LOL

And guys, here's more of that SPIN.  TK's now trying to teach me the 'art of triggering'.  Just go back over some of his early videos and see where and why he had to learn the skill.  It's actually hilarious.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 06:06:20 PM
Rosemary.... when you get your scope back I do hope you will learn to set the trigger properly. The reason the scope's display is unstable in the shot above (you had to stop it in mid-scan in order to make your screenshot) is because you have your trigger set improperly. Note the purple "T" on the right side of the screen, and the trigger setting in the box below the trace window. You are triggering on the purple trace.... but your trigger voltage level is set far outside that trace's voltage range. Thus the scope cannot trigger stably and the screen will be "jumpy"... JUST AS IT IS IN YOUR DEMO VIDEO as well. Many of your scope shots show a similar improper trigger setting.

In the future, try to use the trigger level knob to get that "T" down into the voltage range of the channel on which you wish to trigger.... usually the DRIVING signal since that is the most stable (blue, FG trace), or the signal with the highest CLEAN voltage level. The purple trace would have been OK if you had lowered the trigger level... the "T" position ... down into the actual voltage range of the signal you are asking the scope to use for its trigger. Then you can move the trigger point horizontally (in time) if you like, so that the displayed traces don't start right at the beginning of a block of oscillations, but have a "lead in" period first. The time where the scope triggers is displayed along the top of the trace window by the little purple triangle and the -62.000 ms figure. So the "place" where you are asking for a trigger is where this triangle, projected down,  and the "T" level, projected to the left, intersect. A place outside the envelope of your purple signal, hence the unstable screen display.

And you might find it interesting to RTFM:   Read The Fine Manual.... you just might learn something about using oscilloscopes properly. And acronyms, too.

Kindest again,
Rosemary

MH,

More like "slo fox".

The only problem I see with "007" is that both inputs need to be sampled simultaneously.  Most low cost microcontrollers multiplex the AD input to provide multiple AD inputs, which skews their sample time.  But, if a dual channel outboard AD was used that did simultaneous sampling with minimal deltaT between converters, just about any reasonable sample rate could be used as long as a sufficient number of samples were taken.  I guess we would need to know more about TK's Arduino peripherals and if a pair of simul sample converters are available.

PW



     

Ainslie, now you are attacking the competence of people who are working in the industry, people with unquestioned competence in the areas you are bitching about.

You have descended past the mere ignorant into the utterly stupid. YOU cannot even correct your huge errors in conception and calculation. EVERY TIME someone has pointed out one of your many errors, you will do and say ANYTHING BUT correct your math or your conclusions.. because you don't even understand why and how they are wrong. It would be pitiful if it weren't so comical.

Do you really think that others reading here can't do that easy math in a few seconds for themselves and see just how wrong you are?

It's no secret, Ainslie, it's just math and YOU CAN'T DO IT, and it's fundamental to the claims you are making, ESPECIALLY the issue of your "competency". Which is sorely lacking, and what of it there might be comes from parroting things somebody has told you that you don't really understand.

What is the difference between a Watt and a Joule, Ainslie? Are they really EQUIVALENT like you claim? This question is fundamental to power analysis and if you don't even know the difference and you think that a Joule is a Watt Per Second... how could you possibly even  believe YOURSELF that you are competent?

I can cite reference after reference where Ainslie gets simple power calculations wrong and I can demonstrate how they are wrong and I can provide the correct calculations and results and I can PROVE IT.

All Ainslie can do is whine and stomp her feet and say "All those people don't agree with me so they MUST be wrong." But she can't say how, she can't provide corrections, she can't provide references to support her position and SHE CANNOT PROVE any of it.

Guys,

This is getting funnier by the minute.  TK REALLY does NOT know what's wrong with his math.  It's DELICIOUS.  Here's his quote preserved for 'posterity' as he puts it...

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 04:53:29 PM
Even in that blog post, before morphing, she misrepresents the data. Observe:

Well, I do look closely, and this is what I see: A voltage across the "shunt" during the "ON" time... the positive FG pulse --- that looks like about 80 mV positive to me. The zero baseline is offset by 20 mV above the center graticle line and the middle of the fuzz on the CVR trace during the ON period is about 100 mV above the graticle marker, so that looks like about 80 mV or so to me. With a 0.25 Ohm CVR this gives I = V/R == 0.08/0.25 == about 320 milliAmps .... hardly "fractionally above zero" and in fact enough to provide significant load heating indeed. 320 milliAmps at 62 "something" volts is nearly 20 Watts that is going somewhere. Anybody want to guess where?

And here's his riposte...

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 08, 2012, 11:34:52 PM
Unbelievable. She's confronted with her errors over and over and over, and she can't even say what's wrong with my work. Yet she has to post SOMETHING, because her ego is disintegrating before her very eyes.

She has descended to the "stomp her foot and hold her breath till she turns purple" stage of rhetoric.

NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE, has she refuted me with facts, checkable references, or calculations of her own. NOT ONCE. Because she cannot.

Ainslie, you have zero credibility, but you do provide considerable amusement.  Keep it up, I really am going to enjoy seeing how far down your throat you can stck your own foot.

If this is me stomping my foot and holding my breath and turning purple when it's only from amusement.  And Leon... WHY should I have to explain where you are wrong?  You're the guy who can measure with a string and a piece of clay - and can perform huge feats of posting and filming and slandering - simultaneously - with or without the able assistance of HUMBUGGER.  Why should I need to tell you where you have 'ERRORED?  LOL

Rosie Pose

Rosemary:

QuoteI prefer to be  'ridiculous' than state the ridiculously OBVIOUS.  So. NO.  I WILL NOT INDULGE YOU WITH SPECIFICS.  It should be up there with the 'bleeding obvious' to quote an inimitable Basil Fawlty.

That's pathetic.  Aren't you the one that talks about "science?"  And you refuse to state anything?  The whole point for this thread and this forum is to discuss things like this, and you refuse to even discuss your own data.

You are morally bankrupt when you refuse to discuss TK's analysis of your own data.  The "guys" are not with you at all, I can assure you.  This is one of many low points for you.

You are sinking deeper and deeper Rosemary.  There is nothing good or redeeming happening with you.  It's really an awful and unpleasant situation for you now, an unhappy spectacle of your own making.

MileHigh