Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)

[TinselKoala]

At 50 Ohms, the divider impedance should be low enough that it is essentially unaffected at 300kHz by a normal 10X probe.  The 10 Meg resistor is optional.  Without it, the attenuation is 501V/V instead of 500V/V.

Ok.. but let's back up a square or two.

If I remove the 0R25 CVR and go back to the unadulterated tank circuit, I can get an accurate measure of the voltage swing in the tank simply by connecting the 10x probe with its 1 meg impedance and its about 25 pF capacitance directly across the coil. This measurement will be phase shifted very slightly by the probe, but if both channels use matched probes these shifts should be equal in both channels, right?

But... if I have an accurate measure of the voltage swing in the tank, this is _also_ equivalent to the Vdrop across the tank's impedance, isn't it? And thus this waveform can be converted into the _amplitude_ waveform of the current, by the AC version of Ohm's Law. All that is lacking for the power determination is the true phase of the calculated current waveform wrt the measured voltage waveform. Both have been shown to be pure sinusoids. So, if the impedance is known, and the phase angle is known (from some other measurement that may not provide current amplitude information) the real power can be calculated by the Vrms * Irms * cos(theta) equation.  Right?
Several different methods have shown that the current p-p amplitude is in the 8-10 A range. The most best method of determining the true phase angle comes up with right about 90 degrees unloaded and about 72 degrees loaded. I think.

So is it actually possible to dispense with dividers and CSRs and such, and actually use the loop itself as its own current monitor, and derive the true current amplitude as described above? And is there some other, non-intrusive, way of confirming the true phase shift in the signals themselves, as opposed to the measurements of the signals?

I do have a 100x probe, brand new, if that will help at all.

[MarkE]

Ok.. but let's back up a square or two.

If I remove the 0R25 CVR and go back to the unadulterated tank circuit, I can get an accurate measure of the voltage swing in the tank simply by connecting the 10x probe with its 1 meg impedance and its about 25 pF capacitance directly across the coil. This measurement will be phase shifted very slightly by the probe, but if both channels use matched probes these shifts should be equal in both channels, right?

But... if I have an accurate measure of the voltage swing in the tank, this is _also_ equivalent to the Vdrop across the tank's impedance, isn't it? And thus this waveform can be converted into the _amplitude_ waveform of the current, by the AC version of Ohm's Law. All that is lacking for the power determination is the true phase of the calculated current waveform wrt the measured voltage waveform. Both have been shown to be pure sinusoids. So, if the impedance is known, and the phase angle is known (from some other measurement that may not provide current amplitude information) the real power can be calculated by the Vrms * Irms * cos(theta) equation.  Right?
Several different methods have shown that the current p-p amplitude is in the 8-10 A range. The most best method of determining the true phase angle comes up with right about 90 degrees unloaded and about 72 degrees loaded. I think.

So is it actually possible to dispense with dividers and CSRs and such, and actually use the loop itself as its own current monitor, and derive the true current amplitude as described above? And is there some other, non-intrusive, way of confirming the true phase shift in the signals themselves, as opposed to the measurements of the signals?

I do have a 100x probe, brand new, if that will help at all.

You are getting loaded down somewhere that is not clear.  I ran some numbers on representative scope probe models and garden variety 10X probes should not be causing the amount of phase shift from 90 degrees that you are seeing.  Some thought is required.

[TinselKoala]

You are getting loaded down somewhere that is not clear.  I ran some numbers on representative scope probe models and garden variety 10X probes should not be causing the amount of phase shift from 90 degrees that you are seeing.  Some thought is required.

Well, think about this then. Phase angle data derived from cursor positions wrt the zero-crossings of the two signals, using the 10x probes, in two conditions: TKTransverter (receptor) in place driving light and motor; and no receptor in place. Measurements taken within minutes of each other, basically just time taking the screenshots.

[TinselKoala]

Ah... how about this as a source of artifact:

I used my two newest probes, a matched set of cheapo P6100 100 MHz labeled items, for the Link DSO measurements above. But for the earlier, analog measurements I used a different set of probes, not matched, one is marked P2100 100 MHz and is switchable 1x/10x and has the trimcap in the BNC connector end, and the other is "API" brand, 10x only, not switchable and has the trimcap in the probe body.

So this is probably a big "fail" and I need to repeat the analog measurements with the matched p6100s, or the digital measurements with the unmatched set, to check for probe artifacts. Ah well, another pot of coffee....


-----------------------------------------
ETA: Nope, that's not it. I used the unmatched probes to make the same measurements as above, and got the same results: Unloaded, right at 90 degrees, and Loaded, around 82 degrees.

So, is my Tek 2213a somehow lying to me?

ETA2: Hmmmmmm.... maybe it's just my technique, or the phase of the moon or something. Now, the Tek is giving me almost the same result as the DSO, quite near 90 degrees unloaded and a few degrees less, not 18 or 20, for the loaded situation, using the unmatched probe set as before.

So I'm assigning a possible range, based on these more precise measurements: Unloaded, the phase angle is between 88 and 90 degrees. Loaded it is between 81 and 83 degrees.  I may be able to get more precise than that with more careful use of the DSO, but this is actually close enough for my purposes.

[MarkE]

Any load that dissipates energy should pull the thing off of 90 degrees.  That includes internal dissipation.  The 90.8 degrees is believable.  The greater the actual load power the less the resonator rings, which of course you know.