PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-26, 17:29:07
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22
Author Topic: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?  (Read 342754 times)
Group: Guest
Poynt99,

I do not understand MK1’s concern also.  But let us focus on our own research.  I believe you plan to build a FLEET this weekend. 

I would recommend the following steps:
1. Build the basic Joule Thief circuit first.  Take a two oscilloscope shot of the battery side (Input).  The instantaneous Voltage value is that across the battery.  The Instantaneous Current is that across the one ohm resistor. 
2. The Output Voltage can be across the collector.  Put a one ohm resistor behind the LED and treat that as the Output Instantaneous Current.
3. Examine the waveforms and compare the Input and Output power curve.
4. Now do the secondary coil winding and perform the two oscilloscope experiment as discussed in this thread.
5. You may display both the mean and the rms Power value.  (The reason for rms was given at the ltseung888 bench).

You can use the breadboard with long wire leads.  When you move the hole positions or just move the wires, you will see changes in the Output Power Waveform as shown in the TK video.  With the two oscilloscopes capturing the Input and Output Power simultaneously, we do not need to worry about reproducing the configuration exactly (as in the case of having only one oscilloscope). 

Try to get the best COP value.  As soon as you are satisfied, take pictures and screen shots.  You may not be able to reproduce the exact result again.

Focus on the Instantaneous Current Curves for both Input and Output.  Do they have both positive and negative component?  Can they possibly be experimental errors?  Repeat until you are absolutely sure that you have not committed any experimental error.

Even if your first attempt does not show COP > 1, it does not matter.  Show the waveforms.  We can learn much from them.  We can then do additional tuning to get your prototype to achieve COP > 1.

Thank you in advance.  The World will benefit from your efforts.  Amen.

Lawrence
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Lawrence

Why not standardize on a piece of copperless epoxy printed circuit board maybe 2" x 2" with a drill pattern that everyone can share, so that all lead length,  spacing and stray capacitance etc remains approximately identical from unit to unit. This would be a low cost way of insuring some stability in the build. Component connections could be made with 22 Ga. copper bus wire.

Of course an actual copper trace pc board would be better, but I'm suggesting something any home experimenter can produce cheaply and for test purposes.

Also it would be wise to include a power supply bypass capacitor option as the battery impedance will affect frequency of operation. Typical battery internal resistance is 120 milliohms for a fresh MN1500 Duracell, but I've seen up to one Ohm on MN1500 Duracell batteries that still had a terminal voltage over 1.5 volts.

Perhaps the "feedback" effect you are seeing is the voltage dip from pulse to pulse due to battery impedance.

By the way, I will be testing the FLEET type device in my thermal bridge within the next few days, so an exact build specification would be helpful.

If you are not familiar with thermal bridge analysis go here:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=702.msg10146;topicseen#msg10146

What is needed:

1. exact core material and a data sheet for same showing the important data (initial permeability etc.)

2. exact wire type to wind the core, number of turns and wind method (bifilar, trifilar, layer etc. (solid or stranded, plating, guage # of strands, Litz?)

3. beta of 2N2222 transistor used in "successful" build, and manufacturer if possible (all transistors are not created equally, though they may have the same number)

4. exact battery type and part # used in "successful" build. Initial terminal voltage and loaded voltage would be helpful.

5. measured inductance, and if possible leakage inductance of completed core assembly

6. interwinding capacitance of core assembly

7. part numbers for LED's and type of resistors used.

8. tuning procedure (expected frequency, waveshape, supply drain, current ramp shape, note of discontinuous modes and their repetition rates.)

9. exact build layout to the millimeter.

All of the above would be helpful in arriving at standard build.

Thank you for your time in advance.
« Last Edit: 2011-01-29, 17:05:22 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
I think 5. and 6. are probably asking too much for Lawrence. If not, the leakage inductance would be good, too.  Personally, I'd settle for number of turns and whether they are wound trifilar (probably not) or bifilar with the third winding on top or on bottom or singly wound.  In addition to your other points, of course.

