1) What an incriminating suggestion that the formulas in my Excel file were not pulled down and that only the first row was correct.
How do you explain than that I take your excel, add the CSV data with only negative gains, pull the formula’s down and get instantly the same numbers we have been arguing about for pages?
2) What a totally wrong decision to make all gain figures above 0dB zero, but leave the rest for what it is.
This results is a totally crippled plot giving that silly 50R for Resr in case of the file we were discussing.
There is nothing wrong with values above 0dB, it can be because of an LC resonance or a channel gain issue, but FRA Imp Viewer can never know what the reason is.
In case of a channel gain difference, one thing the user could do if it bothers is to subtract the same dB value from all samples, but a much better thing to do is to correct the file with the probe's calibration file.
Conclusion: FRA Imp Viewer is indeed willingly and totally superfluous corrupting files.
As explained this decision was made because it makes measuring single components like capacitors and inductors easier due to the gain approaching 1. I can agree that this way maybe not the best decision, but I told you immediately that this was done (and kept repeating it that this was the reason for the difference), yet you keep ignoring this and claiming my calculation was wrong.
3) Keep repeating yourself when it's not obvious what I mean with file compensation with the Probe's calibration file. Everybody else will perfectly understand what this means.
I somehow doubt that, but as explained for “me” to understand and know what I should add in my code and how it works, I needed the data in a certain way. For “me” it was not clear, and if you expect me to add your wishes to me application, I do feel I am entitles to ask for the data in a certain way…
It's obvious from the above that I'm done with you, the way you react is like stung by a bee and turning every discussion into an ordinary fight.
Hans, for several pages long you are claiming all sort of stuff is wrong with my app, and ignore my pointers completely to check your calculation. You make bold claims on how I do the mathematics wrong (which made me actually doubt what I have done and made spent quite a bit of time digging everything back up again, mathematics requires time & effort for me and is certainly not my preferred topic to spent my sparse free time on). When I can disprove one of your claims, you only keep finding new claims that “something” is wrong. (which would be still ok if you state that you see a difference, and are not sure who is correct, but you always state it as you are 100% sure it is me, and I have to find the proof it is not)
When I finally receive your Excel on which those claims are based, I only need to copy in the CVS data with gain set to zero, drag the formula’s down, and get exactly
all the results I have with my app, while just before you claim to have done the same this with setting gain to zero, but still see differences:
You mentioned to limit the gain to one.
That will indeed increase the value of L considerably (and influence the capacity) , but also the value of Resr will increase to ca 47K at 100Hz and higher.
So after all the things I have done so far, it seems fair to say that now it's your turn to tell what exactly it is that you do on top of calculating the formulas , that may help to explain part of the differences.
For me this looked like you have all the data at your fingertips, yet it was up to me again to find proof. This was indeed very frustrating to me, hence me reaction.