Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Then.  It never seems to stop.  Your post « Reply #785 on: April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM » refers.  Here we're treated to a post that is an absolute parade of nonsensical measement - either resulting from your own stupidity or your assumption that our own is that abyssimal that we'll not see the absurdity in your math.

Now let's look at the average power in the critical devices. The "W" probe in PSPice allows for a direct probing of instantaneous power in any given device. By applying the "AVG" function to these traces, we obtain a trace which converges on the real power dissipated in that device.

Not a clue what you mean here.  What is the "W" probe?  And what exactly does your 'AVG' FUNCTION DO?  Does it average the voltage over a pure oscillation?  Because if it simply averages the value of that oscillation and presents it as a 'ripple' then it is ERRONEOUS.  And what then makes this 'CONVERGE ON THE REAL POWER DISSIPATED?' - the more so as it no longer is representative of anything at all.  vi dt has become vi.  Absolutely NOT applicable to any power measurements that are more complex than a direct current.  What you're trying to do Poynty Point - is average that trace.  And we all know why.  You can INDEED average a DIRECT CURRENT.  AND at sleight of hand that's exactly what you've done.  You've TURNED IT INTO A DIRECT CURRENT through the simple expediency of first finding an average.  VOILA!  The rabbit out the hat trick.  Total misdirection.  AND YOU GET AWAY WITH IT.  How come?  How come this disgusting piece of analysis is allowed to present itself as scientific?  And where is everyone's howl of protest?  By rights you should be laughed out of court.  And what do you think our academics think of your work here?  If they read this - then they will also KNOW that either this forum contributors are utterly unschooled in science - or they're utterly committed to misdirection.

Regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Then as for the balance of that nonsense.
   

Measured is the REAL power in the following:

NO.  It is either averaged or it is real time.  You're confusing your terms.

Then

1) Q2-Q5 combined: ~14.6W
2) Q1: ~0.41W 
3) Battery: ~-33.3W*
4) Load Resistor: ~16.86W

No supporting evidence for any of these sums.  Have no idea if they're averaged - real time - or what.  But the batttery voltage for starters is nonsense.

then

* Normal battery power is measured as a "negative" because this represents power being supplied to a circuit, i.e. a loss of energy.

Really badly defined terms.  A loss of energy to what?  To the battery?  I would have thought NOT.

Then

If we look at the power balance, we have:

33.3W = 14.6W + 0.41W + 16.86W
33.3W = 31.87W

The remaining ~1.43W can be accounted for by the power dissipated in the 2 Ohm Gate resistor, and the 0.25 Ohm CSR. Oddly, the function generator contributes about 3W to the circuit, and this is precisely the amount lost in the 2 Ohm battery lead resistor. These losses are not shown in the graphs.

Can't follow this because I'm not  telepathic.  You need to explain what you're getting to and, more to the point - a some reasonable account of how you marshalled these facts to get to that conclusion.  To me they're entirely unrelated pieces of evidence and for all I know you sucked these numbers out of your thumb.

It becomes quite apparent in the simulations, that if the gate impedance is too high the continuous oscillations stop. I am convinced that the FG somehow provides for a low AC impedance path through it's output terminal, and this is why the circuit still oscillates. This would also explain why the FG does not heat up even though it has a 50 Ohm resistor in series.

If this is what you think - then I wonder if it's because this is the best EXCUSE you can come up with.  I would far preferto see something based on an analysis that is a little more substantial than any you've presented here. 

Regards
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Which makes the conclusion to your post - as absurd as everything preceding it. 

I hope that with the above details and analysis, the "problems" in all this mess are now starting to become apparent.

This MESS is ONLY appropriate to the MESS in these posts. 

Surely it is obvious that Q1 is providing almost no power to the load resistor.

WHAT?  WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?  You show Q1 measuring milliwatts?  WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

THEN.

One might also observe that the power measured using the CSR and Vbat voltage points is largely reactive, and not indicating anything close to the truth in terms of what the battery is supplying or receiving.

Since WHEN has power been 'reactive'.  Pure waffle Poynty Point.  And nothing WHATSOEVER to do with power analysis.  And very much less to do with the facts or even the truth.  Just a selective bit of misdirection offered with the pretense that you know whereof you speak - and, in fact, just a laughable insult to us all.

Guys - please note.  There is absolutely NO WAY that one can do any power analysis on any circuit that has a waveform that is more complex than a direct current.  Certainly it cannot be applied to the waveforms we're generating here.  I do hope you realise this.  And in as much as no-one has challenged all this nonsense I'm concerned that perhaps the most of you do not know this.  If you doubt it - then look it up.  And yes - If one were to average these voltages then it may - under SOME settings - result in the kind of results that Poynty is pointing to.  But it would ALWAYS BE WRONG - EVEN IF IT RESULTED IN AN APPARENT GAIN TO THE SYSTEM.  There is only ONE correct methodology applied to power analysis on a switching circuit.  And that is ASBOLUTELY NOT IN AVERAGING ANYTHING AT ALL.

Kind regards,
Rosemary 

I split these posts into a series of posts because it was just WAY TOO LONG.
Regards again
R

[poynt99]

Rose,

It appears that you are having some trouble understanding the data I am presenting with these simulations.

If you would care to specify some particulars, I would be glad to go over them with you and explain them to the best of my ability.

.99

[poynt99]

Guys - please note.  There is absolutely NO WAY that one can do any power analysis on any circuit that has a waveform that is more complex than a direct current.  Certainly it cannot be applied to the waveforms we're generating here.  I do hope you realise this. 

 

.99