Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 (Read 744190 times)

poynt99 · « **Reply #825 on:** April 24, 2011, 04:45:34 PM »

Is there no one that has any constructive comments about the simulation results I posted yesterday?

Has anyone noticed the negative shunt current? Is that not of any interest being that it is in line with measurements taken on the actual apparatus?

.99

poynt99 · « **Reply #826 on:** April 24, 2011, 04:51:43 PM »

A comparison of Vbat and Vshunt; The apparatus vs. PSpice:

The MEAN of the shunt voltage of the apparatus is -32.5mV as shown, and in the sim it was -35mV as shown in the previously posted Q1_scope03.png.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #827 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:14:34 PM »

Discussions on these simulations of yours Poynty - are fraught. I simply never know what you're referring to and I would be so glad to move on. Nonetheless. I seems that I must forever waste time and work through the painful requirements to alert our members to the full extent of your misdirections.

This refers.
Â« Reply #783 on: April 23, 2011, 08:10:36 PM Â»

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with your deductions but everything wrong with the method of your deductions and THAT because you KEEP WANTING TO AVERAGE. Then. As if that error in itself if not enough - you also then charge around the place demanding that we either get rid of inductance or factor it in.

I'm not going to redo the math. I would LOVE to know if your simulator can do the required. But whether it can or NOT the fact is that with a given resistance and a given inductance - then at certain applied frequencies it can then change the impedance which then materially changes that resistance. So. If your simulator is able to factor that value in - I'd be very interested in your instantaneous wattage analysis. And - I think as it applies to that overly simplified sum you presented being 71V * 0.035V * 4 is quite simply NOT representative of the wattage delivered or dissipated. Yet you then follow it up with those cryptic comments '-9.94W appears to be going back to the battery!!!!!!!!' Well. NO. Not actually. Not even close.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #828 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:17:55 PM »

THEN.

As if that insult to our intelligence isn't enough you carry on with this farce. Your post Â« Reply #784 on: April 23, 2011, 08:35:03 PM Â» refers.

Here you AVERAGE the battery voltage on the next simulation at -48 Volts or thereby. WHAT are you talking about Poynty? HOW DO YOUR SIMULATIONS SHOW THE BATTERY VOLTAGE AT ANY NEGATIVE NUMBER AT ALL? We have never seen this. We have seen the battery voltage flirt with zero. In fact, on certain settings I've seen instantaneous battery voltage exceed zero. And there are some settings where I've even seen it dip into full on negative territory. But I have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER seen the AVERAGE battery voltage result in any negative voltage AT ALL. EVER. How can it? Do we really seem that STUPID that we can read this and simply 'move on' to the next point - so to speak? Just swallow this nonsense and pretend that we didn't notice? Therefore, when you present us with that absurd value of -192 Watts it becomes more than a little insulting to our collective intelligence. Either that - or you have NO CLUE what you're doing.

Regards
Rosemary

poynt99 · « **Reply #829 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:19:03 PM »

In the hope to avoid any confusion, I'd like to re-emphasize how the power traces were obtained in scope shot Q1_scope05.png previously posted and reproduced here.

When taking a power measurement with an oscilloscope and two probes, we use one probe for voltage across the device of interest, and one probe for current through the device of interest. The latter measurement is obtained (with the Ainslie apparatus) by using a current sense resistor (CSR) placed in series somewhere with the battery, and the resulting current is obtained by using the following equation for Ibattery:

Ibattery = Vcsr/Rcsr

In the case of both probes, these are instantaneous measurements.

In the scope, a MATH function is used to multiply these two values together, i.e. Vbat(t) * ibat(t), in order to obtain the instantaneous power p(t) in that device. Then in order to determine the average (REAL) power, we use a measurement function in the scope to perform an averaging of that p(t) trace, and the scope displays the MEAN numerical value it computes on that trace. Many of you know this already, and this is simply review.

In PSpice v10.5, there is a wattage probe that can be placed onto any device. After doing so, the scope shows the p(t) of that device. As discussed, this is the instantaneous power in that device, and is the instantaneous voltage across it times the instantaneous current through it. The wattage (W) probe in PSpice does this multiplication and displays the results automatically.

After the p(t) trace is on the scope screen, we can perform the same averaging function we do with the scope in order to obtain the average (REAL) power in that device. In PSPice this function is called "AVG", and you will often see this included in the trace statement at the bottom of my scope shots, esp. when power is being examined. In PSpice, rather than displaying the average of p(t) numerically as on the scope, it shows you the running average of the p(t) trace, and you can see and measure with a cursor what the final value is that it converges on. This is how I determine the numerical values I place on the scope shots and write in the posts. See the scope shot below.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #830 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:21:08 PM »

Then. It never seems to stop. Your post Â« Reply #785 on: April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM Â» refers. Here we're treated to a post that is an absolute parade of nonsensical measement - either resulting from your own stupidity or your assumption that our own is that abyssimal that we'll not see the absurdity in your math.

Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

Now let's look at the average power in the critical devices. The "W" probe in PSPice allows for a direct probing of instantaneous power in any given device. By applying the "AVG" function to these traces, we obtain a trace which converges on the real power dissipated in that device.

Not a clue what you mean here. What is the "W" probe? And what exactly does your 'AVG' FUNCTION DO? Does it average the voltage over a pure oscillation? Because if it simply averages the value of that oscillation and presents it as a 'ripple' then it is ERRONEOUS. And what then makes this 'CONVERGE ON THE REAL POWER DISSIPATED?' - the more so as it no longer is representative of anything at all. vi dt has become vi. Absolutely NOT applicable to any power measurements that are more complex than a direct current. What you're trying to do Poynty Point - is average that trace. And we all know why. You can INDEED average a DIRECT CURRENT. AND at sleight of hand that's exactly what you've done. You've TURNED IT INTO A DIRECT CURRENT through the simple expediency of first finding an average. VOILA! The rabbit out the hat trick. Total misdirection. AND YOU GET AWAY WITH IT. How come? How come this disgusting piece of analysis is allowed to present itself as scientific? And where is everyone's howl of protest? By rights you should be laughed out of court. And what do you think our academics think of your work here? If they read this - then they will also KNOW that either this forum contributors are utterly unschooled in science - or they're utterly committed to misdirection.

Regards
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #831 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:25:10 PM »

Then as for the balance of that nonsense.

Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

Measured is the REAL power in the following:

NO. It is either averaged or it is real time. You're confusing your terms.

Then

Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

1) Q2-Q5 combined: ~14.6W
2) Q1: ~0.41W
3) Battery: ~-33.3W*
4) Load Resistor: ~16.86W

No supporting evidence for any of these sums. Have no idea if they're averaged - real time - or what. But the batttery voltage for starters is nonsense.

then

Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

* Normal battery power is measured as a "negative" because this represents power being supplied to a circuit, i.e. a loss of energy.

Really badly defined terms. A loss of energy to what? To the battery? I would have thought NOT.

Then

Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

If we look at the power balance, we have:

33.3W = 14.6W + 0.41W + 16.86W
33.3W = 31.87W

The remaining ~1.43W can be accounted for by the power dissipated in the 2 Ohm Gate resistor, and the 0.25 Ohm CSR. Oddly, the function generator contributes about 3W to the circuit, and this is precisely the amount lost in the 2 Ohm battery lead resistor. These losses are not shown in the graphs.

Can't follow this because I'm not telepathic. You need to explain what you're getting to and, more to the point - a some reasonable account of how you marshalled these facts to get to that conclusion. To me they're entirely unrelated pieces of evidence and for all I know you sucked these numbers out of your thumb.

Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

It becomes quite apparent in the simulations, that if the gate impedance is too high the continuous oscillations stop. I am convinced that the FG somehow provides for a low AC impedance path through it's output terminal, and this is why the circuit still oscillates. This would also explain why the FG does not heat up even though it has a 50 Ohm resistor in series.

If this is what you think - then I wonder if it's because this is the best EXCUSE you can come up with. I would far preferto see something based on an analysis that is a little more substantial than any you've presented here.

Regards
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #832 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:33:36 PM »

Which makes the conclusion to your post - as absurd as everything preceding it.

Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

I hope that with the above details and analysis, the "problems" in all this mess are now starting to become apparent.

This MESS is ONLY appropriate to the MESS in these posts.

Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

Surely it is obvious that Q1 is providing almost no power to the load resistor.

WHAT? WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? You show Q1 measuring milliwatts? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

THEN.

Quote from: poynt99 on April 23, 2011, 09:51:48 PM

One might also observe that the power measured using the CSR and Vbat voltage points is largely reactive, and not indicating anything close to the truth in terms of what the battery is supplying or receiving.

Since WHEN has power been 'reactive'. Pure waffle Poynty Point. And nothing WHATSOEVER to do with power analysis. And very much less to do with the facts or even the truth. Just a selective bit of misdirection offered with the pretense that you know whereof you speak - and, in fact, just a laughable insult to us all.

