This thread is devoted to the capacitive coupling effect of bifilar and overlay transformers at T=0
So to kick things off,i offer the following test and results.
The circuit is as below.
What we are looking at in the scope shots below,is a 200nS pulse across our bifilar wound coil,which has a winding ratio of 1:1,and wire of the same size and type.
With this type of transformer,we should never see a higher current flow through the secondary to that of the primary,but as you can see,that is not the case here. Here we see not only a far greater current value flowing through the secondary,but a voltage across the load/CVR series equal to that of the voltage across the primary coil.
This is not normal induction taking place here. This is capacitive charging from the primary coil to the secondary coil. The flow of current through the primary has very little to do with the induction of the secondary.
It would seem that the secondary is being induced via the electric field created by displacement current during the charging of the capacitance between coils. As can be seen in the scope shots,this results in far more power being dissipated through the secondaries circuit to that supplied to the primary coil.
If we look at scope shot 1,where CH4 is across our 10 ohm CVR,and CH1 is across the primary coil and CVR,you will notice something very odd with the current trace,and so,the current through the primary coil.
You will see that for the first 25nS,the current through the primary coil rises,but then starts to fall until reaching a 0 value at 100nS. For the next 50nS there is no current flowing through the primary coil,and thus no power being consumed. For the last 50nS,the current inverts,which would indicate power being returned to the source.
Now,if you look at the current trace in scope shot two(the secondary coil circuit),you will see no drop in current that reflects the current value through the primary coil. You will also see that the current flowing through the secondaries circuit is far greater than that flowing through the primary coil-even with the 63 ohm series resistor.
The last scope shot shows all four traces--voltage across the primary CVR series(yellow trace)current through the primary(dark blue trace) voltage across the secondary CVR series(purple trace),and current through the secondary circuit(light blue trace).
I will leave it up to you guys to calculate P/in and P/dissipated by the secondary circuit ;)
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.31, 15:52:14
This thread is devoted to the capacitive coupling effect of bifilar and overlay transformers at T=0
So to kick things off,i offer the following test and results.
The circuit is as below.
What we are looking at in the scope shots below,is a 200nS pulse across our bifilar wound coil,which has a winding ratio of 1:1,and wire of the same size and type.
With this type of transformer,we should never see a higher current flow through the secondary to that of the primary,but as you can see,that is not the case here. Here we see not only a far greater current value flowing through the secondary,but a voltage across the load/CVR series equal to that of the voltage across the primary coil.
This is not normal induction taking place here. This is capacitive charging from the primary coil to the secondary coil. The flow of current through the primary has very little to do with the induction of the secondary.
It would seem that the secondary is being induced via the electric field created by displacement current during the charging of the capacitance between coils. As can be seen in the scope shots,this results in far more power being dissipated through the secondaries circuit to that supplied to the primary coil.
If we look at scope shot 1,where CH4 is across our 10 ohm CVR,and CH1 is across the primary coil and CVR,you will notice something very odd with the current trace,and so,the current through the primary coil.
You will see that for the first 25nS,the current through the primary coil rises,but then starts to fall until reaching a 0 value at 100nS. For the next 50nS there is no current flowing through the primary coil,and thus no power being consumed. For the last 50nS,the current inverts,which would indicate power being returned to the source.
Now,if you look at the current trace in scope shot two(the secondary coil circuit),you will see no drop in current that reflects the current value through the primary coil. You will also see that the current flowing through the secondaries circuit is far greater than that flowing through the primary coil-even with the 63 ohm series resistor.
The last scope shot shows all four traces--voltage across the primary CVR series(yellow trace)current through the primary(dark blue trace) voltage across the secondary CVR series(purple trace),and current through the secondary circuit(light blue trace).
I will leave it up to you guys to calculate P/in and P/dissipated by the secondary circuit ;)
Brad
Hi Brad,
Excellent work, Over the years I have noticed something happening with short pulses, I found generally under 600 us but never got anywhere close to 200 ns. It looks to me, just eyeballing everything, to be about a COP of 6, we will see what the math people say. Good work please do not stop!
