Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 (Read 722639 times)

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #75 on:** March 17, 2011, 04:17:32 AM »

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

...All the scope traces I've seen her present show an input (battery) voltage with over a hundred volts of AC at over 1MHz on it. That can't be right.

Well then. It seems then that cHeeseburger knows that they're wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing unfolded in these waveforms that are not in line with previous replications. I distinctly recall the evidence of AC waveforms - in one form or another - on every single test either on own circuit or on replications.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

There must be some large inductances or long wires being used in the battery circuit.

Indeed. There are. They need to span a large bank of batteries.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

No decent battery would have such a high impedance on its own as to allow such a large AC voltage swing. She says her batteries are brand new and very high quality types.

Here cHeesburger is wrong. I have never claimed that the batteries are high quality types. I've simply shown the battery brand. And they most certainly ARE NOT brand new. They've had a known shelf life for 9 months prior to their use and they've been used rather extensively for the last 5 months.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

Second, she recently showed her latest circuit and parts values. I noticed that the shunt being used to measure the battery current flow is made up of several quite long ceramic wirewound resistors. She states the combined inductance as being 130nH or something like that and 0.25 Ohms combined parallel resistance. With an oscillation frequency of over 1MHz, the inductance is the predominating part of the shunt impedance (by a huge margin) and the shunt impedance will be adding a large phase shift and showing much larger voltages across it than a pure 0.25 Ohm resistor would.

Here cHeesburger makes his first valid point. Indeed. There is no question that there is inductance. Add that in. And IF that inductance and impedance is responsible for that wild oscillation and any consequent phase shift - then I would strongly recommend that they be retained for ALL applications. It's highly exploitable. Whatever is finally determined to cause that osciallation needs to be factored IN not OUT. Self-evidently it results in a waveform that PERFECTLY reinforces itself. And that means that in those wildly swinging oscillations - which persist and would probably persist as long as the gate voltage is negative - also relies on those properties of the shunt. If, however, the oscillation resulted in a 'cancelling out' that it all decayed into a sad little flat ringing trace - then indeed - there would be no value to that oscillation.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

So, when the wildly oscillating AC "battery voltage" is multiplied (sample by sample) within her oscilloscope math by the phase-skewed voltage across her inductive shunt, the results will be totally unrelated to the actual DC-equivalent average power.

Here cHeesburger's logic becomes hard to follow. That 'phase-skewed voltage' persists over time. And it seems that it would persist as long as a negative charge is applied at the gate. There is no question that it adds to the system. Indeed. If you also factored in the increase to the Ohmage of the shunt - then it would add even more to the system than is currently being shown.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

Measurements made on this deeply-flawed basis could quite easily show a negative (reflected) power being returned to the battery when such was not actually the case at all. Or they could easily show zero (or close to zero) power being drawn when, in reality, significant power was being drawn out of the battery.

Nothing is 'deeply flawed' here other than cHeesburger's conclusions. I think what we've shown - conclusively - is that it is possible to generate two opposing cycles of current that perfectly reinforce each other with a zero discharge of energy during that oscillation. What is also proved is that this results in a sustained dissipation of heat at the resistor element. Much desired.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

I would suggest that a simple low-pass filter be applied on both the shunt voltage measurement and the battery voltage measurement in order to find the actual DC equivalent input power. This will eliminate the false readings associated with the phase shifts and inductive parasitics in the circuitry and reveal quickly the actual DC net power flow either out of or into the battery.

I would suggest that cHeesburger is determined to deny us the benefit from those circuit components including the wiring. I'm reasonably satisfied that if we, indeed, eliminated the inductance on the circuit - including the wiring - then we would, also, indeed, lose all that advantage.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

This has been suggested to Rosemary many times by many folks on several forums but, so far, she refuses to do it and has ignored all such advice. Adding fifty cents worth of R and C to form a simple first-order low-pass filter and then just measuring the results with a DMM is all that is needed.

