another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie · April 05, 2012, 11:57:48 PM

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 11:53:20 PM
Rosemary, any scope engineer will tell you that EVERY scope can and will produce artefacts and garbage traces if not used properly. And you are not using your scopes properly.

Mentioning courts again? Feeling your grip on reality slipping away again? That's your usual fall-back tactic when your position becomes untenable.

And just imagine... TWO fancy scopes, both with math and integration capability... and you hook them up exactly in parallel so they show the same information. What a waste of oscilloscopes. You could have shown so very much more, had you only known what you were doing.

Are you implying that we did not apply the math function of the Tektronix? Very interesting point INDEED - TK

Rosie Pose

Rosemary Ainslie · April 05, 2012, 11:58:57 PM

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 11:56:31 PM
Lol. Where did this scope shot come from, I wonder?

Indeed. So do I.
Rosie Pose

MileHigh · April 06, 2012, 12:00:45 AM

Rosemary:

TK's clip showing the pitfalls of measurement is simply something that you have never been able to understand. He demonstrating how the inherent inductance in the wire can cause a voltage spike to appear. That's something that's beyond your comprehension.

PW:

With respect, I am going to pass on the scope shot analysis - there is too much uncertainty in the air and I view it as a moot point.

Please note that just earlier tonight Rosemary denied that the circuit diagram that I marked up was the true circuit demoed in her clip. Hence the annotated version of the screen capture of the bottom of the pegboard to prove that the diagram that I am using is indeed the correct schematic diagram for the circuit. Hence you get the current flow bypassing the current sensing resistor in negative offset oscillation mode.

I agree that there is a more robust path through the CSR when in oscillation mode. However, that current is due to an oscillator that is being powered by the current flow through, and the voltage drop across, the Q2-Q5 MOSFET array. So the AC through the shunt resistor is derived from the net DC through the Q2-Q5 MOSFETs.

The negative half of the AC cycle times the battery voltage (which is also corrupted) appears to be power being returned to the battery. That must be the root cause of the net negative wattage measurements by the scope averaging. However, when the AC shows negative current, the actual current going through the function generator is almost certainly positive. It would just have to be verified.

The true current waveform powering the circuit is most likely pulsing DC that is almost exclusively unidirectional. The true voltage powering the circuit is certainly a steady DC without the wide voltage fluctuations shown on the scope capture. If you could actually capture the correct data, everything would check out.

Ultimately, as has been mentioned several times before, this is an example of garbage-in garbage-out.

MileHigh

TinselKoala · April 06, 2012, 12:02:29 AM

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 05, 2012, 11:57:48 PM
Are you implying that we did not apply the math function of the Tektronix? Very interesting point INDEED - TK

Rosie Pose

You are applying it incorrectly. You are multiplying noise by nonsense, and you don't even account for the fact that your shunt is 0.25 Ohms, and you think that where the scope says "V V" it is saying "W". But it's not.

fuzzytomcat · April 06, 2012, 12:04:04 AM

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 05, 2012, 11:03:22 PM
OK, Fuzzy, Rosemary, I looked at the EXIF data for that photo, and yes, as Rosemary says, it was taken all the way back at the end of 2010. So it's not another smoking gun after all.

FTC

another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

Rosemary Ainslie

Rosemary Ainslie

MileHigh

TinselKoala

fuzzytomcat