Room
I don't know whether this helps, but I have found great insight by analysing transformers in the magnetic domain where flux Phi acts like current and ampere-turns (mmf) acts like voltage and the core reluctance R acts like resistance. You can go beyond the simple magnetic Ohm's Law (mmf=Phi * R) to include dynamic analysis when a loaded secondary acts like an inductance L obeying mmf=-L*dPhi/dt. If you can force some other mmf into the circuit obeying something like mmf=+K*dPhi/dt then you effectively nullify the appearance of the load and you get into unusual territory where you get more out than you put in. I have a feeling that capacitive coupling from the primary drives current through the secondary to achieve something like this. If you consider sine waves it comes down to phase shifts, and if you plot flux v mmf (flux v ampere-turns) you get a lissajous figure that is a simple ellipse. It is well known that a CCW traverse of that ellipse represents a loss (usually quoted as a core hysteresis loss) but a CW traverse represents a gain (the core seemingly supplies power). Perhaps that capacitive coupling is doing just that. I'll try to put some meat onto this hypothesis.
I am reminded of small signal transformers that deliberately have a capacitor connecting primary to secondary, the Foster Seeley discriminator or FM demodulator is an example. There the phase shift provided by the capacitor is used to advantage.
Smudge
.
Assuming for a moment that the transfer from Pri to Sec is largely through capacitive coupling of the bifilar windings (certainly possible), would the current measurement through CVR1 in its present position have much meaning?
It is a little more difficult, but CVR1 placed in series with the diode (cathode / output side) might provide a current trace more similar to that on CVR2.
One method to do this would be a differential measurement using two probes across the series CVR1. If CH1 and CH4, then you would use a math trace of CH1-CH4 (or vice versa). Experiment with the ground probe of each, as you may not need one at all, since one of the other channels is already on ground.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2018.08.31, 20:31:06
Assuming for a moment that the transfer from Pri to Sec is largely through capacitive coupling of the bifilar windings (certainly possible), would the current measurement through CVR1 in its present position have much meaning?
It is a little more difficult, but CVR1 placed in series with the diode (cathode / output side) might provide a current trace more similar to that on CVR2.
One method to do this would be a differential measurement using two probes across the series CVR1. If CH1 and CH4, then you would use a math trace of CH1-CH4 (or vice versa). Experiment with the ground probe of each, as you may not need one at all, since one of the other channels is already on ground.
CVR1 is there to show that it is capacitive coupling that is creating current flow through the secondary,and not normal induction.
Brad
And where does that leave you?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2018.09.03, 04:13:08
And where does that leave you?
Ah,ok
This thread is a carryon from the discussion on the BEMF minomer thread.
If you read the last couple of pages on that thread,you will know what this one is about.
Sorry,i should have stated that in the first post here.
Brad
Brad,
Current through the capacitive coupling does not flow through CVR1 so using just CVR1 as a measure of total input current is incorrect. This is the point that poynt is making. (Sorry about too many points there!) You have already done a measurement of a proper input current waveform in your reply 103 on the parametric charging thread using your light box. If you did that here you would see the capacitive current added to the primary coil current. That could alter things considerably in respect of true input power.
I have looked into this from the theoretical viewpoint using magnetic domain analysis where I consider a deliberate capacitive connection from the primary across to a tertiary winding, so the transformer has three windings. You can get the situation where the input to the primary coil is completely reactive so no real power transfer there. Unfortunately there is a real power transfer through the capacitor, so OU is unlikely. I have some equation solving to do before I can show definiteley no OU.
Smudge
Brad
Please reread what Poynt is saying and what Smudge has also said. There is a sneak path through the interwinding capacitance that bypasses the CVR in it's current position. If you add this capacitance to your drawing you will see it.
As Poynt has stated the CVR should be in the SG lead.
Regards
author=ion link=topic=3658.msg69570#msg69570 date=1535980248]
QuotePlease reread what Poynt is saying and what Smudge has also said. There is a sneak path through the interwinding capacitance that bypasses the CVR in it's current position. If you add this capacitance to your drawing you will see it.
