At T=0

[partzman]

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!

Regards,
Pm

Edit

[TinselKoala]

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.

[partzman]

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.    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 

[TinselKoala]

@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:

I 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.   

[partzman]

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

[poynt99]

Gents,

Regarding input power measurements, a friendly FYI reminder about polarity as I alluded to in a previous recent post.

See pic.

[TinMan]

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

[poynt99]

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.

[giantkiller]

My 2 cent and no domineering: 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.

[giantkiller]

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.

[poynt99]

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!

[giantkiller]

Here is the post with shot:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=834.msg14025#msg14025

And shot:

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.

[poynt99]

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?

[giantkiller]

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.