OverUnity Research

Drift Step Recovery Diodes seem to be the best way today to produce high power pulses (up to GW) at ns time rise, and with simple means. I have put some papers about the subject here:
http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Electronique/Pulse/

I have decided to test the concept. The principle is to "charge" the capacitance of a diode, in the normal direction, from a di/dt coming through a capacitor. When the diode is charged and the voltage is decreasing across the junction, the diode becomes rapidly non-conductive and releases very quickly its charge into the resistive load which is connected in parallel with the diode. It is matter of nanoseconds.

Here is my schematic:
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8631;image)


To control this circuit, we need an input signal generator providing pulses of about 200ns. I use a function generator whose an input gate is validated by the output of another function generator in order to keep only one pulse on about 20. This allows for a clearer view of what occurs.
This signal controls the NPN transistor 2N3553 which can drive up to 1A at very high speed. I use it in an emitter follower configuration to drive the IRF640. It's the best way that I found otherwise it heats too much.
The diode FE2DG is a fast recovery diode whose the role is simply to eliminate the back emf from L1. L1 is made of 6 turns around a ferrite toroid core. L2 is the coupled output coil (4 turns). R3 is the load which receives the pulse from my DSRD diode FUF5404. I think it is the same as 1N5404 which is in the series 5401-5408 whose the 1N5408 is recommended for this purpose. I have plenty of fast recovery diodes, but none works well except the 5404. This one creates a pulse whose the amplitude is at least 4 times the best of my other diodes. The pulse is around 10ns (difficult to measure due to my scope limits), its amplitude goes up to 30v for a power supply of 28v. This represents a power of 19W into the load of 47 ohm, not too bad.


Input control signal (I used a x10 probe, so the voltage has to be multiplied by 10. The time scale is 1µs/div):
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8633;image)


Signal at the terminals of the load R3 when the diode is not connected and the power supply is 20v. The view is centered on the pulse for charging the [not yet connected] diode. The pulse is narrower than the input pulse, probably due to derivative effect in the LC coupling circuit. Note that the time scale is now 50ns/div:
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8635;image)


Same as above but now we have connected the diode: the much narrower pulse appears.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8637;image)


Considering that the circuit is not optimized and the IRF640 works far from its limits of voltage and current, I consider it is a success. It is very strange to observe the sharp pulse appearing when we connect the diode. Much higher power pulses can be expected by redesigning the circuit. I think it's a good tool for us.

ex:

Thanks for the excellent work on the DSRD's. When I first learned of this effect I wanted to test it, but many things got in the way. I have some 1N5408 diodes and will build a circuit soon.

One thing to be careful of is exceeding the gate voltage on your FET when you try higher supply voltages. The gate can be driven from a regulated source (three terminal regulator) bypassed with a proper low esr cap.

The emitter follower  would normally be a safe way to drive the FET, limiting voltage to the amplitude of the signal generator, however the 100 nF cap may allow peak voltages higher than the SG voltage as it will charge when the SG is in the low state.

I have waited a long time for such a circuit thankyou this is fantastic.  O0

Interestingly it's very similar to how i have been driving coils before, i always use an 1n4007 across my pulsed coil, i use a fet driver to drive the fet, the difference i can see is a transformer and capacitor in series with the load & diode.

One other thing i have used is UF variants of the 1N series they are ultra fast, i wonder if the UF5404 would be even better?

Thanks
ex

Quote from: ION on 2012.11.03, 18:28:51
ex:

Thanks for the excellent work on the DSRD's. When I first learned of this effect I wanted to test it, but many things got in the way. I have some 1N5408 diodes and will build a circuit soon.

One thing to be careful of is exceeding the gate voltage on your FET when you try higher supply voltages. The gate can be driven from a regulated source (three terminal regulator) bypassed with a proper low esr cap.

The emitter follower  would normally be a safe way to drive the FET, limiting voltage to the amplitude of the signal generator, however the 100 nF cap may allow peak voltages higher than the SG voltage as it will charge when the SG is in the low state.

Thank you for the advices which I will take into account if I go further. I built the circuit in less than an hour just to see this strange pulse and I didn't care the rules of engineering. I like the result but I'm not proud of my realization, it's horrible:    :-\
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8639;image)

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.03, 18:48:31
...
Interestingly it's very similar to how i have been driving coils before, i always use an 1n4007 across my pulsed coil, i use a fet driver to drive the fet, the difference i can see is a transformer and capacitor in series with the load & diode.

