PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-05-26, 05:56:25
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Author Topic: Parametric Charging  (Read 41384 times)
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
Partzman do you have any energy saving lamps any where, I once had loads of problems measuring waveforms and the problem came and went, it turned out to be noisy energy saving spotlights.

Peter,

Well, that's a good thought!  Let's see, I have two LED can  lights above the bench and two 2-lamp T8 solid state fluorescent fixtures for general room light.  I ran two consecutive tests, one with the lights off and the other with the lights on and the tests were essentially identical.  These last tests BTW had a lower COP than the previous test taken earlier today with data in my last post.  The 100ms COP ~ 0.801.

Pm

   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2596


Buy me a beer
PM

I have asked for the full text here

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326962959_Temporal_and_spatial_variations_of_the_equatorial_electrojet_during_storm_times_from_CHAMP_observations

I am a full member of Researchgate. Will post it when I have it.

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
PM

I have asked for the full text here

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326962959_Temporal_and_spatial_variations_of_the_equatorial_electrojet_during_storm_times_from_CHAMP_observations

I am a full member of Researchgate. Will post it when I have it.

Regards

Mike 8)

Mike,

That's great!  I'm a registered member but not full.

Thanks,
Pm
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
All,

Here is a spectrum analysis from 0 to 20Mhz with the circuit running with a 15k load.  With no signal or power to the circuit, the floor is at -72dBm with no signals present.  The signal generator frequency is 687kHz.

Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3433
Itsu and all,

For comparison, these are the data results from testing yesterday and today at approximately the same time with the identical circuit and layout.

Pm

PM,

thanks, those figures speak for them self, immense differences.

I understand you are again back to the circuit from post #9 including a 15K load resistor.

As my scope is not able to use your sweep measurement scheme i cannot do much here to replicate.


Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
PM,

thanks, those figures speak for them self, immense differences.

I understand you are again back to the circuit from post #9 including a 15K load resistor.

As my scope is not able to use your sweep measurement scheme i cannot do much here to replicate.


Itsu

Itsu,

Yes, I think the differences are too great to be measurement error but it's possible I guess.  You're right, I'm back to the circuit in post #9 and when you get the 14N05Ls, you could try that circuit running continuously with a 15k load and 40v supply without having to do a sweep.  If the conditions are right, you should see OU, hopefully. 

I have some other ideas on the circuitry but will have to wait until I can see some gain again.

Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3433

Got my RFD14N05L's, so will be testing them in the circuit tonight.

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
Itsu and all,

In an attempt to overcome the lack of gain during these past few days, I tried experimenting with FDD2572 mosfets which have a BVdss of 150v with a little higher capacitance than the 14N05Ls.  The results are interesting in several ways.  First, they seemed to show an apparent gain when the other devices do not at this time, and they have a large power output with gain when operating in what I call Mode 2.

The schematic shows the circuit and the first scope pix is the single hi-res 100ms sweep.  Referring to the sweep shot, we see the delta energy from 90ms to 100ms is (131.9^2-104.4^2)*3.94e-6 = 12.8mJ.  This equates to a power level of 12.8e-3/10e-3 = 1.28 watts.  The average voltage between these points is (131.9+104.4)/2 ~118v.  So, our load resistor to run continuous at these levels would be 118^2/1.28 = 10.878k ohms.  The closest I had on hand was an 11.17k ohm.  We can also see from this scope pix the change in shape of the Math trace near the end of the sweep.  It is during this time and just prior to the 100ms end that the network's resonant frequency has increased beyond the generator frequency of 636kHz and has entered Mode 2 which previously had been unstable and very inefficient with the 14N05Ls.

The next two scope shots are of the power input seen as 1.294 watts and the output voltage of 123.8v across C1 loaded with the 11.17K resistor which results in a pout of 123.8^2/11.17e3 = 1.372w.  The apparent COP is therefore 1.372/1.294 = 1.06.