Guys - please note. There is absolutely NO WAY that one can do any power analysis on any circuit that has a waveform that is more complex than a direct current. Certainly it cannot be applied to the waveforms we're generating here. I do hope you realise this. And in as much as no-one has challenged all this nonsense I'm concerned that perhaps the most of you do not know this. If you doubt it - then look it up. And yes - If one were to average these voltages then it may - under SOME settings - result in the kind of results that Poynty is pointing to. But it would ALWAYS BE WRONG - EVEN IF IT RESULTED IN AN APPARENT GAIN TO THE SYSTEM. There is only ONE correct methodology applied to power analysis on a switching circuit. And that is ASBOLUTELY NOT IN AVERAGING ANYTHING AT ALL.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

I split these posts into a series of posts because it was just WAY TOO LONG.
Regards again
R

poynt99 · « **Reply #833 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:45:21 PM »

Rose,

It appears that you are having some trouble understanding the data I am presenting with these simulations.

If you would care to specify some particulars, I would be glad to go over them with you and explain them to the best of my ability.

.99

poynt99 · « **Reply #834 on:** April 24, 2011, 07:52:24 PM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 24, 2011, 07:33:36 PM

Guys - please note. There is absolutely NO WAY that one can do any power analysis on any circuit that has a waveform that is more complex than a direct current. Certainly it cannot be applied to the waveforms we're generating here. I do hope you realise this.

.99

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #835 on:** April 24, 2011, 08:11:44 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 07:19:03 PM

In the hope to avoid any confusion, I'd like to re-emphasize how the power traces were obtained in scope shot Q1_scope05.png previously posted and reproduced here.

When taking a power measurement with an oscilloscope and two probes, we use one probe for voltage across the device of interest, and one probe for current through the device of interest. The latter measurement is obtained (with the Ainslie apparatus) by using a current sense resistor (CSR) placed in series somewhere with the battery, and the resulting current is obtained by using the following equation for Ibattery:

Ibattery = Vcsr/Rcsr

In the case of both probes, these are instantaneous measurements.

In the scope, a MATH function is used to multiply these two values together, i.e. Vbat(t) * ibat(t), in order to obtain the instantaneous power p(t) in that device. Then in order to determine the average (REAL) power, we use a measurement function in the scope to perform an averaging of that p(t) trace, and the scope displays the MEAN numerical value it computes on that trace. Many of you know this already, and this is simply review.

Still wrong Poynty Point. You need to compute those instantaneous wattage values and then average those values over time. NOTHING ELSE. You absolutely CANNOT take a mean numerical value of voltage and mean numerical value of amperage and give us that product as being representative of the power from or to that battery. Your Spice sim would need to do multiple sampling analysis of multiple points in each waveform. Self-evidently it cannot - as it represents the voltage sample range as a mean average 'ripple'. If it was doing what it was meant to do the resultant waveform resulting from that power analysis would 'FOLLOW THE SHAPE' of the voltages across the shunt and the battery. That is why the LeCroy and the Tektronix are so excellent. It holds up to 500 000 points sampled on any one screen shot. Your simulator can NEVER get even close if it can do it at all. When you can show a TRACE on that PSpice simulation of yours that actually does this - then ONLY will I be convinced. The wattage values resulting from those products NEVER defaults to anything that looks like a steady line ANYWHERE AT ALL. YOUR ANALYSIS IS FLAWED POYNT. GROSSLY.

Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 07:19:03 PM

In PSpice v10.5, there is a wattage probe that can be placed onto any device. After doing so, the scope shows the p(t) of that device. As discussed, this is the instantaneous power in that device, and is the instantaneous voltage across it times the instantaneous current through it. The wattage (W) probe in PSpice does this multiplication and displays the results automatically.

Then the trace resulting from that product would look VERY DIFFERENT. I can pull up the waveform from the wattage over any part of our own data dumps and it never, never, never defaults into a straight line with a small ripple. Therefore whatever you CLAIM PSpice is doing has no bearing on what it is actually doing.

Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2011, 07:19:03 PM

After the p(t) trace is on the scope screen, we can perform the same averaging function we do with the scope in order to obtain the average (REAL) power in that device. In PSPice this function is called "AVG", and you will often see this included in the trace statement at the bottom of my scope shots, esp. when power is being examined. In PSpice, rather than displaying the average of p(t) numerically as on the scope, it shows you the running average of the p(t) trace, and you can see and measure with a cursor what the final value is that it converges on. This is how I determine the numerical values I place on the scope shots and write in the posts. See the scope shot below.

If you can see the wattage with a cursor - AS YOU CLAIM - then show us that wattage shape - drawn as it is - in real time - from the traces of the current and the voltages. What you are SHOWING US is something that is averaged. And with respect, I think this is because PSpice CAN'T do that instantaneous wattage. And IF IT CAN - then, I say it again. SHOW US THAT PRODUCT.

Look again at the PSpice traces that you've shown us. It has flatlined the oscillation. A product of the amperage and voltage WOULD NEVER FLATLINE. Why don't you realise this? It has INDEED averaged everything.

Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #836 on:** April 24, 2011, 08:18:35 PM »

Look at the shape of the math trace here Poynty. That's what I expect from PSpice. Anything less and we are not looking at anything relevant.

