PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-11-29, 02:13:27
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
Author Topic: LTJT - poynt99 Tests Assembled Unit  (Read 38045 times)

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

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

The basis for your conclusions about that graphic is very weak.

Look at the voltage and current; they are both mostly in the negative area....doesn't that seem strange to you?

How can you have a negative supply voltage???????????????????????????????

It would appear that the scope probes are connected - to + rather than + to -, OR the scope channels are inverted.

Something does not look right at all. At one part of the trace I've drawn a vertical line through, you have a negative voltage x a negative current, and the power trace shows that as negative power. How can that be?

I'm afraid I do not trust those measurements Lawrence. I hope you can agree that there is something quite out of sorts there.

.99
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
That's a fascinating one Poynt.  It looks like when you lower the supply voltage below a certain threshold you get a different oscillation mode at about 330 KHz, which is very fast.
Yes, as the supply voltage decreases Fo increases. We touched on this the other day.

Quote
I can see that when the transistor switches off, that some of the energy stored in the core gets pushed back into the supply rail.  Did you increase the output impedance of the voltage source also to simulate a nearly dead battery?  That's one part of explaining the spikes.
I did increase the impedance of the source, but not as you may think. The voltage measurement also may not be what you think. It is easy to make a simple change that can render the measurements misleading. In this case it looks like there is energy going back to the source, but there isn't. It also may look like the voltage output is spiky, but it isn't.

Quote
I am really going out on a limb here.  It takes some serious analysis work on the bench to figure out the cause of a glitch.

MileHigh
Don't risk falling off that limb. What you see is not what is truly happening. I wanted to see if this is what Lawrence was referring to, and also to show how easy it is to become fooled by your measurements if you are not aware of some simple but critical factors.

.99
   
Group: Guest
Got it.  Yes I am pretty sure I know what it is then.  It's a theme that has come up relatively recently in the past, i.e.; the TK video.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
I was thinking the wire between the positive voltage source and the positive power input of the LTJT was doing a little inductive discharge when the transistor switched off.  So the positive lead, not the ground lead.

Update:

 O0  I will bank the Brownie Points for a future fail.  lol
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Lawrence,

The power calculations shown on your  graph are incorrect.

I don't know if I should even bother, but multiplying a voltage time average with a current time average, whether RMS, Mean, or whatever, is missing the time relationship between voltage and current.

By all means keep researching free energy, it's out there.

EM
« Last Edit: 2011-02-13, 07:10:28 by EMdevices »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
 MH, O0
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr

By all means keep researching free energy, it's out there.


Oh yeah!  More than many will ever know!  It's literally everywhere!
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
Oh yeah!  More than many will ever know!  It's literally everywhere!



Aye!!

Often difficult to capture but it is definitely there.

Radiantly...


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
Lawrence,

The basis for your conclusions about that graphic is very weak.

Look at the voltage and current; they are both mostly in the negative area....doesn't that seem strange to you?

How can you have a negative supply voltage???????????????????????????????

It would appear that the scope probes are connected - to + rather than + to -, OR the scope channels are inverted.

Something does not look right at all. At one part of the trace I've drawn a vertical line through, you have a negative voltage x a negative current, and the power trace shows that as negative power. How can that be?

I'm afraid I do not trust those measurements Lawrence. I hope you can agree that there is something quite out of sorts there.

.99
Let us re-examine the scope shots by the PhysicsProf

I am reproducing the scope shot on reply 350 from PhysicsProf here.

It has the characteristics I mentioned.

1.   The Input Voltage had spikes.
2.   The Input Current showed significant large negative area.
3.   The Output Voltage is much higher than the Input Voltage

Some of you dismissed it as experimental error. 

You will see many more of such errors.  Pseudo resonance will have strange effects.
   
Group: Guest
Lawrence,

The basis for your conclusions about that graphic is very weak.

Look at the voltage and current; they are both mostly in the negative area....doesn't that seem strange to you?

How can you have a negative supply voltage???????????????????????????????

It would appear that the scope probes are connected - to + rather than + to -, OR the scope channels are inverted.

Something does not look right at all. At one part of the trace I've drawn a vertical line through, you have a negative voltage x a negative current, and the power trace shows that as negative power. How can that be?

