My Mode 3 - In action

[Michael Luton]

Better digital meters use a FET input for the purpose of almost eliminating circuit loading. I do not know your particular meter enough to say if that is the case here. But if it does, could that have a bearing on what you are seeing?

Michael

[BobZilla]

Better digital meters use a FET input for the purpose of almost eliminating circuit loading. I do not know your particular meter enough to say if that is the case here. But if it does, could that have a bearing on what you are seeing?

Michael

Michael that is a very good guess at it, I could see how that could be. If it is using a FET then then a rapid voltage increase would send it through the roof and because it's a FET practically no current would need to flow. I don't know if that is the case but it is very plausible. Thanks for pointing that out. These meters are on the high end of things so perhaps that's the difference.

[min2oly]

Solved it... on mine anyway. When I turn the meter on and move the dial to detect DC voltage. The meter is in auto mode, it will adjust according to the voltage it sees. When the voltage is changing too fast or goes out of range it can not adjust quickly enough and gives a false reading. What I did on mine was to manually set it by pressing the "range" button to get 000.0 this forces the meter to read in terms of hundreds...
Now it looks/reads just like my other meter.
http://support.radioshack.com/suppor...oc67/67314.pdf page 19-20
I'm still going to pursue this and I am very interested in the dancing pulses. When I get everything setup I'll do some long runs. This is fun!
Kind Regards - Patrick

[BobZilla]

Solved it... on mine anyway. When I turn the meter on and move the dial to detect DC voltage. The meter is in auto mode, it will adjust according to the voltage it sees. When the voltage is changing too fast or goes out of range it can not adjust quickly enough and gives a false reading. What I did on mine was to manually set it by pressing the "range" button to get 000.0 this forces the meter to read in terms of hundreds...
Now it looks/reads just like my other meter.
http://support.radioshack.com/suppor...oc67/67314.pdf page 19-20
I'm still going to pursue this and I am very interested in the dancing pulses. When I get everything setup I'll do some long runs. This is fun!
Kind Regards - Patrick

I'm going to beat the dead horse Lol ,,,

Patrick I don't know that making it shut up is solving anything though. There is a reason for the meter behaving that way, it is an indicator of something. It is switching scale but the question would be why. If you run a cap up to 40v the meter reads it just fine (I mean without dumping). We saw on the smaller cap with faster dumps that it was switching scale way below 40, more like 32-34 or so. Why should it switch scale then if we are not ever going over said voltage. I'm not trying to offer an answer to it but it shouldn't switch scale unless there is a higher voltage and it thinks it needs to. By manually switching the scale it probably adds that extra resistance to the meter that I was talking about.

Anyway it was worth pursuing this so thanks for all the back and fourth with it. To me it is still all that it ever was, an indicator.

[min2oly]

Hi Bob,
Yes, there is a reason the meter is behaving that way and I'm keeping my mind open to ALL possibilities. My intention is surely not to "shut up" the meter. I don't think it is switching scale, I just don't think it knows what to do with that quick voltage drop. After much research on the subject, I'm not even sure I trust my Owon digital scope.

At this point I’m more interested in what one of your runs looks like - similar to the demo you did when the primary was at 11.95 and the charging was at 13+ using the dancing dipoles method. I'm curious to see what the meter view will show when manually placed in 000.0 range or even 00.00. However, I am more curious to see how differently the primary battery behaves with that type of cap "dipole dance" dumping. I do see charge going back to the primary with my setup, but i'm not using your dancing dipole method yet.

Still waiting on FET’s!

[BobZilla]

Hi Patrick,
Hey I just want you to know I didn't mean anything in a condescending way, maybe my choice of words didn't convey my thoughts on it in the best way. I don't know exactly why/what we see there and, we may never know. I am just putting fourth some theory that we also can probably never verify.

I have ordered some FET's and diodes to build that old machine back into the original configuration. I think the FET's actually do a better job than the SSR's but can't really be certain about it. It seems like they have a faster off which leads to cleaner over all switching. Don't get me wrong guys the SSR's work good in place of FET's in all of these applications as I have described but their may be just a slight advantage with the FET. It is most likely because of the grounding with the FET as opposed to the isolation of the SSR.

Mouser had my favorite FET's on back order so I got some similar ones instead, these are rated higher on current too. What makes this line so good I think is the rise/fall times which is why I originally tried them out. Patrick I wonder if you ordered yours from mouser, they may be on back order unless you got some before they ran out. ;-(

Here is what I will be trying:

http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/...MQ0xT1SA%3d%3d

[min2oly]

Bob, in your DancingExample.wmv you have the meter connected directly to the primary battery I believe. These are True RMS meters and I do believe it is sensing the correct voltage there. While I have some energy coming back to the primary on my battery, it is never above the resting voltage as you have shown. where you using the longer sketch toward the beginning of this thread for that one? I think the shortest ON/dump time was 65 on that one? If not would you mind posting another base sketch I can work from? I think I asked a similar quesiton before and I know you also shared one in the video, just hoping for a nice baseline to start from...

