[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Magnifier conversion - pinger
Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>
Hi All,
I played with the resistances some to sort of match the measured Q's
http://hot-streamer-dot-com/temp/NewMag/0504-03.gif
http://hot-streamer-dot-com/temp/NewMag/0504-04.gif
The peaks in the graph represent Q in this case. It appears that for the
conventional coil the secondary system resistance is about 180 ohms. When
the third coil is raised into the magnifier configuration, that seems to
drop to about 120 ohms, but now we have about 45 ohms added for the
secondary. I don't worry too much about exact values here since Q is a
fleeting value as the QVAR testing showed.
http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tssp/qvar070402/
The resistances are mixed coil and circulating losses. It would be nice to
be able to measure the real coil resistances. This was going on E-bay for
$0.99 but I bet it will fly out of my price range pretty quick ;-))
http://cgi.ebay-dot-com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2528207402
I may also be able to hook up something like it will all my stuff
here. That would allow be to define coil losses from losses in the area
around the coil.
One thing I noticed that was interesting was that the no-C2 capacitor case
has two well defined peaks where the conventional coil and C2 magnifier
only have one peak.
http://hot-streamer-dot-com/temp/NewMag/0504-04.gif
Not sure if that means anything but it was an obvious difference in the
systems.
Cheers,
Terry
------------------
>Just to follow up...
>
>I modeled the pinger with this model for all three situations:
>
>http://hot-streamer-dot-com/temp/NewMag/0504-01.gif
>
>I get this graph of the resonances:
>
>http://hot-streamer-dot-com/temp/NewMag/0504-02.gif
>
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>I pinged the various coil combinations with my "pinger" and ran them
>>through TCMA:
>>
>>Magnifier Without C2
>>
>> Q F P corrX corrP corrM err
>>P 416.392 765897 -0.894 +0.673328 +0.387 0.935161 73.9%
>>PK FREQ kHz (Error +/-) Q FACTOR (Error +/-) LEVEL
>> 1 155.132 (0.01%,12Hz) 192.17 (0.10%, 0.2) -1.0dB
>> 2 367.502 (0.01%,27Hz) 125.88 (0.25%, 0.3) -7.0dB
>> 3 1194.228 (0.01%,89Hz) 96.53 (37.56%,36.3) -30.0dB
>> 4 1157.973 (0.01%,86Hz) 92.28 (31.58%,29.1) -29.7dB
>> 5 1158.036 (0.01%,86Hz) 92.11 (31.58%,29.1) -29.7dB
>> 6 765.914 (0.01%,57Hz) 416.39 (44.67%,186.0) -44.3dB
>>Accounted for 99.59% of input signal
>
>This is the green graph. I see the peak at 158kHz but there appears to be
>a "dip" at 384kHz. The dip is unexplained and why that would show on TCMA
>as a peak? There might be something interesting going on there...
>
>
>
>>Magnifier With C2
>>
>> Q F P corrX corrP corrM err
>>P 227.261 206446 -1.028 +0.999987 +0.970 0.999998 3.0%
>>PK FREQ kHz (Error +/-) Q FACTOR (Error +/-) LEVEL
>> 1 131.469 (0.01%,7Hz) 168.91 (0.49%, 0.8) -0.2dB
>> 2 206.451 (0.01%,11Hz) 227.07 (0.49%, 1.1) -14.6dB
>>Accounted for 99.84% of input signal
>
>The blue graph. Peaks at 132 and 217.5 kHz. Pretty close.
>
>
>>Conventional Coil
>>
>> Q F P corrX corrP corrM err
>>P 162.489 1543328 -0.884 +0.411389 +0.209 0.985309 91.4%
>>PK FREQ kHz (Error +/-) Q FACTOR (Error +/-) LEVEL
>> 1 178.748 (0.01%,15Hz) 138.85 (6.64%, 9.2) -0.2dB
>> 2 747.133 (0.01%,65Hz) 263.71 (0.99%, 2.6) -14.6dB
>> 3 1184.768 (0.01%,102Hz) 211.22 (3.95%, 8.3) -23.5dB
>> 4 1543.194 (0.01%,133Hz) 161.72 (18.78%,30.4) -29.1dB
>>Accounted for 98.75% of input signal
>
>The red graph line. A peak at 180 kHz. Very close.
>
>So the system seems to match the TCMA test results. The other peaks are
>due to strays and internal resonances of the coils that I would never be
>able to fish out. But they seem to be far down in the noise. I will see
>if I can match up some of the tested "Q"s too. That is sort of hard since
>I would have to load the coil's output, but maybe the plain wave antenna
>could do it. Or, just sweeping the models to match up RL2 and RL3...
>
>Cheers,
>
> Terry