wattsup
I am not totally sure i understand your setup fully but
If you are using the scope probe ground and connecting this to the signal gen 0V side of the center tapped transformer, (I know you said it doesn't matter if you connect the scope ground or not) then you would get a flat line trace because the scope probe will be in the same position as the scope ground, next the center tap should be reading half the signal gen amplitude the transformer is acting as a divider due to the driven waveform energy being distributed across both primary half windings, the top transformer tap is where you are driving from so will show twice the middle point and full Sig gen waveform, this is exactly what I am seeing in your scope shots as well.
What am i not understanding?
Wow, we step out for a few and come back to see the scenery changes again. Hmmmmmm. Must be all those tornadoes changing the world around.
@Peterae
The scope probe ground is not required here or is not used. Just the probe itself. It does not change the waveform. Yes I know the frequency generator and scope are already grounded. But none of that changes what is. Under the same conditions, three images all different.
Just explain what the scope images tell you about the energy pulse (for simplicity I will say) "as it passes through the coil". After all, we are pulsing energy into the coil and the scope sees this energy.
The scope probe does not care about one side, half or other side. It simply shows the energy reactivity at a given point. Yes or no? What does this tell you about the energy being utilized in this transformer coil, since while the probe is on the point(s), the secondary and LED prove energy is being transferred.
Let me ask it another way.
Do all three images of the scope show that the energy pulsed into the transformer coil is equal throughout the coil?
I need to read this answer from some of you so it does not come from me.
wattsup
PS: When I posted the post #402 on this thread I was thinking of you and your fantabulous Romero wheel build. Sorry I did not tell you earlier but it is just fantastic. Great diameter, great mass availability, just a top notch approach indeed. I just don't want you to fall into the same trap others are in.
Romero made a wheel. It does not mean you cannot do even better. But you have to work smart, logical, keep track of the variables and results, don't play it by ear. Don't even drill the holes for your stator coils yet. Give it a good week or more. Just put one drive coil in series with another and only put the first one on an adjustable support and play around with pulse and coil position. Why, because drilling the stator coil positions means you are putting your money on a fixed system. Working with flexible drive coil positions means you are optimizing the device as you build it. Big difference if you can get 10% to 20% or more torque/rpm if the drive coil is off by 4-5 degrees, that is where the science is. Then with the second coil again optimized. I figure you should have both drive coil pairs plus at least two pick-up coil pairs mounted on movable and tiltable supports that run the rotor to find the optimum method. Let the coils teach you how they best work instead of forcing them to work in the confined area you have decided in advance, just because it is symmetric. You will learn 10 times more this way. Let the preliminaries answer all these questions first, then with your experiments exhausted with resulting answers, build this device the way it should be. If you need any help along the way, let me know.
One word of advice from the start to prevent a possible checkmate. Design it so that one of the two stator plates, let's say the top plate can be turned at least the distance of a pick-up coil, so that you can adjust this one last parmeter. This one last variable may come in handy to pass the OU mark. You should be able to test this again before the stator plates are drilled.
Author
Topic: Romerouk's Muller Replication (Read 492402 times)
