Frequency sweep to induce gravity field

The experiment is coming along. I can now upload a frequency sweep to an AWG7022C. I can play out the frequency sweep. I can also look at the frequency sweep with an oscilloscope. Then it struck me. How do I know that what I'm looking at is really a linear frequency chirp? Just looking at the oscilloscope image doesn't tell me anything.

Math experts! Help! How do I test my output to determine just how linear my frequency chirp is? Sure, I can kind of tell that the voltage isn't constant, like it is in the picture. Is this where I have to pay attention to mathematics?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also, I have this crummy WiFi antenna that is rated for 2.4GHz. But my frequency sweep is from 1GHz to 2GHz. I have no idea what kind of antenna to get.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your digitally synthesized signal's frequency change is not going to change smoothly so it will not be truly linear. Sometimes the frequency will be lower and others it will be higher than the ideal linear chirp. The question is if its approximate linearity is adequate for your experiment. Only you can answer that question. We don't know how you created the waveform and probably no one here has ever used your particular signal generator before. Also we do not know what other equipment you have available. A modern realtime spectrum analyzer could probably answer your question. I can think of a way you could do it with just an oscilloscope but it would take some work and you would need to know how to use an oscilloscope rather than just pressing the auto setup button. I am not going to write a procedure for you. If you trust your generator, you could just analyze the digital representation of your signal to see if that is linear enough. If you used something like MATLAB to create it, then you should know if it is linear enough.

As far as your antenna goes, I thought you specified you need to generate plane waves. A WiFi antenna is not going to do that. As you cut corners in your experiment you are just making it easier to disqualify your results when it fails. If I remember correctly, you have no idea what the expected force your experiment might produce. So already you can always just say the force was smaller than your sensor could detect. In other words, your experiment is not falsifiable.

If you have any other questions, I suggest that you get a lawn chair and set it up in a field under the night sky, then ask your space alien friends.

BTW, why is this in Physics and Math? It should be with the rest of your theory in Alternative Theories, or in Pseudoscience or UFOs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I tried some of the other frequency generators in sweep mode. Unfortunately, frequency steps are >= 1.0ms; but I need the whole sweep to be 1ms, so those won't work. The AWG7122C is still available. I'll write the 1GHz-2GHz,1ms sweep tonight and then see what it looks like tomorrow.

I was talking to a friend of mine at work. He suggested that I create my own antenna from copper wrapped foam. There is probably a website that will tell me what dimensions I need. The plan is to pursue proof of concept. I will make improvements in the antenna, possibly buy a better scale with better resolution. I'll try to clean up my signal as best I can.

There is only so much that I can do. Beyond that, if I can't get proof of concept, then I just want to know that I tried everything that I could.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When you do that , make sure that you also make yourself a nice copper foil hat.

 

When it works, I'll be sure to post a video on YouTube.com. You'll want the experimental data so that you can get started rewriting the laws of physics.

 

Copper foil works best

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And when it doesn't work, will you promise not to come back until it does?

 

No. Why would I do that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Today I was able to upload 800MHz to 1.6GHz sweep at 1.0ms and 0.1microsecond sweep period, and a bit rate of 24Gsamples/sec. The amplitudes were anything but constant. In fact, the oscillope displayed a dying exponential. This has me thinking about phasors, \(Ae^{i \theta}\). So I've been looking at the Tektronix website, particularly http://www.tek.com/whitepaper/impulse-response-measurement-quality-chirp-radar-pulses.

I remember seeing something in the application articles that could compensate for the amplitude. Capacitive Reactance also comes to mind. Boy this is getting complicated.

 

You must be doing something wrong. The signal should not roll off like you describe. You do not provide any information so I can't tell you much more. You should be using the maximum sample rate of your generator. Your scope should have enough BW for your signal. You should be using a good quality cable (SMA) and you should have your scope set to the proper termination. Somehow I picture you inserting the tip of a X10 500MHz probe into the generators output SMA. Perhaps you should read the manuals of the equipment you are using. If all else fails replace the operator.

 

Until someone can show me that this is based on something other than ideas the original poster has achieved using PIDOOMA, this thread is moved to alt theories.

 

I don't need technician level help. I certainly don't need need your help. Go troll someone else's thread. Say bye bye.

 

Not trolling. If you noticed I was the only person who responded to your call for help. It is obvious that you do need technician level help because you can't seem to use an oscilloscope to look at a signal coming out of a signal generator that can definitely generate the signal you are looking for. We are not talking rocket science. We are not talking even engineering level. And a technician (you) who "works on high performance oscilloscopes" should be able to handle this pedestrian task. Your proposed plan of attack (phasors) was an indication that you have no ability to ever complete your experiment. It has been weeks since your announced your start and so far all you have accomplished is turing on your signal generator.

So what was the problem? Perhaps the space aliens are confounding your attempts to produce the gravity beam device.