OK,has anyone read my first post?,where i clearly state that this power transfer is via capacitive coupling.
QuoteAs Poynt has stated the CVR should be in the SG lead.
Are you sure this will then show that the current through the primary coil will be the same(if not higher) than that flowing through the secondary coil and load?.How will more power be delivered from the positive end of the coil to that of the ground end,so as we have a potential difference across the secondary coil?
Where would you draw the capacitor so as it would make more current flow through CVR2 to that of CVR 1 ?
Instead of just dismissing something so quickly,i offer you a little something.
Below is the amended schematic,and scope shot of the results.
CH2 is showing the current through CVR 1. V/PD is 200mV for that channel
CH1 and CH3 are showing the differential voltage across CVR2,where the secondary circuit is now floating.
The V/PD of CH1 and CH3 is 1V/PD
We now know any current flowing into the primary coil,must flow in through CVR 1 on the ground side,as that is the way current flows.
Enjoy
Brad
With fast pulses Brad has demonstrated that you can't ignore interwinding capacitances. You also can't ignore self capacitance of an isolated body. Don't matter how far away from earth or ground you go a body still has self capacitance. Attached are Brad's two circuits showing the input current paths that do not flow through CVR1. The second circuit where the secondary is isolated I show the self capacitance as part of that current path. If Brad could do his light box trick or move CVR1 into the earthy connection from the pulse source (i.e. the pulse source is floating) this would throw light onto total input current
Smudge
Transients with nanosecond rise times are
effectively 'Radiant Energy' and will take
whatever path is afforded them. Often
very unorthodox.
Dear Brad
I want to say that I think your experiments with capacitive coupling between windings is valuable especially if accurate I/O power measurements can be obtained.
This area was somewhat explored back in the pancake coil testing but perhaps not enough depth of research was done.
Partzman is also working along these lines with his transformer made of Litz wire which provides a maximum capacitive coupling effect for round conductors when the separate twisted strands are used as pri and sec.
We suppose the next step might be pri and sec made of foils with a dielectric, like a capacitor.
It should be interesting to see if the capacitance can pump the ether in a manner to extract OU.
Thanks for creating this thread.
Regards
Quote from: ion on 2018.09.04, 12:04:00
Dear Brad
I want to say that I think your experiments with capacitive coupling between windings is valuable especially if accurate I/O power measurements can be obtained.
This area was somewhat explored back in the pancake coil testing but perhaps not enough depth of research was done.
Partzman is also working along these lines with his transformer made of Litz wire which provides a maximum capacitive coupling effect for round conductors when the separate twisted strands are used as pri and sec.
We suppose the next step might be pri and sec made of foils with a dielectric, like a capacitor.
It should be interesting to see if the capacitance can pump the ether in a manner to extract OU.
Thanks for creating this thread.
Regards
Ion
It just so happens that i still have that coil i made out of flat copper tape,which has clear durex tape in between the two bifilar windings. I made this back when we were looking into and testing bifilar pancake coils over at OU.com. I had totally forgot i had that until you just mentioned making such a coil.
If my memory serves me correct,i think it had a capacitance value of 1.2uF between the two windings,which is quite high for a bifilar wound coil.
I'll go see if i can find one of the videos on it,and post it here.
Brad
Ok ION,i found one of the video's O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JK7PYBdMUI
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.09.04, 12:18:33
Ok ION,i found one of the video's O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JK7PYBdMUI
Brad
Nice O0
I have some ideas for Pin / Pout testing of your device that may be interesting. I'll post them later when I draw something up.
Quote from: ion on 2018.09.04, 13:43:12
Nice O0
I have some ideas for Pin / Pout testing of your device that may be interesting. I'll post them later when I draw something up.
Looking forward to it.
Brad
Insights into the Capacitance that exists between
the Primary and Secondary windings in a transformer:
What is an Electrostatic Shield? (https://canadatransformers.com/what-is-electrostatic-shield)
What is a Faraday Shield? (https://canadatransformers.com/faraday-shield)
Would the Shield be a desirable feature for a Pulse Driven
Power Transformer?
