Student Number: 25154893

16/03/2014

Measuring Feigenbaums First Constant using an Electric Circuit

Brittany Barrett
bb2g11@soton.ac.uk Personal Tutor: Graham Reed

Abstract:

Any system exhibiting period doubling should produce Feigenbaums constant, the ratio 1 , at 4.23 from 2 to 8 periods. This ratio should be present in electrical systems, but has been found somewhat inaccurate in previous experiments. Six results were gathered, only one of which found amplitudes relating Feigenbaums Constant to an appropriate approximation of the ratio, at 4.24. Although this system was exhibiting chaotic behaviour, through an exponential relationship between the amount of periods present in the system and the input amplitude, it was not conclusively exhibiting the ratio 1 . It was concluded that an electrical system is markedly difficult to produce consistent behaviour in, due to its variance with input, and the inaccuracy when making visual measurements of period doubling.

1.

Introduction

2.

Background

Feigenbaum described period doubling towards chaos as a naturally occurring phenomenon, in which onedimensional maps for a system that shows a single quadratic maximum will bifurcate at the same rate:

+1 +2 +1

(1)

The value is not absolute, and approaches the ratio , defined as 4.699 quickly as per each period doubling iteration of the system. This value was described as being present in all period doubling systems[1]. This theory should therefore apply to electrical systems, and should be observable through the use of electronic measurement tools. By analysing a series system comprising an EMF, inductor and diode, the amplitude of voltage measured across the diode should exhibit period doubling behaviour, as described in previous experiments[2]. The experiment undertaken sought to clarify the value by relating input voltage to observed bifurcation in output voltage across the diode. Thereby, period doubling would be inferred. As the amplitude of a sinusoidal signal is variant, and all elements of the system tend towards a higher level of uncertainty, the amount of periods present in a system becomes difficult to determine, i.e. chaotic. For this reason, 1 is most accurately gauged electronically, where 1 is given as approximately 4.23. Therefore, the three results gathered must be at 2, 4 and 8 periods present in the system, in order to gain the ratio 1 .

When the EMF of the circuit is applied within the forward-bias region of the diode, the diode will act as a voltage source. The diode will respond in a capacitive manner when the EMF is applied within the reverse-bias region of the diode. The alternation between conduction and capacitance is not an immediate effect when the current reaches zero, it continues conduction for a short period of time . is exponentially dependent on the current applied to the system. As a result, with a certain applied current, the system no longer has a single period in which it is conducting, but the previous period will have an effect on a succinctly occurring current. Therefore, period doubling occurs, and determines an exponential relationship between each succinct period doubling. A more succinct, mathematical analysis of this behaviour is given in the paper Chaos In A Diode[3]. Previous experiments have well described this electrical circuit, but have often failed to draw results within an accuracy range of 5%[4].

Figure 1: Period doubling exponentially tending towards chaos, applicable to an electronic system.[5]

Student Number: 25154893

16/03/2014

3.

Experimental Design

4.

Results

An electric circuit was built comprising an unspecified diode, 10 20%copper wire coil inductor, wired using a breadboard. An EMF was supplied using a TG550 function generator, with a marked 1% error margin given on all functional parameters used in this test, as provided in its data booklet.The function generator was set to provide a 182 signal, where voltage was used as a parameter to investigate period doubling.Wires used in connecting these components were either electrically insulated or kept short to avoid overriding inductance, which could have given unspecified results.

The same system was analysed in six experiments, and produced a variety of different amplitudes at which period doubling occurred. To determine whether or not period doubling had occurred, a result would be gathered at a notable change in the oscilloscopes reading of output amplitude. Figures 3 and 4 describe the visual changes observed to gather these amplitudes.

Figure 3: A system exhibiting two periods Figure 2: Schematic of analysed circuit

The measurement equipment comprised of two x10 attenuation oscilloscope probes, and a TDS1000C-EDU oscilloscope. The probes were calibrated using the oscilloscopes calibration function to provide a < 1% error in measurement. The oscilloscopes used measured across the diode for channel 1, and across the function generator for channel 2, with ground as reference, as given in figure 1.The oscilloscope scale was adjusted as per each value, to give a precise reading for period doubling. The system was analysed by slowly adjusting the function generators voltage amplitude, and then taking two measurements, 1 , 2 , per each observed period doubling. The first measurement was taken slightly before period doubling, and the second measurement slightly after.

