Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Inductive Resistor Open source development of highly efficient inductive resistor circuits.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #2701  
Old 09-17-2009, 01:03 AM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
In the Quantum article at the top of page 5 there reads:
Quote:
In order to evaluate a reasonable average of the energy delivered, a sample range was chosen spanning 1.2 micro seconds.
Surely this "1.2 micro seconds" is a typo?

Even at the highest observed frequency that was stated (i.e. 200kHz), 1.2us only samples 24% of one complete cycle, and gets worse at 143kHz. How can one get a reasonable average by sampling only 24% of one cycle?

Then there's this from page 6 of the EIT paper:
Quote:
As mentioned, the voltage waveforms that result from such a high oscillating frequency vary greatly from one cycle to another. The transient voltage spikes that are deliberately generated, then compound this variation. In order to evaluate a reasonable average of the energy delivered a time base of 1us/div was chosen.
If as stated in the article that the aperiodic oscillation fluctuates between 143kHz and 200kHz, how can one obtain a reasonable average by only sampling a total of 10us (1us/div x 10 divisions) on the scope? To get at least one cycle of 200kHz and one cycle of 143kHz, would require a minimum of 12us. Also, the sampling time (10us) is on the same order as the period of the measured signal. For a uniform stable wave form this might be fine, but for a variable one such as described, several "mixed" cycles should be sampled.

Without observing the true nature of the described wave forms, it's difficult to prescribe an exacting mode of measurement, however knowing that it is unstable and aperiodic does support and even demand the use of a much wider sampling window to obtain an accurate average.

.99
__________________
 

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2702  
Old 09-17-2009, 02:00 AM
dllabarre's Avatar
dllabarre dllabarre is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 186
@Glen (a.k.a. FuzzyTomCat)..... <----- now that's an annoying color

I'm trying to get Glen's attention to my questions.

Did you measure 8.64 micro Henries with an inductance meter?
(some people use calculations which are not as accurrate as using a meter)
Did you measure 10.0 ohms with an ohm meter?

What temperature was it when you measured the resistor?
The temperature will effect the ohms.
I'm not sure if temperature effects the inductance.

Please... no offense to these questions.
I'll being picky because this circuit is picky.

Thanks
__________________
Don
  #2703  
Old 09-17-2009, 03:37 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by dllabarre View Post
@Glen (a.k.a. FuzzyTomCat)..... <----- now that's an annoying color

I'm trying to get Glen's attention to my questions.

Thanks
Hi ddlabarre, I'm answering you here because I think Fuzzy's out of town at the moment. I'm reasonably sure that the measurement of the Ohm's value was determined 'cold' as was its inductance. I do hope that helps? I think all these inductive resistor numbers vary under applied energies.
__________________
 
  #2704  
Old 09-17-2009, 06:40 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by poynt99 View Post
In both the quantum article and the EIT paper they specify batteries, however in the EIT paper page 13 they say this:



Not stating if the same effects could be achieved with the AC-sourced DC supply (assumed), only leaves one speculating.

Therefore maybe it's best assumed that batteries are preferred.


The "VDC" component in PSpice is not a modeled battery. It is ideal. It is possible that Protel created a battery component modeling a real battery, but I would be surprised if that were the case.


.99
Poynt - all we were doing here was testing the effect directly from AC power supplies using variations of rectifiers. Entirely different voltages tested - and entirely different resistors. We actually wound some specifically using really thick wires and low Ohms values.

These tests were significant - also showed gains - but difficult to prove as there was possibly wastage from the plug to the variac. But gains evident from the variac related to power dissipated. Here we immersed the resistor in water.

It's best to use batteries and best of all those lead acid numbers.
__________________
 
  #2705  
Old 09-17-2009, 08:01 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,562
Quantum article coil

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
EDIT:
Is it possible the printed specs for the resistor should have read 38 instead of 48 ? perhaps a subtle misprint easily overlooked?

Also - Could it be that the manufacturer was using an SWG resistance wire instead of an AWG? This can change the values per foot.
Harvey, I want to let you know I'm not ignoring your requested test. Just been swamped off and on and have a visitor at my house today and tomorrow with his circuit using the Tektronix to log data and do other tests.

Anyway, with the Quantum article, 150mm long, 32mm diameter, 48 turns, 1mm spacing, 10 ohms, 8.64uh and whatever else.

So, 48 turns at 1mm spacing per turn means there are 48 mm's worth of space out of the 150mm length. That leaves 102mm worth of wire width.