I'm afraid I do not trust those measurements Lawrence. I hope you can agree that there is something quite out of sorts there.

.99

Look at the voltage and current; they are both mostly in the negative area....doesn't that seem strange to you?


At the beginning, I thought that it was strange.  Then we discussed the possibility of back emf.  The particular screen shot was using air cores.  Once we accepted that the back emf was giving a significant feedback to the source, we accepted the screen shots as captured.  I can show at least a dozen more with other prototypes.

Something does not look right at all. At one part of the trace I've drawn a vertical line through, you have a negative voltage x a negative current, and the power trace shows that as negative power***. How can that be?

In the debate, you explained to me that the negative power represents energy fed back to the source.  You won the debate based on that.  Have you forgotten your own arguments?????

***Edit: Possibly the voltage waveform was inverted.

I'm afraid I do not trust those measurements.

At present, you are the only one with two DSOs.  The PhysicsProf needs to travel 140 miles to get a reading.  I can delay all posting until I have two good DSOs next to me or wait until the Physics Society has its postings.  A simple statement that you do not trust someone else hard work and ignore all evidence is very upsetting.

I can understand why the PhysicsProf was upset and temporarily left for awhile. 
« Last Edit: 2011-02-12, 13:59:58 by ltseung888 »
   
Group: Guest
Or perhaps FuzzyTomCat could get the 4 channel scope again and run some tests on a single machine. At least the DSO he used had parallel data sampling so there is no skewing between sampling.  :) I haven't looked at the A to D section in Darren's scopes to see if they are parallel latched inputs or not. Of course even the parallel latched inputs have a margin of error on fast rising or falling signals but I think that is far outside the realm of what you guys are doing. But then that's probably why Tektronix spent so much money marketing the Deskew kit.  :D

Negative current flow through an LED . . . Hmmm. Not much of a diode then 'eh?

Lawrence your power traces show Math = RMS, so unfortunately they cannot be useful apart from similarity comparisons between indexes. Trying to compare your work with Darren's is pointless until new mean readings are taken  ;)

Darren, your Power trace has a saddle back, so something else is happening there that shouldn't be, both the voltage and current are flat along their slopes.

Another real culprit here is the nonlinear phase angle, inductive on the rise and capacitive on the fall. This indicates a path dependence that raises issues with Kirchhoff's rules, because Kirchhoff does not handle path dependent scenarios. The fact that the current is dropping while the voltage is still present indicates a variable resistance and we are supposed to 'assume' the resistor is not the culprit, be we really don't know for sure. Remember when I suggested "Pure Resistance" for the debate? Nevertheless, you may need to resort to using Faraday's laws to do a proper analysis. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUWcy8HwpM&feature=related

PhysicsProf - Where waveform is periodic you can also use the formula Amplitude / Sqareroot(3) on your sawtooth wave to double check the RMS value. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square#RMS_of_common_waveforms)

Rosemary, I'm sorry you didn't like the gift - it was sent as a gesture of kindness and nothing more.


To everyone else: the Iraqi Dinar will probably not be revalued anytime soon  C.C

 8)
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Or perhaps FuzzyTomCat could get the 4 channel scope again and run some tests on a single machine. At least the DSO he used had parallel data sampling so there is no skewing between sampling.  :) I haven't looked at the A to D section in Darren's scopes to see if they are parallel latched inputs or not. Of course even the parallel latched inputs have a margin of error on fast rising or falling signals but I think that is far outside the realm of what you guys are doing. But then that's probably why Tektronix spent so much money marketing the Deskew kit.  :D
My TDS784A uses multiplexed sampling at 4G/s. Deskew is used for matching probe delays. The scope inputs should have negligible skew between channels, and would not be a significant factor here. I was using 2 channels only, so there was 2G/s available for each channel; hardly pushing the envelope at all. I suspect that the TDS3012B's (they are an "older" DPO scope) I'm using also have multiplexed sampling.

Quote
Negative current flow through an LED . . . Hmmm. Not much of a diode then 'eh?
Indeed. Where a diode is required to resist reverse bias of more than about 5V or so, it seems an LED is a poor choice. Germaniums are quite leaky as far as diodes go too, but they are still considered "diodes". ;)

Quote
Lawrence your power traces show Math = RMS, so unfortunately they cannot be useful apart from similarity comparisons between indexes. Trying to compare your work with Darren's is pointless until new mean readings are taken  ;)
This and all other scope shots from Lawrence and the professor were taken before the debate.