I tried installing the meterview on an old windows xp laptop, no drivers for the meter thinking about getting the CBA IV
KR-Patrick

[BobZilla]

Hi Patrick,
I have the original software that shipped with my meter, want a copy? It has a folder for (win2000), (win7,XP,Vista), and (W98,ME). I could upload it to my one drive for you, same place I push the video's from.


Here is a sketch from back then and I think it is the actual one that I was running at the end of that video. It's hard to be sure because I made probably over a hundred different iterations while I was experimenting. You may have to adjust some of the times to fit your cap and how your machine is pushing but it's a good place to start with.

By the way I don't know if you thought of it but editing these things can be real easy if you put it in word or wordpad and use the search and replace function. Say like on the sketch if you think all of the 20's should be 15's, just do a search and replace all and whamo it will do them all at once for you, then just copy/paste back into the aurduino window. It makes adjustments quick and easy. A word of caution here though, always turn whatever your feeding the caps with OFF when you change and push up a config. The MC skips out and can overload your cap or do some other nasty stuff that will blow out components. I used to just push on the fly and sometimes you can but depending on how your running it can mess things up big time so just stop feeding the cap before you push a config.


int mosfet = 13 ;
void setup() {
pinMode(mosfet, OUTPUT);}
void loop() {
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (600) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (125) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;


digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
; }

[min2oly]

Nice, I just uploaded the sketch and am running it right now. Using radio, it sounds very similar.

It's worth a try, regarding radio shack meter view.
Thanks! - Patrick

Hi Patrick,
I have the original software that shipped with my meter, want a copy? It has a folder for (win2000), (win7,XP,Vista), and (W98,ME). I could upload it to my one drive for you, same place I push the video's from.


Here is a sketch from back then and I think it is the actual one that I was running at the end of that video. It's hard to be sure because I made probably over a hundred different iterations while I was experimenting. You may have to adjust some of the times to fit your cap and how your machine is pushing but it's a good place to start with.

By the way I don't know if you thought of it but editing these things can be real easy if you put it in word or wordpad and use the search and replace function. Say like on the sketch if you think all of the 20's should be 15's, just do a search and replace all and whamo it will do them all at once for you, then just copy/paste back into the aurduino window. It makes adjustments quick and easy. A word of caution here though, always turn whatever your feeding the caps with OFF when you change and push up a config. The MC skips out and can overload your cap or do some other nasty stuff that will blow out components. I used to just push on the fly and sometimes you can but depending on how your running it can mess things up big time so just stop feeding the cap before you push a config.


int mosfet = 13 ;
void setup() {
pinMode(mosfet, OUTPUT);}
void loop() {
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (600) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (125) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;

digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (200) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (85) ;


digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, LOW) ;
delay (20) ;
digitalWrite (mosfet, HIGH) ;
delay (5) ;
; }

[BobZilla]

Here is the meterview software. I had to zip it into a single file, otherwise you would have to download each file individually from the one drive. Newer windows boxes can unzip it nativly otherwise use winzip or 7-zip

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmzmftzD-V0miGKeBBREUW8NnGhJ

[min2oly]

Here is the meterview software. I had to zip it into a single file, otherwise you would have to download each file individually from the one drive. Newer windows boxes can unzip it nativly otherwise use winzip or 7-zip

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmzmftzD-V0miGKeBBREUW8NnGhJ

Awesome! still working on cleaning things up...

[BobZilla]

Glad it worked for you Patrick.

Hey I have been also trying to replicate the results we saw in that old video and I'm not getting such dramatic push back on the primary either. I'm hoping when I get some real FET's and setup the old SS how it was in that video that it will resemble the old results but for now I'm just trying to be honest about it with you. I also tried bypassing the diode, heck both of them even but it's just not looking the same. I am getting some good results as far as just looking at it as a cap dump but it doesn't seem to be behaving the same. I'm going to keep at it but don't drive yourself crazy trying to get exactly what we saw in the old video because I am having a hard time at it as well and I'm the one that made the damm thing. It was quite a long time ago and I am trying to remember if there were any tricks to it, I do know that I had tried a lot of variations with the timing. It's not so fresh for me anymore because for quite awhile I have shifted over to non cap dumping methods on my little aluminum machine.

[min2oly]

Many times in the past on the old yahoo forum we use to get things working, show some event, take it apart and never be able to replicate it again. It was back then I made a hard-fast rule to never take something apart unless could replicate it a few times. I know JB made a habit of not taking most any of his builds apart.

That being said, at least you have the video… Sounds like you already intend on setting the original stuff back up. I’m going to keep trying with the bike wheel since it is already going. Same batteries etc all is part of the ckt as you already know.

