You're going to find this *very* irritating, but now that you (and everyone else) has painfully assembled the sequence of events and revisited that scope shot, it seems trivially obvious that there's Nothing To See Here.


(tongue in cheek - isn't all conjuring and misdirection like that, once you're told the trick?)

Quote from: mrsean2k on May 16, 2012, 06:40:01 PM
You're going to find this *very* irritating, but now that you (and everyone else) has painfully assembled the sequence of events and revisited that scope shot, it seems trivially obvious that there's Nothing To See Here.


(tongue in cheek - isn't all conjuring and misdirection like that, once you're told the trick?)

Oh, you just wait until the Red Queen wakes up. There will be plenty to see then. She will spin and spin indeed. But this here is just data, no spin, and it's her data to boot.

Conclusions, I guess, are kind of like beauty. They are in the mind's eye of the beholder. Some conclusions are less avoidable than others, but for some people, avoidance of issues and implications is a highly developed skill.

Quote from: TinselKoala on May 16, 2012, 05:48:33 PM
Can you please show how you got that?
Do you agree with the numbers I extracted from the scope trace and put into the unsolved equation, or did I misread something or misapply the algebra somehow? Are there not 4 amps flowing around at 72 volts during the Gate HI time?

Again, 13W is an average power, not for the HI only portion.

Simple; 73.3V x .179A = 13.12W. The values taken off the "boxes" for MEAN values. The 73.3V battery voltage will be accurate, but the CSR will be close. Sorry, just realized I forgot to multiply by 4. So rather:

73.3V x .179A/0.25 = +52.48W

Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 07:12:27 PM
Again, 13W is an average power, not for the HI only portion.

Simple; 73.3V x .179A = 13.12W. The values taken off the "boxes" for MEAN values. The 73.3V battery voltage will be accurate, but the CSR will be close. Sorry, just realized I forgot to multiply by 4. So rather:

73.3V x .179A/0.25 = +52.48W

That is more like it. Are you beginning to feel the heat now?

But....where did you get the 0.179 A from?  The voltage drop across the CVR when it is manifestly carrying current is 1.25 A. But in the "oscillations" it is ... what? The average of the "fuzz" is just below the zero baseline.

I am not concerned with numbers in boxes. They are not accurate because of the way the scope is being used.
Read the scope traces please-- they are accurate, if not as precise as the boxed numbers.
How can you justify the 0.179 A figure? 
Also don't forget the inductive reactance at 1.5 MHz... the resistor is not 0.25 Ohms for that frequency. BUT that is just why I suggested leaving the oscs out of the picture altogther FOR NOW. Do they COOL the load? 

Guys,

Quote from: poynt99 on May 16, 2012, 07:12:27 PM
Again, 13W is an average power, not for the HI only portion.

Simple; 73.3V x .179A = 13.12W. The values taken off the "boxes" for MEAN values. The 73.3V battery voltage will be accurate, but the CSR will be close. Sorry, just realized I forgot to multiply by 4. So rather:

73.3V x .179A/0.25 = +52.48W

Just a small note here to Poynty Point.  I don't think you've allowed for impedance.  But well done for getting this argument back and closer to the 'real truth' - as MileHigh puts it.  And since TK - as ever - is parading his monumental lack of abilities related to power analysis or alternatively he's parading his monumental efforts at misdirection - may I remind you ALL.

1
It was considered advisable to test the settings to the limit of the transistor's voltage tolerance - required to explore whether the circuit could operate in booster converter mode.  That included #235 and then the same settings but at a higher applied frequency captured in screenshot numbers #236 #237 #238.  Further tests related to this operational mode continued.  Way past this test number.  We did not get close to the voltage tolerances on this test as the IRFPG50 has a voltage tolerance at upwards of 1000 volts.  We did NOT test its amperage tolerance as the MOSFETs functionality DID NOT DEGRADE.

2
The anomaly related to tests 354 and 355 - that related to the 'water to boil' test - required NO extreme transients - and a small but critical off set adjustment.  As in the previous booster converter tests - the benefits here were also manifestly greater at a higher frequency.

3
The rampant confusions being spun by TK - Sean - FTC - in these latest 'post contributions' relate to the amount of energy delivered against the amount of energy dissipated.  It is somewhat  absurd to doubt the voltage measurements determined by the LeCroy.  It is well able to compute these waveforms which are within its bandwidth capacity.  No amount of 'eyeballing' is likely to exceed the accuracy that is guaranteed by that instrument - within, obviously, it's known margins of error.  At these frequencies that error margin is that negligible as to be discounted in its entirety.  The amount of energy dissipated FAR exceeds the amount of energy delivered by the battery supply.  Integrated power analysis is in line with the negative wattage which is indicated by the product of the voltages shown in the math trace.  The signature heat values recorded exceed the wattage measured to have been delivered by that supply source the more so as all such detailed analysis of the wattage delivered results in a negative wattage.

4
This latest rather reckless attempt at misrepresentation of our work by TK, Sean and FTC is again an example of their propensity to indulge in slander which most certainly is actionable.  We who have worked on this project for many years now - will deal with this aspect of their multiple acts of legal abuse - as required.

Regards,
Rosemary