From what I read, the capacitor in series should be necessary for the pulse to occur. I have not yet asked me why.

Quote
One other thing i have used is UF variants of the 1N series they are ultra fast, i wonder if the UF5404 would be even better?
...

I don't know. It seems that the effect doesn't depend only on the recovery time. I have other diodes as fast as the FUF5404 but they give poorer results. I was in a hurry to be sure that such circuits work, so I have not studied all the matter that one can find on internet. I think we should find the answer on the net.
When I saw this kind of circuit that I was not aware despite it has been discovered 30 years ago and despite I follow the electronics news, I feel as I had moved to a parallel universe where DSRD was discovered but not yet in mine.  :)

Great work finding this, so simple it's hard to believe  :)

Ex,  

thanks for sharing.   I'm wondering, have you tried different values of L2?  I'm wondering if you can obtain bigger spikes with more inductance.

From what I read, these diodes turn off quickly, ie.  resistance increases rapidly, as their forward bias charge is drained once the current reverse, and it is their speed of turn off that is of value here, because it can create sharpt di/dt which translates to sharp dv/dt with any inductance in the circuit or inside the diode itself.

what's a good application for these sharp pulses, are you building a GHz transmitter?

EM  

Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.11.03, 21:20:44
...
I'm wondering, have you tried different values of L2?  I'm wondering if you can obtain bigger spikes with more inductance.

From what I read, these diodes turn off quickly, ie.  resistance increases rapidly, as their forward bias charge is drained once the current reverse, and it is their speed of turn off that is of value here, because it can create sharpt di/dt which translates to sharp dv/dt with any inductance in the circuit or inside the diode itself.

what's a good application for these sharp pulses, are you building a GHz transmitter?

EM  

With one turn more or less for L2, the pulse is not so high. It was the only point that I optimized.
The diode capacity is low and its charge is released quickly so it can provide a high pulse but in a short time. The output circuit must fit this condition by having a low impedance and matching the load resistance. This is incompatible with a high inductance.
Today I have changed C2 for 100 nF. The pulse is now 35W under 20v and can exceed 50W with higher voltage.
With 2 identical diodes in series or in parallel, there is almost no change.

The duty cycle is low. The period of repetition of pulses is very low in comparison with their duration. While the pulse width is on the order of ns, the repetition is on the order of Mhz. So for continuous Ghz transmissions, conventional radio means are better. Maybe we could load the pulse with a LC circuit resonant at hundreds of Mhz, and get a continuous signal, but we would loose the power. This circuit is intended for power pulses.
I have not yet tested the density of pulses/s that we can obtain with my setup.

The anti-back-emf diode produced losses, so I removed it. I also realized that a supplementary coil L3 in parallel with L1 improves the process, probably due to a better impedance matching. Then I reduced the gate resistance down to 5Ω and add a coil L4 in series.  Here is the new setup:
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8643)

By adjusting the input pulse width with the function generator and L3 with a ferrite rod sliding inside, the pulse rises up to 250v on my 49Ω load (I have measured it, it is an old resistance with the advantage to not be inductive but its initial value of 47Ω has a bit increased with the age).
This represents a pulse of 1,27 KW under a power supply voltage of 30v.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8645)

The circuit now:
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8647)

that's a slight improvement then  :o

I think the circuit can be made into a simple blocking oscillator to charge the diode capacitance, thereby eliminating the need for an external signal generator.

Quote from: ION on 2012.11.04, 15:05:56
I think the circuit can be made into a simple blocking oscillator to charge the diode capacitance, thereby eliminating the need for an external signal generator.

Surely. The interest of the signal generator was only to have a full control of the pulse, for tests and studies purpose. But for a practical use, an autonomous circuit is preferable.

I have some problem with the output power measurement. It could be much more. In spite that the pulses are narrow and at a low repetition rate, I observed that my resistance load heated. I suspected a problem with my probe and my scope not intended for high voltages in the ns range.

I decided to replace the load by a 47Ω resistance in series with 5.2Ω and to measure the voltage at the terminals of the 5.2Ω resistance. So the voltage being divided by 10 and the effect of the probe capacity being now negligible, I was expected for a better measurement. I measured 60v. This means 600v on a 52.2Ω load. So we would be now near 6,9 KW.

