Successful TPU-ECD replication !

[MeggerMan]

@Roberto,
I ordered the DDS-20 kits from ELV on the 19th June, order was picked 20th June and despatched.
It arrived on the 21st June. Very quick considering it was from Germany to the UK.
Carrier was DHL and I have found them an excellent courier from past experience.
I also order some 0.5mm lead free solder wire and that is very good. The solder paste I order too is OK but I prefered the solder wire as it does not leave traces on the board.
Other bits I had was:
1. a magnifying lamp, excellent for fiddly soldering work.
2. High temperature plastic tweezers.

Rob

[Ergo]

Hi guys.

I haven't read all replies in this thread but I have to ask if the originally stated "Successful TPU-ECD replication" was true or not?
As I understand there is no proof yet that output vs input measurements was correct. Most probably wrong...!!! (As Usual)

[z_p_e]

Darren, I've not jet reconnected the original ECD so be patience hope to do it today. I wonder if you could in some way to take in account the Mobius turn..at the end it is similar to a 1 turn coil so I could find a way to give you the L R and Q if not too outside my LCR meter range.

Roberto

Roberto,

Unless I have interpreted your drawing of the mobius loop incorrectly, it will not be possible to measure any inductance of the loop.

If we consider the two loops as a "component" with two leads, and separate it from the rest of the circuit, we are left with two parallel wire loops. The two "leads" for this component would be via a connection to each loop, since there are two loops.

Since there is no DC path between these two connections (loops), measuring an inductance or resistance there is not possible. The component really is a "loop capacitor". Or it can be thought of as an antenna as well.

You could break each mobius loop and then measure the inductance, but when this component is placed into the circuit again, the inductance loop will again be shorted, and no inductance possible.

You have measured the loop capacitance already, and I do not know what more can be measured to account for it.

Please clarify if I have missed something.

Darren

[z_p_e]

It could be read as:

"The first frequency, then second harmonic component into the second, then the third frequency"


...he could have been cryptically refering to using octaves.

e.g. 220, 440, 880

440 IS the second harmonic but 880 is 3rd Octave (or 4th harmonic).

So continuing with your logic above, he could have been referring to ANY harmonic, or for that matter any frequency. Why not the 5th harmonic?   

Maybe my logic is flawed, but SM's wording leads me to conclude that he means "harmonics", and he didn't feel the need to "spell it out" for us, and I agree.

Cheers,
Darren

[ronotte]

Darren,

I'm always referring to harmonic and not octave. Ok. There are reasons why to limit to only the second or perhaps the third, for example as the operating range as you know is within 200KHz, you are quickly out of this range choosing 1st harmonic (fundamental) higher than 100KHz!

In practice I see that scenario:

- F1 always less tha 100KHz (useful range found 20 - 85KHz) not need to be in phase with the others as it must be tuned only to control the Seed , it does not have or have little importance to get power.

- F2 always higher than F1 better if a multiple of F1 and in the range 100 - 220KHz it has importance for power and much easier to tune-in if synched with F3.

- F3 always near equal or higher than F2  and generally in the range 100 - 240KHz it has importance for power and much easier to tune-in if synched with F2

So you see that for simulation purposes you have just to choose an F1 for example 85.00KHz, and F2 for example 170.00KHz and F3 175.00.

OR

choose an F1 for example 35.00KHz, an F2 for example 70.00KHz and F3 140.00.

Of course there are many possibilities.

Roberto