102mm of width of total wire along the length divided by 102mm = 2.125mm, which is about the same as 12 awg wire.

The circumference at 32mm diameter is c=pd, so 3.14*32=100.48mm circumference or length of each turn * 48 turns = 4823.04mm of wire length total.

That length of wire at 12awg nichrome is about 1.5~1.6 ohms total.

So there is something wrong with those specs. At 15.83 feet long wire, only 20awg will give about 10 ohms at that length, which is the same as what Glen found.

So it seems that the spacing between turns with 20awg would have to be greater than 1mm and if so, all the specs can be the same and it would be 10 ohms with all those specs.

Just an observation.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #2706  
Old 09-17-2009, 08:17 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by poynt99 View Post
In the Quantum article at the top of page 5 there reads:


Surely this "1.2 micro seconds" is a typo?

Even at the highest observed frequency that was stated (i.e. 200kHz), 1.2us only samples 24% of one complete cycle, and gets worse at 143kHz. How can one get a reasonable average by sampling only 24% of one cycle?

Then there's this from page 6 of the EIT paper:


If as stated in the article that the aperiodic oscillation fluctuates between 143kHz and 200kHz, how can one obtain a reasonable average by only sampling a total of 10us (1us/div x 10 divisions) on the scope? To get at least one cycle of 200kHz and one cycle of 143kHz, would require a minimum of 12us. Also, the sampling time (10us) is on the same order as the period of the measured signal. For a uniform stable wave form this might be fine, but for a variable one such as described, several "mixed" cycles should be sampled.

Without observing the true nature of the described wave forms, it's difficult to prescribe an exacting mode of measurement, however knowing that it is unstable and aperiodic does support and even demand the use of a much wider sampling window to obtain an accurate average.

.99
I understand this to mean that sample data was taken every 1.2Ás and stored for an overall period that included multiple waveforms which were then analyzed in Excel. I see this on page four, not page five

The same seems to be the case in the White Paper except the 1.2 seems to be rounded to 1ÁS. In both cases, this seems to be the setup for the minimum sample slice.

__________________
 
  #2707  
Old 09-17-2009, 09:51 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,562
liquid vs gel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
Aaron seemed rather adamant regarding the liquid acid battery being more reactive in some way. Honestly, I haven't checked the details in the Quantum or White Paper information to see if it denoted any difference there.
Harvey,

Here is one very specific thing I saw, which is a very interesting difference between the gel cell and liquid lead acid...

With identical voltages on liquid and gel at all same settings on circuit, the liquid lead acid battery gave more heat on the resistor. Rosemary might remember more details. We were talking while I was doing that test. I'll try to find the notes on it.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #2708  
Old 09-17-2009, 09:52 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Harvey, I want to let you know I'm not ignoring your requested test. Just been swamped off and on and have a visitor at my house today and tomorrow with his circuit using the Tektronix to log data and do other tests.

Anyway, with the Quantum article, 150mm long, 32mm diameter, 48 turns, 1mm spacing, 10 ohms, 8.64uh and whatever else.

So, 48 turns at 1mm spacing per turn means there are 48 mm's worth of space out of the 150mm length. That leaves 102mm worth of wire width.

102mm of width of total wire along the length divided by 102mm = 2.125mm, which is about the same as 12 awg wire.

The circumference at 32mm diameter is c=pd, so 3.14*32=100.48mm circumference or length of each turn * 48 turns = 4823.04mm of wire length total.

That length of wire at 12awg nichrome is about 1.5~1.6 ohms total.

So there is something wrong with those specs. At 15.83 feet long wire, only 20awg will give about 10 ohms at that length, which is the same as what Glen found.

So it seems that the spacing between turns with 20awg would have to be greater than 1mm and if so, all the specs can be the same and it would be 10 ohms with all those specs.

Just an observation.
Hi Aaron - no pressure on the test - I know you'll get to it when you can - thanks for the update.

Yep, I came to a similar conclusion on the wire size.

Resistance and Resistivity.

Table of Resistivity


It is possible that we have mixed data there. At one point smaller gauge wire was used and then later a larger gauge was used by Rosemary's urging and that seemed to improve things she said. The actual resistor was calibrated to be 10 Ohms, but does the calibration sheet show any other data such as windings, dimensions, inductance or capacitance?

I notice also some other minor discrepancies such as the white paper battery drain time-stamps in the graphic chart do not match the actual recorded data. Probably an Excel issue.

