Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

Is there no one that has any constructive comments about the simulation results I posted yesterday?

Has anyone noticed the negative shunt current? Is that not of any interest being that it is in line with measurements taken on the actual apparatus?

.99

[poynt99]

A comparison of Vbat and Vshunt; The apparatus vs. PSpice:

The MEAN of the shunt voltage of the apparatus is -32.5mV as shown, and in the sim it was -35mV as shown in the previously posted Q1_scope03.png.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Discussions on these simulations of yours Poynty - are fraught.  I simply never know what you're referring to and I would be so glad to move on.  Nonetheless.  I seems that I must forever waste time and work through the painful requirements to alert our members to the full extent of your misdirections.

This refers.
« Reply #783 on: April 23, 2011, 08:10:36 PM »

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with your deductions but everything wrong with the method of your deductions and THAT because you KEEP WANTING TO AVERAGE.  Then.  As if that error in itself if not enough - you also then charge around the place demanding that we either get rid of inductance or factor it in. 

I'm not going to redo the math.  I would LOVE to know if your simulator can do the required.  But whether it can or NOT the fact is that with a given resistance and a given inductance - then at certain applied frequencies it can then change the impedance which then materially changes that resistance.  So.  If your simulator is able to factor that value in - I'd be very interested in your instantaneous wattage analysis.  And - I think as it applies to that overly simplified sum you presented being 71V * 0.035V * 4 is quite simply NOT representative of the wattage delivered or dissipated.  Yet you then follow it up with those cryptic comments '-9.94W appears to be going back to the battery!!!!!!!!'  Well.  NO.  Not actually.  Not even close. 

Regards,
Rosemary 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

THEN.

As if that insult to our intelligence isn't enough you carry on with this farce.  Your post « Reply #784 on: April 23, 2011, 08:35:03 PM » refers.

Here you AVERAGE the battery voltage on the next simulation at -48 Volts or thereby.  WHAT are you talking about Poynty?  HOW DO YOUR SIMULATIONS SHOW THE BATTERY VOLTAGE AT ANY NEGATIVE NUMBER AT ALL?  We have never seen this.  We have seen the battery voltage flirt with zero.  In fact, on certain settings I've seen instantaneous battery voltage exceed zero.  And there are some settings where I've even seen it dip into full on negative territory.  But I have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER seen the AVERAGE battery voltage result in any negative voltage AT ALL.  EVER.  How can it?  Do we really seem that STUPID that we can read this and simply 'move on' to the next point - so to speak?  Just swallow this nonsense and pretend that we didn't notice?   Therefore, when you present us with that absurd value of -192 Watts it becomes more than a little insulting to our collective intelligence.  Either that - or you have NO CLUE what you're doing.

Regards
Rosemary

[poynt99]

In the hope to avoid any confusion, I'd like to re-emphasize how the power traces were obtained in scope shot Q1_scope05.png previously posted and reproduced here.

When taking a power measurement with an oscilloscope and two probes, we use one probe for voltage across the device of interest, and one probe for current through the device of interest. The latter measurement is obtained (with the Ainslie apparatus) by using a current sense resistor (CSR) placed in series somewhere with the battery, and the resulting current is obtained by using the following equation for Ibattery:

Ibattery = Vcsr/Rcsr

In the case of both probes, these are instantaneous measurements.

In the scope, a MATH function is used to multiply these two values together, i.e. Vbat(t) * ibat(t), in order to obtain the instantaneous power p(t) in that device. Then in order to determine the average (REAL) power, we use a measurement function in the scope to perform an averaging of that p(t) trace, and the scope displays the MEAN numerical value it computes on that trace. Many of you know this already, and this is simply review.

In PSpice v10.5, there is a wattage probe that can be placed onto any device. After doing so, the scope shows the p(t) of that device. As discussed, this is the instantaneous power in that device, and is the instantaneous voltage across it times the instantaneous current through it. The wattage (W) probe in PSpice does this multiplication and displays the results automatically.

After the p(t) trace is on the scope screen, we can perform the same averaging function we do with the scope in order to obtain the average (REAL) power in that device. In PSPice this function is called "AVG", and you will often see this included in the trace statement at the bottom of my scope shots, esp. when power is being examined. In PSpice, rather than displaying the average of p(t) numerically as on the scope, it shows you the running average of the p(t) trace, and you can see and measure with a cursor what the final value is that it converges on. This is how I determine the numerical values I place on the scope shots and write in the posts. See the scope shot below.

.99