Hello Eucy
The model schematic and parameters for DAEX25FHE, DAEX25VT, XT25, XT32 are now in the document Github exciter_characteristics.pdf
@Veleric : Thank you Eric for the measurements.
Extract :
Thanks Christian/Eric - I note some reasonable differences in measured vs published rms values for the Xcite 24-4 and 32-4 units...
Eucy -
Eucy -
The values from the measurements and from the specification are comparable only if they refer to the same model. The model being like the way to extract several information from the impedance curve. So in this paper only the value from the first page are comparable directly referring to the Thiele and Small (T/S) parameters (or model) which suppose a constant Rms value over the frequency range.
The model in last page (the one I posted just before) suppose a frequency dependent Rms
From this table it comes as resonance frequency for XT25 326Hz (for 306Hz in the spec), for XT32 310Hz (for 312Hz in the spec) so using those frequencies for Rms calculation in last page , it comes for XT25 0.175 vs 0.09 in the spec and 0.14 in T/S model and for XT32 0.31 vs 0.2 in the spec and 0,2 in T/S model.
Knowing since those measurements that the damping is probably the parameter with the most important error margin, I would say it is not that bad.
With your comment, I see the lines "Rms VC / magnet" and "Mms VC / magnet" of the first table are not consistent. They are now more clearly split (I uploaded a new version of the file)
The main comment I would do is about XT25 which is much stiffer at 0.12mm/N the the Dayton models FHE, VT at 0,4mm/N. I don't know the consequence. The XT32 is comparable (from those parameters) to the DAEX30HSFE.
Christian
Christian,
Looks like they slipped a few digits in the Dayton specs for Cms, unless they are a lot stiffer than we think. Presumably they mean m/N instead of mm/N. Or am I missing something? Your numbers make more sense to me!
Eric
Hello Eric,
Yes it is a mistake in the datasheet. We can confirm ss the fs is visible on the impedance curve, the mms makes sense in gram range so if you compute the cms it comes below 1mm/N. fs = 1/2/pi/sqrt(mms*cms)
@EarthTonesElectronics
Dave,
In PETTaLS, have you implemented a frequency dependent Q? If yes, is it possible to know which law? Thank you
Christian
Dave,
In PETTaLS, have you implemented a frequency dependent Q? If yes, is it possible to know which law? Thank you
Christian