Quote
Darren, your Power trace has a saddle back, so something else is happening there that shouldn't be, both the voltage and current are flat along their slopes.
Harvey, could you please specify which scope shot you are referring to?

.99
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Let us re-examine the scope shots by the PhysicsProf

I am reproducing the scope shot on reply 350 from PhysicsProf here.

It has the characteristics I mentioned.

1.   The Input Voltage had spikes.
2.   The Input Current showed significant large negative area.
3.   The Output Voltage is much higher than the Input Voltage

Some of you dismissed it as experimental error. 

You will see many more of such errors.  Pseudo resonance will have strange effects.


Although I have explained the "problem" here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg9850#msg9850
and here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.msg10307#msg10307

Let us review again why these particular scope shots are "suspect".

As it is not a perfect world, every digital oscilloscope has a small amount of DC offset at its input. Tektronix (and most other good brands) provide a means to "compensate" (i.e. zero-out) these offsets in the scope channels. This is a routine accessible within the menus which should be run after scope warmup of 20 minutes or so, and any time the ambient changes more than 5ºC or so since the last "calibration". An offset of 4mV is not uncommon, and I have seen this also with the TDS3012B scopes I am using for these tests.

When the signals being measured are a number of magnitudes larger than the residual offset in the scope channel, the offset will most likely not be a significant factor in the measurement. However, when the signal being measured is the same magnitude as the residual channel offset, you can see why the measurement will be "offset" by up to 100% of the scope reading.

In the case of that scope shot, there is quite clearly a channel offset of about -4mV in both channels, and since the signal amplitude is on the order of 4mVpp, the resulting p(t) product is also significantly offset in the negative direction.

.99
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
In the debate, you explained to me that the negative power represents energy fed back to the source.  You won the debate based on that.  Have you forgotten your own arguments?????
Of course I have not.

Quote
***Edit: Possibly the voltage waveform was inverted.
Indeed, and I trust you can see how this would completely skew the entire measurement.

Quote
I'm afraid I do not trust those measurements.
I can not trust those measurements.

Quote
At present, you are the only one with two DSOs.  The PhysicsProf needs to travel 140 miles to get a reading.  I can delay all posting until I have two good DSOs next to me or wait until the Physics Society has its postings.  A simple statement that you do not trust someone else hard work and ignore all evidence is very upsetting.

I can understand why the PhysicsProf was upset and temporarily left for awhile.  

Sorry that you are becoming upset Lawrence. As best I can, I am stating the facts and I am being scientific. This has always been our agreement, yes?

I have tested your assembled unit, and other than crudely repairing a loose solder joint and soldering on some battery leads, I made no modifications to your unit. I essentially tested it right out of the box.

The tests revealed that the unit was clearly underunity, and I believe I have not made any errors with my tests. You stated that this unit would perform and measure COP>>1, right out of the box with no tuning, tweaking, or modifications, yet it has only proven to be COP<<1.

May I ask you at this time to address this outcome?

Regards,
.99
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
What I can't figure out is how the EMF or current related to the discharge goes back to the voltage source.  If L2 pulses high on the "dot" then L1 pulses high on the "dot" also and that's connected to the voltage source.  However, there is no reference between ground and the "dot" of L1 to give L1 the ability to kick-back to the supply.  The discharge glitch is about 200 nanoseconds long.  The only path that I can see would be if the base-emitter junction briefly conducted backwards, and that would let L1 kick back some energy into the supply.  Perhaps that's possible because the diffusion layer of the diode has a population of electrons and holes in play and there is a short window of opportunity for reverse conduction?  (It's been a long time since I delved into the semiconductor physics for an NPN transistor)
I am really going out on a limb here.  It takes some serious analysis work on the bench to figure out the cause of a glitch.
MileHigh

That's what I was trying to explain before. The transistors diode can reverse at certain frequencies and with the right available potentials. They are usually mentioned in the specs I think as "reversing threshold".

