Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on May 16, 2012, 02:22:01 AM
And so you allege - TK.  Over and over and over.  With a regularity that diminishes the force of this statement in direct proportion to the number of times that you repeat it.  You are running out of time here TK.  You must be feeling rather frantic.

Rosie Pose

And I will still be right and you will still be wrong. You have another incredible claim to support now, Ainslie...and YOU are the one running out of time, not me.

What do you do for a living, Ainslie? How do you earn your daily bread?

Negative wattage and positive wattage

In circuit sim, if i scope the source for power consumption, if I connect the source to a load, the wattage of the source shows negative. Which makes sense. The source it the component that holds and provides the energy to the load. But if I apply a higher voltage source to the original source being monitored, + to + and - to - , the scope shows a positive wattage, as if the original source is being charged like a battery.

When reading a resistive load, it always shows positive wattage as it consumes power from the source or circuit any time there is a potential difference across the resistance. No matter the polarity of the current flow, it only shows positive wattage readings as it is the receiver of that wattage. It is in the plus. 

If you have ever loaded Falstads Circuit sim, the first circuit on the page is an LC resonance circuit.  Delete the cap and resistor in the LC loop. Now add 2 wires and a diode across the push button switch so that when we close the switch, the battery charges the inductor, then when you release the switch, the inductor will send the charge back to the battery. Of course orient the diode so it doesnt conduct till the inductor produces reverse emf. If you pull a scope shot for power consumed of the batt, you can see the pos and neg results when the batt discharges and recharges. Just an easy example of pos and neg batt wattage with passive components other than the battery.

Mags

Here's a challenge for the scoposcopist.

The traces are :
Golden,  CVR "shunt" voltage drop, 0.25 Ohms DC resistance
Fuchsia: The "battery" voltage: Mean is given as 73.3 V, so this is a six-battery-pack trial. 
Turquoise: The Gate signal from the FG
Scarlet: The scope's computed math trace

It's too bad that the traces weren't displayed with the thought that they actually meant something. What use is a scope if all you are going to do is read the numbers it puts in boxes for you?  Why in heaven's name would anyone display that math trace at 10 KiloVV per division? Or the Gate at 50 V/div? Or the critical SHUNT trace at 5 v/div? Only because the thought was never given to the idea that someone might actually examine the data. Or was it? Or is it because those spikes are there....?.

Now... for the challenge.

Compute the duty cycle.
Compute the voltage of the Gate signal when it is HI.
Compute the level of the voltage drop across the CVR when the Gate signal is HI.
Compute the level of the current seen in the CVR when the Gate signal is HI.

Compute the instantaneous power level during the Gate HI signal -- this is what the Math trace would show if you could see it.
Compute the average power for the whole waveform using the instantaneous power during the gate HI portion and the duty cycle.

IGNORE any contribution from the oscillations for now.

(This is essentially the same calculation that GL and I went through last night, except that the values aren't given. You have to blow up the scopeshot and use your dividers or a ruler to get the values from the traces.)

Report, compare, contrast, discuss. Yes, there is a point, coming up, somewhere.

What is the average power dissipation in the entire circuit during the trial shown on the scopeshot, neglecting any contribution from the oscillations? And where in the circuit is this power dissipated?

Rosemary:

QuoteAnd I would like to see considerably more RESPECT for the subject at hand and for me - before I will EVER 'seriously' acknowledge your posts.  I suspect that we're both doomed to frustration.  Which is probably as well - since our interests are so diverse.

Total bullshit.  I made some technical postings in hope of gaining a better understanding of what was going on in the circuit and your comments were vulgar low-brow flippant lies - just you being a low life that didn't even understand what she was reading.

So don't you go playing the 'respect' card and the 'acknowledge' card.  You are just trying to escape discussing open source and what it means.  You are fully aware that your previous report was full of holes like a Swiss cheese.  My requests were made in a true cooperative spirit of open source and sharing of information so all attempts made by you to taint them are in vain.

I would like to see you post acknowledging my posting and sharing your thoughts with us.

MileHigh

I have MANY, MANY examples of your deliberate 'out of context' misquotes. So.  In answer to this...

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 02:14:49 AM
Look at the damn screenshot I posted, you ignorant liar. The date and the place I got it from are on the bottom left corner.

Here's the link, you can see for yourself that you are INDEED talking about your oscillations.
Do you really think that I cannot back up EVERY SINGLE ONE of my allegations with facts and references to YOUR OWN WORDS AND DATA?

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg279347/#msg279347

I KNOW that you CANNOT back up 'EVERY SINGLE ONE' of your 'ALLEGATIONS'.  You can 'spin' and 'allege' and 'imply'.  That's the best you can do.  And even HERE - even as in THIS example - you SPIN and you SPIN.  And you call ME a piece of work?  I am NOT in your league.  SADLY.  Because then I would freely slander you and your work and I too would then EXPECT no accountability.

Rosie Pose