Home Tube DIY Asylum

Do It Yourself (DIY) paradise for tube and SET project builders.

RE: another update....

No, the traces are presumably perfectly valid. They might look rather different with the 100uF capacitor removed, and it could be interesting to see what happens to that latest trace you posted if the capacitor is removed. But what you posted is presumably a true depiction of what the output voltage looks like in the present configuration.

It is striking that the burst of high-frequency output voltage occurs for only a small fraction of the time; maybe about 1/6 of the time, estimating from your scope trace. If we assume that the waveform during the burst is an exact square wave, of say 36V peak-to-peak, then that would mean the rms voltage would be 18V during the "on" period of the bursts, and 0V during the "off" periods between the bursts.

Thus, when we do the time-averaging to calculate the true rms, we would get, I think, 18/(Sqrt6)V, which is about 7.4V rms. Since the square wave is not perfect, the actual true rms voltage would be a bit lower even than this.

I'm not sure how much trust one can put in the ability of a "true rms" meter to handle a case like this, where the output voltage is composed of periodic short bursts of a distorted high-frequency square wave. I don't know how these meters work, but I could easily imagine that such a peculiar type of waveform was not really being catered for when it was designed. Maybe I am being too skeptical though ...

Chris



Edits: 12/06/16

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Parts Connexion  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.