Tweet
Comparing California clay, US nickel and a US quarter with the simulation and bench circuit. The comparison was close but not the same. I charted the targets at two different scope scale settings to get better amplitude resolution out to 120usec(about the total sampling time). Some observations, the US nickel charted a straight line on a lin log chart from 12usec to 120usec. The clay charted a straight line on the log log chart from 5usec to 120usec with 80usec coil on time. The US quarter charted a straight line on a log log chart from 5usec to 70usec then changed slope. Again, I've posted a ground slope of about -1.25 in the past. Was reading it wrong, -1.42 is closer. Most longer TC targets I've charted, chart a straighter line on a log log chart than a lin log chart similar to the US quarter, maybe not the same slope. Still think the simulator is close enough to vary delay and sample times to see what might be better. I changed the simulator to include EF samples. Could post Excel zip file if anyone is interested.
-
-
Used the simulator to show change in integrator out for a .1usec and 1usec change in delay and sample times. Added EF sample to the integrator. Now the simulator has only .1usec resolution. Set some times I think might work for small gold. Adjusted GEB sample time for a minimum output. Then changed the decay or sample time by .1usec and 1usec on each setting and charted the effect. Adjusting GEB sample time to .1usec looks good enough. Probably not enough for the other settings and they need to repeat better than .1usec. Setting times to 1usec is probably good enough. Used a ground slope of -1.44, close to what I measure.Comment
-
A chart showing GEB sample time to balance ground for a change in target delay time.Comment
-
Thanks for posting these test results. I'm trying to absorb the implications of the different timings, and the way you presented the figures makes it a bit more palatable for dummy like me.Comment
Comment