Any comments?
Why the big (and strange) discrepancy in voltage and wave form?
.99
99
Perhaps you should PM luc
He's going to video a device the gent has put together to validate his claim
Chet
The coil core I used was a 3E6 rather than the 3E5 Zoltan specifies.
This may explain the discrepancies?
The two cores are identical in dimension, but the 3E5 has a permeability of about 8,000, while the 3E6 is about 10,000.
My understanding is he operates the 3E5 core just before saturation, which would mean I might have to decrease the operating current in my version.
.99
Looks like one is probing 'drain' and the other 'source'.
Perhaps one FET is sinking while the other is sourcing?
I don't know, I don't think so BEP. It is strange to be mirrored like that. All the wave forms appear this way. He is scoping across R1, and my R1 is the same. I'll post my schematic as well.
Sorry, some may not have the documentation...see attachment.
.99
After having examined Zoltan's calculations on the one graph, it appears there are likely other problems causing the amplitude discrepancies.
.99
Can anyone explain why a factor of "1000 times" is being used in many of the calculations shown on one of the graphs?
Also there is a "left" value and a "right" value, then a value of the difference, which appears to be the result labeled on his diagram.
Can anyone make sense of this? I'm having some difficulty with understanding this method.
.99
REVISED RESULTS
I've re-discovered that there is no such thing as RMS power. I had known this some time ago, but forgot and began using it again. My bad.
Turns out that getting the RMS power of any device in SPICE is not correct. RMS values are only valid for current or voltage. And once again, there is no such thing as RMS power! Only Average power.
How do you arrive at Average Power? You use an RMS voltage (V2/R) or RMS current (I2*R) , or both (V x I).
So the new results don't show overunity. The COP is now 0.867:1 (using R1 power/source power). See the attached scope shot of all the dissipative powers, which almost add up perfectly btw.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on July 18, 2009, 08:48:41 PM
And once again, there is no such thing as RMS power! Only Average power.
.99
This is a great piece of advice to share. I hope all in this field make use of it. :)
Hi BEP.
Yeah this can be tricky stuff. ;)
I'm on to yet another "gotcha" I think. Will post something soon if it turns out valid.
Here's the article that got me back on track regarding Average and RMS values. It's simple and clear, really well done I think. All should have a read.
.99
Yea, RMS Watts is like saying 'Military Intelligence' ;D
Kinda takes the 'oxy' out of oxymoron.
We should be soft on those using RMS Power. They may also have trouble with the difference between power and energy or speed and velocity. When 'time' becomes part of the equation it requires thoughts in three vectors or more :D
I love your 'gotchas'. Can't wait to hear more!
RMS power!
Sorry, I just came in, and already I'm laughing.
Well, at least the swerve was corrected before you lost control.
That RMS paper is excellent, and shows (I hope) that I did the power calculations on my Ainslie raw data sheets correctly.
Carry on, valiant ones.
Maybe the reason .99's simulation is reversed is that the sine waves are opposite in the Eastern hemisphere. You know, theirs go up when ours go down, and vice versa. Or maybe they've got their magnetic and electric fields improperly orthogonalized.
No, wait, Zoltan's in Quebec somewhere, isn't he? Well, maybe it's the Francophones then.