PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-12-05, 19:39:20
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 31
Author Topic: Itsu's workbench / placeholder.  (Read 44802 times)

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...

DMM across csr2 and csr1 compared to my el cheapo DMM measuring current in the 12V supply lead.
They are in very close agreement  :)

Video here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPS5ZtxStF0

Itsu

Thanks Itsu!
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Can you confirm this by looking at the scope shot? Again, I see a pulse width of about 320us or so. At your stated 50Hz with a 5% duty cycle, that translates to a pulse width of 1ms, which is 3x longer than what the scope shot indicates.

Mmm
Well i will have to double check that,as like you say,the scope seems to show a pulse width that is to short.

All my tests were carried out at 50 Hz,so im not sure what is going on here.

I will have another look tonight.
I may have changed the pulse width in this particular test,for what reason ?, i do not know. It was to show the voltage across the coil during the on time,which it dose.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2602
Here a video of the 40 - 50Mhz sweep with the matching dip.
See how sensitive the dip is to movement of the hand nearby.

@Poynt99
What would you suggest to obtain the maximum amplitude of magnetic flux variations in the core (max. ΔΦ or max. Δ ampturns) at the target frequency of 45.525MHz from the current provided by the Tracking Generator in Itsu's Spectrum Analyzer ?

Wouldn't the maximum energy transfer from the TG to the core manifest itself as a peak on the display?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Brad,

Could the reason you changed the pulse width (and possibly also period T) be because you moved up to a 24V supply for this test?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
@Poynt99
What would you suggest to obtain the maximum amplitude of magnetic flux variations in the core (max. ΔΦ or max. Δ ampturns) at the target frequency of 45.525MHz from the current provided by the Tracking Generator in Itsu's Spectrum Analyzer ?
I have not been following, so I'm going to make a couple suggestions based on my limited knowledge of NMR, the apparent goal, and what has been done so far (I did go back to read the threads and watch Itsu's videos). If the following is idiotic, don't be too harsh on me  :-[

Since Itsu is now using a transformer, and since a parallel LC tank will maximize current at resonance, and current (amp-turns) is what is required to vary core flux, I would suggest trying to tune either the primary alone (TG side), or both sides, to the target frequency. I would suggest trying to utilize an adjustable air capacitor, but you may need to increase your no. of turns (increase L) to get in range and achieve 45.5MHz resonance.

As shown in Itsu's videos, external parasitic capacitance is messing with the existing tuning (existing in the sense that inter-winding capacitance, inductance, and possibly leakage inductance is contributing), and as such I would suggest that the apparatus be placed in an electrostatic shield. The particular construction of RF duplexer filters (which contain variable capacitors and inductors) is a testament to the importance of electrostatic shielding at these frequencies (see pic).

Another suggestion for your experiment would be to dispense with the ceramic magnets and instead combine a DC source and the TG source such that you can manipulate the static magnetic field in a controlled manner (whilst shielded within the electrostatic shield). I would apply the DC source to both the primary and secondary. Isolation between the DC source and the TG/SA output/input could be achieved by capacitive coupling to/from the TG/SA, and inductive coupling of the DC source.

Quote
Wouldn't the maximum energy transfer from the TG to the core manifest itself as a peak on the display?
I would think so, but I don't know what "happens" to the core if/when it reaches NMR.
« Last Edit: 2019-01-22, 02:25:25 by poynt99 »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Brad,

Could the reason you changed the pulse width (and possibly also period T) be because you moved up to a 24V supply for this test?

No
Even at 24 volts,the pulse width remained the same.

Added-i will put a chanel across the base as well,as that should line up with voltage trace across the coil.


Brad
« Last Edit: 2019-01-22, 05:09:19 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Brad,

Could the reason you changed the pulse width (and possibly also period T) be because you moved up to a 24V supply for this test?

Ok,it would seem that i have to of had the FG set to 1% duty cycle.
After looking at it again today,it would seem that i reduced the on time to 1% so as the current stopped flowing just before the current trace flattened out,as at 2% duty cycle,the current peaks and flattens out.
At 3% duty cycle,the inductive kickback trace-thus energy dose not change,but the input is increased to the system.
So maybe i was looking at what the highest efficiency duty cycle was ?.

Anyway,about using these flash scopes to make power measurements  C.C
Seems i can select just how much power my system is using simply by adjusting the trigger position--what good is that  >:(

Below are 5 scope shots,where nothing at all was changed except the trigger position--as noted with the red dot next to it. As i raise the trigger position,my power input increases,and i dont mean by a small amount.
We can go from 790mW's input to 1.57watts input simply by raising the trigger level-->what good is this? ???

