PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-12-07, 09:35:45
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Author Topic: TinMans reserch and experiments into free energy devices.  (Read 197008 times)
Group: Guest
Here is the next video on some more test that i carried out on request by PW.

TK-if you read this-->when we do our P/in math to the coil,would we go by the instantaneous voltage across the coil when the AMP switches on?,as using the battery voltage would only include power being dissipated in the rest of the drive circuit. It makes sense to me that the voltage across the primary coil is the voltage that should be used when calculating power consumption by the transformer it self,as the full battery voltage is never across the coil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiirD9mTPZk

Measuring just the transformer primary as "input" is OK with me at this point. But... I still need to ask, and comment, about the circuitry and measurement points.

First, the scope probe reference clips are still connected internally at the oscilloscope, aren't they? So Picowatt's suggestion is a good one. If you are measuring the two sides of the transformer by connecting one probe "across" the Primary and one probe "across" the secondary or load, then you are connecting the two sides through the "ground" clips of both probes. It would be better, then, to avoid spurious ringing and other complications, to connect the Primary and Secondary "bottoms" with a short wire directly and use this connection as the Common Ground point for both probes.

Second... your driver circuit is a "high side load" or "low side switch" configuration. This means that the mosfet Drain voltage will be HIGH (at or near battery voltage) when the mosfet is OFF and will be LOW (near the zero voltage level, lifted by the voltage drop of the mosfet). But the mosfet Drain shares a common node with the Common Ground point for the toroid's windings. This means that the phase relationship between Gate Signal and the two signals read by the scope probes may be affected.

So, I'd like to see, if you have time, three scopeshots like this: (referring to my marked-up version of your schematic below)

One shot where one scope probe is connected where the FG is connected: probe tip at the connection marked "FG Red" and reference at "FG Black", and the other scope probe connected at "TP 1", with reference also at "FG Black".

Another shot where one scope probe is connected where FG is connected as before, and the other probe connected with TIP at "Common Probe Ground" (aka mosfet Drain) and reference also at "FG Black"

(These two shots of course "de-isolate" the FG's Black lead back to the system common ground established by the scope probe reference connections.)

A third shot where the two scope probes are connected at TP 1 and TP 2, with both references at "Common Probe Ground" using PW's suggested connection rather than relying on the probe ground lead circuit to make that connection.

Please do all the shots at the same frequency setting, scope channel voltage settings etc.

I think with these three sets of shots we should be able to see clearly the relationship between the mosfet On and Off times and the responses of the transformer windings.

(I haven't watched the latest video yet, so please excuse me if you've already done some of these suggestions)
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Measuring just the transformer primary as "input" is OK with me at this point. But... I still need to ask, and comment, about the circuitry and measurement points.

First, the scope probe reference clips are still connected internally at the oscilloscope, aren't they? So Picowatt's suggestion is a good one. If you are measuring the two sides of the transformer by connecting one probe "across" the Primary and one probe "across" the secondary or load, then you are connecting the two sides through the "ground" clips of both probes. It would be better, then, to avoid spurious ringing and other complications, to connect the Primary and Secondary "bottoms" with a short wire directly and use this connection as the Common Ground point for both probes.

Second... your driver circuit is a "high side load" or "low side switch" configuration. This means that the mosfet Drain voltage will be HIGH (at or near battery voltage) when the mosfet is OFF and will be LOW (near the zero voltage level, lifted by the voltage drop of the mosfet). But the mosfet Drain shares a common node with the Common Ground point for the toroid's windings. This means that the phase relationship between Gate Signal and the two signals read by the scope probes may be affected.

So, I'd like to see, if you have time, three scopeshots like this: (referring to my marked-up version of your schematic below)

 



(These two shots of course "de-isolate" the FG's Black lead back to the system common ground established by the scope probe reference connections.)



Please do all the shots at the same frequency setting, scope channel voltage settings etc.

I think with these three sets of shots we should be able to see clearly the relationship between the mosfet On and Off times and the responses of the transformer windings.

(I haven't watched the latest video yet, so please excuse me if you've already done some of these suggestions)
I have also done a video that is uploading ATM,will post when done-but i missed one of the test you wanted in the video.
But i do have the scope shots per test request-as below. The scope shots below are named each test-EG,test one scope shot.
I have not inverted the scope traces in any of the tests,and all frequency,duty cycle,and voltage remain the same throughout each test.

