Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

The Drain scope trace is irrelevant for your input power measurement.

You need the battery voltage and the battery current. That's it, done.

Remove all your probes and use them near your battery array if you wish to try the scope again for input power. You will need another CSR in series with the battery.

Otherwise, use one DMM to measure the DC current, and another to measure the voltage across the batteries as you are already. Multiply the two, and you have your input power. The meters should provide enough averaging to give you an accurate number. The voltage seemed stable enough, it's just a matter of how stable the current through the meter will be. If it is stable (DC current setting btw), then you are off to the races.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The Drain scope trace is irrelevant for your input power measurement.

You need the battery voltage and the battery current. That's it, done.

Remove all your probes and use them near your battery array if you wish to try the scope again for input power. You will need another CSR in series with the battery.

Otherwise, use one DMM to measure the DC current, and another to measure the voltage across the batteries as you are already. Multiply the two, and you have your input power. The meters should provide enough averaging to give you an accurate number. The voltage seemed stable enough, it's just a matter of how stable the current through the meter will be. If it is stable (DC current setting btw), then you are off to the races.

.99

When you find a DMM that can manage the frequency at those oscillations then let me know. 

And what does that mean ' off to the racees '?  I've never heard the expression.

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

When you find a DMM that can manage the frequency at those oscillations then let me know. 

And what does that mean ' off to the racees '?  I've never heard the expression.

Regards,
Rosemary

Are you measuring the battery voltage with a DMM in your video? I seem to recall seeing both a ~60VDC measurement, and a ~50VDC measurement.

How did the meter manage the high frequency at those two measurements?

Off to the races:
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/off+to+the+races

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys,  it is very evident that the only way these results can be refuted is to look to AVERAGING everything in reach.  If one relies on averages - then I am reasonably certain that one could also, thereby deny the measurements.  BUT.  It would need to be applied in the face of the required classical measurement protocols.  This is Poynty's and Humbuggers last ditch argument.

The ENTIRE reason that we put up those two demonstrations was to SHOW that what is known of in 'school classical' as 'parasitic oscillation' has got exploitable advantages that have NOT been evaluated - thus far - by that same school classical.  Those oscillations move in both directions across zero indicating that energy is both delivered and returned.  They correspond to the voltages measured at the drain so there is clear evidence that current is flowing first from and then back to the supply source.  The ONLY appropriate question then is this.  Is there more or less energy being returned?  What the Our team boffins are trying to imply here is that NO significant energy is being returned and this can be SHOWN , SOMEHOW?  by looking at the results on a DMM.  Which is interesting.  Becuase there is no DMM that can show this happening.  What the DMM will do is 'average' that value.  Essentially the argument is this.  DO NOT LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THROUGH A MICROSCOPE.  Just use your eyes.  I am entirely satisfied that if we did just use our eyes - then we would indeed not be able to evaluate that advantage. 

We do, indeed, use a DMM to show the overall voltage on the battery only to double check that this corresponds to the mean average voltage that we show on our scope.  But we are absolutely NOT interested in that average.  We are interested in the moment by moment benefit of that oscillation.  Unless, of course, there is some merit in refusing to do a detailed evaluation.  Then we can just claim that the retained level of charge on the battery is the anomaly and this would then NEVER be able to proven.  You catch the drift - I hope.  We would then be left arguing which battery gives the best benefit - which is absolutely a never ending argument - and, as intended, will entirely obscure the actual questions that have been addressed.

Poynty.  Stop scraping that barrel.  You and Humbugger are tediously trying to refute these measurments.  I see that Cheeseburger is now claiming that there was no-one at the demo.  Tell him, from me, that we did that video at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon - having shown those results during that extended time period - from 11 am through to 4 pm.  Indeed, at 4 there were only 6 of us still there.

What ludicrous depths will you two go to to deny all this.

Regards,
Rosemary

[poynt99]

Guys,  it is very evident that the only way these results can be refuted is to look to AVERAGING everything in reach.  If one relies on averages - then I am reasonably certain that one could also, thereby deny the measurements.  BUT.  It would need to be applied in the face of the required classical measurement protocols.  This is Poynty's and Humbuggers last ditch argument.

The ENTIRE reason that we put up those two demonstrations was to SHOW that what is known of in 'school classical' as 'parasitic oscillation' has got exploitable advantages that have NOT been evaluated - thus far - by that same school classical.  Those oscillations move in both directions across zero indicating that energy is both delivered and returned.  They correspond to the voltages measured at the drain so there is clear evidence that current is flowing first from and then back to the supply source.  The ONLY appropriate question then is this.  Is there more or less energy being returned?  What the Our team boffins are trying to imply here is that NO significant energy is being returned and this can be SHOWN , SOMEHOW?  by looking at the results on a DMM.  Which is interesting.  Becuase there is no DMM that can show this happening.  What the DMM will do is 'average' that value.  Essentially the argument is this.  DO NOT LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THROUGH A MICROSCOPE.  Just use your eyes.  I am entirely satisfied that if we did just use our eyes - then we would indeed not be able to evaluate that advantage. 

We do, indeed, use a DMM to show the overall voltage on the battery only to double check that this corresponds to the mean average voltage that we show on our scope.  But we are absolutely NOT interested in that average.  We are interested in the moment by moment benefit of that oscillation.  Unless, of course, there is some merit in refusing to do a detailed evaluation.  Then we can just claim that the retained level of charge on the battery is the anomaly and this would then NEVER be able to proven.  You catch the drift - I hope.  We would then be left arguing which battery gives the best benefit - which is absolutely a never ending argument - and, as intended, will entirely obscure the actual questions that have been addressed.

Poynty.  Stop scraping that barrel.  You and Humbugger are tediously trying to refute these measurments.  I see that Cheeseburger is now claiming that there was no-one at the demo.  Tell him, from me, that we did that video at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon - having shown those results during that extended time period - from 11 am through to 4 pm.  Indeed, at 4 there were only 6 of us still there.

What ludicrous depths will you two go to to deny all this.

Regards,
Rosemary

Thank you for that confirmation regarding the DMM battery voltage measurement being valid. Now, do the same with another such meter, but this time use it as a current meter.

It is perfectly valid to heavily average both the battery voltage and battery current measurements for INPUT power only. Multiply the two averaged values together to obtain the average input power from the batteries.

It's that simple Rose.

.99