@PW: I noticed an interesting thing about this Tek scope. When the channel settings are made, the scope indicates both a "position" value and an "offset" value. The trace position knob moves the trace up and down normally and the "position" value indicates the divisions plus or minus displaced from the center graticle markings... but the "offset" figure doesn't change. It appears that the Tek might be using "offset" to mean the displacement resulting from AC coupling, bringing the signal down to the "position" marker. This means that when AC coupling is used, the scope still can do math calculations because it knows the "offset" removed by the AC coupling and so uses the true trace values in the math.
I think I tried to explain this same thing some time ago with reference to the LeCroy's handling of math on AC-coupled traces, although the LeCroy uses "offset" to describe trace position by the positioning knob too, as  we understand trace offset or DC offset in an oscillating signal.

This might account for some of the confusion we have been having with Rosemary about our understanding of the scope's "offset" function.

I'm not sure about this and I've been in meetings all day (plus driving 200 miles) so I'm frazzled. I couldn't find the manual for the scope either, so I couldn't check this point out. (The manual is on a CD somewhere and I just couldn't figure out where.)

This would be a good point to research, since it may be that Rosemary just isn't describing the situation well and that Tek could be using this other "offset" to calculate with in the AC coupled condition, separately from  trace "position".

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the "AC" coupling on the CVR trace in my shots above is taken into account by the math, and any DC offset is very small anyway on that trace.

Another weird thing I noticed about this scope is that the timebase doesn't appear to have a natural "1 microsecond per division" sweep setting. It has 1.2 microseconds I think, then the next detent is 400 nanoseconds. Weird. But at least it has the same number of minor divisions going in both directions even though the squares aren't square. The LeCroy Rosemary used had 5 minors in the X and only 4 in the Y directions.

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 27, 2012, 01:46:21 AM
@PW: I noticed an interesting thing about this Tek scope. When the channel settings are made, the scope indicates both a "position" value and an "offset" value. The trace position knob moves the trace up and down normally and the "position" value indicates the divisions plus or minus displaced from the center graticle markings... but the "offset" figure doesn't change. It appears that the Tek might be using "offset" to mean the displacement resulting from AC coupling, bringing the signal down to the "position" marker. This means that when AC coupling is used, the scope still can do math calculations because it knows the "offset" removed by the AC coupling and so uses the true trace values in the math.
I think I tried to explain this with reference to the LeCroy's handling of math on AC-coupled traces.

This might account for some of the confusion we have been having with Rosemary about our understanding of the scope's "offset" function.

I'm not sure about this and I've been in meetings all day (plus driving 200 miles) so I'm frazzled. I couldn't find the manual for the scope either, so I couldn't check this point out. (The manual is on a CD somewhere and I just couldn't figure out where.)

This would be a good point to research, since it may be that Rosemary just isn't describing the situation well and that Tek could be using this other "offset" to calculate with in the AC coupled condition, separately from  trace "position".

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the "AC" coupling on the CVR trace in my shots above is taken into account by the math, and any DC offset is very small anyway on that trace.

Another weird thing I noticed about this scope is that the timebase doesn't appear to have a natural "1 microsecond per division" sweep setting. It has 1.2 microseconds I think, then the next detent is 400 nanoseconds. Weird. But at least it has the same number of minor divisions going in both directions even though the squares aren't square. The LeCroy Rosemary used had 5 minors in the X and only 4 in the Y directions.

TK,

The Lecroy does not have a separate position control.  I read the 300 series manual and it stated to use the offest control to adjust trace position.  As well, the visual calculations from centerline agree very well with the indicated offset, and the observed FG drive during neg osc visually calculates to where it should be within a volt or two.  If necessary, I will call LeCroy.

As for the Tek, I am unsure what it is you are saying regarding AC coupling, position and offset.  Explain again if you will.  I'll look for a manual for the Tek online.

Is your inverter not able to provide enough voltage for use with the 50R?

It seems you are reliably able to obtain the negative pwr figures.  Now that you have that 'scope there, I wonder if you could be troubled to investigate bypassing the batteries with caps and adding wire if needed as discussed.  You might even be able to solder a switch to a batt connector and the caps lead to allow you to bypass the batteries by merely using the switch when desired.  Likely any additional wire added could remain in circuit for either test, and it might also increase the amplitude of the osc.  With the 'scope there, doing the two tests would be pretty quick, none of that "add the dots" needed.

Yes, it is looking like .99's analysis is correct.  No one moreso than I wish it were not true.  Regardless how small the probability is, or was, I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring.  After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally"?     

PW

Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 02:35:05 AM
snip...
I for one truly hoped something unusual or previously unnoticed was occurring.  After all, what is the fun, or reward, in everything behaving "normally".     

PW

A good question ... KneeDeep!
Cheers

TK,

Why are you AC couping the CVR trace?

PW

Quote from: picowatt on April 27, 2012, 03:28:43 AM
TK,

Why are you AC couping the CVR trace?