Quote from: muDped on 2018.09.04, 22:53:18
Insights into the Capacitance that exists between
the Primary and Secondary windings in a transformer:
What is an Electrostatic Shield? (https://canadatransformers.com/what-is-electrostatic-shield)
What is a Faraday Shield? (https://canadatransformers.com/faraday-shield)
Would the Shield be a desirable feature for a Pulse Driven
Power Transformer?
If the input is purely reactive,can capacitance between winding actually put current and voltage back into phase to once again create real powe?.
If so,would this mean no power in,due to it being all reactive,but power out,as it is real power?.
Brad
Quote from: ion on 2018.09.04, 13:43:12
Nice O0
I have some ideas for Pin / Pout testing of your device that may be interesting. I'll post them later when I draw something up.
I dusted off the old coil,and was doing some frequency sweep's,when i spotted the math showing something odd at a certain frequency.
Anyway,here is the video related to the scope shot below.
Forgot to mention divide power by 100,for the 100 ohm resistor-but you get the idea.
thought's ?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCyTSorOzss
I will also add,as can be seen in the scopeshot,that we also have a DC current flow from an AC source. Although it looks like an AC waveform (blue trace),it has a clear DC offset,where only the amplitude of that DC current is changing.
Brad
Nicely done Brad.
A note on the scopeshot: If you tell the channel that is monitoring current to display Units of "Amps", then the Math trace 1 x 2
usually is smart enough to automatically give units in Watts. If both channels Units remain set to Volts the math trace shows
up as "U" which I think is just generic "Units".
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.09.07, 09:45:04
Nicely done Brad.
A note on the scopeshot: If you tell the channel that is monitoring current to display Units of "Amps", then the Math trace 1 x 2
usually is smart enough to automatically give units in Watts. If both channels Units remain set to Volts the math trace shows
up as "U" which I think is just generic "Units".
Thanks TK
Is this something worth looking into?,or is there nothing special going on here?.
I have not seen the scope show a negative power calculation before.
I have found many different frequencies where i can get the power measurement on the scope to read a negative value,and as you can see,get the current to go DC without rectification-well,of the known type anyway.
Another scope shot below from tonight's experimenting.
20V/PP from the SG at around 4.31MHz.
I am using a 100 ohm CVR,and so the calculated power must be divided by that 100.
Have you been able to get your scope to give a negative power calculation?.
If so,what is going on here?--dose this mean that the coil is producing more power than is being delivered to it?.
It is good you have the same scope as mine,and i will swap the current trace to Amps O0
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.09.07, 13:05:51
Thanks TK
Is this something worth looking into?,or is there nothing special going on here?.
I have not seen the scope show a negative power calculation before.
I have found many different frequencies where i can get the power measurement on the scope to read a negative value,and as you can see,get the current to go DC without rectification-well,of the known type anyway.
Another scope shot below from tonight's experimenting.
20V/PP from the SG at around 4.31MHz.
I am using a 100 ohm CVR,and so the calculated power must be divided by that 100.
Have you been able to get your scope to give a negative power calculation?.
If so,what is going on here?--dose this mean that the coil is producing more power than is being delivered to it?.
It is good you have the same scope as mine,and i will swap the current trace to Amps O0
Brad
Thanks Brad, interesting. I only have an FG that goes up to 1MHZ. I do have some of those coils though and the same scope. Hopefully tomorrow night I'll get them out of the shipping container into the shed. `
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.09.07, 13:05:51
Thanks TK
Is this something worth looking into?,or is there nothing special going on here?.
I haven't been following closely because I'm dealing with some personal issues at present, so I can't really evaluate anything except what I see now.
Quote
I have not seen the scope show a negative power calculation before.