Test one-Quote: One shot where one scope probe is connected where the FG is connected: probe tip at the connection marked "FG Red" and reference at "FG Black", and the other scope probe connected at "TP 1", with reference also at "FG Black".-->Yellow trace is on FG red-Blue trace on TP1

Test two-Quote: Another shot where one scope probe is connected where FG is connected as before, and the other probe connected with TIP at "Common Probe Ground" (aka mosfet Drain) and reference also at "FG Black"--> Yellow trace is on FG red-Blue on mosfet Drain

Test three-Quote: A third shot where the two scope probes are connected at TP 1 and TP 2, with both references at "Common Probe Ground" using PW's suggested connection rather than relying on the probe ground lead circuit to make that connection.-->Yellow trace is on TP2-Blue trace on TP1


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Here is the video. I ran out of memory near the end,so there will be a hickup in the video where we seem to start again on one test,as i didnt know when the camera switched off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzx5xHWWYPg


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
Thanks for doing those tests. Now I'm really confused.

Comparing your shots for Test 1 and Test 2, you can see that the Yellow trace is very different between the two shots. But it should have been exactly the same! Probe grounds are connected in the same place for both tests (FG Black), and the Yellow trace is connected probe tip to FG Red for both tests, right? So why are the yellow traces so different?



ETA: I guess I wasn't too clear where I was asking for the probes to be connected in Test 1 and Test 2. The only difference is that Test 2 moves the Blue probe tip to the other side of the L1 coil.
Please check the diagrams below...

 ???
« Last Edit: 2015-05-24, 15:46:43 by TinselKoala »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Thanks for doing those tests. Now I'm really confused.

Comparing your shots for Test 1 and Test 2, you can see that the Yellow trace is very different between the two shots. But it should have been exactly the same! Probe grounds are connected in the same place for both tests (FG Black), and the Yellow trace is connected probe tip to FG Red for both tests, right? So why are the yellow traces so different?



ETA: I guess I wasn't too clear where I was asking for the probes to be connected in Test 1 and Test 2. The only difference is that Test 2 moves the Blue probe tip to the other side of the L1 coil.
Please check the diagrams below...

 ???
Ah ok.
So here's were things got mixed up. In test two,i moved both grounds of the scope to the drain,and probe A to FG red,and probe B to FG black--my screwup. I will redo tomorrow,and see if i can get it right this time.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Thanks for doing those tests. Now I'm really confused.

Comparing your shots for Test 1 and Test 2, you can see that the Yellow trace is very different between the two shots. But it should have been exactly the same! Probe grounds are connected in the same place for both tests (FG Black), and the Yellow trace is connected probe tip to FG Red for both tests, right? So why are the yellow traces so different?



ETA: I guess I wasn't too clear where I was asking for the probes to be connected in Test 1 and Test 2. The only difference is that Test 2 moves the Blue probe tip to the other side of the L1 coil.
Please check the diagrams below...

 ???
Below are the scope shots of the two test. Hope i got it right this time O0


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Here is some more testing i have carried out.
I to would like to know what is going on,so as i know what to look for if this comes up again. But at the moment,i just cant spot any mistake. I am about to go and conduct some of the test PW recomended,so we will see where we end up there. I am going to look more into the two diode setup you will see in the video,and compare that with what the globe should look like with that voltage across it. This will let us know once and for all if the scope is showing facts or some sort of artifact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9LV0jikMa8


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Here is the latest test video on this transformer. We went back to the start,and checked all windings on the transformer are good O0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-PIC6P17VI


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Hey tinman

I got some supercaps off Ebay for this kind of thing and built two identical 5 Farad/24v packs. It works very well to test circuits like yours and since the primary/secondary are isolated from one another it should not be difficult to route the output back to the input. If I was testing this I would first try input and output caps to see where the final voltages end up then try looping the output back to the input then try looping the output back to the input while the input is powering a 555 timer to pulse the circuit. If the last scenario works while powering a load then your the man.

I use my DSO for everything but when it comes to accurately measuring power and energy it takes forever to setup and half the time the measure is questionable at best unless it is a pure sine or DC. It's just not worth the time using a scope in my opinion and I can prove a circuit in minutes versus hours with the scope using my simple capacitor based system. I have been down this road before and it can get pretty frustrating moreso if there are ground loops in the circuit which screws everything up.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 420


Buy me some coffee
Now you have my attention Tinman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt5Mjau_Ehk

Although the measurements are a bit dodgy here.


