Re: TRIAC dimmer control spreadsheet; was Re: Controlling Holiday Lights

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 20:26:40 -0700, sylvan butler
<ZsdbUse1+noZs_0611@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<slrnektarg.fbp.ZsdbUse1+noZs_0611@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 10:43:14 -0500, Marc_F_Hult
<MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>[a bunch of innuendo and lies wrapped around a strawman that I
>supposedly said I wanted log curve after Marc supposedly did not say he
>wanted equal intensity steps]

hmmm ...  We don't understand each other, do we?

Here's one conventional way organizing what we have been discussing:

1) Real World System, represented by  --->
2) Conceptual Model of real world (typically a simplification) --->
3) Simulation Model  --->
   3a) Mathematical Model(exact or approximate) typically as equations
	AND(OR)
   3b) Physical Model
4)  Solutions
   4a) Math: Numerical results (often themselves approximations)
	AND(OR)
   4b) Physical:  Observed results
5) Applications,typically choosing from a range of legitimate solutions
        (4a,4b) which are typically approximations of the Real World (1)

The solutions (4a) and(or) (4b) can be compared to the Real World (1) to
assess how close they are to reality. How close is "close enough" depends on
the objective (purpose), is often subjective, and is assessed in
Applications(step 5).

We are in agreement through step (1) ( I think ;-)

My Conceptual Model (2) of the physics of how TRIACS work was/is correct --
albeit simplified because, eg, it neglects band-gap losses.

The equations (3a) I use/d are also approximations, although the solutions
to the equations are themselves exact within rounding error. (For complex
systems, the solutions to the equations are often themselves approximation.)

These equations can be used to create a suite of solutions (linear,
square-law, log dimmer curves etc). Depending on the purpose, each may or
may not be "close enough".

((There are no straw men here. These are each -- including linear equal-step
-- legitimate solutions depending on the purpose. Sylvan wrote: "Marc
supposedly did not say he wanted equal intensity step" ;-) You also wrote: I
[sylvan] supposedly said I wanted log curve" -- which was the approximation
closest to you stated qualitative description of human perception of
light.))

But sylvan's/your Conceptual Model (2) of how TRIACS work was flat-out
wrong.

And you were unable to provide mathematical descriptions as either waveforms
or equations (3a & 4a  See your non-responsive answers  to Dan's simple
questions.

And because your conceptual model (2) of how TRIACS work was incorrect,
 --> your Physical Model (3b) was _also_ incorrect (unsynchronized control
	 of a TRIAC gate)
 --> your Physical Solution (4b) was _also_ incorrect (you could never
	create a non-flickering	50% of power, voltage, light output or
	anything else).

Although your 'Solutions' (4b) didn't actually didn't work, you had in mind
what you wanted the results to look like and apparently believed that
'perceptual coding' in (3) was somehow going to fix the problem with you. It
didn't, couldn't, and never can (except by chance) because the physics in
the conceptual model are more fundamental than the conceptual model (See my
previous comments to this effect.)

>This is truly hopeless.  It is also rather funny that you bring a
>densitometer and film and toners and papers into this thread after I
>just spent a week with Dr Hunt (no, I'm not on a first-name basis with
>him, maybe you are).  It is not even funny how much I got from a
>lunchtime 5 minute conversation with him re. light and color
>reproduction, vs how much time I've spent repeating myself for you.

Actually, we've accomplished the main objective quite completely.

I have been persistent in countering your unproven claims that you can make
a TRIAC dim evenly without synchronizing to the zero-crossing. That is now
clear, with or without your cooperation, and hopefully others will not waste
_their_ time attempting your futile approach. IOW, this is not about sylvan.
It's about helping others.

Although you too presumably benefited: you could spend the rest of your life
putzing with perceptual coding and *never* get the TRIACS to work with your
approach. You did larn that, right? ;-)

That we might also benefit more  from this overall discussion is part of the
reason I spent time explaining my approach to things in the paragraphs
above.

>But hey, you did a lot better at this than would I at hydrology!

What I outlined above is one scientific approach, not a geologic, or
hydrologic one. Physical modeling (your apparent approach under this
organizational scheme) is neither more or less valid than mathematical
modeling. Both needed to be checked (calibrated, validated, refined, choose
your action/verb) with the Real World (1).

What is your field ( 'area of expertise', 'core competency') ?

I _do_ hope this helps ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org