I have. I think we have to be very careful talking about "negative" power. The calculation V x I gives a negative answer when either (but not both) V or I are negative. This means that the current direction is important in giving the answer, but the current direction isn't important when considering power dissipated in a load. That is, current going either direction through a load still gives "positive" power dissipation in the load. And "power returned to the source" is often simply dissipated in that source, as anyone who has burned out the output resistors of a FG knows. So that gives a calculation of negative power but still results in real power being dissipated away from the DUT, somewhere or another.
Quote
I have found many different frequencies where i can get the power measurement on the scope to read a negative value,and as you can see,get the current to go DC without rectification-well,of the known type anyway.
Check out Tesla's patent #413,353
It might be relevant here.
Quote
Another scope shot below from tonight's experimenting.
20V/PP from the SG at around 4.31MHz.
I am using a 100 ohm CVR,and so the calculated power must be divided by that 100.
Have you been able to get your scope to give a negative power calculation?.
If so,what is going on here?--dose this mean that the coil is producing more power than is being delivered to it?.
I'm trying to find an example in my files of such a case. Something as simple as having a probe connected "in the wrong direction" can cause this, and I also think that phase shift values near the 90, 180, and 270 degree points cause whacky calculation results. Not because the results are wrong necessarily but because the calculations are so very sensitive to small changes in the measurements at those points (hence noise and other unwanted influences can complicate things.)
Does this mean the coil is producing power instead of consuming it in its winding resistance and EM radiation? Probably not, but I'm saying that because it's the default position. Just like with Partzman's Mystery Coil, also operating at very near 90 degrees in VI phase space, one may need a lot of further work to track down the actual cause of a particular unusual or interesting measurement.
Quote
It is good you have the same scope as mine,and i will swap the current trace to Amps O0
Brad
Keep up the good work. I can't follow along as closely as I might want to at the moment but I hope I can help in some small ways.
O0
TK and Brad,
Would one or both of you please set your Rigol scopes for a horizontal sweep of 10ms/div and tell me what the scope says is the sample rate in samples/second with that setting? It would be greatly appreciated! O0
Regards,
Pm
Edit
Horizontal at 10 ms/div and other settings at poweron default:
With Memory Depth set to "Auto" in Acquire:
CH1 only : 50 MSa/s
CH1 + Ch2 : 50 MSa/s
CH1 + CH2 + CH3 : 25 MSa/s
All four : 25 MSa/s
With Memory Depth set to maximum available in Acquire:
CH1 (24M) : 50 MSa/s
CH1 + CH2 (12M) : 25 MSa/s
CH1 + CH2 + CH3 (6M) : 25 MSa/s
All four (6M) : 25 MSa/s
There may be other variables that could also affect sample rate (Averaging, math, vertical attenuation, basically anything that loads the processors?) but I don't have time to track them down right now.
Also, this is what the scope is reporting. I don't know if it is possible to check to see if the scope is _actually_ sampling at the reported rate. I'm sure it is, somehow, but I don't know how.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.09.07, 17:30:16
Horizontal at 10 ms/div and other settings at poweron default:
With Memory Depth set to "Auto" in Acquire:
CH1 only : 50 MSa/s
CH1 + Ch2 : 50 MSa/s
CH1 + CH2 + CH3 : 25 MSa/s
All four : 25 MSa/s
With Memory Depth set to maximum available in Acquire:
CH1 (24M) : 50 MSa/s
CH1 + CH2 (12M) : 25 MSa/s
CH1 + CH2 + CH3 (6M) : 25 MSa/s
All four (6M) : 25 MSa/s
There may be other variables that could also affect sample rate (Averaging, math, vertical attenuation, basically anything that loads the processors?) but I don't have time to track them down right now.
Also, this is what the scope is reporting. I don't know if it is possible to check to see if the scope is _actually_ sampling at the reported rate. I'm sure it is, somehow, but I don't know how.
TK,
This is great and thanks so much for going to the trouble of documenting this. O0 I think it is safe to say that your model of Rigol is capable of doing accurate 100ms sweeps of the parametric circuit to obtain charging profiles especially in the 100-500kHz range.
