PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Benches > PhysicsProf (Moderator: PhysicsProf) > Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n
2024-11-27, 02:42:28
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 2 [3] 4 5
Author Topic: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n  (Read 54649 times)
Topic Options img
img  poynt99
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #50 on: 2011-03-26, 20:04:07 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Here you are Professor, values as shown on diagram.

The Rsim1,2 on the diagram are attached to the power indication pin, and they can not be left open-circuited. I have attached a 1 Giga-Ohm resistor.

.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
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #51 on: 2011-03-26, 20:12:28 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-03-26, 17:31:00

 can anyone see the clues that there is a problem in the measuring?  


Ah...something fun.  I think I know what the problem is, but let me tune my answer for higher correctness probability.
   
img  poynt99
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #52 on: 2011-03-26, 20:33:17 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
The scope does not appear to be triggered in both cases.

It also appears that you have no battery voltage, which would explain why it isn't oscillating.

.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
   
img  Itsu
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #53 on: 2011-03-26, 20:54:30 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4159

Poynt99,

i will check if my scope can export raw data, thanks for the offer.

PhysicsProf,

your Pin measurements does not look good to me, as like Poynt99 already said, there is no battery voltage + csr1 (which is minus).
So at least i would expect to see on the V2 channel something like 1.xx V.
Could it be that the channel was on AC?

Regards Itsu
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #54 on: 2011-03-27, 02:06:02 »
Group: Guest
Oh boy...

could it be that the prof have the channel 1 ground probe in the wrong hole on the breadboard...

EDIT: Eh... I'm just realized i'm wrong.  Sorry. :-\
   
img  BEP
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #55 on: 2011-03-27, 03:10:58 »
Group: Guest
Multiple frequencies. The frequency of oscillation of one coil is entrained to another coil around the same core.

One frequency of oscillation is not normally large enough (relative to other coils on the same core) to act as a governing frequency.

Think 'Van der Pol'
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #56 on: 2011-03-27, 05:20:14 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011-03-27, 03:10:58
Multiple frequencies. The frequency of oscillation of one coil is entrained to another coil around the same core.

One frequency of oscillation is not normally large enough (relative to other coils on the same core) to act as a governing frequency.

Think 'Van der Pol'

WaveWatcher  O0  Thank you for a precious piece of knowledge.
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #57 on: 2011-03-27, 06:46:49 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Quote from: feynman on 2011-03-26, 18:48:43
Was your problem the sign (+/-) of the power curve?

Yes! if you mean the (+/-) sign of the INPUT power curve...  This should be basically of one sign (-)  for this circuit, whereas the Pout waveform should show both + and - (at this voltage especially).  Good observation Feynman.

It is not necessarily a pleasant task, to take a hoped-for result (larger n in this case) and try to find out "what is or might be wrong"... but that is what honest researchers will do (IMO).

There are further clues -- e.g., the RMS voltage IN (channel 1 for the left curve) should be close the voltage of the battery, 1.45 V -- as essentially stated by .99.  That was crucial.

But the probes were hooked up in the correct locations.

How I found and fixed the root of the problem -- tomorrow...
« Last Edit: 2011-03-27, 07:18:13 by PhysicsProf »
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #58 on: 2011-03-28, 02:50:45 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Checked that both channels were DC-coupled; they were.
I located the problem when I switched probes, testing to see whether I would get the same result with probes switched.  Did not.
Found that one of the probes had a loose connection from pin to clip -- needed to be tightened.
This is a problem, I decided, when someone else uses the DSO between sessions when I get to use the Tek3032 -- and something I will have to be very careful about.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-03-26, 20:04:07
Here you are Professor, values as shown on diagram.

The Rsim1,2 on the diagram are attached to the power indication pin, and they can not be left open-circuited. I have attached a 1 Giga-Ohm resistor.

.99

Thanks, .99.  Now, after a short time the power asymptotically approaches certain values, which makes sense -- useful graph.
We see that the D3 LED burns 21 mW while the D2 LED burns zero -- and that I question because BOTH LED's are burning quite brightly at this voltage.  Can you explain the zero power consumption in the D2LED when it is lit, nearly as brightly as the D3 LED?

But continuing on, one can estimate n (pls correct me if wrong):

n = Pout/Pin = 21 mW/30 mW = 70%.