Humbugger
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
I think 5. and 6. are probably asking too much for Lawrence. If not, the leakage inductance would be good, too.  Personally, I'd settle for number of turns and whether they are wound trifilar (probably not) or bifilar with the third winding on top or on bottom or singly wound.  In addition to your other points, of course.

Humbugger

Yes, thanks for the input....I'll edit the post. I thought number of turns was already given but I'll include that. Leakage inductance is asking for an awful lot but is a good point.

I have always recommended that a complete build, parts list and scope shots and other measurement data be bundled into a pdf with revision numbers. This would be a far less confusing way to disseminate build information, as opposed to hunting and pecking all over the internet at threads that get buried. The document could be on the first page of the claim, and additional versions added there.

Of course those of us that work in the real world already know this. Can you imagine any product being built using the forum hunt and peck method, with no control documentation?


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Right on, ION

I learned early in my career that DOCUMENTATION and really nothing else, is the useful output work product of a good design engineer.  Not prototypes, not notes, not dissertations, not even manufacturing instructions.

If you cannot hand over a document package that, without any other communication or handholding, allows QA to inspect and qualify the incoming parts and Manufacturing to build and test the machine, you have not done a good job.

Even in simple metal fab drawings, too many designers try to tell the manufacturer HOW to make the part rather than WHAT THE PART MUST BE WHEN IT ARRIVES AT INCOMING INSPECTION.  I always used to get on my drafters if they started putting notes on drawings telling the fab shop what to do rather than what to end up with.

Hole A:  Drill using sharp 5/8" carbide tip bit.  Ream using such and such deburring tool to 11/16" Diameter.  Polish using 400 grit garnet paper.

rather than the correct way:

Hole A:  11/16" DIA, NO BURRS, INSIDE SURFACE FINISH 20 uINCH RMS

This gives the vendor total leeway to do the job any way his tools allow it in the most economical way.

How the hell would incoming inspection or sub-assembly inspection be able to tell if the instructions had been followed or not?  What the engineer wants to provide are INSPECTION DRAWINGS; NO DIRECTIONS.

The build sequence, if important, is communicated by partitioning the assembly drawings into appropriate, inspectable chunks, not by writing copious notes on a gigantic drawing showing the entire finished product.  90% of the assembly will be buried beyond QA inspection in the latter case.

I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but I've always been amazed how many engineers, designers and drafters don't seem to understand these concepts.

Humbugger

   
Group: Guest
The difference between early prototyping and getting product ready for market.

I suppose that I should remain as a theoretical physicist and let someone else better than me to do the product development.

God gives different people different tasks.  I can see deeper than most. For example:
1.   I see two tuning forks in sympathetic vibration.  I can then see 3,4 ….20 tuning forks in sympathetic vibration.  I can ask and answer the question of where the energy may come from.
2.   I see a swinging pendulum toy.  Mr. Lee Cheung Kin told me that he suspected that the pulse-pushed pendulum might lead-out/bring-in gravitational energy.  I can see the possibility.  I can work out the mathematics.  I can do the work of a theoretical physicist of confirming that two parts of horizontal energy can lead-out one part of gravitational energy.
3.   When other people such as Mr. Peter Chan and team worked on the pendulum and the replication of the Bessler Wheel, I can see the magnetic pendulum.  I can ask my grand daughter, Ms. Forever Yuen, to do the magnetic pendulum experiment.  That confirmed that magnetic energy can be led-out.
4.   I can see that the pulse-pushed action can be turned into pulse-rotation for a much more efficient operation.  I can see that many claimed OU devices such as Newman, Bedini, Wang, etc. are not hoaxes.  I can work with Mr. Tong Po Chi to develop the Tong Wheel that demonstrated overunity in 2009 at the Inno Tech Design Expo 2009 in Hong Kong.
5.   I can see that flux change can replace actual motion.  FLEET was then developed.  A less than US$3 prototype can conclusively demonstrate COP > 1.  The first successful demonstration was presented on July 13, 2010.  The naysayers, insulters etc. at overunity.com tried to drown it and overwhelmed the thread (Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets).
6.   I can see that PhysicsProf is doing a good and unbiased job in evaluating Prototype A.  I can also see that there is much objection.  Some researchers such as MK1 accused me of stealing his ideas.  Some other researchers dismissed the hard work of PhysicsProf as Experimental Error.

