A longer minimum pulse is worse: the gap is what decides striking

min_ticks 6 broke 5 percent striking - seven current segments where 3 gave
eight, on a 36.5 s fire window against 41.4 s for eight rungs. Below the
minimum the model emits min ticks every min/on periods, so the interval
between pulses is min_ticks x tick / density and the base period cancels,
which is also why periods 10, 20 and 40 gave identical results earlier.
At 5 percent that is 2.26 ms at min 3, which struck, against 4.51 ms at 6,
which did not: doubling the minimum doubles the gap as well as the pulse,
and the discharge is re-struck each pulse.

min 3 sits at the factory's own operating point - its 6.5 percent engrave
jobs place 100 us pulses 1.54 ms apart against 1.64 ms for min 3 at that
density - and 6 is outside anything the factory does. The bench is back
at 3.

Measured band for this tube: strikes from ~5 percent density, marks from
~10 percent at F300. That closes the pulse-structure route to a usable
1 percent, since the interval grows as 1/density and 1 percent implies an
11 ms gap. The low end is a scaling problem, and $35 is the control.
This commit is contained in:
ScottW514
2026-08-17 21:52:15 -04:00
parent ff454ed537
commit d7c23cce19
2 changed files with 53 additions and 9 deletions
+20
View File
@@ -724,6 +724,19 @@ not a release.
corner instead of the ~7.7× it would rise with no compensation. On the UI corner instead of the ~7.7× it would rise with no compensation. On the UI
scale, PP 1→100 is linear in density (~0.006 per unit, intercept ~0.189) and scale, PP 1→100 is linear in density (~0.006 per unit, intercept ~0.189) and
Full Power sits off that line, where PP ~134 would land. Full Power sits off that line, where PP ~134 would land.
- **Density dose limits** (measured on five ladders, `dladder`): under the
FIRE-density model the interval between pulses at a level below the
minimum is `min_ticks x tick / density` - **the base period cancels**,
which is why periods 10, 20 and 40 gave identical results. The tube
**strikes down to ~5 % density at a 2.26 ms interval** (`min_ticks` 3,
106 us pulses) and **fails to strike at 4.51 ms** (`min_ticks` 6, 213 us):
lengthening the pulse at fixed density lengthens the gap in proportion,
and the gap is what kills re-striking. It **marks from ~10 %** at F300 on
scrap. `min_ticks` 3 is essentially the factory's own structure - its
6.5 % engrave jobs put 100 us pulses 1.54 ms apart, against 1.64 ms for
`min_ticks` 3 at that density - and 6 is outside anything the factory
does. Below ~5 % no pulse shape reaches the tube: the interval grows as
1/density, so 1 % implies an 11 ms gap, five times what already failed.
- **Cooling operating point**: 40 % heater duty, 50 s window, flow-rise - **Cooling operating point**: 40 % heater duty, 50 s window, flow-rise
threshold 14.4 °C, re-checks every 150 s. Below ~40 % duty the stagnant loop threshold 14.4 °C, re-checks every 150 s. Below ~40 % duty the stagnant loop
sheds the heater's output by convection well enough to mimic flow (at 30 %, sheds the heater's output by convection well enough to mimic flow (at 30 %,
@@ -1113,6 +1126,13 @@ Open items only. Anything closed is in `CAMPAIGN-LOG.md`.
With a minimum in place the low end is decoupled from the base period, With a minimum in place the low end is decoupled from the base period,
so the period is free to be chosen on other grounds. It stays at 20. so the period is free to be chosen on other grounds. It stays at 20.
**The low end is a scaling problem, not a modulation one.** The band
this tube gives is ~5 % density to strike and ~10 % to mark (facts
bank); below that the pulse interval outruns the discharge whatever the
pulse shape. So a commanded 1 % can only be made useful by mapping it
onto that band, which is what the factory does and what `$35` is under
this model.
Owed: the user-facing scale. The factory maps its whole 1-100 power Owed: the user-facing scale. The factory maps its whole 1-100 power
scale onto density 18.9-79.5 % (fit from the three captures; Full Power scale onto density 18.9-79.5 % (fit from the three captures; Full Power
is off that line at ~99.7 %), so its "1 %" is the bottom of the band is off that line at ~99.7 %), so its "1 %" is the bottom of the band
+33 -9
View File
@@ -2981,15 +2981,39 @@ against the result rather than for it — this ladder started at MPos 0,0 after
the controller restart, so it may be on different material than the stacked the controller restart, so it may be on different material than the stacked
Y=0/24/48/72 runs. Y=0/24/48/72 runs.
Owed next: whether a longer minimum reaches further down (`min_ticks = 6`, ### The sixth ladder: a longer minimum is worse, and why
213 µs, is set on the bench for the next ladder), and then the user-facing
scale. Under this model `$35` and `$36` are a density floor and ceiling, so `min_ticks = 6` (213 µs), same ladder otherwise. **It broke 5 % striking** —
mapping S onto the usable band is a settings choice rather than new code, but seven current segments again, boundaries at 14.5, ~19.85, 25.2, 30.4, 35.9
the floor's value wants a finer ladder than the 10 %→20 % step. The trick has and 41.1 s, segments 4.4–4.9 s with none double-length, fire spanning
a ceiling of its own: a longer minimum at fixed dose means longer gaps, and 9.5 → 46.0 s = 36.5 s against 41.4 s for eight rungs, and the flat saturated
once gap × feed approaches the beam spot a line dots. At 5 mm/s a 4.5 ms gap tail anchoring rung 8. Seven rungs marked, matching.
is 22 µm against a ~200 µm spot; at 2000 mm/min it is 150 µm, where dotting
would start to show. The arithmetic explains it. Below the minimum the model emits `min` ticks
every `min/on` periods, so the interval between pulse starts is
interval = min_ticks × tick / density
and **the base period cancels** — which retroactively explains why periods
10, 20 and 40 gave identical results in the first three ladders. At 5 %
density that is 2.26 ms at `min_ticks` 3, which struck, against 4.51 ms at 6,
which did not. Doubling the minimum doubles the gap as well as the pulse, and
the gap is what decides: the discharge is re-struck each pulse and past
roughly 2–4 ms it has decayed too far to catch.
That also puts `min_ticks` 3 at the factory's own operating point — its 6.5 %
engrave jobs place 100 µs pulses 1.54 ms apart, against 1.64 ms for
`min_ticks` 3 at that density — and puts 6 outside anything the factory does,
in the direction that fails. The bench is back at 3.
**Measured band for this tube: strikes from ~5 %, marks from ~10 % at F300.**
Which closes the pulse-structure route to a usable 1 %. The interval grows as
1/density, so 1 % implies an 11 ms gap, five times what already failed —
no pulse shape reaches down there. The low end is a scaling problem: map the
user's 1–100 onto the band that works, via `$35` as the density floor, which
is what the factory does and why its cut scale starts at 18.9 % while its
engraves reach 6.5 %. Both sit inside the band measured here independently.
## Superseded status notes ## Superseded status notes