Another question -- can you have the SIM produce waveforms for Pin (Pbattery) and for Pout (P-LED in this case)??  This would be very useful to compare with data.
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #59 on: 2011-03-28, 03:15:52 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Now the data, with probe connector fixed and everything testing out properly -- see attached data for input voltages of 1.0, 1.46 (battery) and 2.0 volts.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-03-28, 02:50:45
[snip]

But continuing on, one can estimate n (pls correct me if wrong):

n = Pout/Pin = 21 mW/30 mW = 70%.

Another question -- can you have the SIM produce waveforms for Pin (Pbattery) and for Pout (P-LED in this case)??  This would be very useful to compare with data (attached).




So, three voltages and the calculated n values (all data are attached below, starting with the 1.46 V = battery voltage run)
Vin   Pin          Pout       n
1.0   3.2          1.7         53%
1.46 32.9        19.7        60%  <--  repeated for numerous cycles, same n found
1.46   30           21          70%  <--  .99's SIM for comparison with above... appears fairly consistent to me
2.0   105.2      86.9        83%

1.46  10.5       1.1          10.5% <--  with ONLY the D2 LED as labeled in .99's sim circuit; clearly the power out is NOT ZERO for this LED by itself...
                                                     Data for this run provided in the last attachment below.
                                      Would like to see if the sim can get this result.

Also, would like to see sim results for 1 and 2.0 volts input; note that n is clearly increasing as Vin is increased.
   
img  Itsu
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #60 on: 2011-03-28, 14:26:12 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4159

Poynt99, 

my scope has no possibility for exporting raw data, only screenshots (.BMP's)  :(


PhysicsProf,

Nice results.
Where/how did you measure the Pout?    Did you use the 1 Ohm resistor (csr2) in the output?

Looking at the traces, it seems your probe settings are on RMS then use the MATH function to calculate the Mean power, right?

There is some current flowing back via the toroid L2 winding (point 7 in your first post, right drawing), that is not accounted for, what if you connect this BEFORE the CSR2 resistor so you can include this current into Pout (i did it with mixed results).

Regards Itsu
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #61 on: 2011-03-28, 18:18:26 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Itsu --
Quote
PhysicsProf,

Nice results.
Where/how did you measure the Pout?    Did you use the 1 Ohm resistor (csr2) in the output?


Looking at the traces, it seems your probe settings are on RMS then use the MATH function to calculate the Mean power, right?

There is some current flowing back via the toroid L2 winding (point 7 in your first post, right drawing), that is not accounted for, what if you connect this BEFORE the CSR2 resistor so you can include this current into Pout (i did it with mixed results).

Regards Itsu

For your convenience, the schematic used is reposted from my first post, and is the reverse-JT circuit shown on the right with just one measuring CSR called CSR1 (using the nomenclature of .99 and Laneal).  Shown on the left is the JT circuit, as developed particularly by Laneal on another thread before, which also has just one measuring CSR.  Just one measuring CSR, CSR1, used to determine both input and output current -- same for both circuits, as we discussed at length and agreed over weeks on another thread.  There are various voltages -- at different points.  

Pin is determined using the MEAN of the math PRODUCT, V1*V2, as shown on the diagram.  I2=V2 since CSR1 is a ONE OHM resistor.

Pout is determined using the MEAN of the math PRODUCT, V5*V2, as shown on the diagram; that is, the output voltage is measured between points 3 (ground connection) and point 5 (FIVE).  Again, I2=V2 since CSR1 is a ONE OHM resistor.    One can see from the diagram that measuring V5 between points 3 and 5 includes the current (and power) flowing through point 7.

So we have the power waveform for "INPUT" and "OUTPUT" and then the Tek 3032 calculates the MEAN (for many cycles, or for one cycle is done also, and generally the agreement is good as long as the "signal strength" is high so that the one-cycle calculation is meaningful...  See data posted in my last post.)
I do NOT use V-rms * I-rms !!  (just to clarify that important point)
  
   
img  Itsu
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #62 on: 2011-03-28, 20:09:15 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4159

Great,  thanks for explaining PhysicsProf, i should have known that.

Concerning the "I do NOT use V-rms * I-rms !!" that is a roger, however my question was not if you use "V-rms * I-rms", but what voltage settings the probes are on before you use the MATH function.
The scope traces clearly show "RMS", see attachment.

If confirmed, i could perhaps figure out a way to use that on my (MATHless) scope to calculate Pin and Pout.