Thanks again,
Pm
@PM: It can do the sweeps (like Bode plots?) but unfortunately it doesn't have a simultaneous frequency readout along the horizontal axis. So you can see peaks and valleys all right, you just can't tell accurately at what frequencies they occur.
@TinMan: One other thing about the scope:
QuoteI am using a 100 ohm CVR,and so the calculated power must be divided by that 100.
So check the Channel Probe settings. Note all those values in there. Of course you will keep your probe itself set to 10x as normal... but you can choose any of those settings in the Probe menu... and sometimes "trick" the scope into correcting for the CVR value by using the right "wrong" setting here. ^-^
Brad,
Here is a scope shot of one of my trifilar pcb coils TK mentioned that seemed to have negative input with positive output. The output voltage on CH3(pnk) was 10.84v rms across a precision 51 ohm load for a pout of +2.3 watts with a pin of -5.07 watts mean. As I remember, the error was in the slight phase changes from inductive and probably capacitive pickup in the scope probe leads. I sure wish it was real!!! :(
Pm
Gents,
Regarding input power measurements, a friendly FYI reminder about polarity as I alluded to in a previous recent post.
See pic.
Quote from: partzman on 2018.09.07, 21:52:35
Brad,
Here is a scope shot of one of my trifilar pcb coils TK mentioned that seemed to have negative input with positive output. The output voltage on CH3(pnk) was 10.84v rms across a precision 51 ohm load for a pout of +2.3 watts with a pin of -5.07 watts mean. As I remember, the error was in the slight phase changes from inductive and probably capacitive pickup in the scope probe leads. I sure wish it was real!!! :(
Pm
I did change the probs over to 10x,and seen no change in the P/in P/out values.
Now trying to work out how Poynts DC diagram and values in the above post relate to an AC input ?.
Brad
Sorry, I should have anticipated the question.
Clarification: Of course the above concept applies to all sources, whether they be DC, Pulsed DC, or AC.
My 2 cent and no domineering: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=834.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=834.0)
I just tried to reproduce this with Jason's SSRB boards, my two signal generators and a new rigol ds1054. Should have worked.
Alas I could not and dont know why. Could be my ignorance. Been known to happen.
I did not use Jason's controller that I built and tested with him. But with reproduction of the input parameters using sig gennys should have been easy peasy. Twas not.
I said Hmmm. I didnt want to go down setting up such a large peripheral reproduction in installing more software on the next pc. I could still do that tho. The bucket list is a fast moving train gathering new cars every day and I am at the wrong station. I had to switch tracks again and shelved any further attempts.
I hope enough read this as this is the coup de grace moment:
That secondary additive pulse arrives from a reflection to a SWR returning to the source. My other latest attempts have spelled this out.
Clue: You have to get out of the way of the return. Check the parameters in the posted thread.
When that returning pulse is in phase with the next transmission we get additive power. And that is what you are seeing. Think power line reflections.
Now position that SWR at a particular point in a ring configuration and one gets a huge additive, reflective, resonant peak.
The tester will see the grand results in their tools. I added LEDS to the sinks on the outside edge of the resonant fields and they lit very brightly(I cant remember the guys name about the two counter LEDS on a radiant probe.) No more videos from me as the last tests have become very obvious. I blew LEDS in the resonant field. I had to stack LEDS like in the stun gun charge pump stage. Again I took the stun gun circuit and inserted large resonant loops in the charge pump stage. I was chasing the attempt to build this pump greater. Operation was at 9Mhz just to compensate for the loop size. SM told me not to do this by an airport. The output inductor primary field impacts the input inductor secondary creating an in air feedback loop. I state this because when the tester gets the SWR and resonant down pat then they will want to connect differing loads to the testing circuit. And play by moving the SWR peak around the loop.
I hope this fits in with what this thread is trying to achieve and Merry Christmas.
My failed test could have been the scope impedance. This test was on a Rigol and the previous test was on an Owon.One could just look up the specifications but that doesn't fly in my world. Real tests need to be made.
Interesting GK.
