+ Post New Thread
Results 21 to 31 of 31

11th November 2019, 16:26 #21
 Join Date
 May 2019
 Location
 Roskilde, Denmark
 Posts
 235
 Helped
 9 / 9
 Points
 1,088
 Level
 7
Re: Ohm's Law and Power calculation problem
As a service for the persons reading this post, I made the following calculations:
I took the first full pulse from the data file (SDS00001.CSV attached in previous thread) and it looks like this
Then I inverted the current by multiplying it with 1 and the result looks like this
Note that the current still goes negative while the voltage is positive.
Then I calculated instantaneous power P = U * I and energy ∫P
And I calculated the resistance R = U / I
Note that the resistive spike occurs at the same time as the current crosses zero.
If I in fact have turned the CT the wrong way, then I would really have a "pertuum mobile" in my hands as the output energy would be 2.45J while input is 50mJ (calculated excluding losses i.e. the final amount of energy that enters "R") i.e. 4900% efficiency. So logic dictates that I could not have turned the CT the wrong way around, hence I still believe we are talking about true negative resistance.
In general, it may also be noteworthy that if the resistor "R" is disconnected from the source it behaves just like any ordinary resistor and has a resistance of 883K ohm.Last edited by Swend; 11th November 2019 at 16:43.

Advertisement

12th November 2019, 15:45 #22
 Join Date
 Nov 2012
 Posts
 3,198
 Helped
 790 / 790
 Points
 17,503
 Level
 32
Re: Ohm's Law and Power calculation problem
As a service for the persons reading this post, I made the following calculations:
Such points are singular and must be skipped in the plot. That happens when you have a finite U(t) but the current I(t) becomes zero, you have this problem.
The reason is simple: if the U(t) or I(t) are not constants in time, they must be treated as a complex quantity. Then R(t) is also complex and has a real and imaginary parts. At the singular point, the real and imaginary parts are equal and opposite.
Such behaviours are common whenever there are reactive components.

13th November 2019, 10:20 #23
 Join Date
 May 2019
 Location
 Roskilde, Denmark
 Posts
 235
 Helped
 9 / 9
 Points
 1,088
 Level
 7
Re: Ohm's Law and Power calculation problem

Advertisement

13th November 2019, 11:01 #24
 Join Date
 Nov 2012
 Posts
 3,198
 Helped
 790 / 790
 Points
 17,503
 Level
 32
Re: Ohm's Law and Power calculation problem
Yes that's how it's calculated.
Yes, I agree in the case of singular points, but 6.7e10 as in the plot is still finite.
Your system has a natural frequency and it is damped poorly. You can approximate the system as a resistor far from this frequency (on both sides): but how far is far enough?
And what if both U(t) AND I(t), as the case is here, are not constants in time?
Just for fun:
Consider U(t)=1+2*t (a simple ramp); the current is also a simple ramp: I(t)=2+1*t; what will be R(t)??
If R(t) is constant and real, then I(t) is automatically defined for all t. But how about Re(R(t)) is constant and Im(R(t)) is also constant (but nonzero)??
Simple questions do not have simple answers. I will stop here.

Advertisement

13th November 2019, 11:16 #25
 Join Date
 Jan 2008
 Location
 Bochum, Germany
 Posts
 45,631
 Helped
 13878 / 13878
 Points
 261,221
 Level
 100
Re: Ohm's Law and Power calculation problem
The calculations and respective conclusions are presuming correct I and U measurements.
Particularly the current measurement is very implausible, see previous discussion, e.g. post #12.

13th November 2019, 14:03 #26
 Join Date
 May 2019
 Location
 Roskilde, Denmark
 Posts
 235
 Helped
 9 / 9
 Points
 1,088
 Level
 7
Re: Ohm's Law and Power calculation problem
Yes, but in this data series, the current is never zero, otherwise the calculating script throws a divide by zero warning, which it doesn't in this case.  so no zeros.
As I have said several times, and as it can be seen in the trace, before the pulse  both current and voltage are zero. And the pulse in the trace is the very first after power on.
Yes I can agree.
   Updated   
I'm presuming the measurements are correct until there is valid reason they are not. So far I have not heard any valid reason, "impossible" and "implausible" are not a valid reasons, they are just empty statements, so I kindly ask you to be more serious.
For which valid reason are you making that claim?
You have seen the pulse from start in #21, so I'm still waiting your sentiments.
Since it is in my interest the measurements are correct, I would like to propose that I drop by your lab at your convenience, where you can repeat the measurements with your own apparatus, and even examine the source to your personal satisfaction. And if you don't work for free  then give me your price.
Actually I would personally prefer if the current was positive all the way, I have no use for negative current.Last edited by Swend; 13th November 2019 at 14:11.

13th November 2019, 23:13 #27
 Join Date
 Jan 2008
 Location
 Bochum, Germany
 Posts
 45,631
 Helped
 13878 / 13878
 Points
 261,221
 Level
 100
Re: Ohm's Law and Power calculation problem
I gave some hints why the current waveform is likely to be distorted by the characteristic of the transducer. There may be more problems with your circuit that are not so obvious at first sight.
In my view, the final prove that voltage and current waveforms are not consistent is the apparent "resistance" you have calculated. At this point, it's pretty clear that the measurement function needs to be validated from the very bottom.

14th November 2019, 02:41 #28
 Join Date
 Nov 2012
 Posts
 3,198
 Helped
 790 / 790
 Points
 17,503
 Level
 32
Re: Ohm's Law and Power calculation problem
Yes, but in this data series, the current is never zero, otherwise the calculating script throws a divide by zero warning, which it doesn't in this case.  so no zeros.
As I have said several times, and as it can be seen in the trace, before the pulse  both current and voltage are zero. And the pulse in the trace is the very first after power on
Hint: all physical measurements take time and all the results are simple averages over the measurement time period.

14th November 2019, 11:54 #29
 Join Date
 May 2019
 Location
 Roskilde, Denmark
 Posts
 235
 Helped
 9 / 9
 Points
 1,088
 Level
 7
Re: Ohm's Law and Power calculation problem
So you are stating a personal opinion, and because of that opinion it's clear to you that measurements are wrong and therefore you can't be bothered to look at the facts even for all the money in the world.
It makes me think of this Leo Tolstoy quote:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest
complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it
be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they
have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
   Updated   
Then you have a serious singularity problem.
How can a single point in time measurement be an average?
Anyway I'm getting fed up by this thread, it's generating NOTHING of value. I will declare it as [SOLVED].
For those who have a sincere technical interest in the subject, please feel free to contact me by PM, this is apparently not a subject for public consumption.

14th November 2019, 12:27 #30
 Join Date
 Nov 2012
 Posts
 3,198
 Helped
 790 / 790
 Points
 17,503
 Level
 32
Re: Ohm's Law and Power calculation problem
How can a single point in time measurement be an average?
Then you have a serious singularity problem.
if U(t) =a sin (alpha t) and I(t) = b sin (alpha t), R(t) = a/b but at t=0, it is 0/0. You need to use l'Hospital rule to get R(t=0)=a/b.
I too give up.
1 members found this post helpful.

Advertisement

14th November 2019, 13:34 #31
 Join Date
 May 2019
 Location
 Roskilde, Denmark
 Posts
 235
 Helped
 9 / 9
 Points
 1,088
 Level
 7
+ Post New Thread
Please login