@poynt99

The main problem here that I can see in these exercises is what I know from pulsing many coils and many frequencies and ranges to get resonances and/or maximum outputs. The right or the best resonance frequency is usually a thin band of remarkable results and almost nothing when out of the range. So here we have fixed a transistor, fixed LEDS, fixed resistors, everything is all prefixed. But is it? The coil wind could have one more turn and the fixed values could fall out of range. You have no way of varying the frequency. So.... is there a way to add a small POT to try and adjust or pin down the right frequency in the known range of the fixed components?

Otherwise, if only the coil was on your bench and fed by your frequency generator at 1.5vdc, you will quickly find the best resonance frequency by scoping the output and then you could simply calculated the required resistors and possibly the right POT value to obtain that same frequency range in an isolated device. I think this is why this is not working the way it is supposed to.

If you cannot make any additions to this device, then just forget it. You could be 5kz away from tremendous results and you will never know it and just waste time pushing a dead horse.

wattsup


---------------------------
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
In order to help solidify the important issue of the impact scope channel offsets can have on low signal level measurements, please see the attached scope shots.

In both cases, the probe tip is connected to the probe ground lead, shorting out the probe. The channel vertical gains are set to maximum of 10mV per division. No signal (AC or DC) should be present. What IS seen on the traces is residual AC internal circuit noise (the hash), and any DC offset present in the signal chain of each channel.

Scope 1 is indicating a DC offset of -1.25mV in CH1, and -3.11mV in CH2.

Scope 2 is indicating a DC offset of +1.04mV in CH1, and -2.99mV in CH2.

I will show the results after the scopes warm up and after running the SPC on each.

.99
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
From page "Glossary-8" of the TDS3000 series manual, a blurb on SPC (emphasis added):

Quote
Signal Path Compensation (SPC)
The ability of the oscilloscope to minimize the electrical offsets
in the vertical, horizontal, and trigger amplifiers caused by
ambient temperature changes and component aging. You should
run SPC when the ambient temperature varies more than 5º C
from the last SPC or before performing critical measurements.

and this from page 3-77:

Quote
Signal Path Compensation. For maximum accuracy at any time, run the
signal path compensation routine just before taking critical
measurements
. To meet accuracy specifications, run the routine if
the ambient temperature changes by 10° C or more.

.99
   
Group: Guest
That's what I was trying to explain before. The transistors diode can reverse at certain frequencies and with the right available potentials. They are usually mentioned in the specs I think as "reversing threshold".

watts, I challenge you to show me any transistor data sheet that shows a "reversing threshold" and especially one that occurs "at certain frequencies".  If you are talking about the base-emitter junction "diode", it is likely that any circuit which repeatedly reverse-biased (base far more negative than emitter for an NPN) that diode until it conducted would just break the part.  Game over.  Your theory is wrong.

See the very last sentence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_junction_transistor#Vulnerabilities

Reverse breakdown of the B-E junction on a repeated basis just destroys the device and it is not a "certain frequencies" phenomena at all.
Quote

@poynt99

The main problem here that I can see in these exercises is what I know from pulsing many coils and many frequencies and ranges to get resonances and/or maximum outputs. The right or the best resonance frequency is usually a thin band of remarkable results and almost nothing when out of the range. So here we have fixed a transistor, fixed LEDS, fixed resistors, everything is all prefixed. But is it? The coil wind could have one more turn and the fixed values could fall out of range. You have no way of varying the frequency. So.... is there a way to add a small POT to try and adjust or pin down the right frequency in the known range of the fixed components?

Otherwise, if only the coil was on your bench and fed by your frequency generator at 1.5vdc, you will quickly find the best resonance frequency by scoping the output and then you could simply calculated the required resistors and possibly the right POT value to obtain that same frequency range in an isolated device. I think this is why this is not working the way it is supposed to.

If you cannot make any additions to this device, then just forget it. You could be 5kz away from tremendous results and you will never know it and just waste time pushing a dead horse.

wattsup

First of all, great pains were taken to assure that the circuitry Poynt is testing is exactly the very same one Lawrence tested.  Secondly, I challenge your assertion that varying the frequency of oscillation by a few "kz" would or could, in this circuit, reveal some magic "resonance" that would significantly change the COP.

It's just more silliness.  There are no hi-Q resonant circuits involved here.  Period.  Sorry...theories rejected.