Now,i can get a similar effect by increasing the number of samples on the screen,where the least amount of samples (5 on the screen) seems to be where the current reads closest to that of the DMMs current reading,which i know is correct. But increasing the samples as most say is best,increases the current value way above that of the actual current value.

So might as well throw the scope in the bin,and stick to the DMMs for accurate power measurements.as the scope is garbage like this.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
OK makes sense, as that is what I thought was the reason you would have changed the PW (as I stated earlier).

In regards to the trigger level changing your measurements, are you on slope trigger or edge trigger mode? From the symbol it looks like you are in Slope mode. Change it to Edge mode and see if that cures the problem.

Also, try the trigger level at "0" (press the trigger knob in?), or slightly above 0.

If you can't obtain a good clean trigger this way, you could scope the FG output and trigger off that channel (or even better, pipe the FG signal or "trigger out" into the scope's ext. trigger port). I think the general rule is to try and keep the trigger level as close to "0" as possible when making amplitude measurements. If all you are doing is displaying a wave form, the trigger level is less critical.
« Last Edit: 2019-01-22, 14:55:06 by poynt99 »
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
Ok,it would seem that i have to of had the FG set to 1% duty cycle.
After looking at it again today,it would seem that i reduced the on time to 1% so as the current stopped flowing just before the current trace flattened out,as at 2% duty cycle,the current peaks and flattens out.
At 3% duty cycle,the inductive kickback trace-thus energy dose not change,but the input is increased to the system.
So maybe i was looking at what the highest efficiency duty cycle was ?.

Anyway,about using these flash scopes to make power measurements  C.C
Seems i can select just how much power my system is using simply by adjusting the trigger position--what good is that  >:(

Below are 5 scope shots,where nothing at all was changed except the trigger position--as noted with the red dot next to it. As i raise the trigger position,my power input increases,and i dont mean by a small amount.
We can go from 790mW's input to 1.57watts input simply by raising the trigger level-->what good is this? ???

Now,i can get a similar effect by increasing the number of samples on the screen,where the least amount of samples (5 on the screen) seems to be where the current reads closest to that of the DMMs current reading,which i know is correct. But increasing the samples as most say is best,increases the current value way above that of the actual current value.

So might as well throw the scope in the bin,and stick to the DMMs for accurate power measurements.as the scope is garbage like this.


Brad

Brad,

IMO, the problem lies in the horizontal resolution of 10MSa/s combined with the number of pulses and the narrow pulse width.  In your example, very few actual samples are taken during the pulse "on" time thus affecting accuracy big time.  With these sampling scopes averaging the reading over many cycles, only one complete cycle is needed in view and then the horizontal sampling accuracy is greatly improved.  This is evidenced in your case by a lesser number of pulses measuring closer to your DMM readings.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Very few samples? I'm not so sure I'm in agreement partzman.

At 10Ms/s, the scope is acquiring 10k samples per 1ms.

Since Brad's PW is 1ms wide, there are 10k samples acquired per pulse for the scope to work with and resolve the computations. That is a sample every 100ns.

In my opinion that is more than sufficient sampling in this case.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
Very few samples? I'm not so sure I'm in agreement partzman.

At 10Ms/s, the scope is acquiring 10k samples per 1ms.

Since Brad's PW is 1ms wide, there are 10k samples acquired per pulse for the scope to work with and resolve the computations. That is a sample every 100ns.

In my opinion that is more than sufficient sampling in this case.

Yes, I agree with you as I didn't do a calculation with the numbers.  However, the results do appear to suffer from horizontal resolution so I would be curious what the measurements would be with just one sample in view for comparison.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I think that provided exactly one full cycle is displayed, it should be very close to the same result.
 ;)
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Itsu,

Since Brad has, in his own way, acknowledged that the mystery of the unequal average csr currents has been solved, I wanted to say thanks for helping find the truth, and for the courage to use circuit simulation even in the frowning face of chronic resistance to the tool. I think we all have sims to thank for helping resolve yet another FE "mystery". I'm glad you've rediscovered and brought forward this valuable tool.

.99
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Itsu,

Since Brad has, in his own way, acknowledged that the mystery of the unequal average csr currents has been solved, I wanted to say thanks for helping find the truth, and for the courage to use circuit simulation even in the frowning face of chronic resistance to the tool. I think we all have sims to thank for helping resolve yet another FE "mystery". I'm glad you've rediscovered and brought forward this valuable tool.

.99

I did no such thing.

As i have stated many times,the scope was only one measurement method. Also,if the scope was making an error,then that error would exist across both CVR measurements.