Regards Itsu.
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #63 on: 2011-03-29, 00:13:18 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Quote from: Itsu on 2011-03-28, 20:09:15
Great,  thanks for explaining PhysicsProf, i should have known that.

Concerning the "I do NOT use V-rms * I-rms !!" that is a roger, however my question was not if you use "V-rms * I-rms", but what voltage settings the probes are on before you use the MATH function.
The scope traces clearly show "RMS", see attachment.

If confirmed, i could perhaps figure out a way to use that on my (MATHless) scope to calculate Pin and Pout.

Regards Itsu.


 Not quite sure what you mean by "what voltage settings the probes are on before you use the MATH function" -- the scales for channel 1 and channel 2 are shown at the bottom of the scope traces.... Is that what you mean?

The probes are set to 1X in all the data shown on this forum so far, although I often do a check using 10X on the probes.

.99 of course gave a way to calculate Pin.  When I use a power supply rather than a battery, I use a voltmeter (DMM) to get the accurate Vin and I have the current from the PS in mA...  That gives a measure for Pin -- I wonder how good that is, as a measure of Pin?  Vin * Iin ...  I will have to compare with MEAN Pin calculated using the Math V*I function on the scope...  Has anyone done this?

For the "mathless scope" as you say, I really don't know how to get Pout...  Still hoping that .99 will disclose his proposed method (using a couple of DMM's I presume).
   
img  EMdevices
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #64 on: 2011-03-29, 06:18:09 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Quote
Where/how did you measure the Pout?    Did you use the 1 Ohm resistor (csr2) in the output?


Itsu,  go ahead and use a CSR2 resistor for the LED, that is the correct way of doing the Pout  measurement.  Apparently my previous explanations fell on deaf ears.  In the circuit posted by the Prof, the output current from the kickback circulates only in the right loop, it doesn't pass through the battery and CSR1, also the LED is reversed, which he did correct.

Just trying to help so we don't become the laughing stock

EM
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #65 on: 2011-03-29, 12:36:47 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011-03-29, 06:18:09

Itsu,  go ahead and use a CSR2 resistor for the LED, that is the correct way of doing the Pout  measurement.  Apparently my previous explanations fell on deaf ears.  In the circuit posted by the Prof, the output current from the kickback circulates only in the right loop, it doesn't pass through the battery and CSR1, also the LED is reversed, which he did correct.

Just trying to help so we don't become the laughing stock

EM

I have reviewed your posts this early morning, EMD, and find the circuit below from 3-22-11 as your latest -- is this correct?    If not, pls provide the update.  I would ask .99 (busy as he is), to do the SIM for this circuit so that we can compare with the 2-LED circuit that I tested last time I was at the University (which, unfortunately, is over 125 miles distance from my home round-trip).  
Note that .99 explained on or about 22 March 2011 that the one-CSR circuit gave a reading nearly the same as the two-CSR circuit (lower by 3% on calculated n) -- this is reasonable agreement.  However, that previous test was done with the "standard" JT, rather than the present circuit which is the subject of this thread (the "reverse JT") -- so it would be good to revisit this issue.

Your comments did not fall on deaf ears, just that one needs to have evidence that your method will give a "better" result -- meaning more accurate.  3% difference is not enough to make us a "laughing stock," as you say.  But again, I certainly would like to see tests done.  Also, I inserted an LED in the direction you propose in the attached, so your suggestions did not fall on "deaf ears."

I can also compare the 1-CSR and 2-CSR measurements with the Tek 3032 scope, but duties preclude me from traveling to the University anytime soon.  
Oh, this reminds me, I would ask you (EMD) to provide the equation for calculating Pout when you have TWO CSR's as you propose -- noting that you have ignored that current which passes through loop L1, have you not?  And does CSR1 enter into your calculation for Pout?  Seems it should -- since the "output current" also flows through CSR1. I would really like to see your equation for calculating Pout corresponding with the two-CSR circuit you propose!
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #66 on: 2011-03-29, 12:57:07 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
  Again, well-understood and carefully-performed MEASUREMENTS are the key to establishing (or not) "overunity".    Interesting to compare our colleague Feynman's efforts to get reliable measurements on the "Gabriel device" :
Quote
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #124 on: March 26, 2011, 07:36:48 PM »

@all

I spoke to a good friend of mine, and he agrees that there is around 50/50 chance this [Gabriel] device works overunity vs a kilo-watt meter measurement error.  So we'll have to test more to see.

