@MH: reading your explanation again I see that we are really saying the same thing, almost. 

Regardless of the phase relationship between the V and I signal and the complexity of the waveforms, the integration of the product of the instantaneous measured voltage and current waveforms over a time interval, divided by the duration of the interval, will give you the average power during that interval.
Yes?

And the Math trace in the Ainslie scopeshots _of the oscillations only_  is the instantaneous multiplication of those measurements on the circuit during that time, right?

So the proper calculation of power for the period of the oscillations only, would be to INTEGRATE this trace and then divide that value (which is in Joules) by the time interval.  (Remembering to correct the CVR voltage values by whatever you decide to use for the impedance of the shunt resistor at 1.5 MHz.) Right?

So, if we go through this process, or even just use the VxV value corrected for the shunt impedance right off the numbers in boxes ... how do we then get a power level in the oscillations sufficient to bring the overall average power down to 50 Watts, if the DC power is 365 Watts for 45 percent of the time?

And I don't think a current can go "through" a battery in the way that you describe. You seem to be saying that a fast, higher voltage pulse can go through the battery as if it were a resistor, without affecting the battery chemistry. I'm no expert on batteries, but this doesn't seem right to me at all. The battery has, like all components, an equivalent series resistance ( or internal resistance) , an inductance, and a capacitance. In addition it is an active component with chemistry happening. All of these allow current flows of one kind or another to pass "through" the battery. But there are lots of battery chargers on this forum that work by sending a fast HV pulse into the battery to charge it. SO... I dunno.

TK:

I wasn't plugged into the power debate too much but I know that you had a lively debate going with Poynt.  You basic "multiply by 0.45" premise makes sense to me!  So I honestly don't know right now.

However, I came up with a really good idea for your consideration.  It's a goodie too.

Next time you connect Tar Baby up to your scope (assuming this does happen again) mount your camera on a tripod and get a good shot of the scope screen filling up the whole frame.  Perhaps illuminate the graticule a bit so you see it in the video frame.

Let's assume we want to investigate negative oscillation mode.  So pick your favourite signal to give you a nice stable trigger and make that the lower trace.  Then just wander around the circuit and put the second channel probe on all of the naughty bits that we want to see; all three pins of the MOSFET, both sides of the load resistor, etc, etc.

While you are doing this you narrate what is going on.

Then people like me can parse through the clip and collect screen captures for all of the different waveforms.  Then all of the screen captures can be put into a single composite image, with one waveform on top of the other to make a vertical stack of waveforms all in perfect alignment.

My bugaboo is explaining the overall timing and explaining the reversing current, etc.  I am not confident that the timing diagram I annotated the other day is correct.

Explaining the timing is part of dispelling the myth of the "COP infinity" and the zipons.  The dim bulb test is still the best test, but pondering the waveform stack would be fun.

You can imagine six or seven waveforms all stacked one on top of the other in a .jpeg file.  It would be pretty cool, the marriage of analog and digital.

MileHigh

This is for posterity - as TK puts it.  LOL. I'ts DELICIOUS...

Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2012, 08:41:08 PM
TK:

I am just on a little journey here, I am not asking you to do anything specific.

Going back to when the MOSFET capacitance does it's discharge with the current reversed, in the DSO capture I annotated the reverse current waveform which looked like a triangle wave.  So low reverse current -> high reverse current -> low reverse current.  That could be used as a timing reference for looking at the voltage drops around the main loop.  Obviously you know what the cap voltage is as you traverse through the reverse current waveform.

So you can imagine the battery set taking this "hit" every time the reverse current waveform happens.  And we know that the cap voltage is falling when this happens.  I suspect that you would see a significant voltage drop across the battery set when it gets hit.  For example, imagine something like 90 volts at the one side of the load resistor and 80 volts on the other side of the load resistor.  Then imagine some voltage lost in the interconnect wire so you see 79.5 volts on the battery positive terminal and 0.5 volts on the battery negative terminal.  Note I am talking about one instant in time during the cap discharge.  That huge voltage drop across the battery is NOT charging the battery - it's too fast for the battery - and it just plows through the battery like a small hurricane.  The battery ends up looking like a big dumb resistor to the cap discharge.  Perhaps 98% of the cap discharge through the battery becomes heat and only 2% charges the battery.

So with a lot of patience and a lot of work, you could characterize the cap discharge and know how much of a voltage drop the battery is sustaining during the actual one microsecond of the discharge.

Why do all of this crazy stuff even if it is just an intellectual exercise?  It's to explore what is really going on in the circuit and dismiss out of hand Rosemary's ridiculous claim that the battery is supplying "potential only" and that the binding material in the load resistor is responsible for the energy return.  As of course the zipons are part of the fabric of the binding material and the always want to seek a balanced state.

What's responsible for the current reversal and corresponding energy return is a lousy boring capacitor, not a zipon in sight.

MileHigh

And it ONLY gets better.  Here's CHAPTER ? ? ? 3 - maybe.  LOL. It's HILARIOUS

Quote from: MileHigh on May 17, 2012, 10:23:45 PM
TK:

I wasn't plugged into the power debate too much but I know that you had a lively debate going with Poynt.  You basic "multiply by 0.45" premise makes sense to me!  So I honestly don't know right now.

However, I came up with a really good idea for your consideration.  It's a goodie too.

Next time you connect Tar Baby up to your scope (assuming this does happen again) mount your camera on a tripod and get a good shot of the scope screen filling up the whole frame.  Perhaps illuminate the graticule a bit so you see it in the video frame.

Let's assume we want to investigate negative oscillation mode.  So pick your favourite signal to give you a nice stable trigger and make that the lower trace.  Then just wander around the circuit and put the second channel probe on all of the naughty bits that we want to see; all three pins of the MOSFET, both sides of the load resistor, etc, etc.

While you are doing this you narrate what is going on.

Then people like me can parse through the clip and collect screen captures for all of the different waveforms.  Then all of the screen captures can be put into a single composite image, with one waveform on top of the other to make a vertical stack of waveforms all in perfect alignment.

My bugaboo is explaining the overall timing and explaining the reversing current, etc.  I am not confident that the timing diagram I annotated the other day is correct.

Explaining the timing is part of dispelling the myth of the "COP infinity" and the zipons.  The dim bulb test is still the best test, but pondering the waveform stack would be fun.

You can imagine six or seven waveforms all stacked one on top of the other in a .jpeg file.  It would be pretty cool, the marriage of analog and digital.

MileHigh

What a treat.  One early morning awakening that has DECIDEDLY improved my general outlook on life.  Would that this level of absurdity would be exposed more often.  And I THOUGHT that our technology was under attack.  LOL.  Guys, we're here dealing with the best opposition on offer.  In this context we none of us energy enthusiasts have ANY COMPETITION AT ALL. 

WOW
What a glorious romp.

Regards,
Rosemary

Ainslie, you have just spammed this thread AGAIN with contentless posts and long quotations that add only your gratuitous INSULTS and nothing of value.

You are not a very nice person at all and I don't think I like you very much.