Gary <n...@lazygranch.com> wrote:
I try to minimize dangerous voltages. Anyway, the filtering reduces the slew, so you can't have it both ways.
Starting with 120v gives you 10x the slew rate that starting with 12v does, whatever filtering you use.
If by post processing you are averaging, then you certainly have lost frequency variation data. Averaging is a filter.
You will not lose grid frequency variation data unless you average the 60 per second samples for *extremely* long periods of time, because the grid frequency is generated by rotating machinery weighing many tons that can only change frequency very, very slowly. As I noted before, the simple system I described resolves frequency to better than 0.01 Hz in one cycle, so very little averaging is needed to achieve better resolution than anyone really cares about. As long as the averaging function is more agile than the actual grid (and it will be under all practical conditions), all actual grid frequency variations will be preserved.
You proposed a method using steep hardware filtering, which presumably you do not think loses frequency variation data. The system I described can easily duplicate whatever filter you propose, in post-processing. So either your proposed system cannot track grid frequency variations, or my [built and tested] system can. You can't have it both ways.
If the event is due to noise, you resolved essentially garbage to a microsecond.
No, you resolved a grid phenomenon in which grid-nuts are interested to within a microsecond.
If you average, you have done filtering.
Yes, but for the reasons given above and in the other messages in this thread it is benign filtering that does not obscure any of the grid voltage features grid-nuts are trying to record. Furthermore, it is done in post-processing so you can re-do it at will to resolve whatever you want to resolve. You proposed a scheme with steep hardware filtering, which does not have this flexibility.
This is getting tedious. If you are interested in grid logging, please build one of the simple systems I described and one of whatever system you think will work better, and present data to support your conjectures. Until then, you really aren't contributing anything useful to the discussion.
Best regards, Charles _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