God does not give me the capability of doing experiments to the high standard required.  For example:
1.   I could not build the prototype that demonstrated energy from still air.  The team recommended by Mr. Peter Chan did it. 
2.   The improvement to the pendulum toy was done by Mr. Sun and team in Shenzhen.  I asked and paid for 1 prototype and they built more than a dozen different ones.
3.   Forever Yuen was the one who did the simple magnetic pendulum experiment, I just gave the guidelines.  (I could not tie the small magnet properly.)
4.   Without Mr. Tong Po Chi, the Tong wheel would never see the light.
5.   I did some actual experiments on FLEET including buying of equipment, soldering and testing.  But it took me three tries to get the basic Joule Thief to work!  The Hong Kong University Student, Felix, beat my best attempt in his first built!
6.   I cannot even build a proper prototype in USA.  It is true that I do not have two oscilloscopes at my disposal.  But there is a more subtle reason – all the good prototypes in Hong Kong were completed with the help of Dr. Raymond Ting, Mr. Aaron Quant and my student helpers.

Thus asking for a proper “Build Specification” from me is like asking an average housewife to cook a banquet for 100 guests.  Let the professional cooks do it.  (I am sure that Poynt99 can do a much better job.)

Amen.

Edit:  Standard Build???  I cannot even cook two roast chickens to taste the same.  I panicked so much when we had guests – the chickens had to be redone in the microwave oven by my daughter!
 :)
   
Group: Guest

Thus asking for a proper “Build Specification” from me is like asking an average housewife to cook a banquet for 100 guests.  Let the professional cooks do it.  (I am sure that Poynt99 can do a much better job.)

Amen.

Edit:  Standard Build???  I cannot even cook two roast chickens to taste the same.  I panicked so much when we had guests – the chickens had to be redone in the microwave oven by my daughter!
 :)

Lawrence, you are really a pretty funny guy.  And a goodhearted guy, too.  You just have to stop eating that microwaved chicken and everything will be just fine!   ;D
   
Group: Guest
Component Package Sent

I have now sent two component packages for FLEET building.

One is sent to poynt99.  The recommendation is for him to use longer leads on a breadboard.  The purpose is NOT to reproduce an identical FLEET.  He has two oscilloscopes and he can watch the two Instantaneous Power Wave Forms.  He can display both mean and rms values.  He should play around with different holes on the breadboard; change the wire lengths or number of secondary turns.  The moment he is satisfied with a possible TRUE COP > 1 value, he would take pictures and scope shots.

The purpose is NOT to produce the highest COP.  Any value greater than 1 is acceptable.  This early run should show the Instantaneous Input Voltage, Input Current and Input Power waveforms on one oscilloscope.  And the Instantaneous Output Voltage, Output Current and Output Power waveforms on another oscilloscope.

The other one will be sent to the internationally well-known Physics Society in Beijing.  Thank you to PhysicsProf and many others who contributed.  They decided to test and build the FLEET prototypes and may publish the results in their website and journals.  Poynt99 has the contact information but we would like to keep that low-key at this point.

The Physics Society will additionally receive a working FLEET which I shall try to tune in the next few days without two oscilloscopes.  The goal is modest – COP > 5 to ensure the results are well above the noise level.

When the results from poynt99 and the Physics Society come in, you will find that our dear PhysicsProf did a wonderful job.  He did not commit any experimental errors. I sincerely apologize on behalf of the OUR forum members that we did not show the respect that he deserved.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Thank You Lawrence.

Looking forward to the parts arriving.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
As an alternative to building the device on a breadboard, my intention was to build it up with connecting wires similar to the device the professor now has in his possession.

Is this not acceptable?

