another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

@PW:

Excellent example using the horizontal scale to determine the very slow frequency shown. But there is also a much higher frequency shown on the scope's display. Big "M" means megaHertz, and little "m" means milliHertz, right?

At the bottom of the LeCroy shot above, in the grey stripe that contains the "LeCroy" name, the sample rate and the RTC reading,  there is a figure given as   "  f=2.34324MHz  ".

What does this figure represent? 

(Note where the scope's trigger is set: on the top Yellow CVR channel, right smack dab in the middle of an oscillation burst.)

[TinselKoala]

And TK - while you're there.  You need to explain how it is that you manage to show the voltage across your load resistor without any phase shifts.  Is it another miracle of the TAR BABY?

Rosie Pose,

No, it's an expression of your own wilful ignorance and refusal to communicate clearly and in standard terminology.

Are you talking about the phase relationship shown in Paper 2, Figure 8?

Are these the phase shifts I'm not managing to show?

(For those who are able to understand: The below picture is a zoom of Tar Baby's oscillations, driven by the 555 timer in the standard manner.)

The lesser amplitude trace is taken directly at the battery and is shown at 5 volts per division, and the greater amplitude trace is the voltage drop across the CVR, taken at 0.5 volts per division. I have used the "offset" or vertical position controls to overlay these traces on the center graticle marker, hence the absolute voltage values are lost-- but they are irrelevant for this demo.
(In Rosemary's scope channel boxes, the "ofs" figure would read 0 or close to it.) No horizontal tomfoolery has been applied and the scope is showing the correct phases.

And the normal 180 degree phase difference between a voltage and a current trace can clearly be seen, and additionally a smaller true "phase shift" of a few degrees can just barely be detected, caused by the same effect that will make the integrated multiplication of these two traces right here.... yield an OU result.

Apparently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niat7aosgUI

[picowatt]

Picowatt

If you wish to assert that the voltage during the on time of the duty cycle - and across the shunt - is 12 volts then that is entirely your right.  Feel free.  It is NOT correct.  Not according to my own expert advices.  We all know that the voltage across the battery is DC.  Therefore you cannot possibly assert that the voltage across the battery is offset by -172 volts.  Yet you do.  Unlike the obvious requirement for the battery to be DC coupled we also know that the voltage applied by the signal generator is AC.  Therefore you need to refer to the offset value.  Yet you won't.  So you must do as you wish.  Unfortunately it is NOT correct.  But there is nothing to stop you asserting that you are right.  And by the same token I know that I am right.  Our paper has been vetted by real experts in the art who do NOT - like you - hide behind an internet identity.  And they have NONE OF THEM found reason to complain about the representations related to the that Gate voltage. 

And while I greatly appreciate that lesson in the art of reading the screen display which is very kind of you - it is also, nonetheless, somewhat more elementary than even I require.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose
I've downloaded the screen shot again for those who are trying to make head or tail of this argument.

Rosemary,

My apologies Rosemary, but from your response, I see that not only can you not read a 'scope, but as well, you apparently cannot manage to read or comprehend concisely written English word.

I have never asserted "12 volts" regarding the shunt.  Nor have I asserted that the battery voltage is, or must be, offset by -172volts.  The only person who stated that the "ofs" numbers must somehow be used in making measurements was you, not me.

Your responses are very telling.  I now realize that any attempts to have a discussion with you of a technical nature regarding your papers would be pointless and entirely in vain.

I also realize that any discussions of a technical nature "from you" should be considered very carefully and "taken with a grain of salt".

You are indeed your own "technology's" worst ambassador ...

Sincerely,
PW

[MileHigh]

TK:

I am also curious to know what the 2.34324 MHz means.  In looking at the DSO capture you can see that it is capturing 500 seconds and it can store 500K points (I assume per channel).  So that makes sense to see that the "1kS" on the display corresponds to a sampling rate of 1 kHz.

Note that means that the oscillation waveforms are grossly undersampled because we know the oscillations are in the 2-4 MHz range.  The DSO in this case shows the negative oscillation mode "gate" signal is at 6.17 MHz.  Personally I would want to double check this because of the nature of the setup but let's assume it's right for now.

Even through the waveform is way undersampled, in theory "Monte Carlo" methods could come into play here and the "VV" calculation is actually legit.  But I personally would much prefer to do a "VV" calculation on a tiny tiny sliver of the waveform with at least 8X Nyquist sampling, and try to line up a perfect number of cycles, to see what the "VV" calculation would say in that case.  I am not sure if the scope can sample in the 50-100 MHz range though.

Going back to the subsampling in the DSO capture, I am just not comfortable with a "Double Monte Carlo" "VV" calculation.  I have never played with a DSO and explored what happens when you are subsampled so I am just guessing.

In a way this is all academic because the battery "voltage" is a fake-out.

Rosemary:

You have to be aware of a pattern:  Instead of trying to engage and understand the function generator current flow issue, you are belligerent and put up a fight.  Instead of trying to understand how you read voltages off of the DSO and engaging and trying to learn, you say that you are going to take this up with your "experts."

It's all just you being combative for no reason.  I read PW's discussion of the offset voltages for the DSO and he is absolutely correct - and that's coming from somebody that has barely even used a DSO!  Almost no companies had DSOs in my time.  They were too expensive and probably couldn't store more than 1/1024th the number of samples that today's DSO can store.   

You are just wasting time and energy.  You are talking to experts but you don't want to listen to them and instead you want to fight tooth and nail all the way.  It's the old cliche, you are your own worst enemy.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

I am sensing some convergence here!

You are indeed your own "technology's" worst ambassador ...

It's the old cliche, you are your own worst enemy.