Do you have any pics of the comp wave?
btw, Peter and I were working on something that is similar about 9 years ago (2009). Subsequent to this, do you remember that scope shot I posted that seemed to have gotten the attention of a few, including yourself and Grumpy I think? (I looked for it and not sure I found the exact one, but here is one that might be similar). You had asked me to post the schematic. Perhaps now is a good time to post that and explain the direction I went after the work I did with Peter.
The pic shows the resulting output train of narrow (~14ns), 130Vp pulses using a 32ns PW to the MOSFET switch, and only a 20V supply! I am confident this is NOT inductive kickback!
Here is the post with shot:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=834.msg14025#msg14025
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=834.msg14025#msg14025)
And shot:
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=834.0;attach=4993;image%20%5B)
The coil was Grumpy's recommendation.
At the time I knew there were reflections from somewhere but it took a couple of years to see where they were coming and quite possibly the secondary winding had a dampening effect.
I now know that the primary is pulsed and the secondary is read. The secondary is biased with a non ground source. This makes it an antenna of sorts that absorbs the ripple.
I just realized that my last test did not used an ungrounded bias. I also believe the dampening absorbs the reflections.
The effect is the accumulation of the fet ringing and the returning reflection. One can see the critical timing in this.
I went off trying different changes.
I dropped off there due to life changes at the time.
I have spent the last 4 years trying to co-mingle the ringing and reflections with resonance.
Still a lot of unknown parameters from my view.
And once that is achieved then the EMP has to be slowed down to capture and not break things.
The COMP wave came as a result of the information provided by spherics.
As this is years ago and my memory isn't what it used to be, did it ever come to light as to who spherics was and what his ties (if any) were to Steven Mark?
No ties validated.
He was involved with nuclear sciences in some way because of the things he articulated.
He posted a picture a nuclear bomb setup at Alamogordo, NM and waited for responses.
I posted I was interested in the coax running all over the bomb itself. He asked me why is this so?
I restated controlled, eclipsing frequencies during the ECD build time. He posted a smiley emoji and I never heard from him again nor did anybody else.
I guess he was satisfied with the seeds he planted. Too bad too. He was a sharp cookie.
From what I can remember is after he communicated with Lindsay he never much communicated with others too much after that. I don't feel too special about his individual response to me for he might have talked with others in their own way too. I was too involved mentally with the addiction to the TPU and found myself getting spread too thin. And that is why to this day I harp on mixing frequencies.
Now it might not be the actually mixing of frequencies that do it but the awareness made of the frequencies themselves and the other parameters of them that he tried to get us to focus on.
Transmission reflections and power distribution failures were my final outcome.
Tesla did this on purpose with his earthquake machine and I associated this magnetically to the TPU.
SM mentioned Radio shack. 555s were available along with lm324s and FETs. As I looked back I always felt like a kid in candy store after that. By paralleling two 555s with a wire length delay between them we can achieve a very high speed switching scheme.
I believe SM was very truthful in a very obscuring way about the TPU. Anybody else that came along with insights that had been involved with D.O.D. technology was not at liberty to teach anybody outright. I believe Spherics to be one of these types.
The other piece of the puzzle was Radio shack did not sell fet drivers as these were way too expensive for their retail model.
As SM was in audio he came from the FET linear operating range. When he switched FETs off and on digitally he must have heard or seen large speakers bust up a room by the high power clicking.
He was in the audio history where the industry change was happening where FET operation went from ac linear to dc frequency scheme of audio transmission.
And each revelation brought ten fold more on.
One of the conspiracy theories is blaming the Rothschilds and Rockefellers for changing the tonal range of public audio frequencies from Solfeggio to Intonation. Nothing really hidden. Solfegios transmitted with power over copper would decimate the analog electronics at the time. Tubes would have busted because of the fascination with audio fidelity. And IC designs surely wouldn't have made it off the prototyping bench.
Just another reason why tubes were mentioned. No particle physics, just fidelity and frequency scheming.
With fidelity comes reverberations or transmission reflections.
A lot of elbow bending over the simplest of things.