Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:07:28 +0000
In message <1164127036.944959.158410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul <softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
Mind reading again? That's the first time I've asked that question. You
referred to exchanging the conductors. I'm asking about swivelling the
T-connector, leaving the scope probe connected to it. You didn't answer
that question.
The goal as I understand is an attempt to measure the current
The potential difference.
as close
to the T-connector.
_Across_ the T-connector.
I am referring to a two-connector common voltage
probe-- key word is "common." One of the scopes connectors is next to
the T-connector. The other scope connector is some distance away from
the T-connector, depending upon the scopes performance. As you know,
there must be two pinholes in coaxial cable for measurement purposes,
unfortunately.
Two? The T-connector constitutes one, I can't see another.
What I mean by swapping the voltage probe connectors is
literally placing the + lead where the ground lead was located, and
then placing the ground lead where the + lead was located.
Understandably, if the ground lead has precisely the same
characteristics as the + lead then such a technique fails. Fortunately
ground leads are connected to a common ground, thereby connected to an
appreciable amount of grounding system.
Which is capacitively coupled to other parts of the system under test, so you're no longer measuring the potential at the single point you thought you were.
Traversing pulses are sensitive
to changes in electrical area.
To be more precise, they're sensitive to the characteristic impedance of the transmission line. Connecting the high-capacitance ground lead is changing it - and you have to consider what that capacitance is coupling it _to_.
Consider a pulse traversing along a thin
wire. At such a point the pulse encounters two wires. The energy
contained in the pulse splits traversing along both wires.
And some of it is reflected.
Essentially
such dispersion is what happens when the pulse encounters ground.
Relatively speaking, such an observed signal is distinct when compared
to repeating the pulse experiment and reversing the scope probe
connector leads.
Moreover, if you analyse where _all_ of your pulse goes, you may well find that some of it is finding its way from the probe through the scope to ground. Since no scope's common-mode rejection is perfect, that's going to give you another spurious signal.
Understandably such a technique is perhaps not the beautiful textbook
example you were expecting. You would perhaps give such a student an F
grade even though such a technique theoretically works. ;-)
He'd get an A if he can account for _all_ the paths the current takes ;-)
What he certainly isn't doing is measuring a single potential difference between two well-defined points in the circuit.
WhatIt's still not the _single_ measurement I was asking for. And it doesn't work at all for a continuous signal. You've disappointed me.
makes such a technique undesirable is the fact it requires appreciable
amount of research to calibrate such a working system.
--
Richard Herring
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- References:
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Richard Herring
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- From: Paul
- Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- Prev by Date: Re: Philosophy and Physics ~ is the physics fringe really representative of physics thought?
- Next by Date: Re: Patinha _Can_ do it, _Wants_ to do it, and _Needs_ to do it.
- Previous by thread: Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- Next by thread: Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|