While I persist in ignoring cHeesburger's advices I could do nothing to stop him from doing his own tests. Perhaps he should take the trouble - before commenting so freely. And I'm somewhat disinclined to follow his advices when they're evidentially aimed at negating the very advantages that the circuit requires.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

It's much easier than trying to change the batteries to smaller ones or run using a capacitor or DC power supply. It could be done in five minutes at almost no cost and would give results that are far more ACCURATE AND TRUSTWORTHY than doing math on 8-bit scope traces which are wildly swinging around with huge imposed AC voltages far beyond what would appear across any decent battery or a pure resistive shunt.

Here cHeeseburger is indulging in a standard of comment that really does NOT deserve and answer.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

This technique has been used for decades and is well-known to any engineer who has tried to make accurate DC-equivalent power measurements on circuits that have pulsed or high frequency AC current draw. Multiplying phase-skewed values derived across inductive shunts and batteries hooked up with long wires and no bypass capacitors has no chance of ever yielding accurate DC-equivalent power numbers.

From where I sit it seems that cHeesburger wants to retain the status quo and deny the rights to explore this waveform. I'm sure he's free to do so.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 16, 2011, 10:49:13 PM

P.S. Hooking two or more MOSFETS directly in parallel is well known to cause parasitic oscillations that are, in fact, difficult to get rid of when they are unwanted. Rosemary is using a function generator and has liberally applied DC offset voltages to the pulse output and tweaked that offset to enhance the oscillations, so using a 555 timer circuit will probably not work the same way at all. Anyone desiring to replicate should forget all about the earlier Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 schematics and use the latest circuit shown in her blog report. Don't forget to use at least ten feet of wire to hook up the batteries! And NEVER add any bypass caps ANYWHERE! Oh...and use a long twisted pair of small-guage wires to run from the signal generator to the MOSFET gates. That extra inductance and impedance mismatch can get a solid oscillation going even with a single MOSFET.

I think that's about right. It seems that cHeeseburger has indeed found the recipe.

Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #76 on:** March 17, 2011, 05:02:47 AM »

And with reference to this post.
I'll comment here because some of these points are good. Some not so good.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 01:29:55 AM

I believe the evidence points to the idea that Rosemary has chosen option B a long time ago. To expect that any thinking person would accept her claims without even a statement from her regarding her measured input power seems just nuts to me.

Input and output are measured across the shunt. The input is that voltage above ground the output is that voltage below ground. It is the difference that we highlight. And in as much the there is more out than in - then one may conclude that there is a zero loss to the battery. This is evident in the scope traces and the spreadsheet analysis confirms the indications that are shown in the math trace. That much is reported.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 01:29:55 AM

What she and everyone else seems to have blindly overlooked is that the measurement of input power is plagued with the exact same complications of inductance-based phase shifts and power factor complexities that were deemed too difficult to overcome on the output side. There is no difference!

'blindly overlooked'. Strong words here by cHeesburger. Golly. In point of fact these have NEVER been overlooked. But it intrigues me that he needs to claim this.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 01:29:55 AM

Yet, thosands of forum posts and blogs and hundreds of thousands of words and arduous special arrangements to borrow fancy oscilloscopes and try to lern to use them and bitter heated arguments have since ensued all regarding the correct measurement of the inpuit power. To date, no numbers have emerged!

IF indeed, cHeesburger had been following all this then he has failed - rather sadly - in understanding the actual argument. To the best of my knowledge there have been no 'bitter arguments' about the correct measurments to apply. And no person on our team required any special training to get their heads around those DSO's. I wonder if cHeesburger is trying to put a slant on things - and to what end?

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 01:29:55 AM

All I am suggesting is that simple techniques that in no way alter the circuit operation, i.e. using a simple RC low-pass filter on the battery voltage and current shunt voltage will give the exact same advantage that using the thermal integratiion method of obtaining equivalent DC power provides in the output measurement. Even better, there is no need for a "control" or comparison test at the input side as must be done on the output side.

Here he is, emphatically, wrong. Any filters applied will most certainly block that required resonance.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 01:29:55 AM

The only reason to use an oscilloscope in this whole exercise is to "tune and tweak" the circuit for whatever characteristics Rosemary thinks are best. Once that is done, the scope should be turned off and forgotten.

cHeesburger is clearly NOT aware of the fact that the value of those DSO's is in their bandwidth capabilities. Else the measurements would be ENTIRELY suspect.