I'll see if I can find a sample.

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #837 on:** April 24, 2011, 08:27:02 PM »

And Poynty. That highlighted bit of nonsense in your download of the battery voltage. WHAT A JOKE. You write this.

negative power of the battery = -33.3 watts. Then you add (a negative battery power is normal and indicates a net loss of energy over time) - in paranthesis.

WHAT A LOAD OF COBBLERS. IF ANYONE EVER - ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE WORLD - EVER FOUND A NEGATIVE POWER VALUE - THEN THERE WOULD BE NOTHING BUT AMAZEMENT. There is absolutely NOTHING normal in a negative wattage value. In fact - so EXTRAORDINARY is this that it would be an entirely meaningless term. Wattage is NEVER NEGATIVE. Nor is it EVER EXPECTED TO COMPUTE TO A NEGATIVE VALUE. IF AND WHEN IT DOES THEN IT IS EXTRAORDINARY. This truth is so enshrined that I was ASSURED - by every expert that I have ever spoken to - that it is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A NEGATIVE WATTAGE VALUE because it is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE TO RETURN MORE ENERGY THAN DELIVERED. And a NEGATIVE WATTAGE ABSOLUTELY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENERGY LOST OVER TIME.

You really do take us all for fools. God help us if the nonsense that you expound is believed by anyone ever. It is a travesty of science.

Rosemary

cHeeseburger · « **Reply #838 on:** April 24, 2011, 08:29:06 PM »

Quote

Guys - please note. There is absolutely NO WAY that one can do any power analysis on any circuit that has a waveform that is more complex than a direct current. Certainly it cannot be applied to the waveforms we're generating here. I do hope you realise this. And in as much as no-one has challenged all this nonsense I'm concerned that perhaps the most of you do not know this. If you doubt it - then look it up.

Where do we "look it up"?

WTF? Poynt is doing the exact same set of measurements at the exact same points in the exact same circuit you have been doing ever since day 1. And showing the exact same results. His use of averaging (being done AFTER the real-time point by point multiplying) is exactly the same as your own use of averaging: MEAN AFTER MULTIPLY.

That full set of measurement done the same exact way you have always done it serves only to show that the sim agrees rather precisely with your bench testing when done in exactly the same way.

Then, after doing the work to replicate your circuit, your tests and your results almost to the millivolt, showing the validity of the simulation rather convincingly, Poynt goes on to move the scope probes and the shunt to the proper locations to allow for a true direct unpolluted measure of the battery voltage and the battery current.

He continues to use the same real-time point-by-point sample multiplying technique just as you always have done and then takes the mean of the resulting power trace, just as you have always done. The results clearly show a large net drain from the battery and a very low efficiency of power delivery to the heating element through the circuitry.

HE CAREFULLY POINTS OUT AND AS TESLASET HAS CLEARLY VERIFIED (AND I VERIFY AS WELL) THAT THE PSPICE W PROBE USES THE CONVENTION OF STATING A DRAIN FROM THE BATTERY AS A NEGATIVE POWER.

Why don't you just quickly put your shunt right at the battery negative terminal itself and take a good look? It's not hard to do. It will show you immediately that the net current is draining the battery and not charging it. No need for lengthy battery runs at all. No need for further confusion.

Rosemary, your arguments are so thoroughly "straw-man" based and so poorly stated at that, that you really should take a break from your incoherent ranting and just try to absorb what has been clearly shown:

The simulation behaves exactly like your circuit. When measured wrongly, exactly as you measure, the results agree with your results. When measured properly, the very low COP and gross inefficiency of powering a heating element using MOSFET parasitic oscillations is revealed clearly. End of story.

No amount of rude insults, calling people dogs and vermin and stupid, will change these well-demonstrated facts..

Humbugger

poynt99 · « **Reply #839 on:** April 24, 2011, 09:02:04 PM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 24, 2011, 08:18:35 PM

Look at the shape of the math trace here Poynty. That's what I expect from PSpice. Anything less and we are not looking at anything relevant.

I'll see if I can find a sample.

I see now one thing that is tripping you up; it's the p(t) trace. I usually fore go displaying that, and I go directly to the application of the AVG function on that trace.

When you see the trace statement as" "W(R1)" for example, that means the trace is of p(t) for R1.

When you see the traces statement as: "AVG(W(R1))" using the same example, that indicates MEAN[p(t)]. This latter trace statement is what is required to obtain a numerical value of the average/real power in the device of interest.

Here is what p(t) looks like before applying the AVG function.

.99

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011 (Read 744190 times)

poynt99

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

poynt99

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

poynt99

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

Rosemary Ainslie

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

poynt99

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

poynt99

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

Rosemary Ainslie

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

cHeeseburger

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

poynt99

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