Regarding sims--was a PM used as the core material ?
Was that core surrounded by a steel tube with a slit lengthwise ?
Was the sim simulating my coils geometry?, if not,then should we expect the sim to give us the correct outcome ?

Where do you remember seeing a coil of such design being used?
What were the results clearly given by that device that used such a coil configuration?

As i said to Chet in a private message--all will be dismissed--all will fall on deaf ears.

The extra current flowing through CVR2 is still yet to be explained.
An exact replica of my coils geometry is yet to be tested.
Once again,a pushbike has been used to work out why an F16 flies as fast as it dose.

But anyway--such is life.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 713
... the courage to use circuit simulation even in the frowning face of chronic resistance to the tool...
Hi poynt99

Just a comment by the way. At least 90% of what is reported in the field of free energy is science fiction invented by unqualified people on conventional phenomena that can be perfectly explained by current theories. Simulations and models cannot show overunity, but if they show what we observe, then no exotic theories are needed to explain it. They are essential tools even in the search for the unknown. Would most of us not agree with that?


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270
Itsu,

Since Brad has, in his own way, acknowledged that the mystery of the unequal average csr currents has been solved, I wanted to say thanks for helping find the truth, and for the courage to use circuit simulation even in the frowning face of chronic resistance to the tool. I think we all have sims to thank for helping resolve yet another FE "mystery". I'm glad you've rediscovered and brought forward this valuable tool.

.99


Thanks poynt,

i find this tool indeed very valuable as it quickly shows how things look normally electronics wise..
One can sift out very quickly if something reported is abnormal or not.

The learning curcve is way lower then i expected and the web is full of tutorials.

It cannot simulate all things like specially created magnet cored coils etc., but one can use common sense
and simulate these specially created coils by adjusting the resistance, inductance, etc. to get closer to the real thing.

I am in the process of doing so now with Luc his new thread


Thanks for your help on the Sim and in this thread.


Itsu
« Last Edit: 2019-01-23, 15:40:28 by Itsu »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2602
I have not been following, so I'm going to make a couple suggestions based on my limited knowledge of NMR, the apparent goal, and what has been done so far (I did go back to read the threads and watch Itsu's videos). If the following is idiotic, don't be too harsh on me  :-[
Those were pretty good suggestions. I liked the idea of tuning the windings separately. What do you think of maximizing the current through a CSR connected in series with one winding?

I didn't like the idea of combining DC and RF in one winding because in general NMR likes the DC field to be perpendicular to the RF field. It is a geometric issue that necessitates a separate DC winding (or a big magnet).
NMR likes the DC field to be very homogeneous, too, but that is less important in solid iron because its internal -33T field swamps whatever you can throw at it from outside.

I would think so, but I don't know what "happens" to the core if/when it reaches NMR.
On a scope it looks like this:
During the T1 period, the matter absorbs the RF energy of very specific frequency (±100kHz). This absorption loads and decreases the amplitude of the Tx generator, which the receiver can sense.
During the T2 period, after the Tx generator is turned off, the matter re-radiates this RF energy back.
Generally T2<T1.

The RF Envelopes of the received signals have the same shapes as a charging and subsequently discharging capacitor.



Note that the absorption during T1 causes a dip on the Spectrum Analyzer and the re-radiation during T2 causes a peak at the same frequency. If the dip/peak are not separated somehow, they can cancel each other on the spectrogram.

The above leads me to another question for you:  What would be your idea for separating them during measurement?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I did no such thing.
In one of your recent posts you said something to the effect "...I know the meters are right...", and since you have yet to present any direct reference to a meter in DC voltage mode across your CSR2 to confirm the avg current comparison to CSR1, I assumed you had already done that and implied (by the statement above) that they are in agreement. If you have not yet checked CSR2 with a DMM, why not? (Luc and Itsu have, and they are in agreement).

Quote
The extra current flowing through CVR2 is still yet to be explained.
Since AVG and RMS currents have been discussed throughout these two threads, you need to be specific as to which you are referring when making statements such as the above. I have already stated that the RMS current is greater in CSR2, that is not in dispute. If you are still espousing that the AVG current in CSR2 is greater than in CSR1, then please post a video where you measure both with a DMM.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
In one of your recent posts you said something to the effect "...I know the meters are right...", and since you have yet to present any direct reference to a meter in DC voltage mode across your CSR2 to confirm the avg current comparison to CSR1, I assumed you had already done that and implied (by the statement above) that they are in agreement. If you have not yet checked CSR2 with a DMM, why not? (Luc and Itsu have, and they are in agreement).
Since AVG and RMS currents have been discussed throughout these two threads, you need to be specific as to which you are referring when making statements such as the above. I have already stated that the RMS current is greater in CSR2, that is not in dispute. If you are still espousing that the AVG current in CSR2 is greater than in CSR1, then please post a video where you measure both with a DMM.