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 01:29:55 AM

Measure the average DC-equivalent input voltage and current using a good DMM and the RC filter. Multiply. End of story!

I trust that cHeeseburger realises that there is nothing holding him back from applying his own tests here. Then I'm sure he's free to apply whatever measuring technique he chooses. Whether or not one relies on his methods of measurement would need to be determined by our experts. Thus far it is experts who have guided us in our measurement protocols.

Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #77 on:** March 17, 2011, 05:49:49 AM »

Guys, may I remind you all. That oscillation - that thing that is always factored out of switching circuits - it's usable. The proof is in this. We can set the duty cycle that it switches once ever 2.7 minutes. Then for about three minutes we get a sustained oscillation. During that period there is no evident loss of heat from the element. There is also no measured loss of energy from the supply. On the contrary. The battery voltage is seen to climb. Interestingly it only climbs to its previous high. Then it stays there.

Yet. If we disconnect the circuit for a period of three minutes there's a dramatic cooling evident at the resistor. Why do the implications of this not grab you? There is no error in the measurements. Unless from here on we must ignore measurements.

That's what I was rather hoping you'd all consider. We've been throwing away an advantage in switching circuits at our cost. And if we persist in applying 'standard' age old tried and tested techniques then we will NEVER find out new things. More to the point. We are now doing so at our peril. It is a truth that this technology may yet confront any need to expand nuclear programs - at LEAST. Surely that's a good thing? This technology is scalable and it hardly needs modification to apply it to our household hot water requirements. That takes up a HUGE amount of energy. And there's no noise. Previous switches had noise and it was really problematic.

Rosemary

MrMag · « **Reply #78 on:** March 17, 2011, 07:39:07 AM »

Rosemary,

I have got to give you a lot of credit. You are a very patient person. Most would of stopped posting by now. I haven't followed your posts or blogs but I do pop in once in a while to see whats going on. It seems like you are always being asked the same questions. In the other forum by hambugger and over here by cheeseburger and others. You must be doing a lot of cut and paste.

Keep up the good work and I wish you success in your circuit.

neptune · « **Reply #79 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:10:37 AM »

First of all , many thanks to nul-points and FatBird for their excellent replies to my questions . It is all much clearer now . This circuit is , in essence , a very simple circuit , but as allways the devil is in the detail . I feel that Rosemary has made some very valid points regarding measurements . The thing that convinces me of the reality of the phenomenon , is the 2.7 seconds of oscillation between pulses . We all have our own ideas on this , and I urge everyone to keep cool . You cant really argue with Rosemary when she says that everyone is free to choose their own power supply , including caps , and make their own measurements . Sadly , failing eyesight prevents me participating , but I follow all points of view with interest .At this stage the problem is that few people have test equipment of high enough quality to replicate this .I have just noticed something else . Cheeseburger says that Rosemary has applied "voltage offset" to the output of the function generator she is using .Does that mean moving the zero line so that the off puses become negative? If it does, then that is how the gate becomes negative

cHeeseburger · « **Reply #80 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:39:23 AM »

I would suggest that a simple low-pass filter be applied on both the shunt voltage measurement and the battery voltage measurement in order to find the actual DC equivalent input power. This will eliminate the false readings associated with the phase shifts and inductive parasitics in the circuitry and reveal quickly the actual DC net power flow either out of or into the battery.

â€œI would suggest that cHeesburger is determined to deny us the benefit from those circuit components including the wiring. I'm reasonably satisfied that if we, indeed, eliminated the inductance on the circuit - including the wiring - then we would, also, indeed, lose all that advantage.â€

All I am suggesting is that simple techniques that in no way alter the circuit operation, i.e. using a simple RC low-pass filter on the battery voltage and current shunt voltage will give the exact same advantage that using the thermal integratiion method of obtaining equivalent DC power provides in the output measurement. Even better, there is no need for a "control" or comparison test at the input side as must be done on the output side.