PW

At some point when I was fiddling with the math I set it that way to see what happened to the math, and I simply forgot to set it back.

As far as I can tell the math is not affected.  I said earlier, the scope apparently defines "trace position" and "offset" differently. Do you believe that the AC offset setting on the CVR channel affects the math result? If it did, it likely would REDUCE the magnitude of the indicated negative mean power, wouldn't it?

When you pull up the channel settings menu, it displays a "position" figure that correponds to what we have been calling "offset" ... that is, the vertical positioning of the trace on the screen, by moving the little zero indicator on the left side of the screen... AND it displays an "offset" figure in another box. You turn the knob and the trace position goes up or down, and the numbers in the "position" box changes to reflect this. But the number in the "offset" box remains at zero. As I said... I _think_ that this "offset" number changes when the scope corrects a DC offset by removing it when AC coupling is selected. I can almost stuff this into the word-salad description of the offset functionality of the Tek scope she used, as an attempt to describe possibly the same thing. I would like to see the manual though, to see if I am understanding these two separate "offset" and "position" values. I am trying to be charitable here and make sense of what Ainslie said in light of this difference in "offset" and "position" values for the Tek's traces.

I don't "have" this Tek oscilloscope.  I used it yesterday after a long drive and a day full of meetings, with another long drive ahead of me. I can use it whenever I like, that is no problem-- as long as I am in the same city as it is. But it is a problem for me to box everything up and spend another full day and another full tank of gasoline chasing down somebody else's phantoms.

Of course Ainslie's claims are folly of the highest order, and I hope that I have at least demonstrated that much. Just as I did before with her "COP>17" bogus claim. After I showed to MY satisfaction that that whole affair was a stupid waste of time and that the claimant was ignorant and uncooperative --- I went on to do other far more interesting things like developing my SSTC. (There is nothing wrong with ignorance per se. After all it is a complex subject. What's wrong is when ignorant people deny their ignorance and strive mightily to preserve it in its pristine state untrammeled by education.) Meanwhile, I watched with some amusement as others went down the same path that I did, perhaps even more comprehensively than I did, like FTC, but with the same general results. That is, it's easy to produce the DATA from Ainslie. But when interpreted correctly the data don't support the claims: the batteries always run down and properly performed calorimetry always indicated less efficiency in load heating than straight DC power, and there is actually nothing in the data that DOES support her claim...just as in the present case.

As I have said before, the MAIN REASON that I climbed in again this time was that one egregious set of errors contained in the bogus calculation of the 25.6 million Joules, which she fought about for WEEKS before somebody she trusts finally convinced her it was wrong. But she still doesn't understand HOW it is wrong and she still can't correct it. Nor will she retract the claim that that one test used more than the battery's capacity. This single incident reveals everything significant that you need to know about Ainslie and her device. Think about it. 

This time, she hasn't been able to recruit her usual passel of hopeful sycophants... instead she's wound up with the likes of US and there aren't the usual cloud of addled supporters.

Meanwhile, my work, flawed that it is, along with other details in this thread, should demonstrate to others at least "what to expect" when you reach out and touch the Tar Baby that is Ainslie and her bogus set of claims.

You've made a lot of suggestions that have helped me to understand this circuit. And you've seen how Ainslie responds to simple questions that challenge her position. What I don't understand is how Ainslie can be allowed to get away with all the egregious errors and bogus distortions and all the rest of the crap that surrounds this project.  SHE will not be cooperating with others, by doing suggested testing and comprehensive analysis of her circuit. What she is doing and has always done is to get others to do her work for her, and then when they eventually see for themselves what is happening, she turns on them and uses their "failures" to denigrate and malign her former collaborators, and then she goes on to another group of newbies. Banned, unbanned, emails and phone calls to site owners, threatening lawsuits, but never actually doing the battery rundown testing. That's what happened three years ago on Ashtweth's site, it happened again a year ago here, and it's happening again here now.

It's too bad that your mosfets are on that slow boat. I'd box up my whole bunch of Ainslie parts and send them to you by next-day FedEx if it would just shut her up... but it wouldn't.

The bottom line for me is this: Tar Baby performs just like NERD in all significant respects, and if NERD is overunity, then so is Tar Baby. I've shown MORE evidence of this than Ainslie has for her circuit, I can repeat it on demand... and so can anyone else. And Tar Baby is ready for any independent testing, side by side with NERD, right now.

Does Tar Baby somehow prevent its batteries from running down? No. Does NERD? Well.... it would take less trouble than I went through JUST YESTERDAY, to find out once and for all, if only the CLAIMANT would do some of your tests that you suggest that I do.

Do you detect a bit of frustration and anger in my tone here? Good. Now watch Ainslie distort and misrepresent and run with the information in this post to insult me further, and then tell me whether my frustration and anger seem at all justified. She doesn't even speak the same language as we do.