Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope

[poynt99]

Indeed,

There has been little comment there also.

Even Hum is mum.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynty - I'M interested.  If that's any comfort.  But I can't OPEN THAT SCHEMATIC.  You know this.  I just assumed that you weren't letting me get into this discussion. 

Rosemary

[Groundloop]

Poynty - I'M interested.  If that's any comfort.  But I can't OPEN THAT SCHEMATIC.  You know this.  I just assumed that you weren't letting me get into this discussion. 

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thank you very much Groundloop.  Very kind of you.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok Poynty - I get it that your average would be the same as your instantaneous - integrated number?  Not sure.  You've not give us the full picture - or I can't follow it if you have.

Personally I'm dead against averaging.  For a whole lot of reasons.  Imagine trying to work out a Cheetah's running power based on the following.  He sleeps 18 hours out of every 24.  He walks - say - ever north - when he's not sleeping.  Then he chases his quarry - hypothetically and still due north - for another 10 minutes.  He covers a total of 80mph/60 minutes x10 minutes = 13.33 miles - during that sprint and covers a previous 6.66 miles in walk mode.  Makes a total distance of - say - 20 miles - in a straight hypothetical line so we don't take swerves or turns into account.  Therefore - I can correctly conclude that IF distance travelled is a reflection of the energy levels of that cheetah then he actually covers 20 miles in every 24.  No reflection - whatsoever - of that extraordinary velocity he can manage - when required.  Or take your tides.  High tide and low tide average at a certain fixed line in the sands.   Where does that average reflect the actual power in the tides?  The same with your attempts at average battery voltages.

I'm interested to see that your sim can produce those waveforms.  If I can find it I'll post a similar.  But you'll see entirely different results in that instantaneous analysis.  And for precisely the same reason.  The actual power delivered and returned - share the advantage of a phase shift.  Ignore - if you will - how it can be that they are at 180 degrees in antiphase - which is a chapter all on its own - albeit dismissed as very prosaic by some of your team.   The fact is that this is like an analogy of a greyhound whose speed is evaluated on the flat and then on an incline and then on a decline.  The chances are that he'll have more speed on that decline.  And the theoretical advantages of that waveform are that the currents on both source and drain rails of the circuit have that same kind of advantage.  Just that.  It's in the phase shift - and this entirely alters the 'average' which seems to be something that you need to advance.

Nothing wrong with averaging.  But if we measured the average temperature of the earth it would absolutely not show us the ice at the poles nor the baking 60 degree temperatures at some of it's deserts - nor the relatively equitable heat at it's equator.  But it would, nonetheless, be a fair account of the average.  It's valid.  And yets it's entirely WRONG to average.  Like you all determined when you were discussing this on your forum.  Remember?

Regards,
Rosemary

I'm only sorry that I didn't show the math trace on this.  But where the mean average is negative then the math trace is certainly always negative.  And then the instantaneous wattage analysis over that entire sample range show the same thing.  IE.  MORE energy returned than initially supplied by the battery.  That's what I keep trying to draw your attention to.  It would - very possibly - be hidden in an average.

ALSO.  As a point of interest.  I have NEVER found the negative spikes default as you've shown them across that shunt resistor.  It just doesn't reach down far enough.  It doubles back and then tries it again.  I'd be curious to know both how and why you showed them this way?  That may very well result in less evident benefit from that phase shift.  And could it be that you're deliberately avoiding the issue by showing it like this?