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a  capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Now you have my attention Tinman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt5Mjau_Ehk

Although the measurements are a bit dodgy here.


Some have seen something worth looking at,and some have not. I guess it is up to each person to make there own choice,and choose what to do about it--build it,or not :)


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4162
Replicating Tinmans special transformer

7cm Potcore with small yoke inside

L1 (Prim)  has 20t awg 23 (0.6mm),  8.5mH @ 10KHz / 0.5 Ohm
L2 (inner) has 30t awg 28 (0.3mm),  307uH @ 10KHz / 0.4 Ohm
L2 (outer) has 30t awg 28 (0.3mm), 18.5mH @ 10KHz / 1.4 Ohm

Load on both L2's is a 22 Ohm resistor (L2 outer resistor getting hot)

Using IRF740's instead of IRF840 MOSFETs
2x 1N5408 diodes
12V input from PS
7KHz @ 4% d.c. from FG

Screenshot:

yellow across L2 (outer)  signal inverted!!
Blue across    L2 (inner)  signal inverted!!

Will do some more tests, but it seems that my inductance relation (L2 inner / outer) is way off compared to Tinmans setup  :(
So my results are not anywhere near Tinmans.

Regards Itsu
« Last Edit: 2015-05-27, 10:35:14 by Itsu »
   
Group: Guest
That looks very nice Itsu!

You are getting some of the slight negative voltages that TinMan is seeing.


What would happen if you simply reversed the connection of the L1 Primary to the driver board? Would you then be able to display the two traces without inverting them?   ;)

Here's where I'm at, with my setup at the moment. I'm not able to see any power in the "off" time because the current during that time is so low. I see around 2 volts negative peak and around 4 to 8 mA negative peak current, so the power in that portion is at most 16 mW, but the peak power is nearly 2 W, so I have to use a scale (500 mW/div) that can't show up such small levels of power during the "off" time. So the "off time" power looks just like a straight line at zero. If I boost the sensitivity to show some power in this portion, the peaks are way offscreen and the measurements are screwed up by this clipping. Average power is 65-70 mW.

This is with a 33 ohm load on my second potcore, a small one with 30 turn primary and 90 turn secondary all inside the core. FG driving at -2, +10 volts, 12 V SLA battery as source. A one-ohm current viewing resistor is in series with the 33 ohm load. Ch1 is voltage across the total 34 ohms, Ch2 is voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor, Math is Ch1xCh2.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4162


Tk,

yes, reversing the connection of the L1 Primary swaps the output direction, also reversing the both L2 connections does that for each L2 coil.
I have setup it now as i do not need to invert any channel.

I have changed to 33 Ohm resistors on each L2 coil now too (½ watt), but the L2 outer coil resistor is getting hot.
Also my duty cycle was adjusted to 10% to show some better pulse on the L2 inner.

I have the same problem as you as that the voltage / current (power) through the L2 inner coil is very low, much lower then through the L2 outer coil.

On a freshly calibrated scope using a 12V SLA battery as power source and the FG set at -2V, 10V @ 7KHz and 10% d.c. i too see no power during the off time.
 
Blue is the voltage across  the L2 inner coil load resistor (33 ohm)
green is the current through this L2 inner coil load resistor (with current probe controller set to 10mA/div., so same as the green trace display)
red is math function Ch2 (blue) * Ch4 (green).

No sign of any power during the off time.

Guess we need a much better coupling between L2 inner and L1 primary and/or more inductance on the L2 inner toroid (yoke in my case) to come close to Tinmans results.

Regards Itsu

   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
I filled my small pot core transformer with the steel putty that i used on my big transformer,but the results where no better than they were without the putty. The little one just dosnt perform like my bigger unit :(

But i have now got the bigger one tuned to near optimal performance O0.
Im now at 7v ,and a duty cycle of 13%--> seems to be the best i can get it. Below is a scope shot of some test's i carried out tonight. I now have the current and voltage during the off time that close to constant it's not funny. But im not sure how this is happening,as you need a changing magnetic field to produce current ???. When the field is changing-lets say decreasing,the voltage and current should also decrease. If the field strength is increasing,then we would see an increase in the voltage and current trace. So im at a loss as to why the voltage and current traces seem so constant.