The measurement error, if it occurs, i likely because the kil-o-watt meter may be tricked by the inductive reactance of the primary.  My friend with the suggestions posted here, he agrees that putting the proper value capacitor , in parallel , across the primary coil inputs will solve the problem (bring the voltage / current phase to zero offset in both heating element resistor and the primary).  Then the Kill-O-Watt meter will not be tricked no matter what if we do this.

So next step I think is replications and measurements of the voltage drop and the resistance of the 'toaster' (or whatever other current limiting device is used) in series with the primary.  This will let us calculate a proper value for the capacitor c, then we can order one from Digikey and put it across the primary to make sure we are not having measurement error.

Another way to test this (exclude measurement error from inductive reactance) is turn off everything in your house except one circuit breaker, and run the device by itself , and run the device powering loads for a period of time (say 60seconds or 120seconds or whatever)..   Then measure the energy consuming on the meter to the power company.

and,
Quote
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #141 on: March 27, 2011, 08:03:56 PM »

Okay, first , wow@the tesla patent.  Did this guy leave anything left to invent?   No wonder he got so much accomplished, he didn't have a gf breathing down his neck .

Allright, so I like the idea of running the Gabriel device off a cheap 12V inverter from a battery.  This makes it really easy to measure the consumed power (just measure the current draw to the inverter).  It's WAY easier to measure power on a straight DC signal from a battery than it is to measure a Wall AC signal through a resistive and inductive load, because of Voltage/Current phase issues.  So I like the inverter idea.

Hopefully my Nanoperm parts will ship this week.  Whether or not this particular device (Gabriel device) works as it appears (we need more tests),  Nanoperm is a really promising material for overunity research.  It has much higher magnetic permeability than ferrite.

Regardless of what happens here, I will be using the Nanoperm for Boyce TPU replication and possibly for testing EMDevices' magnetic saturation theory he has posted on overunityresearch.com.   And anything else I can think of or that seems promising.  The goal is open-source solid-state overunity.

Working on an electromagnet and my blog today, hopefully we can determine with some certainty what is going on with the Gabriel device over the next couple of weeks.

Cheers,
Feynman
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10518.135

Good stuff... and a reminder of the crucial importance of reliable measurements in the effort to definitively establish "overunity".  I agree with Feynman's overall goal:
Quote
The goal is open-source solid-state overunity.
   
img  poynt99
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #67 on: 2011-03-29, 14:44:25 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-03-29, 12:36:47
Note that .99 explained on or about 22 March 2011 that the one-CSR circuit gave a reading nearly the same as the two-CSR circuit (lower by 3% on calculated n) -- this is reasonable agreement.  However, that previous test was done with the "standard" JT, rather than the present circuit which is the subject of this thread (the "reverse JT") -- so it would be good to revisit this issue.

Professor,

Also subsequent to that post, I made this test and post on 2011-03-25 of the present circuit and concluded this:

Quote
This is a good example of when this method does not work as a power measurement. Making the assumption that there is significant current in the LED may be incorrect, even though it may be illuminating.

You need to have a separate CSR for each leg to be measured with this configuration.

.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
   
img  EMdevices
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #68 on: 2011-03-29, 15:21:41 »
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Yes, yes, that's the circuit configuration I endorse Professor.
I'll say more later.
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #69 on: 2011-03-29, 17:11:50 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-03-29, 14:44:25
Professor,

Also subsequent to that post, I made this test and post on 2011-03-25 of the present circuit and concluded this:

You need to have a separate CSR for each leg to be measured with this configuration.

.99

Note on that point, with which I agree -- I left for the University on the morning of the 25th of March (the day you posted the above) and my latest Tek 3032 data were taken using the 1-CSR method BEFORE I saw your post.
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #70 on: 2011-03-29, 18:57:15 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011-03-29, 15:21:41
Yes, yes, that's the circuit configuration I endorse Professor.
I'll say more later.


Thanks, EMD.  An interesting circuit config to be sure.  I have gone back to this configuration this morning, at home using my PS and ATTEN DSO.
Requires low input current (8 mA) compared to config with 2 LED's (22mA) -- where current is measured using the PS and Vin = 1.51V.

I also added a cap (221 pF) across L1 as I have tried this lately, making a tank circuit out of the L1 leg.  This does not increase the input current, so Pin stays the same, but the Pout curve shows greater 1-cycle area (integrating Pout with respect to time, giving Energy) -- which indicates that Pout increases as the cap across L1 is added.  I find that interesting.

I should also note that using the 1X probe causes a change in brightness of the LED...  I believe this may be due to the capacitance of the probe itself.  Brightness change occurs whether the probe is hooked to the DSO or not.  
My next step was to measure the Cap of the probe itself -- 154 pF at 1X, about 100 pF at 10X.  (Probe left open-ended.) 
I found that using the scope probe at 10X solves the problem, that is, the brightness of the LED does not change noticeably with the probe set at 10X, when the probe is connected to the circuit.

ANOTHER important observation (IMO) regarding reliable measurements -- the parameters of the scope probes themselves!
« Last Edit: 2011-03-29, 19:56:46 by PhysicsProf »
   
img  poynt99
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #71 on: 2011-03-29, 19:09:38 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Indeed professor.

We should always use x10 probes unless there is a good specific reason to use a x1 probe, and then with the noted limitations as you've discovered.

I never questioned this with your testing because it is almost always assumed that folks are using x10 probes.

.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
   
img  poynt99
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #72 on: 2011-03-30, 01:21:12 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-03-28, 02:50:45
Thanks, .99.  Now, after a short time the power asymptotically approaches certain values, which makes sense -- useful graph.
We see that the D3 LED burns 21 mW while the D2 LED burns zero -- and that I question because BOTH LED's are burning quite brightly at this voltage.  Can you explain the zero power consumption in the D2LED when it is lit, nearly as brightly as the D3 LED?
No, I can not explain it. Your measurement of a few hundred uW is also odd, don't you think? If that was not an error, then something must be at play which is causing that LED to glow, even though it is not using a significant amount of power. Unfortunately, I can not "see" if the LED is glowing in the sim.  8)

Quote
But continuing on, one can estimate n (pls correct me if wrong):

n = Pout/Pin = 21 mW/30 mW = 70%.

Another question -- can you have the SIM produce waveforms for Pin (Pbattery) and for Pout (P-LED in this case)??  This would be very useful to compare with data.
Yes, that would be correct. Here are the p(t) wave forms. I did not include the one LED because it shows no net power.

.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
   
img  poynt99
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #73 on: 2011-03-30, 01:30:54 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quote from: Itsu on 2011-03-28, 20:09:15
Great,  thanks for explaining PhysicsProf, i should have known that.

Concerning the "I do NOT use V-rms * I-rms !!" that is a roger, however my question was not if you use "V-rms * I-rms", but what voltage settings the probes are on before you use the MATH function.
The scope traces clearly show "RMS", see attachment.

If confirmed, i could perhaps figure out a way to use that on my (MATHless) scope to calculate Pin and Pout.

Regards Itsu.

Itsu,

The voltage probes are not on any particular "setting" actually. The RMS voltages that you see the scope displaying, are there for "interest" sake only. The MATH multiplication is always performed using the raw data samples within the scope. With this now acquired p(t) wave form trace, we use the scope "measurement" functions to perform a MEAN computation on this red MATH trace, and it displays that for us as well. This is the one we are interested in.

Perhaps it would be prudent Professor, if you would remove those RMS measurements off the display, as apparently (and understandably) they are leading to some confusion.

Hope that clears things up for you Itsu. ;)

.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
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n « Reply #74 on: 2011-03-30, 02:01:12 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-03-30, 01:21:12
No, I can not explain it. Your measurement of a few hundred uW is also odd, don't you think? If that was not an error, then something must be at play which is causing that LED to glow, even though it is not using a significant amount of power. Unfortunately, I can not "see" if the LED is glowing in the sim.  8)
Yes, that would be correct. Here are the p(t) wave forms. I did not include the one LED because it shows no net power.

.99


I think you are mistaking the data taken with the bad probe connection with the data acquired later (4 attachments shown above), which have outputs typically in the tens of mW range; although for the 1 LED case, Pout was only about 1.1 mW.  Note the summary I provided (output power in bold here):

So, three voltages and the calculated n values (all data are attached below, starting with the 1.46 V = battery voltage run)
Vin   Pin(mW)   Pout (mW)      n
1.0   3.2          1.7             53%
1.46 32.9        19.7            60%  <--  repeated for numerous cycles, same n found
1.46   30           21             70%  <--  .99's SIM for comparison with above... appears fairly consistent to me
2.0   105.2      86.9             83%

1.46  10.5       1.1          10.5%

I'll comment on the waveforms later; gotta run to a community meeting this pm.
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 02:42:28