Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Poynt - just another quick point - you're talking nonsense.  Justify the loss of 0.8 watts on the entire circuit and I'll believe that you're looking at the whole picture.  Until then your selective perspective is clearly defective.

I'm talking plain and simple truth, and the truth will prevail. Until someone presents even a smidgen  of evidence that these pulsed coils produce OU, cold current, and/or negative net current, these experiments are interesting, but mostly unremarkable.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I'm talking plain and simple truth, and the truth will prevail. Until someone presents even a smidgen  of evidence that these pulsed coils produce OU, cold current, and/or negative net current, these experiments are interesting, but mostly unremarkable.

.99

Can you kindly quantify 'smidgen'.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MileHigh - I read through your opening para in your last post and expected more of the same.  Today I had the necessary focus and re-read this.  I have finally experienced the rare and real pleasure of seeing an apology embedded - appropriately I might add, in the very heart of the post.  I'm DELIGHTED to accept this.     That's the best I can do because Stefan doesn't give us enough variety with his emoticons.  I'd prefer to see a kiss as an option.  Anyway consider it blown and posted across the pond together with my admiration - unbounded. 

Regarding the 'gap' - I see it that we're just mirror images of the same cause.  We just look at the chasm from different sides - but it's the same obsession.  Anyway - I've lots more to say about batteries but it seems somewhat prosaic with all this good will for the taking.  I'll deal with it later.  So nice MileHigh.  You're definitely growing on me.

[poynt99]

Can you kindly quantify 'smidgen'.

smidgen:

A very small quantity or portion; a bit or mite

evidence:

something that makes plain or clear

As my post says, "smidgen of evidence", meaning BOTH must be met.

Of course the believers will argue that both have been met, but those familiar in the art know that -5.4mV in a sea of noise hardly qualifies as either in this particular setup.

.99

[jibbguy]

"+/- 2% error"

Is the published spec for the 3054C's "Vertical Accuracy" meaning the DC voltage accuracy.... meaning at a setting of "25mV full scale", the error would be: .02 x .025 = .0005 ( "+/- 0.5mV" ) plus or minus half a millivolt.

For "50 mV full scale" : +/- 1 mV  error.

For "100mV full scale" : +/- 2 mV error.

There are 8 vertical div's on that scope's screen.... At "20mV per division" (what i read from the screen notation for Channel 2 of Aaron's video when the "negative" readings were taken) this comes out to "160 mV full scale" total.

8 x .020 = .160 ("160 mV's Full Scale" .... meaning all 8 divisions of the screen added together).

.160 x .02 = .0032 ( " +/- 3.2 mV error".. meaning 2% of the current full scale value) .

So the claim that reading 5mV's is beyond the point of accurate measurement of the instrument at this setting, is not correct...

As the vertical accuracy is wholly dependent on the sensitivity/range setting of the channel at the time. 

Aaron could also expand out the voltage sensitivity setting; and expect to get better accuracy readings, as seen above.... As the "2%" figure is a "worst-case" meant to cover the manufacturer's butt against litigation; and you can realistically expect a DC accuracy of more around " +/- 0.5% " for nearly all applications.

__________________

Under the category of "providing more info than is really needed" lol:

The other factor besides "Vertical Accuracy" , is rarely published any more in modern instruments, because "Auto-Calibration" solves the issue anyway... That is of "DC Offset" (and Tek apparently has no published spec for this on that model).

The procedure is to check for this Offset with shorted inputs at the most sensitive setting. If there is a small offset (after performing an "Auto Cal" if available of course), this DC offset must be factored in to the future results...

But if this DC Offset is, say, "+0.1" of a division, at the most sensitive "1 mV per div." range... then at the "10mV per div." range... This same DC offset is only ".01 division"... Not practically measurable (considering that the pot to tweak for baseline position is much less sensitive than that, lol).

But with old scopes without "auto-cal", and that havn't been calibrated in years, this DC Offset can get considerable at the most sensitive ranges... So folks looking for the most accuracy possible should check for it with shorted inputs... Or, simply check it with the sensitivity setting that will be used.