Humbugger
   
Group: Guest

It would appear that the scope probes are connected - to + rather than + to -, OR the scope channels are inverted.

.99

Once again you have impressed me with your knowledge and experience.  ;)
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

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


Here are the scope shots after 1 Hour and after running the SPC.

Initial OffsetAfter 1 HourAfter SPC
Scope 1 CH1-1.25mV-1.61mV0.294mV
Scope 1 CH2-3.11mV-3.23mV0.839mV
Scope 2 CH1+1.04mV+1.25mV-0.396mV
Scope 2 CH2-2.99mV-2.45mV-0.064mV

A pretty good improvement over all. On better scopes, such as my TDS784A, there is a calibration for the probes as well, and that eliminates the remaining offset seen in the far right column. The 0.839mV is still a little high. One can run the SPC again to see if there might be more improvement.

.99
   
Group: Guest
That's what I was trying to explain before. The transistors diode can reverse at certain frequencies and with the right available potentials. They are usually mentioned in the specs I think as "reversing threshold".

@poynt99

The main problem here that I can see in these exercises is what I know from pulsing many coils and many frequencies and ranges to get resonances and/or maximum outputs. The right or the best resonance frequency is usually a thin band of remarkable results and almost nothing when out of the range. So here we have fixed a transistor, fixed LEDS, fixed resistors, everything is all prefixed. But is it? The coil wind could have one more turn and the fixed values could fall out of range. You have no way of varying the frequency. So.... is there a way to add a small POT to try and adjust or pin down the right frequency in the known range of the fixed components?

Otherwise, if only the coil was on your bench and fed by your frequency generator at 1.5vdc, you will quickly find the best resonance frequency by scoping the output and then you could simply calculated the required resistors and possibly the right POT value to obtain that same frequency range in an isolated device. I think this is why this is not working the way it is supposed to.

If you cannot make any additions to this device, then just forget it. You could be 5kz away from tremendous results and you will never know it and just waste time pushing a dead horse.

wattsup

This was all a whackadoo theory om my part that was wrong.  I was too lazy and tired to go look-up if this was even possible and was drawing on my vague memory about the properties of transistor junctions from 30 years ago.  My confidence in what I was saying was quite low.

A few postings later Poynt hinted at the true cause for the positive glitch on the voltage reading and I got it right away.  It was due to the inductance in the length of wire between the power source and the JT and the fact that the probe for reading the voltage was on the JT power input when it should have been placed on the power source output itself, i.e.; the battery terminal for example.  When the JT transistor shuts off the inductance in the wire discharges it's stored energy and makes the tiny voltage spike that's seen by the probe placed on the JT power input.

Like Humbugger says, there is no resonance point for the JT circuit.  When you power it up, it's runs at it's natural resonance frequency.  There is no need to inject a signal generator into it and hunt for a resonance frequency and then try to get it to operate at that frequency.  The frequency it runs at is its natural resonance frequency.

It's worth it to state again that "resonance" is being used very loosely here because it's not true resonance.  It's a pulse circuit that has a charging time and a discharging time.  The charging time and the discharging time are variable and are not necessarily directly related to each other.  When you add the charging time to the discharging time you get the period, then you invert that to get the operating frequency.

It's much more accurate a term to say "operating frequency" as opposed to "resonant frequency" because nothing in the JT circuit is resonating.  By extension, when Lawrence says, "pseudo resonance" it's a meaningless term and it should be avoided.  The last thing you want to do when you talk about electronics is use meaningless terms.  It does not add to the debate, it just creates confusion.

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
A bit of good news:

I've just tried running the SPC on both scopes with the scope probes attached (but shorted), and the results appear to be quite good. Better at least than the previous run with the scope channels "open" as they suggest you do.

All offsets are no worse than about 0.200mV.  O0

.99
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
...

The main problem here that I can see in these exercises is what I know from pulsing many coils and many frequencies and ranges to get resonances and/or maximum outputs. The right or the best resonance frequency is usually a thin band of remarkable results and almost nothing when out of the range. So here we have fixed a transistor, fixed LEDS, fixed resistors, everything is all prefixed. But is it? The coil wind could have one more turn and the fixed values could fall out of range. You have no way of varying the frequency. So.... is there a way to add a small POT to try and adjust or pin down the right frequency in the known range of the fixed components?
...