Last is the data table for the sweep.

I think this shows that the previous circuits are not optimized due to lack of understanding the effects of the dynamic parametric changes.  IMO, any device used for the parametric element should be profiled and from that data the other circuit values could be established for maximum gain and output.  Any volunteers to help determine the math needed for this?

Pm 


   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
Got my RFD14N05L's, so will be testing them in the circuit tonight.

Itsu

Itsu,

That's great!  I have had a couple of thoughts as to why the performance has fallen off even in clear sky's.  It is a possibility that the substrate diode is being degraded by the repeated conduction cycles on the parts I've been testing with.  If this is the case, then it would be best to use a suitable schottky diode to bypass the mosfet's body diode.  I plan to do some testing on this later today with a fresh set of 14N05Ls and will post the results when available.

Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3433

PM,

I added BAT42's across source drain of the MOSFETs
I had to use a 100 Ohm csr else no voltage/current was registrated above the noise.
687Khz was to low as it went into unstable mode (distorted current traces).
740Khz is just before entering unstable mode.

In this situation, current (both with the probe as with the 100 Ohm csr) show negative mean.
The calculated input power is around 30mW and the voltage across the 14.8K load resistor is 19.9V (26mW).

I will do some further test tomorrow during the day to see if things change.

Itsu
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 951
...
If you or some one can design a loop circuit,operating under the calculated excess energy output,where the output of that circuit is a 25% duty cycle,with a voltage output of around 4 to 5 volt's,and current of around 160mA,then i will build it,and give it a go. O0
...

Hi Brad,

Would like to show you a possible looping circuit I think would be able to maintain a continuous operation of your setup shown in your reply #65 (provided the measured COP=2 was correct, no offense intended with this). In that circuit you had 110 mA input current instead of 160 mA, probably due to a certain transformator and also to the 20% duty cycle versus your more recent data with another transformator and a 25% duty cycle.

You can see that the looping circuit has two decent parts: an isolated step down DC to DC converter and a pulse generator based on a CMOS timer IC, the TLC555C in plastic DIP8 (PDIP8) package, made by Texas Instruments. The absolute maximum output current for this IC is 150 mA, so the 110 mA current needed from its output pin 3 to the input of your transformer would not kill the IC. The LMC555C is also a CMOS timer made earlier by National Semiconductor but its absolute maximum output current is only 100 mA.

First I would suggest to build only the pulse generator with a TLC555C, fed from say around 5 VDC, either from a variable power supply or from two super capacitors in series (each charged up to around 2.5 V). If such pulse gen is able to feed your setup with a very similar pulse wave shape you kindly showed in your post #65, both amplitude and current wise, then energy wise there would be an even clearer insight into your setup and also you then eliminated the use of the FG. Then the purchase of the DC converter chip could be decided and I would return onto that part later on. The timer has a variable frequency and duty cycle control, independently from each other. The CMOS version has a 300-350 uA maximum current consumption (typically 170-200 uA) to operate its internal circuit from 5 V at such a low 28-29 kHz frequency. 
Mouser and Digikey have the TLC555C and they have also the LT8301.  Data sheet for the latter is here:
http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/8301f.pdf   

Gyula

PS edited for additional text
« Last Edit: 2018-09-12, 12:33:31 by gyula »
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
PM,

I added BAT42's across source drain of the MOSFETs
I had to use a 100 Ohm csr else no voltage/current was registrated above the noise.
687Khz was to low as it went into unstable mode (distorted current traces).
740Khz is just before entering unstable mode.

In this situation, current (both with the probe as with the 100 Ohm csr) show negative mean.
The calculated input power is around 30mW and the voltage across the 14.8K load resistor is 19.9V (26mW).

I will do some further test tomorrow during the day to see if things change.

Itsu

Itsu,

OK, things are getting simpler I think.  Here is a test for you using your 14N05L's in Mode 2 which should allow you to see OU.

