Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Quite right.  This is exactly the puzzle that we need to resolve.  But there are other ways to determine power dissipated.   And no-one has problems on determining the power delivered.

Rose, that is a contradiction if you are using only the data from the dumps.

Sounds like you finally admitted that the PIL and PIM values are not correct, is that right?. If these are not correct, then very likely the POS is not correct either. These numbers were generated from the same data set.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt.  There are empirical measurements of both power dissipated and power delivered.  Did you even read Harvey's post written almost exclusively for your benefit?  post no 2077 page 208.

In any event.  Here's the thing.  There is no confusion with the computation of power delivered and power dissipated provided that the former is done in line with some dc coupled evaluation of energy delivered and the latter is done with reference to the rate of temperature rise.  Both are impirical measurements but they fall short of MH's need for some balanced reconciliation of all power measurements.  The fact is that there is a hugely complex sum in the computation of the inductive reactance across the load resistor and this is possibly required.  I'm actually not sure that this will resolve all the questions though.  Still outstanding is the fact that the positive voltage at the drain is in synch with the energy evidently returned to the system and as measured in the shunt on the source.  And they are 'out of step'.

My own suggestion - for what it's worth - is that the circuit is pointing to some phenomenon that may have been overlooked by mainstream.  I'm well aware how offensive this will read to all those who feel that there are no outstanding questions in electromagnetic interactions.  But there are.  There are many questions.  I've covered these - ad nauseum - in my complaints against conventional explanations of current flow.  And it's definitely out of context to enter into a discussion of that here.  But what is is appropriate is to point to the waveform and acknowledge the discrepancy.

I'm afraid you cannot logically dismiss all the numbers simply because you cannot do a full power integration of the energy over the load resistor.  With respect.  This number may yet be resolved if someone can bend their mind around that complex math.  But the fact remains that the voltage over the source and drain are diametrically opposed to each other.  I sincerely believe that the discrepancey or, as you and MH have termed it, the puzzle, or the mystery needs to be unravelled at this very point.  And I'm not sure that it will be a conventional explanation.  But I'm open to correction.

[Hoppy]

Hoppy,

I do not believe this is correct, for 2 reasons:

1) SPICE does not require that any PFC be done to obtain the correct results. Simply measuring the voltage across the load resistor and multiplying it by the current in the shunt produces the correct result.

2) REAL power is determined by the exact method we are using, which is measuring the instantaneous voltage across the load resistor, and current through the shunt. The multiplication of the two values and averaging is performed in Excel and produces the correct results. PFC is automatic if you will, since it is purely dependent on the phase between the two.

W (real power)/VA (apparent power) = PF

We are already measuring REAL power directly. PFC needs to be applied only if we are measuring apparent power.

.99

Poynt99

I do appreciate that SPICE calculate real power but given the anomalies, could the PF correction be in error, possibly due to the mosfet modelling being used? I used the word 'appropriate' PF correction because I think this could be the root of the problem.

Hoppy

[poynt99]

I don't think PFC comes into play at all Hoppy, even in the real world measurement we are performing.

We are already measuring real power directly, so if the numbers do not come out correctly, it is not because of a missing fudge factor, it is because the measurement points used do not accurately portray the true phase of the voltage and current being measured.

.99

[Hoppy]

I don't think PFC comes into play at all Hoppy, even in the real world measurement we are performing.

We are already measuring real power directly, so if the numbers do not come out correctly, it is not because of a missing fudge factor, it is because the measurement points used do not accurately portray the true phase of the voltage and current being measured.

.99

How can this be the case if all scope probe grounds are point connected at the power supply source?

Hoppy