Figure 4: A system exhibiting four periods

Experiment First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth

1 ( ) 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.96 1.66 1.76

2 () 2.50 2.70 2.69 2.47 2.10 2.52

3 ( ) 3.22 3.08 2.91 2.88 2.50 2.84

1 0.97 2.37 4.24 1.24 1.10 2.375

2 1 2

(2)

The result using equation (2) would give an average amplitude, , as to where period doubling had occurred. This average was used due to inconsistency generated by treating period doubling as a point, as opposed to a region. The amplitude of period doubling was measured three times per system, in order to gain an approximation of Feigenbaums first constant, using equation 1.The experiment was repeated multiple times in order to better approximate .

Table 1: Output amplitude and ratio of period doubling

Due to the inherently chaotic nature of the system, and the oscillatory function being provided, the results gathered were found to have been within a 5% tolerance range. These values varied on the oscilloscope display, and were estimated using equation (2). The values gathered attempting to confirmFeigenbaums Constant varied between 77.10% and +1.03% of Feigenbaums original value of 4.23.

Student Number: 25154893

16/03/2014
Component conditions such as variance with temperature and inductance are unaccounted for in the experiment, yet account for changes in resistance, and therefore current. As a higher peak voltage is applied to the system, its expected therefore that the diode will raise in temperature, changing its forward-bias region. The inductance of the system is also subject to change based on temperature. As a result, the system may be changing over time, meaning that the gathering of results is inherently gathering from different conditional systems. All of these changes account for minor variations in gathering appropriate values for amplitude. The blocking described in the results section also accounted for variations in gathering results. Due to the variance involved, and the visual approach to deducing period doubling, results are heavily influenced by external factors.

Of the six experiments, one result was found to have been within a tolerable range given the error. Experiment three produced appropriate results, however was not carried out in a different manner to the rest of the experiments. Due to the range of tolerance of each amplitude, it was found by minor adjustment within the 5%range of each value that each experiment would yield a far closer value to 4.23. Another measurement observed in this system was an effect of blocking occurring in regards to whether or not a system was exhibiting local period doubling. To move from one local period doubling to the next, a certain amplitude would have to be applied to the system. However, to observe this change occurring in reverse, the system would have to cross the same region, meaning there was a voltage range for each period doubling in which a system would be in either the higher period doubling, or the lower, depending on which it had previously been in. This value changed significantly per each experiment. Despite inaccurate results being drawn through most experiments, for the specified component and measurement tolerance ranges, experiment three yielded a highly accurate result. Within 1.03% of the Feigenbaums constant in a system exhibiting up to 8 periods, experiment three shows a working electrical mode of Feigenbaums hypothesis.

6.

Conclusions

Five of the six experiments failed to conclusively prove Feigenbaums hypothesis. Although period doubling is observed, and the system tends towards chaos, with an exponential rise in periods present in the system per amplitude, the experiments have failed to draw conclusive linear results. The circuit conditions involved in this system are observably difficult to resolve and quantify. These unreliable factors lead to difficulty in observing specific points of bifurcation. As small values of variability produce large changes in accuracy to approximation of Feigenbaums constant, these small inaccuracies are most likely to be responsible for the discrepancy in each experiment, including what could be wishful thinking in the case of the experiment that drew conclusively successful results.

5.

Discussion

The system was determined to be difficult to analyse using the provided hardware. The gathered results in Table 1 for 1 were, in all experiments other than the third, more than 40% out of the expected range, which greatly exceeds the determined error margins of components and measurement equipment. The data drawn could have been misrepresented, as visual observation of peak changes in the output may not necessarily give an accurate range of when period doubling is occurring. The first gathered term 1 is far more consistent than 2 and 3 . This could show that the system is already becoming heavily affected by noise due to the tendency towards chaos as the system tends to more periods present. As such, the gathered data would have no longer represented period doubling at certain amplitude, but inconsistencies. Other component conditions were not accounted for in this experiment. The diodes forward and reverse regions were not defined before the experiment begun, and may contribute to an analytical approach which could better estimate the expected amplitude at period doubling. This would have in turn lead to more care being taken in reading experimental results around the points of expected period doubling.

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] M. Feigenbaum, Universal Behaviour in Nonlinear Systems, 1980, pp. 1-5. University of Wisconsin, Demonstration of Chaos, 2003, pp. 4. A. Missert, P. Thompson, Chaos In A Diode, 2008, pp. 12. B. Prusha, Measuring Feigenbaums in a Bifurcating Electric Circuit, 1997, pp. 3. University of Yale, Deterministic Chaos, http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/chaos/Feigenbaum/Feigenb aum.html