The schematic is the same as shown in post #232 with the following changes:  L1 is now 700uH but not critical, C2 is a .22uf good high frequency cap, the load resistor is 3.71k ohms, the frequency with my setup is 246kHz, and the supply voltage is now 15v dc.  The reason for the lower supply voltage is to keep the 14N05L out of avalanche to prevent instability while allowing the maximum delta C swing.  C2 now fully bypasses the operating frequency which simplifies the overall analysis of the circuit's operation.  I hope to have some math in the near future which should allow one to pick the best mosfets for the job.

Mode 2 now means that you will tune the input frequency until you have a half-sine current wave in-phase with the positive half of the driver pulse.  This will yield the maximum gain.  You can leave the schottky's in place as they will probably enhance the gain due to their lower forward drop (we'll assume) and still not affect the mosfet's reverse delta C.

The scope pix attached show the Pin at 86.4mw and the loaded C1 volts at 20.18 resulting in a Pout = 20.18^2/3.71e3 = 109.7mw for a COP = 109.7/86.4 = 1.27 .  As you should find, the circuit values are not that critical and you could now test your other mosfets but be sure to operate them below their BVdss rating.

I think anyone who is interested should be able to replicate this test as sweep testing is no longer required but it would be helpful to have profiles of the mosfets used.  The sensitivity to the ambient should not be a factor any longer either which I hope to be able to explain later.

Pm
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
Itsu and all,

It seems that the circuitry used in Mode2 in the last posts is also sensitive to the ambient so, I'm going to stop my research in this area and pursue other avenues unless some other ideas spring to life!  :(

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3433

PM,

bummer, but understandable.   Thanks for the ride though, it was interesting nonetheless.

Itsu
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2937
Itsu and all,

It seems that the circuitry used in Mode2 in the last posts is also sensitive to the ambient so, I'm going to stop my research in this area and pursue other avenues unless some other ideas spring to life!  :(

Regards,
Pm

When you say, "sensitive to the ambient,"  do you mean that you are picking up (50 or) 60-Hz noise - or what?  could you explain a bit please?
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
When you say, "sensitive to the ambient,"  do you mean that you are picking up (50 or) 60-Hz noise - or what?  could you explain a bit please?

Yes I should have explained it.  The circuits I've tested have gain variations throughout the course of a day from <unity to >unity so they seem to be diurnal.  However, there are times when the gains are consistent.  I have tried faraday shielding to no avail so perhaps it is due to measurement errors or some other anomaly.  In any case, it is very frustrating when this occurs as it hinders any logical progress so for me it's not worth pursuing any longer.

Pm   
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 951
Hi Pm,

Whatever anomaly or say a measurement issue "tricks" you, have you considered looping when a circuit shows ou by the measurements? I mean you prepare for looping in advance with a suitable circuit you think proper for the job.  Such looping test could help explore and eventually rule out a measurement issue, no? That would also be a step forward.
Anyway, many thanks for sharing your results.

Gyula
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
Hi Pm,

Whatever anomaly or say a measurement issue "tricks" you, have you considered looping when a circuit shows ou by the measurements? I mean you prepare for looping in advance with a suitable circuit you think proper for the job.  Such looping test could help explore and eventually rule out a measurement issue, no? That would also be a step forward.
Anyway, many thanks for sharing your results.

Gyula

Yes, I agree.  However, it would be nice if someone else could show some signs of replication in this case plus I think I have had other circuits in the past that may have been more likely candidates for looping.

Pm
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2458


Buy me a cigar
Hi partzman.

A few years ago I was heavily into research of TH Moray.

I made a " detector " device using Sterling Silver tubes and a Lead tube cast from some Victorian water pipe. I had the Silver tubes placed top and bottom poking into the Lead tube. All parts were isolated from each other and the assembly was evacuated with a vacuum pump.