Another very interesting point is that the effect disappear when reversing L2. So it is clear that the polarity of the back emf is a key point in the power increase (in my 1st circuit, the back emf was suppressed).
Without the diode, I measure a back emf of 10v at the terminals of the 5.2Ω resistance, i.e. 100v across the load, i.e 191W. When I connect the diode, the pulse rises up to 60v, meaning 6.9KW. The load heats more but not in the ratio of the powers, likely because the diode pulse is much narrower than the back emf and consequently the mean power is not the same relative to the peak power.
I have checked the phase relation between the back emf and the diode pulse. The pulse appears just after the back emf is begining to decrease. It's not understandable because the back emf is positive at the diode cathode and should block the diode instead of charging it. Or is it because the diode was already charged? I don't understand what is going on, but the result is that there are really strong pulses that jam my radio receiver up to 200 Mhz.

Be sure that you are not inducing a voltage into your scope probe.

Just something to consider. ;)

Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.11.04, 17:05:25
Be sure that you are not inducing a voltage into your scope probe.

Just something to consider. ;)

Sure I'm not. I know that the value of the peak power seems incredible but the order of magnitude of my measurements is confirmed by the temperature of the resistance load, which heats. In my new setup, the pulses are about 10ns wide and the repetition is 20µs, this means a mean power around [peak power*10/20000] = 3.4W for 6.9 KW pulses. There is an inaccuracy due to the pulse shape which is not rectangular, but the order of magnitude is correct.

OK, indeed sounds about right. ;)

When making very high frequency pulse measurements it is best to eliminate the ground clip lead from your scope probe and use the ground inside the spring tip connector. A very short piece of wire twisted around the ground and soldered directly to the load resistor is best.

Also use a carbon composition or other very low inductance resistor. Metal films are spiral cut to value which can add inductance.

Keep all leads as short as possible.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.03, 17:48:49
Drift Step Recovery Diodes seem to be the best way today to produce high power pulses (up to GW) at ns time rise, and with simple means. I have put some papers about the subject here:
http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Electronique/Pulse/

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8651)

The current waveform applied to the DSR diode can be generated by many different techniques, such as: a pulse transformer with saturable core, inductive flyback pulse, dual switch scheme, etc.

The DSR diode pulse generator depicted in Fig. 8 consists of two circuits with a fast power transistor Q1 (e.g.: MOSFET or IGBT, GaAs BJT, etc...) between them.
The first circuit is composed of inductive energy storage L1 and the second circuit is composed of a capacitive storage C2, inductive storage L2 and DSR Diode D1 (connected in parallel with the load resistor R1). Note that L2, C2, Q1 and D1/R1 form a series RLC circuit. Hereafter this circuit will be referred to as simply: the series RLC circuit.  
The capacitor C1 is used to stabilize the supply voltage and decrease the effective internal resistance of the power supply at high frequencies.

Before the impulse generation begins, the transistor Q1 is not conducting (the circuit is open between the drain and source terminals) and the capacitor C2 is charged up to the power supply voltage via the load resistor R1.

To begin nanopulse generation, a short pulse is applied to the gate of Q1 causing it to start conducting.
As soon as the transistor Q1 starts conducting, two events take place:
1) The capacitor C2 discharges through the forward conduction of D1 and
2) the inductances L2 & L1 start accumulating energy (the currents through them increase).

The current through L2 is inherently periodic if the series LCR circuit, formed by L2, C2, Q1RDS-ON and D1/R1, is underdamped, that is: its total resistance is less than 2(L/C)0.5. The period of this oscillation is equal to 1/( 1/LC - R2/4L2 )0.5.

After approximately one-half of this oscillation period (after interval T1), the transistor Q1 stops conducting.  See Fig.2.
During the interval T1 the D1 diode was conducting forward and charge was injected into its P-N junction.
For the manifestation of the DSR effect it is very important that the T1 interval is short enough (in the hundreds of ns) to not allow the injected charge to reach the other side of the P-N junction.

During the T1 interval, the periodic current through the series LCR circuit has reached its peak and and decreased back to zero. At the beginning of the interval T2 the current through D1 begins to reverse its direction due to the transient oscillation of the series RLC circuit, effectively causing D1 to conduct in reverse and gradually deplete the charge injected into its P-N junction during T1.

From the beginning of interval T2 the current flowing through L1 joins with current flowing through L2, D1, C1, C2 and R1. As soon as the charge injected into the P-N junction of D1 decreases to zero, the DSR diode abruptly stops conducting. This happens at the end of interval T2.

