Testing the TK Tar Baby

[TinselKoala]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INSTANTANEOUS POWER - ON A SWITCHED CIRCUIT - UNLESS IT INCORPORATES TIME FACTORED IN TO THE APPLIED VOLTAGE AND THE APPLIED AMPERAGE BOTH.  YOU ARE ASSUMING QUIXOTIC NON-STANDARD POWER ANALYSIS THAT IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE

Once again you are showing your ignorance. It does not matter in the least about "switched circuits" or complex waveforms or any of that: the INTEGRAL of the INSTANTANEOUS POWER CURVE, found by multiplying the INSTANTANEOUS VALUES of the voltage and the current and integrating wrt time, will ALWAYS BE THE CORRECT MEASURE of the ENERGY IN JOULES passing your measurement point, and that value DIVIDED BY THE DURATION OF THE MEASUREMENT will ALWAYS give you the correct average POWER IN WATTS for that interval, even if it contains long gaps or complex mixed signals. That is the way it is done and if you only understood calculus you would see that THIS IS EVEN HOW YOU ARE DOING IT YOURSELF in your spreadsheets using a numerical approximation to the analytical technique.

[poynt99]

.99

No. You must also simulate the body diode of the mosfet that is switched off. There is also a current path
for the bias through that diode. This current path is small, but it is there. I have measured this.

GL.

GL,

I have simulated it, with the actual MOSFET in place. There was no significant change in any of the measurements.

In the simulation, the Q1 body diode is reverse-biased to about -22V, so other than a very small leakage current, there is almost no current through Q1. Your Q1 should also be reverse-biased, i.e. V_S-D should be negative 22V or so.

ETA: The actual measured current through Q1 is about 5uA.

[poynt99]

And as per my diagram as well, right?
Including the CVR position and the FG cliplead colors as connected in the video.

The only difference is that the video shows the BLACK FG connector at the common ground point instead of the paper's and our diagrams showing it on the transistor side of the CVR.
Right?

Correct.

[TinselKoala]

ON THE CONTRARY.  OUR WORK IS SHOWN IN GREAT DEPTH AND DETAIL IN OUR PAPER.  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY REQUIREMENT BEYOND SUCH DETAILED REPRESENTATION REQUIRED IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM.  WE INTEND GOING BEYOND THIS REQUIREMENT NONETHELESS TO INCORPORATE OUR FULL DEMONSTRATION TO SHOW THAT THE BATTERY IS ALSO ABLE TO EXCEED IT'S RATED PERFORMANCE.  BUT THAT TEST WILL NEVER BE DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD OR YOUR SPURIOUS AND INSULTING ANALYSIS OF OUR WORK.

Where in your great detail paper is the refutation of my current calculation of your SCRN0150 shot WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING?
Nowhere.

YOU need to SUPPORT YOUR PRESENT CLAIM, which is that my calculations of that shot are somehow wrong.

YOU CANNOT, so you point to your word-salad  many times rejected "paper". And I laugh at your pitiful squawking, Polly Parrot.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Once again you are showing your ignorance. It does not matter in the least about "switched circuits" or complex waveforms or any of that: the INTEGRAL of the INSTANTANEOUS POWER CURVE, found by multiplying the INSTANTANEOUS VALUES of the voltage and the current, will ALWAYS BE THE CORRECT MEASURE of the ENERGY IN JOULES passing your measurement point, and that value DIVIDED BY THE DURATION OF THE MEASUREMENT will ALWAYS give you the correct average POWER IN WATTS for that interval, even if it contains long gaps or complex mixed signals. That is the way it is done and if you only understood calculus you would see that THIS IS EVEN HOW YOU ARE DOING IT YOURSELF in your spreadsheets using a numerical approximation to the analytical technique.

AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHERE YOU ARE WRONG.  SPREAD SHEET ANALYSIS FACTORS IN THE SAMPLES WHICH ARE TAKEN OVER TIME.  YOU ARE TRYING TO SEPARATE ONE PART OF A CYCLE FROM THE WHOLE CYCLE.  THAT IS WRONG.  UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY AND SELF-EVIDENTLY AND ENTIRELY WRONG.