David Bowling's Continuous Charging Device

[tinman]

MileHigh,

I wasn't going to respond to your posts but you are babbling off a bunch of nonsense that needs to be corrected for the sake of those trying to learn.

You have posted that an inverter is non-reactive.  That is complete foolishness.  Anyone that has built or worked with inverters knows they are definitely reactive.  But then you claim the circuit with the inverter is reactive.  HUH?  That doesn't make any sense.

You also posted the sample rate of the DSO is not giving us the complete picture because the sample rate is faster than the signal.  Do you even understand how a DSO works?  Under sampling is just the opposite of what you claimed.  The sample rate frequency HAS to be several times the signal frequency or you couldn't possibly get an accurate picture of the signal shape and amplitude.

Why is it so hard for you to accept the idea there might be more to this world than what you learned from books?  I have worked in electronics since I was 14 years old.  I have an associate degree in industrial electronics and an Advanced Radio Operators license (HAM).  I worked in industry as an electronic tech for over 30 years.  I will certainly agree the conventional training I have had made it much easier to do my job.  But I also know the conventional theory does not explain all I have seen both on my bench and on the job.

Brad may not use all the technical terms in exactly the way you want him to but at least he is making a serious effort to do something.  All I have seen from you is your use of technical arguments to try and discredit Brad.  And most of those arguments are clearly just to distract and not further the research.  Please, just go back to your books and leave the research to those that are actually trying to learn something.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Thank you Carroll.
Most of us are on the same page,and i will not let MHs interruptions impact on my research into this DUT.
If he continues on with his disruptions,we will simply have him removed from the thread.



Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad:  Just do a proper current measurement, that's my point.  Spinning and saying it was just "to show spikes" is a joke.  You are just playing the "I can't be wrong because my brain would fry" game.

Citfta:  The inverter does not look like a reactive load to the battery.  Brad saw spikes and got confused, simple as that.  No, I said the sample rate is slower than the signal, that's why you are looking at garbage aliased data.  Don't play the "do you even understand" game.  Forget the "books" argument also.

Brad presented junk data with a false interpretation of that junk data.  To get your thread going with two solid feet on the ground all of you need a proper characterization of how the inverter draws power from the battery and right now you do not have that.  So you can remain in some kind of bizarre spin zone of denial or you can get it right.  That's my point.  I am not interested in this thread but seeing it start off with junk data compelled me to say something.  Take it or leave it, it's up to you.

[tinman]

Brad:  Just do a proper current measurement, that's my point.

Brad did propper current measurements--thats my point--see screen shot from video below.

Brad saw spikes and got confused, simple as that.

No Brad did not.
Brad was showing David that the required current spikes were present.

Brad presented junk data with a false interpretation of that junk data.

No-MH is once again filling a thread with rubbish,due to nothing more that his misunderstandings of what was going on,and why.

No, I said the sample rate is slower than the signal, that's why you are looking at garbage aliased data.

The sample rate is quite fine for showing the switching of the mosfets between each cycle.

The inverter does not look like a reactive load to the battery.

But the current trace clearly is showing a reaction when the mosfets switch on.
We are not going to get into MHs limited terms,meanings and conditions here on this thread.

 

To get your thread going with two solid feet on the ground all of you need a proper characterization of how the inverter draws power from the battery and right now you do not have that.

Those that knew what i was showing,are those that have there feet firmly planted on the ground,as they are the ones that took the time to read as to what was needed to be seen-->and this was not you.

So you can remain in some kind of bizarre spin zone of denial or you can get it right.  That's my point.  I am not interested in this thread but seeing it start off with junk data compelled me to say something.  Take it or leave it, it's up to you.

We will leave it thanks MH,as the rest of us knows whats going on here,and you do not.

Bye


Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad did propper current measurements--thats my point--see screen shot from video below.

And it's almost impossible to have a rational mature argument with you because you make immature fake arguments like pointing to a multimeter current measurement when everybody knows including you yourself that I am talking about a current waveform measurement with your DSO.  Making a proper measurement with your DSO and determining what the pulse widths and pulse frequencies are like for both low and high power output from the inverter may be very helpful in solving the mystery of why the first battery discharges before the second battery.

[tinman]

And it's almost impossible to have a rational mature argument with you because you make immature fake arguments like pointing to a multimeter current measurement when everybody knows including you yourself that I am talking about a current waveform measurement with your DSO.  Making a proper measurement with your DSO and determining what the pulse widths and pulse frequencies are like for both low and high power output from the inverter may be very helpful in solving the mystery of why the first battery discharges before the second battery.

I have already explained as to why battery A discharges  more than battery B in the two series batteries.
If you take the time to look at the circuit,you will also see why.

That scope shot i posted had nothing what so ever to do with current measurements,and the DMM was an initial current measurement only.
This was the very first look at this circuit,but already you are asking for critical measurements.
You always jump the gun MH,and you dont give anyone time to continue  on with experiments  before your on there back,telling them how wrong they have everything,and how they should be doing things.

So what you need to do,is engauge in some bench work of your own toward the subject matter,or leave it to those that are doing the experiments  at there own pace--not yours.


Brad