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
Prototype for the Physics Society in Beijing

Without the two oscilloscopes, tuning is painful.  I finally gave up after the prototype showed a COPpp (Tseung FLEET Comparison Index) of 4.7.   I could not even get it to 5!

That particular prototype was produced on Oct 15 in Hong Kong.  At the time, I experimented with length of wire rather than number of turns.  The Joule Thief side used three feet.  The transformer side used five feet.  The ATTEN DSO was used.

The reading taken on Oct 15, 2011 was as follows:  Frequency = 32Hz
Input Channel 1 Vpp = 240 mV
                        Vrms = 160 mV
         Channel 2  Vpp = 32 mV
                       Vrms   = 8 mV
Thus Input Power pp =   0.00768 watts
                  Power rms=  0.00128 watts

Output Channel 1  Vpp = 6.72 V
                            Vrms = 2.48 V
            Channel 2  Vpp = 698 mV
                             Vrms= 184 mV
Thus Output Power pp = 4.69056/10  = 0.469056 watts
                     Power rms = 0.45632/10 = 0.045632 watts

*** The dividing by 10 is because a 10 ohm resistor was used.

The Tseung FLEET Comparison Index pp = 61
                                                             rms = 36

Today, Jan 31, 2011, I tried to use the UNI-T scope to get another confirmation.  The frequency dropped to 11KHz.  I tried to do some tuning by wigging the wire connections.  The best result I got was Tseung FLEET Comparison Index pp = 4.7.

I am hoping and enclosing my prayer that the Prototype will show COP > 1 in Beijing.  This is the reality of playing with pseudo resonance systems.  It is still an art – not science yet.

May God guide us and fill our hearts with sincerity.  Amen
   
Group: Guest
As an alternative to building the device on a breadboard, my intention was to build it up with connecting wires similar to the device the professor now has in his possession.

Is this not acceptable?

.99

I want you to see for youself the changes in waveform when you change the holes on the breadboard.  Or just pressing the wires closer.  Or spreading them apart.  Or simply place your hand close to it.  If your prototype happens to be close to resonance condition, (high COP), you will be amazed at the changes.  Have Fun.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Prototype for the Physics Society in Beijing

Without the two oscilloscopes, tuning is painful.  I finally gave up after the prototype showed a COPpp (Tseung FLEET Comparison Index) of 4.7.   I could not even get it to 5!

That particular prototype was produced on Oct 15 in Hong Kong.  At the time, I experimented with length of wire rather than number of turns.  The Joule Thief side used three feet.  The transformer side used five feet.  The ATTEN DSO was used.

The reading taken on Oct 15, 2011 was as follows:  Frequency = 32Hz
Input Channel 1 Vpp = 240 mV
                        Vrms = 160 mV
         Channel 2  Vpp = 32 mV
                       Vrms   = 8 mV
Thus Input Power pp =   0.00768 watts
                  Power rms=  0.00128 watts


Lawrence, is that input battery voltage of 240mV correct? Why is it so low, when a 1.5V battery was presumably used?

As far as I know, the JT won't even work with a battery voltage that low, i.e. 240mV.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I want you to see for youself the changes in waveform when you change the holes on the breadboard.  Or just pressing the wires closer.  Or spreading them apart.  Or simply place your hand close to it.  If your prototype happens to be close to resonance condition, (high COP), you will be amazed at the changes.  Have Fun.

You don't have to try very hard to convince me that these changes will affect the wave forms; I have no doubt they will.  O0

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
Lawrence, is that input battery voltage of 240mV correct? Why is it so low, when a 1.5V battery was presumably used?

As far as I know, the JT won't even work with a battery voltage that low, i.e. 240mV.

.99

That is the strange thing about pseudo resonance circuits.  A totally dead battery could light up the LEDs.  When the COP is high enough, the corpse climbs out from the grave! ;) ;)

Note that the voltage was measured when the circuit was pulsing.  If we disconnect the circuit, the DC voltage will immediately climb up to the steady value (usually much higher).  That is why you must have the actual results and apparatus in front of you.  