I connected the top Silver electrode to a sixty foot long aerial and the bottom Silver electrode to ground. I placed my oscilloscope probe onto the middle Lead electrode.

The scope was monitored over several hours showing a voltage that peaked around 10:30 AM each day. I'm also reminded of a conversation with a.king21 about the Kapanadse " Aquarium " device. The demonstration was cancelled because of an impending electric storm. No reason was offered by Kapanadse other than the device wouldn't work.

Finally, could these circuits deemed " Parametric " ??

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2358.msg36649#msg36649

The top drawing was built, poorly, by me and the storage capacitor exploding both damaged my youngest son and the front of my frequency counter too.

Cheers Graham.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
Hi partzman.

A few years ago I was heavily into research of TH Moray.

I made a " detector " device using Sterling Silver tubes and a Lead tube cast from some Victorian water pipe. I had the Silver tubes placed top and bottom poking into the Lead tube. All parts were isolated from each other and the assembly was evacuated with a vacuum pump.

I connected the top Silver electrode to a sixty foot long aerial and the bottom Silver electrode to ground. I placed my oscilloscope probe onto the middle Lead electrode.

The scope was monitored over several hours showing a voltage that peaked around 10:30 AM each day. I'm also reminded of a conversation with a.king21 about the Kapanadse " Aquarium " device. The demonstration was cancelled because of an impending electric storm. No reason was offered by Kapanadse other than the device wouldn't work.

Finally, could these circuits deemed " Parametric " ??

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2358.msg36649#msg36649

The top drawing was built, poorly, by me and the storage capacitor exploding both damaged my youngest son and the front of my frequency counter too.

Cheers Graham.

Graham,

Thanks for sharing this info on your previous Moray investigation and work.  In the beginning, I thought my circuit was parametric due to the fact that I replaced the mosfets with diodes having fixed capacitors across them to construct the bridge.  These showed no signs of any gain at any time as far as I could tell. 

So, I was surprised when all the variations showed up and I asked myself, 'how could any outside field affect the parametric action' and I honestly don't have an answer for that.

Anyway, your experiments look interesting and I will spend some time on that thread to see what you were up to.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2458


Buy me a cigar
Hi PM.

I've just noticed an error in my previous message.

I missed out " be " in the sentence " Finally, could these circuits ( be ) deemed Parametric?

Morays work fascinated me after reading that in 1910 he had managed to light a 1/4 candlepower lamp from air and ground. Was this real? I suppose we'll never know for sure.

Cheers Graham.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 951
Yes, I agree.  However, it would be nice if someone else could show some signs of replication in this case plus I think I have had other circuits in the past that may have been more likely candidates for looping.

Pm


Dear Pm,

I understand that you have become a bit disappointed and stop research in this area as you wrote because the circuitry used in Mode 2 was also sensitive to the ambient.  I also understand that you had expected more replications, besides Itsu and Tinman.
I think Itsu used the same circuitry like you but he did not measure OU, while Tinman's circuit uses a input transformer he carefully selected out of several transformers to get a measured OU, recently a COP of 2 or so.

Regarding your other circuits in the past that may have been more likely candidates for looping, I do not know whether anyone attempted those circuits to loop back?  No offense but I recall eventual measurement errors you yourself found and reported in some of the cases.

There was your setup last year with the bifilar pancake transformer that TinselKoala replicated ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c ) and his measurements showed a COP of 2.9 which is remarkable of course. Now what I do not know is whether this setup was attempted to loop back with a suitable circuit by you (or by TinselKoala)?  If not, then from your part, why not?   

Regarding my lack of replication attempt of your parametric circuit, I apologize for not doing it. Simply, I am not fully convinced by the measurements and again I mean no offense with this, sorry. This is why I mentioned the looping for you, also for Tinman with a circuit suggestion, that would be the ultimate test. 

However, my take on this is that nobody has any 'obligation' to show a looped circuit to prove he has an OU circuitry, this is completely voluntary, so I do not 'blame' you or anyone else for not doing so.