â€œHere he is, emphatically, wrong. Any filters applied will most certainly block that required resonance.â€

What she and everyone else seems to have blindly overlooked is that the measurement of input power is plagued with the exact same complications of inductance-based phase shifts and power factor complexities that were deemed too difficult to overcome on the output side. There is no difference!

â€œ'blindly overlooked'. Strong words here by cHeesburger. Golly. In point of fact these have NEVER been overlooked. But it intrigues me that he needs to claim this.â€

Rosemary, you are right. The proper and simple and accurate measurement technique has never been overlooked. I apologize for implying any such shortcoming in your perceptive abilities.

What I should have said is PURPOSELY AND STUBBORNLY AVOIDED AT ALL COST.

Let me try a simple analogy. Your load resistor has a fairly big mass, thermally speaking. It obviously takes some time to heat up and cool down. Iâ€™m sure we would all agree that the instantaneous temperature does not follow the frequency of oscillation (1MHz +), heating up and cooling back down a million times per second.

A wideband high speed measurement of the heat signature is therefore not required. The loadâ€™s mass performs a very accurate averaging of the rapidly-oscillating high frequency energy being fed through the load.

You clearly agree with this, because you have always used the method of comparing the output heat to that produced (in the same load) when it is fed a steady and easily known and determined DC power. This is what is known as determining the DC equivalent power.

You have acknowledged that this is how the output heating power is measured and have indicated that you understand at least one very strong reason for doing it this way, as opposed to trying to use a wideband DSO to measure the voltage across the load and current through it. It is because the load is inductive and the driving wave is not a sinusoid, which vastly complicates the math due to an inability to use simple real numbers and Ohmâ€™s Law or even simple complex numbers to get the power factor, phase shift and VAR (Volt Amperes Reactive) versus the true Watts of real forward power numbers correct.

Nowâ€¦please read this carefully and understand me clearly, if you would.
What I am suggesting is that all of those same complications apply equally to the measurement of the real Watts of input power and for the same reasons.

I am not suggesting that you remove or reduce or eliminate any of the circuit inductances or that you add anything that will in any way effect or change the way the circuit operates or behaves or alter the waveforms and scope traces you have so diligently worked to accomplish. The load will receive/emit exactly what it presently receives/emits and the batteries will also receive/emit exactly what they presently do as well. No change to the MOSFET operation/oscillation will occur.

What I am proposing by adding a simple filter ONLY TO THE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND NOT TO THE CIRCUIT ITSELF yields the exact same EQUIVALENT DC REAL POWER measurement results as you already use to measure the output heating power. Instead of averaging via thermal mass, you average in an exactly analogous way by using a resistor and capacitor attached to a simple digital voltmeter.

This method, properly applied, has no effect on circuit performance and has no inherent error sources. If nothing else, Rosemary, it would behoove you to at least try doing this to compare the results versus what you arrive at using your DSO method. If this simple straightforward technique gives numbers that closely agree with your zero-battery-net-power or shows actual charging of your battery while heating the load, you will have made a gigantic leap forward toward mainstream acceptance and credibility.

cHeeseburger (extra fries, please)

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #81 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:50:54 AM »

Rose:

I have continued to follow your work and all of your efforts on this project. I would just like to echo MrMag's comments in saying that I, too, admire your tenacity as you continue with this.

If you are measuring correctly, or not, does not matter to me at this point. You have involved some learned folks that should know the correct way and, the proof will be in the pudding as they say. I feel bad for the abuse you have to take by sharing your efforts openly but, I also admire you for doing so.

As you have said so many times, if folks think you are doing it wrong, there is nothing standing in their way to do it the "right" way. Yet, no one does. Easier to cast stones I suppose.

In the end, we will know. Please continue with your work, and continue to share the results, whatever they may be.

Bill

cHeeseburger · « **Reply #82 on:** March 17, 2011, 12:08:24 PM »

Quote from: MrMag on March 17, 2011, 07:39:07 AM

Rosemary,

I have got to give you a lot of credit. You are a very patient person. Most would of stopped posting by now. I haven't followed your posts or blogs but I do pop in once in a while to see whats going on. It seems like you are always being asked the same questions. In the other forum by hambugger and over here by cheeseburger and others. You must be doing a lot of cut and paste.