Please do not ever accuse someone working on resonance circuits as lying or making experimental errors again. Examine the screen shots and related data carefully and objectively.

I have seen more strange and more “non-textbook” things.  One example is the Output on an early Tong Wheel shot up to over 1,000 volts and burnt the electronics.  One part of the wood turned black.  The supply voltage was a 12 volt battery.  The so called experts examined the circuit and proclaimed that it was NOT possible.

I shall try to dig out the actual configuration used on that day.  We may have used a DC power supply.  Unfortunately, I am not in Hong Kong and cannot get to the archive now.  But we shall have the prototype in the hands of the capable physicists in Beijing.  They can do much with the prototype.  I know their mindset – go deeper than any Westerner.  They were trained by their Tiger Moms. O0


   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
That is the strange thing about pseudo resonance circuits.  A totally dead battery could light up the LEDs.  When the COP is high enough, the corpse climbs out from the grave! ;) ;)

Note that the voltage was measured when the circuit was pulsing.  If we disconnect the circuit, the DC voltage will immediately climb up to the steady value (usually much higher).  That is why you must have the actual results and apparatus in front of you.  

Please do not ever accuse someone working on resonance circuits as lying or making experimental errors again. Examine the screen shots and related data carefully and objectively.

I was not trying to accuse anyone of lying. :o  It seems incredible however that you could get a JT to oscillate with only a 0.24V supply. Even a totally dead battery never goes to that low of a voltage.

So when disconnected the battery would climb back up over 1.2V or so?

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
I was not trying to accuse anyone of lying. :o  It seems incredible however that you could get a JT to oscillate with only a 0.24V supply. Even a totally dead battery never goes to that low of a voltage.

So when disconnected the battery would climb back up over 1.2V or so?

.99

A picture is worth a thousand words.  The Input battery was totally dead even by Joule Thief standards.  It lighted a JT circuit for over a week until the JT LED went out.  It could not light a JT but it lighted a FLEET! 

Edit: Should I emphasize that a FLEET or a LT-JT is NOT a normal JT?
   
Group: Guest
I was thinking about volunteering as the moderator for the "fight" but I can see that the arguments and backing evidence from LT are well beyond my comprehension level, so I'm giving up any idea of moderating "the fight".  I'm one of those Westerners, I guess.   C.C

Humbugger
   
Group: Guest
I was thinking about volunteering as the moderator for the "fight" but I can see that the arguments and backing evidence from LT are well beyond my comprehension level, so I'm giving up any idea of moderating "the fight".  I'm one of those Westerners, I guess.   C.C

Humbugger

You are wise indeed. Until this is proven, it remains a delusion and there is only correct answer: 'It must be true because Tseung has proven it!". It's a waste of time until the Learned people find otherwise, and I didn't mean Lawrence or the professor.
TK has already shown how silly some measurements can be.

cheers
chrisC
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
I was thinking of volunteering until I realized I was already a moderator and becoming a duo-moderator nulls you out to zero in boolean.

Besides, I am disqualified because of a vested interest in the "Save The Furry Ferrites Foundation"
« Last Edit: 2011-02-01, 12:22:56 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
If FLEET works, then skip the arguments and scale it up to a more useful power level.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
If FLEET works, then skip the arguments and scale it up to a more useful power level.

It appears some folks are confused as to what this debate is about.

What it is not about, is whether the LTJT is actually OU or not, the debate is about measurement, and which computation (RMS or MEAN) is correct and valid for computing REAL power in a circuit, for comparison sake, or otherwise.

So, it is actually a general debate that applies to all power measurements made with an oscilloscope.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
Examining the graph on reply 399 again

While we wait for the packages to arrive Poynt99 and the Physics Society of Beijing, I would like to examine the graph on reply 399 again.

The graph was obtained by PhysicsProf after he drove 140 miles to his esteemed university as on reply 350.  Some dismissed it as an experimental error.  I hold a different opinion.

