Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[TinselKoala]

 

[TinselKoala]

 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

lol  Nice to see you following the JouleSeeker's good example by keeping things terse and technical. 

Poynty - I have included your schematics and results in my report.  Thanks for your permission.  I'll comment on your work when you've finally managed that zero benefit which I rather suspect is where you're trending.  You've got a couple of serious contradictions that need addressing.  But in the meantime I take it that your reference to not computing any voltage across the CSR was stated  in error.

Manwhile guys - I'm busy for the next few days circulating the circular.  That's assuming that both this computer and I survive any more interventions.  We're both suffering a surfeit of those 'delusions' that Cat refers to.

Kind regards,
Rosie



BTW - Here's the content of that circular - still subject to minor editing requirements.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/123-cover-letter-to-be-circulated-with.html

[poynt99]

You've got a couple of serious contradictions that need addressing.

There are a couple of things that will become clearer with the next installment, but not sure I would call them contradictions.

But in the meantime I take it that your reference to not computing any voltage across the CSR was stated  in error.

I have not stated nor implied that, but apparently you've interpreted things that way somehow.

The voltage across the CSR is measured and shown. The current is computed using a CSR value of "1", therefore no computation is required; it is a direct measurement of current. The actual magnitude of the current and power is important, but not so critical in this exercise. We know the CSR value is somewhere between 0.25 Ohms and perhaps 2 Ohms. The value of the resistive part of the CSR is simply a multiplying factor and is not involved in the polarity of the power in question.

.99

[poynt99]

Sorry it's been a bit longer for this next post, but I just returned from vacation on Tuesday afternoon, and I've needed a bit of recovery time. Back at work Wednesday too. 



For the next installment of simulation test runs, it's necessary to establish some simple background theory:

If each of the 6 twelve-volt batteries in the battery array have approximately the same state of charge, terminal voltage, and internal resistance, it is reasonable to asssume that each of the 6 batteries will receive or supply the same amount of power in the circuit. As such, it is valid to measure and analyse the power in any one of the 6 batteries and apply a factor of 6x to obtain the total power in the circuit.

In this first test, the battery voltage probes are placed across the last jumper wire and last 12V battery. So we are measuring the voltage across a single 12V battery in series with 400nH of wire inductance in a single jumper. The power computes to -3.8W.

Next, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.

When the wattage probe available in PSpice is used to directly measure the instantaneous power of the single 12V battery, it computes to a net average of approximately -5.45W. If you recall the exercise on the polarity of power sources vs. power dissipators a little while back, you will know that the proper polarity for a source that is sourcing power, is negative. The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the "powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.

Now back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W, and that the previous measurement using a single 12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1 Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect. If we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x (1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to +1.37W. It should be clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed at a high frequency or not).

Computing the total power (using the Wattage probe) from all 6 batteries in the array we have:

-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W

This is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this particular simulation.

Now, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement (which used the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t)) using just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR), then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.

Other than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.

More to follow.

.99