Anyway,the blue trace is my current-over a 1 ohm CSR,and my yellow trace is across the globe.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Here is the blown up version with a red horizontal line just under the traces,to give you a reference as to how stable the voltage and current values are during the off period.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4162

Right,  that's flat  :)

I lowered the driving frequency from 7KHz to 600Hz to be able to show how long it takes for my voltage and current to return to zero, see screenshot.

Could you try something similar?


Regards Itsu
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4162

Next to my yoke inside the potcore combo, i created a new toroid set, see picture.

The coil on the inner toroid is 55t awg 22 and 17.4mH @ 10KHz and 0.3 Ohm.
The coil on the inner/outer toroid is 30t awg 22 and 12mH @ 10KHz and 0.4 Ohm.

The setup is still 12V (300mA) from a SLA, 7KHz from the FG -2V, 10V 10% duty cycle, 33 Ohm load on the inner coil.

screenshot:

Blue is voltage across this 33 Ohm load
Green is current through this 33 Ohm load (current controller set to 50mA/div., so green / red values need to be taken times 5
red is math ch2 (blue) * ch 4 (green).

We see a faster return to zero compared to my other potcore/yoke combo.

The MOSFET heatsinks and the toroid are getting lukewarm, due to dissipating the bulk of the input power (3.6W).

Regards itsu
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I now have the current and voltage during the off time that close to constant it's not funny. But im not sure how this is happening,as you need a changing magnetic field to produce current ???.
I explained this (but apparently not well enough).

The energy in the secondary is STORED. That means that you can remove the source (the changing primary current) and the sec. coil has a certain amount of stored energy (in the form of a magnetic field) it can release to its load. In other words, long after the primary switches OFF and there is no longer a changing magnetic field in the primary, the secondary can still be dumping its energy into a load.

Is it clear enough now?


---------------------------
"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: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
I explained this (but apparently not well enough).

The energy in the secondary is STORED. That means that you can remove the source (the changing primary current) and the sec. coil has a certain amount of stored energy (in the form of a magnetic field) it can release to its load. In other words, long after the primary switches OFF and there is no longer a changing magnetic field in the primary, the secondary can still be dumping its energy into a load.

Is it clear enough now?
No argument there Poynt O0
But i am just looking into why the off time period power from the secondary is giving me MORE delivered power that it dose during the on time period. So this is why i posted these questions on OU

Quote:
Below is the schematic with test points and CSR value. The yellow trace is across the load(globe),and the blue trace is across the CSR. The scope shot shows the trace results with D2 in place. What i want to know is-
1- will the yellow trace(positive voltage value) increase with D2 removed during the on cycle,or will it decrease?.
2-Will the yellow trace(negative voltage value) increase with D2 removed during the off cycle,or will it decrease.
3- Will the blue trace(forward current value) increase with D2 removed during the on cycle,or will it decrease?.
4- Will the blue trace(reverse current value) increase with D2 removed during the off cycle,or will it decrease?.
5- Will the P/in increase with D2 removed,or will it decrease?.




---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
Quote:
"But i am just looking into why the off time period power from the secondary is giving me MORE delivered power that it dose during the on time period. So this is why i posted these questions on OU"

Let's do a rough _energy_ calculation to see what's happening. You are using a 1 ohm CSR, and the Blue trace is the Vdrop across this CSR, so it is displayed at 500 mA per division, right?

So just roughly squaring off the waveforms in that scopeshot above and doing some math, we have for the positive portion of one period roughly 650 mA x 13.5 V = 8.8 W, or 8.8 Joules per Second. But this is happening for about 25 microseconds, so the energy in this portion is 8.8 J/s x 0.000025 s = 0.00022 Joules.
For the negative portion of one period, we have about - 190 mA x -2.8 V = about 0.53 W, or 0.53 Joules per Second. But this is happening for about 113 microseconds. So the energy in this portion is 0.53 J/s x 0.000113 s = 0.000059 Joules.

So the energy delivered in the "off" time is about 59/220 = about 0.27 times that delivered during the "on" time.

Please check my math and assumptions, I am prone to misplacing decimal points sometimes!

   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote:
"But i am just looking into why the off time period power from the secondary is giving me MORE delivered power that it dose during the on time period. So this is why i posted these questions on OU"

Let's do a rough _energy_ calculation to see what's happening. You are using a 1 ohm CSR, and the Blue trace is the Vdrop across this CSR, so it is displayed at 500 mA per division, right?