I used the program Paint to show the area enclosed by the graph with the zero X axis.  That should be the result of a correct and proper integration.

Let us first focus on the Input Instantaneous Power Curve on the LHS.  Most of the area is on the Lower or Negative side.  Since negative power is meaningless, we have to interpret it in a more sensible way.  The Input Voltage is measured across the terminals of the battery.  That value should be positive with some fluctuations.  However, the Input Current can flow in the positive or the negative direction.  DC current cannot do that.  AC current can.  The waveform is not sinusoidal but the concept of flowing in both directions is acceptable.

With Pulsing electromagnetic circuits, we always talk about the back EMF providing power.  The curve shows this assumption.

Another puzzling fact is that there appears to have area above and below the X axis simultaneously.  Normal sinusoidal waves cannot do that.

One possible explanation is that the circuit is a very fast pulsing circuit.  The Pulsing Rate is faster than the oscilloscope sampling rate.  Thus some values were sampled on the positive pulses and some values were sampled on the negative pulses.

How would the mean and the rms algorithm in the oscilloscope handle such a situation?

Any ideas?

We are starting to walk on unfamiliar grounds.  Any hypothesis that does not violate the Laws of Physics will be regarded as possible.  Please refrain from abusive languages in your comments.  Be as scientific as possible.


   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Examining the graph on reply 399 again

Let us first focus on the Input Instantaneous Power Curve on the LHS.  Most of the area is on the Lower or Negative side.  Since negative power is meaningless, we have to interpret it in a more sensible way. 
I have offered a sensible and logical explanation for the net negative power at the input side with this post #413. The voltage wave form across the 1 Ohm CSR is an amplitude of only about 4mVpp, yet there is a DC offset in the scope channel of an amplitude of about -4mV :o. This negative offset is the cause for the resulting net negative power trace, because a negative x a positive = a negative. A Signal Path Compensation routine run on the scope prior to taking the measurement would, to a large degree, alleviate this problem.

Quote
With Pulsing electromagnetic circuits, we always talk about the back EMF providing power.  The curve shows this assumption.
I believe it is clear that the offset in the scope is the cause for the net negative power trace as described above.

Quote
Another puzzling fact is that there appears to have area above and below the X axis simultaneously.
As I have shown here, whenever a reactive element (capacitor or inductor) is present in a circuit, the current and voltage are very likely to become separated by a phase difference, and it is this phase difference that accounts for part of the power trace to deviate below zero watts.

Quote
Normal sinusoidal waves cannot do that.
Could you clarify this point please?

Quote
One possible explanation is that the circuit is a very fast pulsing circuit.  The Pulsing Rate is faster than the oscilloscope sampling rate.  Thus some values were sampled on the positive pulses and some values were sampled on the negative pulses.
The sampling rate of this oscilloscope is many magnitudes higher than the pulse rate of the circuit. Scope sampling is not perfect no matter how much faster it is than the signal being sampled, but this sampling "error" does average itself out over time and can largely be ignored in most cases.

Again, the cause for the net negative power for the input was caused by a relatively large negative offset (compared to the signal amplitude being measured) in the scope channel. SPC runs are a must for low level measurements such as these.

Quote
How would the mean and the rms algorithm in the oscilloscope handle such a situation?
The scope will do a satisfactory job at computing the RMS and MEAN values of these wave forms.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
The same thing happened with a high performance prototype

@poynt99,

If you look at the waveform on reply 425, you will see the same basic form.  The Input Current (last curve on the top LHS) also fluctuated between positive and negative values.

When you see one single set of scope shots, you may attribute that to an error.  But when you see a dozen or a hundred, you know that it cannot be an error.

I deliberately bring this up for you to watch out.  You will find a similar waveform when you build your own FLEET.

We can continue this debate after you obtained the same waveform on your own oscilloscopes after you eliminated all possible experimental errors.

As I commented before, at this point, we can allow all hypotheses to stand.  The next round of evidence will help to clarify and eliminate some of them.  Are there any more hypotheses from any one else?
   
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 17:29:07