Ok,well im guessing you either missed some post's and video's,or just choose to ignore them.

So once again,below is a couple of scope shots ,with circuit and scope probe positions.

Then there is one of my video's that show what every other tests i have done have shown--including a DMM reading the average voltage across each CVR.
So how can a DC motor with a cap across it be fooled?
I mistakenly say that C1 is receiving the kickback from the coil,but it dose not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSODFYCqQH8


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Ok,well im guessing you either missed some post's and video's,or just choose to ignore them.

So once again,below is a couple of scope shots ,with circuit and scope probe positions.

Then there is one of my video's that show what every other tests i have done have shown--including a DMM reading the average voltage across each CVR.
So how can a DC motor with a cap across it be fooled?
I mistakenly say that C1 is receiving the kickback from the coil,but it dose not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSODFYCqQH8
The video you linked above (which I have watched 3 times) does not demonstrate the two CSR's being measured with a DMM.

Is a small DC motor in parallel with a capacitor equal to a resistor? Please dispense with the hopeful assumptions for a moment and demonstrate on video a measurement of both CSR's with DMMs.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
The video you linked above (which I have watched 3 times) does not demonstrate the two CSR's being measured with a DMM.

Is a small DC motor in parallel with a capacitor equal to a resistor? Please dispense with the hopeful assumptions for a moment and demonstrate on video a measurement of both CSR's with DMMs.

It takes current to charge a cap,so what dose it mean if the cap in CSR2 position is charging faster and to a higher potential to that of the cap in the CSR1 position?

The two motors are identical,and are driven by the energy received by each cap.

It would seem that you think that the DMM test is going to show something different to that of every other test done.
It would also seem that you think i have not yet done this--used the DMM to measure the average voltage across each CSR, when in fact i carry out that very test before the scope is even turned on.

But as you seek proof beyond that which has already been provided,then so be it.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
 author=poynt99 link=topic=3691.msg71492#msg71492 date=1548250522]

Quote
I have already stated that the RMS current is greater in CSR2, that is not in dispute.

Perhaps this statement needs a little more thought Poynt.

Now,if we were talking an offset AC,then i would agree that in some situations the RMS value could rise while the average value remains the same. But we are measuring RMS value of a DC current,where that current never inverts or has an AC factor. So in this case,the average value would rise along with the RMS value.

This means that not only dose CSR2 have a higher RMS value,it would also have to have a higher average value.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I've said in summary:

a) The RMS current and hence power dissipated by CSR2 is greater than that of CSR1. There is no debate regarding that.

b) The measured AVG current through both CSR's is equal however, despite their RMS levels being unequal.

c) Thus far the sims and two independent bench tests have confirmed b).

d) If you could confirm or deny b) on video with your own bench test, that would be appreciated by all I think.

In regards to your questions on AVG & RMS values, I am not sure exactly what you are looking for. In hopes of dispelling any confusion or misunderstandings, I will say that just because the RMS value of a particular wave form can increase (say by setting its level higher), that does not necessarily have to be accompanied by a commensurate increase in its AVG value.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
I've said in summary:

a) The RMS current and hence power dissipated by CSR2 is greater than that of CSR1. There is no debate regarding that.



In regards to your questions on AVG & RMS values, I am not sure exactly what you are looking for. In hopes of dispelling any confusion or misunderstandings, I will say that just because the RMS value of a particular wave form can increase (say by setting its level higher), that does not necessarily have to be accompanied by a commensurate increase in its AVG value.

What i am saying is that i understand that when the waveform has an AC component-no problem there.

But if the waveform has only a DC component(such as ours do),and the RMS value is increased,then the average value must also increase.

I know two have tested coils here,but can you point out any that have tested the circuit using a coil that is built the same as mine?, as that is the DUT here in question.

I may get to the bench tonight,and get the video up for you.


Brad.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270


Meanwhile back at the ranch.........


Concerning the hunt for the 45.5Mhz NMR response to an iron powdered toroid:

I dusted off my nanopulser and i will try to make it alive again, stable and boxed in.

The idea is to use this nanopulse (± 1KV) as the big gun to be fired to the iron powdered toroid to
see if this will cause any 45.5Mhz NMR response.

One of the problems will be to protect the Spectrum Analyzer / Scope inputs during the pulse, but have it
fully opened for "listening" for the response.

Itsu
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 31
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-12-05, 19:39:20