another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty.  Unless you can contradict what I've written can we put this argument to bed?  That argument that the battery voltage is wrong?  Otherwise it's going to dog this discussion into infinity.  Your point is correct BUT it is ONLY correct AS IT APPLIES to the computation of current flow.  Which has NOTHING to do with the battery voltage itself.  The voltage reading done by those oscilloscopes is measuring ONLY the amount of potential difference available across whatever those probes are measuring.  Whatever potential difference it's measuring is also what's there.  It's a  MEASUREMENT THAT IS GUARANTEED.

GRANTED - that IF we measure the rate of current flow resulting from that applied potential difference - then we must also acknowledge that regardless of the voltage reading itself - we needs must factor in a higher resistance WHEN AND IF the oscillation is going lickerty split.  BECAUSE that faster oscillation will certainly reduce the rate at which the potential difference across the battery is delivered as current.  But it makes not ONE IOTA of difference to the battery voltage. 

You've been mentioning this argument off and on - since this thread's inception.  It is basically simply NOT correct.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited.  I think I limited the accuracies of the scopes to the voltages across the batteries. It applies to whatever potential difference it is able to read relative to its probe and ground.  Hopefully it's now clearer.

[poynt99]

A VOM wouldn't drop to 0.5v or is the 'recharge rate' really high or something?. I'm confused, I thought that was what the excitement was about!
PC

It's virtually impossible to pull down a single somewhat charged 12V battery to 0.5V, much less 6 batteries in series!

The voltage measurement is not taken on the battery posts, which is the reason the scope shows a large voltage swing, and this is due to the impedance of the wire between the load and the batteries.

[poynt99]

Rosemary,

The battery voltage measurement is essentially the "meat of the matter" for my argument against the validity of your power measurements. If you will not argue this, then it would seem we have very little left to discuss.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

The battery voltage measurement is essentially the "meat of the matter" for my argument against the validity of your power measurements. If you will not argue this, then it would seem we have very little left to discuss.

I NEVER SAID THAT I WON'T ARGUE IT.  I said that you really need to stop saying that the scopes are picking up the wrong voltage.  OF COURSE I need to argue why that voltage swings.  I have argued it.  I'll try it again.  But right now - what I AM saying is that the scope meter is not wrong.  Those measurements are NOT ERRONEOUS.  IF THEY WERE I'd have cause to quarrel with LeCroy - and that would be RIDICULOUS.

I'll try that argument again.  Meanwhile could I impose on you to JUST READ what I've already tried by way of an explanation?  If it's not understandable then tell me where?  That might help.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here's another shot at it.

Put your scope probes at the positive terminal of your battery.  IT CANNOT READ THE VOLTAGE - that potential difference - UNLESS its ground is connected to the NEGATIVE TERMINAL. 

When we apply a positive signal at the gate - of Q1 - in order to CLOSE THE CIRCUIT - then it is able to read the battery voltage.  NO PROBLEM.  If we entirely disconnected the battery from the circuit it would read the battery voltage.  NO PROBLEM. 

THEN.  We apply a negative signal at the gate of Q1.  At the same time we're applying a POSITIVE SIGNAL to the SOURCE LEG OF Q2.  NOT TO THE NEGATIVE BATTERY TERMINAL.  ONLY DIRECTLY TO THE TRANSISTOR Q2.  This positive signal is NOT ON THE CIRCUIT.  It is specifically and ONLY applied to that TRANSISTOR.  To it's source leg.  Q2S.

Do you agree this far?

Kindest as ever,
R
added