Keep up the good work and I wish you success in your circuit.

There is only one question I've ever asked. What is the input power and output power? Rosemary has not answered the question. She has produced no numbers. Her reports regarding input power suggest that it is either always exactly zero ("perfect cancellation" or "perfect symmetry") or, at other times suggest that it is always less than zero, constituting a net charge to the battery while delivering real heating power to the load. Earlier, the input power was given as a positive number being 1/17 of the heating power measured at the load. Never the same answer twice and never any numbers.

I see this as a huge problem with her "science" and I also see why it is virtually impossible to arrive at solid numbers using the approach she has taken to measuring the input power, which is not workable nor capable of furnishing accurate results.

cHeeseburger (extra tomatos, please)

P.S. Why my kindly and helpful and very constructive suggestions and my clear statements of the reasoning behind them are viewed as negative, abusive, pesky, rude, intolerable and bothersome by Rosemary and apparently others here is a true mystery to me. Is it my breath? Hold the onions!

cHeeseburger · « **Reply #83 on:** March 17, 2011, 12:30:53 PM »

Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 17, 2011, 11:50:54 AM

Rose:

I have continued to follow your work and all of your efforts on this project. I would just like to echo MrMag's comments in saying that I, too, admire your tenacity as you continue with this.

If you are measuring correctly, or not, does not matter to me at this point. You have involved some learned folks that should know the correct way and, the proof will be in the pudding as they say. I feel bad for the abuse you have to take by sharing your efforts openly but, I also admire you for doing so.

As you have said so many times, if folks think you are doing it wrong, there is nothing standing in their way to do it the "right" way. Yet, no one does. Easier to cast stones I suppose.

In the end, we will know. Please continue with your work, and continue to share the results, whatever they may be.

Bill

So it doesn't matter if measurements are done correctly or not. Now that is some really great science, pardner! Why build anything if no decent measure of it's actual performance will be made? Is it just art for art's sake? A medium for chatroom conversation and "team spirit building"? A popularity contest? A debate club?

No...Rosemary is pretentious enough to suggest that she has found the answer to the global energy crisis. Good measurements with repeatable publishable quantified results should preceed any such suggestion.

cHeeseburger (make that a double, to go)

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #84 on:** March 17, 2011, 12:36:24 PM »

MrMag and Pirate

Thanks for the support. I really wouldn't have bothered to answer CB in such depth except that I hoped it would finally silence him. The problem is that egos and testosterone get in the way of science and - suddenly - it only matters that someone sound clever - not that they are. And now - to boot - it seems that we must improve our measuring instruments. What a load of doggy doo. In any event - it seems that the test object - the significance of the resonance - the whole catastrophe - is just way over his head. More's the pity.

But regarding the measurements. There has been no effort to factor in for the inductance. This may yet change the picture. But - preliminary overview shows that it makes no material difference - this because the resonance is so perfectly in antiphase. The battery and the heat on the load are always the beneficiaries. The aspect of the test that interests me is that the battery can discharge during the off period of the duty cycle. There's clearly an open path. And this simple fact is precisely the point where I am hoping that those little dipoles will be considered as the material of current flow. Certainly classicists will have a hard time of it arguing electron flow. And then the comforting fact that we can apply just about any heat - not by increasing the voltage as would normally be required - but by adjustments to the offset and to the frequency. That's good news - as our previous was somewhat restricted to dissipating values somewhat less than the full potential from the supply. It sort of closes the argument that this system is now more efficient rather than less.

But we've a way to go. All I was hoping to achieve is to get this to the academic forum. And with a little more effort it may yet get there.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

And btw Neptune. So nice to see your sustained interest. I'm sorry you won't be testing. But hopefully, soon, there will be no need for this. Certainly if it can get properly researched then we can all relax. We have an unfortunate but necessary reliance to get a proper academic over view and that also requires hands on involvement. The challenge is to lift this from esoteric fringe science to something that may be plausibly studied. Clearly I'm ever the optimist.

cHeeseburger · « **Reply #85 on:** March 17, 2011, 01:06:08 PM »

"The aspect of the test that interests me is that the battery can discharge during the off period of the duty cycle. There's clearly an open path. And this simple fact is precisely the point where I am hoping that those little dipoles will be considered as the material of current flow."

