads would be relatively easily enabled with PSpice.  I am not sure why you need to hide this evidence.  I know that even I can manage those downloads and I'm USELESS on this internet thing.  I'm sure your own skills are more than equal to it.  And, as it's quick and easy - I wonder if we can impose on you to do the same?  That way we can ourselves verify your claims and implications here.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Rose,

Before I attempt to answer any of your questions, I must ask you this:

Have you been downloading, opening, and viewing the pdf document files I've attached to my posts?

In case you have not, these pdf files (which should be readable on MACs) contain all the schematics and scope shots I have referred to.

.99