So we have to use the values that make the most sense. Unfortunately, I cannot resolve the 8.64ÁH with the existing values. We are not even sure what material was used as the resistance 'wire', or if it was a ribbon or an actual wire. If it were a ribbon, that may explain the 1mm spacing and that would be an interesting thing to calculate the inductance on. Resistance Wire Calculator - if you put in the resistance of .667 Ohms per foot, the calculator will pull up a list of materials that match. I perused the site, but could not find any real data on the ribbon stock they say they sell.

Hopefully when Rosemary tracks down the original part we can get some solid info as to all the questions surrounding it. Until then, Tom has the best thing going so far but I think he will find his inductance to be a bit higher than 8.64ÁH.
I looked for a stand alone inductance meter today - Amprobe sells a multimeter with an inductance setting but it was more than I was looking to spend.

__________________
 
  #2709  
Old 09-17-2009, 10:05 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Harvey,

Here is one very specific thing I saw, which is a very interesting difference between the gel cell and liquid lead acid...

With identical voltages on liquid and gel at all same settings on circuit, the liquid lead acid battery gave more heat on the resistor. Rosemary might remember more details. We were talking while I was doing that test. I'll try to find the notes on it.
That is interesting. I wonder what the rise and fall times of the waveforms looked like for each. This may be directly related to the source impedance of the battery but it could be the result of positrino annihilation in the resistor. I notice you have a Bedini charger there. If my theory is correct, I think his methods may actually charge the electrons along the path with positrinos - little neutrino sized particles with a positive charge that orbit the electrons. When stressed in a magnetic field, these can be forced to collide with the electrons resulting in a small release of radiation as the electron mass is reduced and the positrino is annihilated. It is just a theory, but it seems to explain much of the observed phenomenon. Did you charge that Liquid Battery with that charger?

__________________
 
  #2710  
Old 09-17-2009, 10:07 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Harvey and Aaron - just one quick observation. Fuzzy's windings are right but need wider spacing? Would that do it?

BUT : it does seem that the wiring is thinner than I remember it. So sorry everybody. I've written to Jose to see if I can do something about the original. Will keep you informed.
__________________
 
  #2711  
Old 09-17-2009, 10:11 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,562
edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
102mm of width of total wire along the length divided by 102mm = 2.125mm, which is about the same as 12 awg wire.
I mean 102/48 turns = 2.125mm thickness of wire is about same as 12awg.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #2712  
Old 09-17-2009, 10:16 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,562
ribbon vs round wire

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
We are not even sure what material was used as the resistance 'wire', or if it was a ribbon or an actual wire. If it were a ribbon, that may explain the 1mm spacing and that would be an interesting thing to calculate the inductance on.
I mentioned the Quantum coil spec thing to Peter a few weeks ago and he mentioned the possibility of ribbon for the 1mm spacing but Rosemary said it was definitely round resistive wire.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #2713  
Old 09-17-2009, 10:25 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,562
Bedini Battery Charger 1AU from Tesla Chargers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
That is interesting. I wonder what the rise and fall times of the waveforms looked like for each. This may be directly related to the source impedance of the battery but it could be the result of positrino annihilation in the resistor. I notice you have a Bedini charger there. If my theory is correct, I think his methods may actually charge the electrons along the path with positrinos - little neutrino sized particles with a positive charge that orbit the electrons. When stressed in a magnetic field, these can be forced to collide with the electrons resulting in a small release of radiation as the electron mass is reduced and the positrino is annihilated. It is just a theory, but it seems to explain much of the observed phenomenon. Did you charge that Liquid Battery with that charger?

Yes, I charged all the batteries I've been using with this charger, it is the 1AU model and is available at Tesla Chargers.

I have a few observations on these chargers. They seem to charge different from the "normal" Bedini chargers that we have all built.

I can charge a battery with this charger and when it is "drained", I can charge it back up with a standard charger and the standard charger immediately starts to charge it so it is like the normal charger doesn't have to fill up the "holes" first until it actually starts to charge it. If the Bearden idea is right about that.

I have definitely put batteries charged by my own Bedini chargers on a regular charger and it takes forever for the normal charger to actually start charging the battery with real charge - just like what Bearden explains if the battery is charged with negative energy - as if it really is filling in holes first before it starts to push it forward.

Anyway, batteries charged with this 1AU Bedini chargers also powers inductive loads and resistive loads equally well.