Maybe others think this differently, saying that this is a private group, you created it, so why not show looping?

When I suggest looping in case someone reports measured OU, then first of all I mean proving it for himself, not to send himself up the garden path with any wrong measurements that are not easy to detect.  If anomaly causes OU and not measurement errors, then looping could maintain operation of course.

I've thought I write these thoughts of mine to you.  Please keep up your excellent work in this or any other area.

Gyula
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457

Dear Pm,

I understand that you have become a bit disappointed and stop research in this area as you wrote because the circuitry used in Mode 2 was also sensitive to the ambient.  I also understand that you had expected more replications, besides Itsu and Tinman.
I think Itsu used the same circuitry like you but he did not measure OU, while Tinman's circuit uses a input transformer he carefully selected out of several transformers to get a measured OU, recently a COP of 2 or so.

Regarding your other circuits in the past that may have been more likely candidates for looping, I do not know whether anyone attempted those circuits to loop back?  No offense but I recall eventual measurement errors you yourself found and reported in some of the cases.

There was your setup last year with the bifilar pancake transformer that TinselKoala replicated ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c ) and his measurements showed a COP of 2.9 which is remarkable of course. Now what I do not know is whether this setup was attempted to loop back with a suitable circuit by you (or by TinselKoala)?  If not, then from your part, why not?

You are referring to what I called MEI or Magneto Electric Induction which utilized the distributed capacitance between tightly coupled windings to convert reactive input power to real output power.  They worked very efficiently and measured OU with some showing infinite OU at power levels around 35 watts but alas, they were actually COP<1.  The reason I never attempted looping these circuits was due to a simple test which indicated to me that the measurements were in error and too critical to measure even with the best of oscilloscopes and probes under the most ideal conditions. 

The test was this: With an MEI device that measured a Pin in the range of -2 to -6 watts, the circuit was driven with a set number of pulses at the correct operating frequency until the circuit stabilized and then the pulse driver was grounded.  Given the fact that the input of the MEI was a capacitive reactance, it was driven by a pulse driver through a given inductance resulting in a series resonant load to the square wave driver.  So, if the input was truly negative power, by grounding the driven end of the input inductor, the device should have not only self run but the resonant voltage should have increased until limited by the overall losses or Q.  This is not what happened but rather the circuit oscillation decayed similar to normal resonance circuits with the drive removed.  IMO this proved the measurements were not real.

Why were the measurements that far off?  The answer is easy and applies to nearly all reactive to real generators.  Refer to the scope shot in my post #29 in Brad's "AT=0" thread for an example of the above.  Here we see a measure Pin = -5.067 with a power out of ~2.3 watts and notice the phase angles.  Now also notice the peak reactive power that reaches ~240 watts!  This is where the error creeps in in that the ratio of peak (or rms) reactive power to the input power is far greater than present oscilloscopes are capable of discerning.  I discussed this with Tek engineers and they didn't/don't have any answers but in fact I did learn that my rated 8 bit vertical resolution MDO is actually capable of up to 16 bits resolution under certain conditions but even this didn't help.  Using a 350MHZ rated scope measuring a 5MHz circuit to find out that just moving a probe over a little affects those phase angles and resultant power ratios. 

This is why I didn't attempt any looping of these devices with additional circuitry.  None of then were/are really worthy of the attempt IMO.

BTW, I did design very efficient class E amplifiers at the appropriate frequencies to drive the MEI's and attempted to measure OU at the class E power source and was not successful.     
   
Quote
Regarding my lack of replication attempt of your parametric circuit, I apologize for not doing it. Simply, I am not fully convinced by the measurements and again I mean no offense with this, sorry. This is why I mentioned the looping for you, also for Tinman with a circuit suggestion, that would be the ultimate test.

