The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)

[Grumpy]

Three pages almost completely wasted......... and worse, a monumental waste of my time and effort, except for maybe a few....

You learned more in those three pages than in three years.

By the way,  SM did not know that a field other than the magnetic and electric fields exists.  I bet he does now.

[pauldude000]

CIVIL REPLY DELETED:

[poynt99]

@Ponyt,

I understand what your saying however to me it does not account for the way Paul
made the connections. I'm still thinking  my orginal post is closer even though
I did not get the correct voltage levels.

Your bucking coils I buy, but they are not bifilar and reflect the connection Paul
made.

The schematics will hopefully illustrate what I'm saying.




I appreciate your work in posting the models and hope you can see my point.



-Duff

@Paul,

you're right about your generator, my mistake. what threw me was your statement (i took it as fact) that you were getting 12V spikes, when in fact if you look at your scope shot again, you'll see that you are getting +10 and - 10V spikes. your scope gnd is not centered so you are actually showing +12V and - 8V. The difference is 20V, just as you would expect from +/- 5V input.

if i was to go back and change my generator to -5V and +5V, I would get the very same scope shot you have Paul.

so we're back to square one as far as i'm concerned. we got differentiation, nothing more. also, are you saying Paul that you already knew that your output was differentiation?

btw, wrt op-amps, the term is "differential amplifier", meaning difference amplifier. a mathematical difference. "differentiation" on the other hand is wrt computing the mathematical derivative of the input. they are not the same thing.

@ Duff,

Paul's drawing is showing 2 coils only, not 4. please correct your drawing. my schematic shows 2 coils (the transformer), and they are connected in phase reverse of each other.

my coils are closer to bifilar than Paul's are. Paul purposely did not wind his bifilar.

sorry, i'm not sure if i'm answering your questions.

[duff]

@ Duff,

Paul's drawing is showing 2 coils only, not 4. please correct your drawing. my schematic shows 2 coils (the transformer), and they are connected in phase reverse of each other.

my coils are closer to bifilar than Paul's are. Paul purposely did not wind his bifilar.

sorry, i'm not sure if i'm answering your questions.

@poynt99

Sorry, perhaps there is a gross misinterpretation on my part but I interpret the 4 circles in Pauls drawing as 2 bifilar coils and each bifilar has a seperate connection.

Look at the connections.



no 1 is connected to the outer circle and the inner most circle, L1 & L2 in my schematic.
no 2 is connected to the - well you see.

I count 4, so if it was intended as something else then my mistake.

I never dreamed this little explanation could go on this long - sure you didn't either. Sorry Paul.....


-Duff

[pauldude000]

@Poynt99

Yes, I knew in this instance that they would be differentiated. This system cannot oscillate, it cannot reflect, therefore only the differentiation effect is allowed in these coils at even close to what ordinarily would be a resonant or harmonic.

Differentiation by design, you might say.

We know that this effect also oscillates in a untuned coil circuit. Think of the spike resonating to nothing on the top of the square wave. You have seen it a thousand times, and it is a consequence of the initial effect. You see the spike at much lower voltage level, but caused initially by the same physical principles that caused the differentiated wave demonstrated by the scope shot, but allowed to resonate.

I warned everyone outright that what I was referring to was a common effect.

This resonation damps out normally, in an ordinary resonant coil circuit.

A "tuned" resonant circuit should give higher spike voltages and much higher oscillation for the duration of the half-wave.

Now, this is in consideration of just one frequency.

If you add in two more frequencies which are integrals of the first, they WILL combine (integrate). However, they will also have their OWN "spikes", and inherent oscillations.

Put this derivative "frequency" into a tuned resonant circuit......... and you should end up with a square wave with the top consisting of "kicks" . The waveform would resemble pulsed "spikes".

You may or may not agree with me up to this point, but it is the principle I am trying to demonstrate.

Why is it important? If it is accurate, then the apparent power changes. Notice I am making distinction of apparent verses real.

I refer to the principle that a coil can only react so fast to any change, and a coil already resonating to a given base frequency cannot at the drop of a hat change its resonance. The coil should "see" a square wave with the top being the peaks of the spikes. Changes which happen too fast for reaction times can cause interesting effects. It is "apparent" in that there is no real change of input power, but the coil "sees" itself being hit with more electrical force. 

At the very least, do you understand? (Not agree, just understand.)

Concerning the op-amp resistor capacitor in series to op-amp - . Resistor from op-amp - to out. Op-amp + to gnd. Feed square wave to -..... The simplest way I know to differentiate a wave, and come up with an almost identical waveform to what I posted. Yes I know differentiation is  mathematical, and so is integration which is related. Both differentiation and integration are usable wave functions achievable with op-amps, as well as amplification. So yes, you can differentiate a wave using op-amps, and that is what I was referring to.

Paul Andrulis