But anyway, yes, this charger is the only charger I have used to charge these batteries when running all these tests because it is just rock solid and dependable and when batts are charged, the resting voltage is always very close to the last charge.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #2714  
Old 09-17-2009, 10:37 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by poynt99 View Post
What version of Protel are you using?

.99

PS. I'd like to see a screen capture of the VDC component you are using and its associated subcircuit model (I don't think there is one).
I'm using Protel 99. I had DSP on a trial and didn't like it as well so never upgraded. It is only an occasional tool for certain projects, so I couldn't justify the expense.

Click For Larger Image

As you can see, the impedance changes depending on the circuit current - this is the VSRC attempting to regulate a constant voltage - this is not a battery model, hence my single quotes around the term 'battery' to denote a nomenclature rather than realistic model.

__________________
 
  #2715  
Old 09-17-2009, 10:53 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Nearly 4 AM - need some Z's - will check back later.

__________________
 
  #2716  
Old 09-17-2009, 12:51 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
What did you use as your voltage source if not a "VDC" component?

Not sure what your "VSRC" stands for.

.99
__________________
 
  #2717  
Old 09-17-2009, 01:40 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
I understand this to mean that sample data was taken every 1.2Ás and stored for an overall period that included multiple waveforms which were then analyzed in Excel. I see this on page four, not page five

The same seems to be the case in the White Paper except the 1.2 seems to be rounded to 1ÁS. In both cases, this seems to be the setup for the minimum sample slice.

That doesn't make sense. It's unfortunate that some of these important passages were left open for interpretation.

We'll not know the reality unless/until we see the actual data.

.99
__________________
 

Last edited by poynt99; 09-17-2009 at 01:43 PM.
  #2718  
Old 09-17-2009, 02:04 PM
poynt99 poynt99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by poynt99 View Post
What did you use as your voltage source if not a "VDC" component?

Not sure what your "VSRC" stands for.

.99
Have just found the 99SE handbook and the reference to "VSRC". They do not seem to indicate what the "RC" part is in reference to, but according to what's written in the handbook, this "VSRC" is the equivalent to the "VDC" component in PSpice. In the 99SE handbook it is specified as: "DC Voltage Source".

Also, see page 219 in the handbook. Clearly these are referred to as "Constant" current and voltage sources.

So, there is no impedance modeling in those components, including the VSRC you are using. They are "ideal" sources.

.99
__________________
 
  #2719  
Old 09-17-2009, 02:49 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,191
I am back more or less

Hi all, after the hols: and a problem with my health, I am more or less back to putting some input into this thread and the thread that I started.

I have been looking and reading the thread but I have not been up to putting any input, sorry about that.

Having time to think about what is happening with this and slightly altered circuits and you might say, stepping back from the forest so as I can see the trees, I find that the results that have been posted are not of a big supprise.

It is very difficult to do an exact replication unless you have the exact components that were used in the original test, it is a pitty that rosemary did not hold on to the original test components, all be it to be of future benifit the exact components must be available!

I have seen others, and myself, with experiments that can not be explained in the normal field of science, and to replicate them is very difficult if another person is not using the same components as was used in the original.

We are working on fring science, where no man has been before, to coin a frase. We have to be very open minded, not closed in to what we have been shown is the be all and end all.

I am now working on a, you might say, highbrid, of Rosemarys circuit so as to see what can be done as far as a usable item to benifit mankind. I have allways been like this, I am not much into key hole surgery, I go for the, knife, the useable factor in its grandest form.

I hope in the next few days to post, what is on paper at the moment, and I will be open to any thoughts or critics as to the design.

Sorry Rosemary if I am leaping ahead, but as I explained before, I am not into small experiments, as Peter I think will speak for me on that, if it is going to be done, I will do it on a usable scale.

All keep up the good work you are doing, resonance and frequency is the key, it is key to life itself, but to find it is very difficult.

Mike
__________________
 
  #2720  
Old 09-17-2009, 02:51 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
YouTube - Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version

Guys everyone should view this. It has HUGE implications. And Harvey - take note of the horizontal patterns which correspond to a video I saw of yours pointing out similar effects in magnetic fields. So - so interesting - especially to all FE enthusiasts. Aether evidence definitely on the rise.
__________________
 

Last edited by witsend; 09-17-2009 at 02:59 PM.
  #2721  
Old 09-17-2009, 03:02 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
YouTube - Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version

Guys everyone should view this. It has HUGE implications. And Harvey - take note of the horizontal patterns which correspond to a video I saw of yours pointing out similar effects in magnetic fields. So - so interesting - especially to all FE enthusiasts. Aether evidence definitely on the rise.
Brilliant stuff, just as I was saying, the implications are huge.