I am personally convinced that some of the parametric charging circuits are truly OU but appear to be random as stated.  This randomness may be due to measurement error for the very same reason as stated above for the MEI's because if one looks closely at the scope traces, this is a reactive to real generator.  The problem with attempted looping in my mind is the randomness coupled with the relatively low power and the operating frequencies.

I have continued to work with variations of these circuits in an attempt to resolve the issues but have not posted at this point in time due to lack of anything important to report. 

Quote
However, my take on this is that nobody has any 'obligation' to show a looped circuit to prove he has an OU circuitry, this is completely voluntary, so I do not 'blame' you or anyone else for not doing so.

Maybe others think this differently, saying that this is a private group, you created it, so why not show looping?

When I suggest looping in case someone reports measured OU, then first of all I mean proving it for himself, not to send himself up the garden path with any wrong measurements that are not easy to detect.  If anomaly causes OU and not measurement errors, then looping could maintain operation of course.

I've thought I write these thoughts of mine to you.  Please keep up your excellent work in this or any other area.

Gyula

Thanks for your kind words!

Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3433
Itsu,

OK, things are getting simpler I think.  Here is a test for you using your 14N05L's in Mode 2 which should allow you to see OU.

The schematic is the same as shown in post #232 with the following changes:  L1 is now 700uH but not critical, C2 is a .22uf good high frequency cap, the load resistor is 3.71k ohms, the frequency with my setup is 246kHz, and the supply voltage is now 15v dc.  The reason for the lower supply voltage is to keep the 14N05L out of avalanche to prevent instability while allowing the maximum delta C swing.  C2 now fully bypasses the operating frequency which simplifies the overall analysis of the circuit's operation.  I hope to have some math in the near future which should allow one to pick the best mosfets for the job.

Mode 2 now means that you will tune the input frequency until you have a half-sine current wave in-phase with the positive half of the driver pulse.  This will yield the maximum gain.  You can leave the schottky's in place as they will probably enhance the gain due to their lower forward drop (we'll assume) and still not affect the mosfet's reverse delta C.

The scope pix attached show the Pin at 86.4mw and the loaded C1 volts at 20.18 resulting in a Pout = 20.18^2/3.71e3 = 109.7mw for a COP = 109.7/86.4 = 1.27 .  As you should find, the circuit values are not that critical and you could now test your other mosfets but be sure to operate them below their BVdss rating.

I think anyone who is interested should be able to replicate this test as sweep testing is no longer required but it would be helpful to have profiles of the mosfets used.  The sensitivity to the ambient should not be a factor any longer either which I hope to be able to explain later.

Pm

PM, All,

To wrap things up, i was the last days still playing with the setup with the suggested changes above.

My L1 was 1mH, C2 220nF ceramic and load resistor 3.8K.
15V was used for the supply voltage.

Frequency was tuned so the current half-sine wave was in phase with the drive pulse.
That means at about 170KHz.

This setup turns out to be very close to unity at an effecienty of around 96%.

I still can try different MOSFETs as i was only using the RFD14N05L's with Bat42's.

I never experienced dramatic changes due to time of day or weather changes.

Thanks,    Itsu

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1457
PM, All,

To wrap things up, i was the last days still playing with the setup with the suggested changes above.

My L1 was 1mH, C2 220nF ceramic and load resistor 3.8K.
15V was used for the supply voltage.

Frequency was tuned so the current half-sine wave was in phase with the drive pulse.
That means at about 170KHz.

This setup turns out to be very close to unity at an effecienty of around 96%.

I still can try different MOSFETs as i was only using the RFD14N05L's with Bat42's.

I never experienced dramatic changes due to time of day or weather changes.

Thanks,    Itsu

Itsu,

I'm curious about one thing in your measurement setup, do you measure the voltage across C1 and the load with a meter or are you taking differential measurements with the scope probes?  The meter leads may be affecting the measurements because there is a common mode resonant voltage swing at C1 at the driving frequency.

Pm
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-05-26, 05:56:25