Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Stefan,

Second (see scope shot below), realize that you are only looking at about half of the cycle. The other half clearly shows that there is positive current sourced from the battery. I have highlighted this in a red elipse.

In summary; the shunt voltage mean value shown is of no use, and does not reflect what the real average current is for that measurement.

.99

Well Poynty.  I hope this is still on the same page that we can still reference that RED ELIPSE.  You forgot to add those BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH.  Roughly 10 volts above zero and 30 volts below zero.  During THAT moment we have 10/0.25 = 40 amps from the battery and 30/0.25 = 120 volts being returned to the battery.  AS WE ALL KNOW the one spike never manifests at the same time as another.  THEREFORE over time 40 amps * vbatt was deliverd and THEN 120 amps * vbatt was returned.  Factor that in together with the amount of time that the current was flowing during the 'ON' time of the switch or we'd be inclined to think that you're only looking at one side of your argument.

Now.  Assume that the battery average is applied during those spikes.  P = vi dt - therefore during those two moments we have 40 amps * 73.3 volts = a staggering 2 932.00 WATTS discharged and 120 amps * 73.3 volts returned = an even more staggering 8 798 WATTS returned to the battery.  And that's not all.  We then also have another problem.  The actual voltage during the flow of that 40 amps FROM THE BATTERY trends to less than 73.3 volts.  And the actual voltage during the flow of 120 amps BACK TO THE BATTERY trends to more than 73.3 volts. 

Rosemary

[poynt99]

Folks,

I tried.   

.99

[Poit]

@ Rosemary:
In a nut shell, what do you plan to do? patent your device and sell it? or open source it and give it to the world?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

@ Rosemary:
In a nut shell, what do you plan to do? patent your device and sell it? or open source it and give it to the world?

Poit.  It is absolutely and categorically and empirically and in fact and in truth - ENTIRELY UNPATENTABLE - is the first point.  It is that well known.  It is therefore NOT mine to sell and nor is it mine to GIVE.  All we've done is try - really, really hard - to show you what you've all been throwing away - simply because Mr Kirchhoff has claimed an EQUIVALENCE in the transfer of electromagnetic energy - WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN REQUIRED BY Mr Faraday.  We're not even breaking the rules here.  IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Folks,

I tried.   

.99

Poynty - that's a COP OUT.  You make an obscure point which NO-ONE on the forum gets and then you throw your hands up in exasperation.  And then you and your dogs will continue to MUTTER about the incompetence and the lack of understanding and God knows what else that afflicts ALL EVERYWHERE ELSE.  If there was a simple answer then I'm entirely satisified that - not me - but those that I've been working with - would MOST CERTAINLY have found it.  We're looking.  You're trying to stop us from looking.  WHY?

AND WHY do you want to AVERAGE everything when that obscures the classically required method of determining wattage?  BY DEFINITION vi dt requires an exact approximation to time.  Are you saying school classical is WRONG?

Rosemary

ADDED
Sorry.  'Exact approximation' is tautological.  What I really mean is as precise a relationship to time as can be managed.  And it's very, very well managed on the sampling range offered by our LeCroy.

STILL WRONG.  Not tautological.  Mutually exclusive.  Something like that.  In any event.  It can't be both exact and an approximation.  Golly.  I'll get there eventually.

LOL  You've probably got it right -  Poynty Point.  It's presumptuous of me to consider myself an idiot as you've already pointed out.