So just roughly squaring off the waveforms in that scopeshot above and doing some math, we have for the positive portion of one period roughly 650 mA x 13.5 V = 8.8 W, or 8.8 Joules per Second. But this is happening for about 25 microseconds, so the energy in this portion is 8.8 J/s x 0.000025 s = 0.00022 Joules.
For the negative portion of one period, we have about - 190 mA x -2.8 V = about 0.53 W, or 0.53 Joules per Second. But this is happening for about 113 microseconds. So the energy in this portion is 0.53 J/s x 0.000113 s = 0.000059 Joules.

So the energy delivered in the "off" time is about 59/220 = about 0.27 times that delivered during the "on" time.

Please check my math and assumptions, I am prone to misplacing decimal points sometimes!



TK
If both the average voltage on the CSR and across the globe are negative,how do we get more power in the positive direction.
So if we use our peak voltage X's our average current,and we get our average current by using ohm's law to calculate current,we would have I=V/R. So that would be -40mV/1 ???
Or we take our peak current,and X's that by average voltage. So (about)700mV x 1ohm = 700mA.
So now it is 700mA X's minus 200mV ???-->or do i have this wrong,and we have to use RMS voltages or something?.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
TK
If both the average voltage on the CSR and across the globe are negative,how do we get more power in the positive direction.
So if we use our peak voltage X's our average current,and we get our average current by using ohm's law to calculate current,we would have I=V/R. So that would be -40mV/1 ???
Or we take our peak current,and X's that by average voltage. So (about)700mV x 1ohm = 700mA.
So now it is 700mA X's minus 200mV ???-->or do i have this wrong,and we have to use RMS voltages or something?.

In the first place I think you are focussing too much on the scope's reported "averages". I believe that the scope is just using what is displayed on the screen to calculate those averages. So unless you are very careful about setting horizontal scale and trigger delay, you can have more, or less, than a complete integer's worth of cycles on the screen, and hence going into the average calculation. If the "average" number changes as you change your horizontal scale then this is probably what is happening. Up to a point, these "averages" will be more accurate the more complete cycles you have displayed on the screen. For example if you have three "negative" parts of a waveform displayed but only two "positive" parts displayed, the average calculated in this way will err towards the "negative" value. You may have a menu choice in there somewhere to get the scope to calculate either using the screen data or the entire memory buffer data; most often just the displayed data on the screen will be used. I'll check the manual to see if I can find out more information about this a bit later on.

Next, the CSR "automagically" performs the Ohm's Law calculation for you in its instantaneous readings. If you are looking at a 1 ohm CSR with a scope probe, then the actual Current in Amps = the voltage reading in Volts. The "blue" trace then gives the correct current at any place along the waveform.  OK, so now you have instantaneous voltage and current values to go into the power calculation. If you scope will at least display the power waveform, but won't give you the measurements in "numbers in boxes" you can still get the measurements you need off the screen by counting and estimating graticule divisions.

But even if you can't display a power waveform you can proceed as I did in the post above, by mentally "squaring off" the peaks to get their areas. So for a single period, you chop off the tops and use them to fill in the sides, so to speak, until you have a mental picture of a perfectly rectangular pair of areas, one above and one below the zero reference line. Then, for the duration of the area, the "peak" value is the same as the true "average" value since the pulse is flat on top (or bottom) and vertical on the sides. So you can just multiply the squared-off "peak" values of the positive current pulse times the positive voltage pulse and get the power represented by that portion of the waveform. Then a simple multiplication by the duration of that portion gives you the energy concerned. Ditto for the negative going portions: square them off, multiply "peak" (= "average") for that portion, then multiply by the duration. The result is in Joules of energy for the two parts of the single period of the waveform.

This process is the equivalent of performing the instantaneous multiplication of Current and Voltage to get a Power waveform, then integrating that Power waveform across time to obtain an energy curve in Joules.  

In the old days, people would do things like trace the waveform onto fine-grid graph paper and count up the squares to find the areas, or even cut out the shapes from the paper and then weigh the cutout bits on an analytical balance to find the difference in weights which correspond to the difference in areas.