Also, the charging using the sketch you just posted for me is much much much better than straight cap dumping. I’m curious what ever led you down that path?

All said and done, this is a good hunt and I’ve already learned so much. I wish JB would have been more open to using it (the digital chip). He always said he was an analog guy, but that stuff is so difficult to replicate. It would have been interesting to see what sketches he would have come up with.

I know analog is difficult to replicate as many have not been able to replicate what I see as a simple CPD thing or even the negistor. I wonder if my MOD’s are not allowing the transistor to be ON long enough to let the spike go back to the battery I’m going to go old school and see what happens.

Kind Regards - Patrick

Glad it worked for you Patrick.

Hey I have been also trying to replicate the results we saw in that old video and I'm not getting such dramatic push back on the primary either. I'm hoping when I get some real FET's and setup the old SS how it was in that video that it will resemble the old results but for now I'm just trying to be honest about it with you. I also tried bypassing the diode, heck both of them even but it's just not looking the same. I am getting some good results as far as just looking at it as a cap dump but it doesn't seem to be behaving the same. I'm going to keep at it but don't drive yourself crazy trying to get exactly what we saw in the old video because I am having a hard time at it as well and I'm the one that made the damm thing. It was quite a long time ago and I am trying to remember if there were any tricks to it, I do know that I had tried a lot of variations with the timing. It's not so fresh for me anymore because for quite awhile I have shifted over to non cap dumping methods on my little aluminum machine.

[BobZilla]

Many times in the past on the old yahoo forum we use to get things working, show some event, take it apart and never be able to replicate it again. It was back then I made a hard-fast rule to never take something apart unless could replicate it a few times. I know JB made a habit of not taking most any of his builds apart.

That being said, at least you have the video… Sounds like you already intend on setting the original stuff back up. I’m going to keep trying with the bike wheel since it is already going. Same batteries etc all is part of the ckt as you already know.

Also, the charging using the sketch you just posted for me is much much much better than straight cap dumping. I’m curious what ever led you down that path?

All said and done, this is a good hunt and I’ve already learned so much. I wish JB would have been more open to using it (the digital chip). He always said he was an analog guy, but that stuff is so difficult to replicate. It would have been interesting to see what sketches he would have come up with.

I know analog is difficult to replicate as many have not been able to replicate what I see as a simple CPD thing or even the negistor. I wonder if my MOD’s are not allowing the transistor to be ON long enough to let the spike go back to the battery I’m going to go old school and see what happens.

Kind Regards - Patrick

Indeed I wish I never messed with that setup but at the time I did not have as many coils and various parts so I had to change around stuff I had built if I wanted to try something new. It doesn't matter if we can replicate exactly what was in that video or not really although it is really erking me now. You hit the nail on the head with saying you are seeing some good results from the dance method vs without it. In other word I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because I'm not seeing it so prevalent as before, this method has merit regardless.

What first got me started? Well I just thought the MC would be a great way to control a dump, just regular dumps. That is what I did with it for along time at first and it works great just for that alone. Later on the dancing method just came to me as I was contemplating what had been said by Mr. Bedini about what Mr. Tesla had said with the power plant. The dancing method was always about more dipoles, as I had described in that first post about it. When I saw the 400v thing I took it as evidence that the theory was working and that higher voltage made it more obvious to see but I believe the extra in-rush does occur even at lower voltages but the meter wasn't picking it up until I went higher.

If you read this and think in the context of what the dance method is supposed to be doing it lines up (at least for me) The whole page is interesting but I mostly mean the fist paragraph or two:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/Radiant1.htm

Now regardless if what I thought was happening is happening or not the method also has another aspect that is surely helping the charge. Frequency plays a big part in successful dumps as I'm sure you well know. I have always found that faster frequencies charge better than slower ones. For example a traditional dump of once per second will do better than once per 2 seconds and twice per second better than once and so on. So by slipping this little dance pulses in we are increasing frequency way beyond the major pulse. It keeps things pushing along in a way.

I prefer the MC still because you can do things programmatically that you just cannot do with physical parts. Things like adding variance in time within a loop rather that setting a time and it does the same over and over. The downside of course is that you need a computer to program it and an external supply for the board. Anyway it's been fun going over this with you so thanks. I am still waiting on the FET's but I hope to get that old SS setup like it was originally and see what we get.

I'm going to shoot a video of what I am playing with right now for you a bit later. It's showing some of the properties we are looking for just not as well as before. I can also show you what I think of as a full wave dance instead of the half wave I have shown you so far. It will make more sense when you see an example.

[BobZilla]

Something else just occurred to me, don't know if it is relevant but it could be. The batteries I am playing with right now and not seeing the effect as much have been conditioned for the negative charge. It might stand to reason that back then on the original setup I was probably cap dumping on everything and they would have been normal positive conditioned. Could be something there?