 

What part of go away, bye bye, didn't you understand? Shouldn't you be ripping off someone's patented ideas? I thought that was what you did for a living? You never did tell me the name of your company.

 

I had to think about where you got the idea that I "rip off patents". Taking apart your competition's products is not ripping off patents. And I assure you that your company does that. No more illegal or unethical than reading papers by other researchers is ripping off their ideas. In fact it can help keep your own products from stepping on any patent toes. It used to be that Tek (and other equipment manufacturers) sent a full electrical and mechanical schematic with every product. Does General Motors look at the engines of Ford? You do not understand anything about the market of your employer. Stick with calibrating those clocks. One thing that puzzles me is that no one from Tek reads these forums. If they did then you would probably be encouraged to stop using Tektronix's name when talking about your space aliens and gravity beam experiments. I would think it would be somewhat embarrassing for them. In fact if I was you manager I would reassess your skill level. It appears you are unqualified for your current position.

 

You still didn't tell me the name of your company. That is proof that you know you're doing something unethical and possibly illegal.

Let me put this another way. You come across as being unethical and scurrilous. I don't trust you. I don't want your help. I don't want to talk to you. Piss off.

 

My employer has nothing to do with what I post here. There is no reason to bring their name into this. When I was hired I had to sign many agreements. I am careful not to violate any of those. You probably had to sign similar agreements. Maybe you should review those agreements to see if you are breaking any of their conditions in associating Tek's name with conducting crazy gravity beam experiments you learned of via telepathic communication with space aliens. It could reflect negatively on Tektronix's reputation. I know that I have a different impression of the company after your posts here. I would be surprised if others here don't have a similar impression. I can assure you that some of Tek's customers read these forums. I am only trying to encourage you to CYA. Of course everything here is searchable in google and so your relationship with Tek, gravity beams and space aliens is forever documented and available for anyone to read. Whenever you bring up the fact that you work for Tektronix, you are representing them here. And whenever you tell us that you can't successfully use a Tek oscilloscope to look at the output of a Tek signal generator it could discourage people from buying Tek products. I prefer Agilent products so it does not really impact me.

 

I admit that I'm still trying to learn how to use the AWG. I'm also still learning about how AWG sweeps reproduce frequency chirps. I tried to use two other brand names to generate frequency sweeps, but they had a minimum of one millisecond per step. I need the whole sweep to be one millisecond or less. The other AWG brand's couldn't do the job. The Tek AWG could; it performed a 0.8 to 1.6GHz sweep every millisecond with only about a ten percent loss of amplitude. It was when I tried to do the same sweep every microsecond that I started to see a significant loss of amplitude. I admit that I don't understand enough about the mathematics of linear chirps, or the AWG, to explain the loss of amplitude. I just thought it was something that could be routinely compensated for.

Also, our Tektronix values are to be innovative. We received a newsletter that said: Dream, Develop, and Deliver. That's what I'm doing. I dream that someday we will have gravity drive technology. I hope to achieve it using a Tektronix AWG. What's the problem? :shrug:

 

Cheezle, is this you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGXiS4X4Hlw
This is just the Rigol DG4062 function/arbitary waveform generator teardown video. My guess is that either this is you, or that you work with this person. It's good to have a face that goes with a name.

 

An AWG does not sweep. It is just a bunch of RAM that clocks its data into a high performance DAC at a set sample rate. I looked on the Tek.com AWG page and the spec is +/- 1.0 dB, from 50 MHz to 4.8 GHz for the regular version and +/- 2.5 dB, from 50 MHz to 9.6 GHz for the optional interleaved output version. You are evidently using the interleaved version since you said the sample rate was 24GS/s. Because your signal only goes to 1.6 GHz, I would expect that it would be pretty flat. +/- 1.0 dB is pretty normal for RF applications. Nothing you should need to worry about. If you are curious, just generate a sine wave and change the repetition rate from 800 MHz to 1.6 GHz. Note any roll off. Perhaps your generator is needs repair. You will need to use a very low resolution sine wave because of number of samples you are limited to 1.6 GHz. You may even have to compare square waves if you don't have a low enough resolution sine. That is the problem with AWGs. Nature of the beast.

You can compensate for roll off by changing the scale of the amplitude from one end of the wave form to the other. You have 8/10 bits of resolution to work with. But this should not be necessary.

You claims of telepathic communication with space aliens / God is a little ... bizarre. If I was CEO of Tektronix and I found out one of my employees was building a space alien inspired gravity beam using my company's equipment and facilities, and talking about it on the internet in a public forum, and that the experiment was sanctioned by a Tek manager. Well there would be two fewer employees at Tektronix. As I said, because you represent yourself here as a Tektronix employee, what you say here can reflect on your employer. I know that my impression of Tek has changed after reading your posts here. Your belligerence and crazy ideas does reflect on everything associated with you. When I hear the name Tek I will forever think of space aliens and gravity beams. And that is not a positive thing for Tek.