Let's see...the path...yes. Five big honking MOSFETS all wired in parallel, each having probably 1500pF or so of output capacitance between drain and source. Total of five in parallel, 7500pF or 7.5nF.

Rosemary, if you can do it, calculate the reactance of 7.5nF at a frequency of 1MHz. You will then know the measure and mechanism of "the first path".

Then remember that the drain-source body diode will conduct fully any time the inductive-capacitive resonance tries to drive the drain negative with regard to the source. Path number two. Non-linear but very robust.

These paths exist regardless of the gate voltage. Little dipoles may or may not provide yet a third path, but are not in any way required to fully explain that strong paths already exist and are well known and fully characterised.

cHeeseburger (double the onions and...do you have any garlic?)

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #86 on:** March 17, 2011, 01:07:45 PM »

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 12:30:53 PM

So it doesn't matter if measurements are done correctly or not. Now that is some really great science, pardner! Why build anything if no decent measure of it's actual performance will be made? Is it just art for art's sake? A medium for chatroom conversation and "team spirit building"? A popularity contest? A debate club?

No...Rosemary is pretentious enough to suggest that she has found the answer to the global energy crisis. Good measurements with repeatable publishable quantified results should preceed any such suggestion.

cHeeseburger (make that a double, to go)

How could you possibly get that from my post? Are you on drugs here? I said it does not matter to me IF the measurements are done correctly or not, the end result, as it will be, will stand on its own. rose does have some academics working with her and IF the measurements are NOT done to your satisfaction then, as she has said, do them yourself. OR would that be too much work? I realize it is a lot harder than just hitting keys on a keyboard.

My post meant that, even if I were measuring the input vs output incorrectly, the proof will be in the pudding when the others evaluate her device. How the heck you could twist that into what you posted is beyond me. I am still thinking some over medication was involved for sure.

What a waste of posting space that was...please spare us any more of your drivel.

Bill

PS According to the IP address as traced through a proxy, this is yet another one of our "friends" from OUR back again from banned land. I will take this up with Stefan. Some folks never learn.

Nice try Cowboy.

WilbyInebriated · « **Reply #87 on:** March 17, 2011, 01:32:16 PM »

Quote from: cHeeseburger on March 17, 2011, 11:39:23 AM

What I am proposing by adding a simple filter ONLY TO THE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND NOT TO THE CIRCUIT ITSELF yields the exact same EQUIVALENT DC REAL POWER measurement results as you already use to measure the output heating power. Instead of averaging via thermal mass, you average in an exactly analogous way by using a resistor and capacitor attached to a simple digital voltmeter.

cHeeseburger (extra fries, please)

does this method you propose use standard probes on the measuring apparatus?

hold your pickle...

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #88 on:** March 17, 2011, 01:36:39 PM »

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 01:32:16 PM

hold your pickle...

He would need tweezers and a magnifying glass to be able to do that, ha ha.

Bill

poynt99 · « **Reply #89 on:** March 17, 2011, 01:38:21 PM »

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 17, 2011, 01:32:16 PM

does this method you propose use standard probes on the measuring apparatus?

Yes, it would. But the beauty in this method, is that a scope is not required, a decent DMM is probably better to measure the resulting average Input voltage and current values in this case.

However, and don't jump on me for this yet Hum, but I think this method works only for Input power, not Output power. I have verified the Input measurement in SPICE, but not yet the Output power.

The reason this method works well for Input power, is because the input voltage is DC, and getting the average of the voltage and current is valid. I believe this is not valid for a varying output.

I will test and post back here with the results to verify this.

.99

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 (Read 722639 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

MrMag

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

neptune

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

cHeeseburger

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

Pirate88179

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

cHeeseburger

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

cHeeseburger

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

Rosemary Ainslie

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

cHeeseburger

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

Pirate88179

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

WilbyInebriated

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

Pirate88179

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

poynt99

Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011