If you cannot make any additions to this device, then just forget it. You could be 5kz away from tremendous results and you will never know it and just waste time pushing a dead horse.

wattsup



...

First of all, great pains were taken to assure that the circuitry Poynt is testing is exactly the very same one Lawrence tested.  Secondly, I challenge your assertion that varying the frequency of oscillation by a few "kz" would or could, in this circuit, reveal some magic "resonance" that would significantly change the COP.

It's just more silliness.  There are no hi-Q resonant circuits involved here.  Period.  Sorry...theories rejected.

Humbugger


Any who are expecting instantaneous results will be
sorely disappointed.  The mode of operation which
accounts for the mysterious increase in output is
one which must be "tickled" from the circuit under
test.  It can be a painstaking procedure.

There are many variables which are capable of
contributing to enhanced performance and/or
detracting from circuit performance.

The methods of "tuning" and "tweaking" will seem
exceedingly unorthodox to uninitiated observers.

Finding the "zone" can be a time consuming and
rather frustrating ordeal.  Then, once found, trying
to determine why it occurs can be a daunting task.

A scope is a necessity.  Paying attention to small
changes in waveforms as "tuning" is performed
is essential.  Eventually a "signature" will be
discovered.

Most will give up before success is realized.

Extreme patience and perseverance are key.

You will not at first believe what you are seeing
when it happens.

You will not find many who will believe what you've
experienced, should you choose to disclose.

Silence can be golden.





---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
A bit of good news:

I've just tried running the SPC on both scopes with the scope probes attached (but shorted), and the results appear to be quite good. Better at least than the previous run with the scope channels "open" as they suggest you do.

All offsets are no worse than about 0.200mV.  O0

.99

I've used a lot of those older TDS500-700 series scopes and bought/sold tons of them on eBay.  Onre thing I lerarned right away is that almost every one of them, if stored away unused for a while, develop Aquisition errors that show up as FAIL on the self-test on startup but still appear to work quite well.  

In most cases, a good cleaning of the aquisition front end PCB with methyl alcohol will fix the problem.  I think if the SPC can't quite compensate it, the self-test fails.  I used to buy them with Aquisition FAILs real cheap, clean the board well and suddeenly have a scope that passed all self-tests and came right on home well under 0.1mV after SPC.

The scary thing about them is that the CRT and frame-sequential LCD color filter they use are getting real hard to find anymore without paying huge bucks.  They are great scopes but I'm scared of them anymore as far as investments go.  I guess you can buy LCD TFT display retrofit kits for them but those cost a fortune, too.

Humbugger
   
Group: Guest



Any who are expecting instantaneous results will be
sorely disappointed.  The mode of operation which
accounts for the mysterious increase in output is
one which must be "tickled" from the circuit under
test.  It can be a painstaking procedure.

There are many variables which are capable of
contributing to enhanced performance and/or
detracting from circuit performance.

The methods of "tuning" and "tweaking" will seem
exceedingly unorthodox to uninitiated observers.

Finding the "zone" can be a time consuming and
rather frustrating ordeal.  Then, once found, trying
to determine why it occurs can be a daunting task.

A scope is a necessity.  Paying attention to small
changes in waveforms as "tuning" is performed
is essential.  Eventually a "signature" will be
discovered.

Most will give up before success is realized.

Extreme patience and perseverance are key.

You will not at first believe what you are seeing
when it happens.

You will not find many who will believe what you've
experienced, should you choose to disclose.

Silence can be golden.





I think you may have missed the point here that Poynt received the already-tweaked exact same unit that Lawrence had gotten his results with.  So what does that leave as variables left to tweak?  Just the test setup and the understanding of how to interpret the results and use correct math.

Or maybe the aether in Hong Kong is thicker than in Canada.  Unless you are just babbling, please tell us exactly what variables there are here to tweak?  I'd be interested to know.

I get the distinct impression that if the scope traces were exactly identical, Lawrence would find a way to interpret them as COP>>>>>1 while Poynt found COP<<1 and that, rather than using logic and experience to analyze why the discrepancy existed, the believers would insist that "more tweaking" was required...ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Humbugger
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-11-29, 02:13:27