Mike
__________________
 
  #2722  
Old 09-17-2009, 03:17 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Hi Mike. So nice to see you're back. We definitely need you here and would love to see your experiments. Personally I'm sorry that it's on another thread - but at least it's on this forum.

Sorry to hear about the health problems. I trust all is now well. And yes. The implications of this video are really startling. I hope Martin Grusenick publishes.
__________________
 
  #2723  
Old 09-17-2009, 06:24 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Harvey - if you read this and if you get around to it - and in the unlikely event that you have anything better to do - may I impose on you - yet again to do that trick with the translation?

the following link is in french. I tried it on the google translate thing and it kept giving me a french version. I don't think it's me. It's probably a faulty computer Whatever. It has defeated me.

Genese
__________________
 
  #2724  
Old 09-17-2009, 09:32 PM
dllabarre's Avatar
dllabarre dllabarre is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Harvey - if you read this and if you get around to it - and in the unlikely event that you have anything better to do - may I impose on you - yet again to do that trick with the translation?

the following link is in french. I tried it on the google translate thing and it kept giving me a french version. I don't think it's me. It's probably a faulty computer Whatever. It has defeated me.

Genese
Try this:

translated
__________________
Don
  #2725  
Old 09-17-2009, 09:39 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
DonL - You're a sweetheart. Many thanks indeed. I'm just a dinasaur on this system. Now I'm going to study it. I also saw a new link? I'll look at that too.

Many thanks indeed.
__________________
 
  #2726  
Old 09-18-2009, 04:26 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by poynt99 View Post
That doesn't make sense. It's unfortunate that some of these important passages were left open for interpretation.

We'll not know the reality unless/until we see the actual data.

.99
It makes sense to me. But then I come from an era before Exabyte storage was within grasp. So when dealing with Kilobyte or even Megabyte storage you only take a sample reading often enough to 'snapshot' the points along the way that allow you to connect the dots. The original signal was ~15Ás with ~400Ás of off time in between. It would have seemed reasonable to use a 1Ás sample interval. This means you take a sample snapshot every microsecond or specifically, every 1.2 microseconds. That should give 15 samples per on time. Even with 200KHz, it should have given a minimum of 5 samples per cycle - plenty.

I think perhaps your confusing the data collection interval with the scope time base.

__________________
 
  #2727  
Old 09-18-2009, 04:33 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by poynt99 View Post
Have just found the 99SE handbook and the reference to "VSRC". They do not seem to indicate what the "RC" part is in reference to, but according to what's written in the handbook, this "VSRC" is the equivalent to the "VDC" component in PSpice. In the 99SE handbook it is specified as: "DC Voltage Source".

Also, see page 219 in the handbook. Clearly these are referred to as "Constant" current and voltage sources.

So, there is no impedance modeling in those components, including the VSRC you are using. They are "ideal" sources.

.99
SRC is the mnemonic for Source. You are mistaken regarding the impedance, please look at the 'z' symbol. This is the symbol for impedance. It is a necessary function to ensure constant voltage where the source current is varying. The chart I posted is a direct Transient Analysis of the VSRC impedance during a 560Ás run. In this case I had shortened the off time considerably so there are many cycles from the 555, and the ring 'tone' is ~360kHz. Where do you think the 80K Ohms is coming from if it is not modeled in the VSRC?

__________________
 
  #2728  
Old 09-18-2009, 04:41 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
Harvey - if you read this and if you get around to it - and in the unlikely event that you have anything better to do - may I impose on you - yet again to do that trick with the translation?

the following link is in french. I tried it on the google translate thing and it kept giving me a french version. I don't think it's me. It's probably a faulty computer Whatever. It has defeated me.

Genese
Genese Website - English Translation

Cheers

EDIT: LOL That's what I get for reading top down and replying as I go - I knew there was a reason I read magazines from back to front
Thanx Don.
__________________
 

Last edited by Harvey; 09-18-2009 at 04:45 AM.
  #2729  
Old 09-18-2009, 05:07 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Thanks Harvey. In fact with due respct to DonL - your translation has the edge here.
__________________
 
  #2730  
Old 09-18-2009, 05:10 AM
Harvey's Avatar
Harvey Harvey is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,137
@.99

Large Pic

Hopefully that helps clear up some of your confusion regarding source impedance of constant voltage sources

__________________
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers