Author Topic: another small breakthrough on our NERD technology. (Read 939554 times)

picowatt · « **Reply #2115 on:** April 10, 2012, 08:08:38 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 10, 2012, 05:44:12 PM

@PW:

Excellent example using the horizontal scale to determine the very slow frequency shown. But there is also a much higher frequency shown on the scope's display. Big "M" means megaHertz, and little "m" means milliHertz, right?

At the bottom of the LeCroy shot above, in the grey stripe that contains the "LeCroy" name, the sample rate and the RTC reading, there is a figure given as " f=2.34324MHz ".

What does this figure represent?

(Note where the scope's trigger is set: on the top Yellow CVR channel, right smack dab in the middle of an oscillation burst.)

TK,

I was indeed warned...

What is this, 'scope 101? I have spent way too much time on this already, but yes, trigger source ch1, DC, and on a rising edge, trigger level is at +320 millivolts, and trigger frequency, that is, CH1, 2.34 MHz. Because of the nature of the duty cycle, I would want confirmation of that freq. I can't give you a visual read of the feq at this time base, as the osc's are too close together. But you already knew all this.

Note where the trigger settings are in FIG 4, which explains why the 'scope is reading f:0.00000 Hz.

Thank-you for the "quiet time" but I see, as you warned, it was entirely in vain. Possibly the info I provided may assist other readers in reading 'scope shots in general, otherwise my time was completely wasted.

PW

picowatt · « **Reply #2116 on:** April 10, 2012, 08:26:36 PM »

MH,

A visual read of FIG 4 indicates the osc freq is about 1.56MHz. The trigger is set poorly for that capture, and as well, the osc freq may not be all that stable. The trigger frequency in that shot is f:0.00000 Hz, which means at these trigger settings, the 'scope can''t provide a frequency. Also, the mean for CH3 is stating the frequency as 1.431MHz, but as noisey as that channel's indicated signal is, I would rather trust my visual read of 1.56MHz.

In FIG 3, the trigger frequency calculations the scope is doing related to channel 1 are being interrupted for 15 seconds during each of the overall time periods of the FG waveform and therefore the scope is likely providing an inaccurate read of the CH1 frequency. One might be able to adjust the indicated freq using a bit of math versus the duty cycle, but I wouldn't.

If no settings were changed as to the FG offset, etc, that would affect osc freq between the captures of FIG3 and FIG 4, I would trust the visual read from FIG4 of the osc freq I made, and use the 1.56MHz as the best determination of the osc frequency.

PW

MileHigh · « **Reply #2117 on:** April 10, 2012, 08:29:22 PM »

Ah ha! The sampling frequency is 2.34 MHz. I can grok that. Perhaps someone else can try to get into the grokin' groove.

I was suspicious about that 6.17 MHz stuff also.

It's only grok'n'roll but I like it.....

picowatt · « **Reply #2118 on:** April 10, 2012, 08:39:23 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on April 10, 2012, 08:29:22 PM

Ah ha! The sampling frequency is 2.34 MHz. I can grok that. Perhaps someone else can try to get into the grokin' groove.

I was suspicious about that 6.17 MHz stuff also.

It's only grok'n'roll but I like it.....

MH,

The sampling frequency for FIG. 3 is 1K samples per second. The 2.34MHz is the 'scope "guessing" at the channel 1 trigger frequency. The trigger frequency (osc on CH1) is being interrupted for 15 seconds every FG period. The scope is having to deal with that as best it can at this time base/sample rate and the 2.34MHz number is really not usable for anything. See my previous post.

PW

picowatt · « **Reply #2119 on:** April 10, 2012, 08:55:41 PM »

MH,

A more accurate visual ("optical", as I use glasses!) read of the osc freq in the FIG 4 capture (I zoomed in) is closer to 1.515MHz.

PW

TinselKoala · « **Reply #2120 on:** April 10, 2012, 09:04:47 PM »

Yep, PW, and thank you for answering clearly and concisely. Below I attach a basic "rap sheet" from LeCroy re their 300-series scope displays, confirming that the number I asked about is the frequency of whatever triggered the display, and that the trigger markers on the scope are the little triangle at the top (indicating the horizontal trigger time instant) and the vertical marker on the right, color coded as to channel sourcing the trigger.

You've noted that at least one of the RA scopeshots is from a "stopped" scope, and the others are stored memory traces. I'm not sure if the scope displays the trigger signal frequency when the scope is showing a live but stopped signal; presumably the stored memory traces preserve all information at the time of storage, but I can't recall exactly.

The oscillation frequency as determined from the visual reads is, I agree, somewhere in the 1.2-1.6 MHz area. And as I believe I have shown, added inductance in the battery lead wires and intercell jumpers affects the oscillation frequency. TarBaby's relatively short leads (and fewer batteries) are producing an oscillation frequency in the 2.4-3.0 MHz range.

No wonder my batteries are running down.

picowatt · « **Reply #2121 on:** April 10, 2012, 09:07:48 PM »

All,

Lecroy user start-up manual for WaveJet 300 series for anyone interested.

http://cdn.lecroy.com/files/manuals/wj-gs_revb.pdf

PW

picowatt · « **Reply #2122 on:** April 10, 2012, 09:10:49 PM »

TK,

You beat me posting the startup guide link. You win...

PW

picowatt · « **Reply #2123 on:** April 10, 2012, 09:14:09 PM »

TK,

How did I miss that big STOP sign?

You are most likely correct regarding the trigger frequency indication for FIG4. I had not seen we were "standing still".

PW

MileHigh · « **Reply #2124 on:** April 10, 2012, 10:47:00 PM »

PW, TK:

Thanks for all of the good info. I was "sneaking in" a posting at lunch. I agree about the frequency of the triggering. You can't be sure how the 'software guts' are handling irregular signals with 'high freq - dead - high freq - dead' triggering. Sometimes 'smart' is good, sometimes 'too smart' is bad. In theory an algorithm could reject three out of 10 'oddball' frequency samplings, bla bla bla.

In 1991 the first generation of analog scopes came out that had the "digital vector graphic overlay" (it may have been raster, not sure) that gave you moveable cursors, and digital info on the scope display itself. They also auto-triggered... It was like a candy store compared to just a few years before that.

I really loved those 'hybrid' "smart analog scopes." I thought that they were a dream.

Well.... time has moved on since then! Those scopes are 'antiques.' lol

Now can we all just get along? The beatings resume at 8:00.

MileHigh

TinselKoala · « **Reply #2125 on:** April 10, 2012, 11:17:49 PM »

Beatings, bleatings....

poynt99 · « **Reply #2126 on:** April 11, 2012, 02:23:59 AM »

Maybe this will help explain the "ofs" utilized by LeCroy?

ETA: First diagram had an error. Now corrected.

fuzzytomcat · « **Reply #2127 on:** April 11, 2012, 02:58:47 AM »

Howdy members and guests,

After my posting with the proof that Donovan Martin was not involved with the NERD RAT group of expert collaborators in the two papers or manuscripts Rosemary submitted to accredited journals or magazines for possible peer review and publication. http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg318446/#msg318446 Reply #2102 on: Today at 02:31:43 AM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron

Proposed variation to Faradayâ€™s Lines of Force to include a magnetic dipole in its structure ( ROSSI-JOP-2- PDF.pdf )
Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human, Alan Macey, Riaan Theron
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in the interest of finding information on the testing and evaluation done on Rosemary's device with a claim of COP>INFINITY from possibly a collaborator that is listed as a "AUTHOR" with some kind of electronics background that could be contacted.

The next "AUTHOR" of the NERD RAT group of expert collaborators in the two papers or manuscripts Rosemary submitted to accredited journals or magazines for possible peer review and publication is Evan Robinson whom as a author and contributor to the research and development to find him and get his comments and maybe some answers to our questions from members here at OU .

PUBLIC RECORDS OBTAINED THROUGH "GOOGLE" - Evan Robinson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mygeni.org/view/weblink.mygeni?wid=1590&back=view%2Fuser.mygeni%3Fid%3D2%26ig%3D923 ( EvanRobinson_001_001.JPG )

http://mygeni.org/view/video.mygeni?vid=407&back=view%2Fuser.mygeni%3Fid%3D2%26ig%3D923 ( EvanRobinson_001_002.JPG )

http://www.siliconcape.com/profile/EvanRobinson?xg_source=activity ( EvanRobinson_001_003.JPG )

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Ainslie

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will be diverting some of my attention to contacting "Evan Robinson" possibly other members may also feel free to contact him now that we know that Donovan Martin had no input in the testing and evaluation with the NERD RAT device with a claim of COP>INFINITY and group of expert collaborators in the two papers or manuscripts Rosemary submitted to accredited journals or magazines for possible peer review and publication. I'm also looking for the other collaborators for their possible input here.

Cheers,
FTC

Rosemary Ainslie · « **Reply #2128 on:** April 11, 2012, 03:07:15 AM »

Guys I'll do my best to answer this new slew of posting - but for now, and for the record - POYNTY? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? I sort of expected you, at least, to do a correct analysis - OR - not engage at all. You're endorsing a whole load of nonsense. WHY?

But I'll explain. Meanwhile - rest assured - there has never been a more comprehensive misrepresentation of the functions of that little LeCroy EVER. More's the pity. And I'm not sure that I can explain it with the correct terminology. And it's way too early to get any of my friends to correct it. So. I'll give it my best shot.

Regards
Rosemary

poynt99 · « **Reply #2129 on:** April 11, 2012, 03:18:25 AM »

Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on April 11, 2012, 03:07:15 AM

Guys I'll do my best to answer this new slew of posting - but for now, and for the record - POYNTY? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? I sort of expected you, at least, to do a correct analysis - OR - not engage at all. You're endorsing a whole load of nonsense. WHY?

But I'll explain. Meanwhile - rest assured - there has never been a more comprehensive misrepresentation of the functions of that little LeCroy EVER. More's the pity. And I'm not sure that I can explain it with the correct terminology. And it's way too early to get any of my friends to correct it. So. I'll give it my best shot.

Regards
Rosemary

Rosemary,

I'd be interested to hear what your experts say of my explanation. You could print the annotated scope shot out or email it to them.

What is your objection to the annotated scope shot Rosemary?

News:

User Menu