Channel coupling hardware, old and new:

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 07:11:20 PM
Thank you. And you and I and some others here know that we can come up with literally thousands of technical references that support this point. Some people just seem to want to argue.

It is easy to demonstrate, as I have done, that the use of AC-coupled channels destroys all of the quantitative vertical information in the trace except for peak-to-peak amplitude.  If we had not been distracted by a display of unnecessary detail and one-upmanship, we might have been able to answer whether or not phase relationships determined by _zerocrossing_ measurements rather than peak point measurements are also affected by this. I don't know the answer to that. Certainly Alek's point about whether the positive lobe or negative lobe is larger IS affected by the use of AC instead of DC couplings.

I maintain still that the use of AC coupling on Alek's scope, and also on the QEG FTW scopes, and others I have seen displayed, indicates a lack of knowledge of proper metrology or even a deliberate attempt to alter the presentation of data so that it appears more favorable to the claims made.  If you want to think that current that does not change direction is "alternating" that is fine. My math works out just as well as yours does, even if you call DC "blue" and AC "red" current.

Just don't bring me data on an overunity device from a scope that is AC-coupled, without presenting a good reason, and without doing the simple test TinMan did in his demonstration: change the coupling from AC to DC, live, and show that the trace vertical parameters do not change.

I respect Garrett's knowledge and his general approach but I think this past discussion has been more of a personal attack on me, than what I originally intended it to be: A simple discussion of the FACT that AC-coupling is rarely appropriate for scoposcopy but is used inappropriately far too much, and the reason for that inappropriate use, as in Alek's case, is probably because people actually ARE confused about the nature of what they are measuring, how to measure it and what effect the actual controls on the scope have. Does Bill Alek realise that the AC-coupling function of his scope does nothing at all except switch a 0.1 uF capacitor into series with his probe before the attenuator? I seriously doubt it.  And I even wonder if some of the present discussants know that.  And I strongly believe that much of this confusion arises from well-meaning, overly technical discussions that are tangent to the main point, as we have seen from Garrett the past hours. Note that I am not saying Garrett is wrong about his definition of "AC"... but he is wrong to challenge the fact that the use of AC coupled scope channels is generally inappropriate for power determinations in unknown devices that are presented with extraordinary claims of super-efficiency. And the reasons for why it is wrong are, or should be, clearly evident in my video demonstrations that show when "AC" becomes "DC" and what they look like on the scope, with and without the use of AC-coupled channels.

To be fair:  Bill Alek as deluded as he is, has not issued anything along the lines of a formal test report.  He has demonstrated some tinkering.  If he turns around and claims that his tinkering is proof of his claims of OU then such false claims are readily refuted with what has already been discussed here.  In the meantime, if he wants to measure what look like reasonably clean 3kHz sine waves using AC coupling, chances are that the AC coupling is immaterial to the fidelity of the results.  The flip side is that he could easily show as much by switching to DC coupling. 

I do not see any good reason to AC couple.  But, I really don't think that AC coupling is contributing to the fundamental errors here.  I also think that we are dealing with self-delusion on the part of Bill Alek, and not intentional deception.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 12:03:23 AM
Is there anything in the way of circuitry on the "support board"? Sure seems like an expensive way to make a simple support for another part if there isn't any circuitry involved.


I realize that in this particular case it probably doesn't make much difference, but here is a question I would like to see asked, every time a demonstration of power happens and a scope channel is observed to be AC-coupled.

"Mister Alek, I notice that both your scope channels are set to AC-coupled. This removes any DC component in the signal, doesn't it? It is the equivalent of putting a capacitor in series with the probe tip as you measure, blocking any DC from reaching the scope's electronics, isn't it? So really, there could be literally any amount of DC power flowing in the system and your scope measurements would not show it. Is that right?"
Follow up:
"The AC coupling setting also moves the displayed trace up or down so that its average is on the channel baseline, doesn't it? What exactly does this do to the _values_ measured for peak voltages, the baseline zero crossings, and math that is done on the vertical values of the AC-coupled traces?"

However, if you watch the video carefully you will (perhaps) note that part of one of his arguments has to do with how much of a sinusOIDAL trace is above and how much is below the zero reference line. Since the use of AC-coupled input brings the _average_ of any reading down, or up, to the channel's zero reference line... the data from an AC coupled scope channel cannot be used to support such arguments. But Alek is using AC coupled channels and is making those arguments. Relevant? Irrelevant? Whatever. To me it indicates some _very relevant_ information: This free energy claimant either doesn't  know how to make proper power measurements on the scope in spite of his explanations and drawings (unlikely?) OR he is deliberately using the AC coupled setting because it yields data that support his argument. Either way... it is wrong.



"Hey, I'm going to show you some live power measurements in an audio-frequency circuit. But first, let me put these 100 nanoFarad capacitors in series with my measuring kit. You don't mind, do you?"

If someone told you that while trying to sell you a battery charger or a self-charging scooter, you'd laugh him out of the room. But that is exactly what Bill Alek is doing.


OK, enough said, I hope. Now that the novice scopeusers are completely confused and put off by this whole discussion.

TK:

I am a novice scope user and I am learning a great deal from this discussion.  I just wanted to state that for the record.  It is like a lot of other things...learning what not to do is equally, if not more important than learning what to do.

Thanks for the information.

Bill

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 09:19:31 PM
However, if you watch the video carefully you will (perhaps) note that part of one of his arguments has to do with how much of a sinusOIDAL trace is above and how much is below the zero reference line. Since the use of AC-coupled input brings the _average_ of any reading down, or up, to the channel's zero reference line... the data from an AC coupled scope channel cannot be used to support such arguments. But Alek is using AC coupled channels and is making those arguments. Relevant? Irrelevant? Whatever. To me it indicates some _very relevant_ information: This free energy claimant either doesn't  know how to make proper power measurements on the scope in spite of his explanations and drawings (unlikely?) OR he is deliberately using the AC coupled setting because it yields data that support his argument. Either way... it is wrong.



"Hey, I'm going to show you some live power measurements in an audio-frequency circuit. But first, let me put these 100 nanoFarad capacitors in series with my measuring kit. You don't mind, do you?"

If someone told you that while trying to sell you a battery charger or a self-charging scooter, you'd laugh him out of the room. But that is exactly what Bill Alek is doing.


OK, enough said, I hope. Now that the novice scopeusers are completely confused and put off by this whole discussion.

There is enough in the videos to show that Bill Alek's mastery of the subject matter is very poor.  I think that he is convinced that he has found free energy from transformers just like he thinks a slanted room near Santa Cruz exhibits gravitational anomalies.  He can keep coding and recoding his firmware until the cows come home and he won't be able to recharge his batteries for free.