I´m wondering why people often try to solve tricky problems using components they already have ...
It is just a try.!
I saw the output on my friends oscilloscope and looked pretty much stable but had some gitter (just like the Propstick you tested with PGen), that's all.!!
When I will have the oportunity I will take a better video showing the scope's output.
Greetings from Greece,
Assuming that Stan Meyer technology is not as simple as it looks from the pictures he made it´s unlikely that i.e. a simple mains transformer found somewhere in the boxroom will do the VIC trick at all ... But that old part will give some lessons learned by applying it to an experiment example. Agreed.
... and finally each component will have to be designed as needed. Doing it the right way right from the beginning might be a benefit if not the component costs alone but the amount of time invested is taken into account.
so exchanging experiences and load sharing can be a real benefit for a forum like ours. and of course there are different states of knowledge represented.
I´m glad that you give the uC solution a try. it´s so many years now that people all over the place have designed hardware pulser solutions with long-term requirements for change. experimental setup showed their deficiencies. software solutions are smarter because for change there is no soldering necessary and no parts must be thrown away.
for me it´s obvious that for resonance analysis we should be as precise as possible because right now we have no clue about the exact effect taking place.
the PropStick in my video doesn´t show frequency jitter. as I mentioned in place it´s a 50 Hz frequency overlay from the grid caused by bad shielding / grounding that disturbed the digital trigger of the scope.
the pulse timing itself is as constant as the hardware pulser equivalent.
But I will have to redo both videos with a better setup and better audio. lessons learned :-)