(In my own scopetrace that I posted up above I got the Current probe attenuation wrong. I forgot I was using a 10x attenuated probe instead of a direct connection to the CSR. So the Current is actually displayed at 200mA/div and the Power trace value is actually at 5W/div instead of 500 mW/div. So I have peak output wattage near 19 Watts, but this only occurs for about 5 percent of the time. Squaring off the Power peak I estimate about 14 Watts average during that 5 percent, so across the entire waveform I get a final average of about 14 x .05 = 700mW, which accounts for the heating in the three parallel 100 ohm 2Watt carbon power resistors, and the brightness of the small bulb if that is used instead. The power during the "off" portion is so small that it doesn't even show up in the scope trace, so to first order it can be neglected.)
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
In the first place I think you are focussing too much on the scope's reported "averages". I believe that the scope is just using what is displayed on the screen to calculate those averages. So unless you are very careful about setting horizontal scale and trigger delay, you can have more, or less, than a complete integer's worth of cycles on the screen, and hence going into the average calculation. If the "average" number changes as you change your horizontal scale then this is probably what is happening. Up to a point, these "averages" will be more accurate the more complete cycles you have displayed on the screen. For example if you have three "negative" parts of a waveform displayed but only two "positive" parts displayed, the average calculated in this way will err towards the "negative" value. You may have a menu choice in there somewhere to get the scope to calculate either using the screen data or the entire memory buffer data; most often just the displayed data on the screen will be used. I'll check the manual to see if I can find out more information about this a bit later on.

Next, the CSR "automagically" performs the Ohm's Law calculation for you in its instantaneous readings. If you are looking at a 1 ohm CSR with a scope probe, then the actual Current in Amps = the voltage reading in Volts. The "blue" trace then gives the correct current at any place along the waveform.  OK, so now you have instantaneous voltage and current values to go into the power calculation. If you scope will at least display the power waveform, but won't give you the measurements in "numbers in boxes" you can still get the measurements you need off the screen by counting and estimating graticule divisions.

But even if you can't display a power waveform you can proceed as I did in the post above, by mentally "squaring off" the peaks to get their areas. So for a single period, you chop off the tops and use them to fill in the sides, so to speak, until you have a mental picture of a perfectly rectangular pair of areas, one above and one below the zero reference line. Then, for the duration of the area, the "peak" value is the same as the true "average" value since the pulse is flat on top (or bottom) and vertical on the sides. So you can just multiply the squared-off "peak" values of the positive current pulse times the positive voltage pulse and get the power represented by that portion of the waveform. Then a simple multiplication by the duration of that portion gives you the energy concerned. Ditto for the negative going portions: square them off, multiply "peak" (= "average") for that portion, then multiply by the duration. The result is in Joules of energy for the two parts of the single period of the waveform.

This process is the equivalent of performing the instantaneous multiplication of Current and Voltage to get a Power waveform, then integrating that Power waveform across time to obtain an energy curve in Joules.  

In the old days, people would do things like trace the waveform onto fine-grid graph paper and count up the squares to find the areas, or even cut out the shapes from the paper and then weigh the cutout bits on an analytical balance to find the difference in weights which correspond to the difference in areas.


(In my own scopetrace that I posted up above I got the Current probe attenuation wrong. I forgot I was using a 10x attenuated probe instead of a direct connection to the CSR. So the Current is actually displayed at 200mA/div and the Power trace value is actually at 5W/div instead of 500 mW/div. So I have peak output wattage near 19 Watts, but this only occurs for about 5 percent of the time. Squaring off the Power peak I estimate about 14 Watts average during that 5 percent, so across the entire waveform I get a final average of about 14 x .05 = 700mW, which accounts for the heating in the three parallel 100 ohm 2Watt carbon power resistors, and the brightness of the small bulb if that is used instead. The power during the "off" portion is so small that it doesn't even show up in the scope trace, so to first order it can be neglected.)
I will have to keep trying to work out the math on my scope O0


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
The first thing to try would be to vary the horizontal timebase setting to see if those "average" values change with more or fewer cycles displayed on the screen. This will probably tell you if the scope is using just the screen display for the computed measurements.

On my scope I have the choice for those "left menu" measurements, they can use either the screen display or a portion of it defined by some cursors. I don't think I have the option to use the whole memory buffer for those measurements.  The "hardware frequency counter" at top right is always using the full memory buffer though.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-12-07, 09:35:45