Because this abrupt interruption happens when non-zero reverse (negative) current flows through D1, L1, L2, C1, C2 and R1, a high voltage pulse appears across the D1 terminals due to the self-induction effect.
The rise time of this pulse is determined by inductance L1 and L2 and the reverse capacitance of D1.
The energy accumulated in L1 from the beginning of Q1' conduction and in L2 during the D1's reverse conduction (T2) is converted into a high electric potential appearing on the D1's reverse capacitance.

The peak power of this pulse is approximately equal to the product of the interrupted current magnitude, determined by the impedances the associated components, and the reverse capacitance of the DSR diode D1.

In order to maximize the DSR diode effect, the forward current through the diode should be lower and of longer duration, yet the reverse current should be higher and of shorter duration.
If forward and reverse current waveforms are the same then the DSR diode stops conducting when the current through the diode is equal to zero and the DSR effect disappears.
An optimal operating point for the DSR effect occurs when the DSR diode stops conducting at the peak of its reverse current.

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8653)

P.S.
L1 and L2 should be air core inductors wound with a thick wire and positioned perpendicularly and away from each other.
The capacitors should be designed for RF pulse operation.  The leads of all components should be soldered as short as possible.

I am attaching a rough English translation (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8656) of a Russian document, that describes the DSR Diodes and the operation of the saturable transformer driver that started this thread.

Thanks verpies. Great explanation.

What's a good choice for D1?

Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.11.04, 20:35:06
What's a good choice for D1?

The good choices for the DSR diodes are listed in the Belkin's document (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8656).
I only tried those described by Belkin and the 1N5408.

Shottky diodes do not work well as DSR Diodes, because they do not have semiconductor to semiconductor junctions, instead they have metal to semiconductor junctions and those junctions have very sharp borders.
DSR Diodes require semiconductor-semiconductor junctions (PN or PIN)

Silicon Carbide (SiC) semiconductor-semiconductor diodes (PN or PIN) could work if they were manufactured differently (more diffused), but I do not know of any that exhibit the DSR effect. There was a guy that manufactured his own experimental SiC DSR Diodes on purpose, but they were not SiC Shottky diodes - the were diffussed PN junctions AFAIR.  I can dig up his name if you want.

The ideal DSR diode structure is similar to a PIN diode that has blurred border between the P-I junction and between I-N.
In other words, for best DSR effect,  the semiconductor junctions have to be diffused (not sharp).

It so happens that the old high power silicon rectifiers were poorly made which resulted in blurred border between their semiconductor junctions and now they unintentionally work well as DSRDs.

The are very few DSR Diodes available that were tailored for this effect purposely - all of them are custom experimental devices  :( .

P.S.
DSR Diodes must be able to conduct very high current in reverse for apx. 20-70ns - that's the essence of the DSR effect !
The lifetime of their carriers should be long, but that is not given in the standard data sheets. In Belkin's document (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8656) it is denoted by t_zh

Verpies:

Welcome to this site. I read and enjoy all your posts on OUdotcom.

Quote from: ION on 2012.11.04, 19:28:58
When making very high frequency pulse measurements it is best to eliminate the ground clip lead from your scope probe and use the ground inside the spring tip connector. A very short piece of wire twisted around the ground and soldered directly to the load resistor is best.

Also use a carbon composition or other very low inductance resistor. Metal films are spiral cut to value which can add inductance.

Keep all leads as short as possible.

I have tested the method without the ground clip. There is almost no difference or a bit above. I've tried with 40v and 60v pulses at the terminal of the 4.7Ω in series with the load.

Then I changed the 47Ω load resistance with two old carbon resistances of 22Ω in series (I have not others of low value). Their real values had slightly increased with the time, representing now 52Ω included the 4.7Ω in series. I kept the 4.7Ω because it seems not to be in metal spiral. I measured without the ground clip a voltage of 53v accross the 4.7Ω resistance. This makes 586v at the terminals of my 52Ω load, i.e once again 6.6 KW.

I also replaced the 4.7Ω 0.5W with another model of 0.25W and got exactly the same measure.

Finally I put a 1N4148 diode from the 4.7Ω resistance to charge a 0.1µF capacitor with the pulses and then to measure cc. Unfortunately the presence of the diode lowers the signal for an unknown reason. I measure a cc voltage of 27v while I observed 33v pulses at the scope. Instead the pulses are 20v weaker, we see the cc measurement is in agreement with the scope measurement (and neverthess 27v cc means 298v at the load terminals, i.e. a power of 1.7KW).

It makes now almost no doubt that the power far exceeds the KW and perhaps attains 6 KW.

Great stuff Ex
I had a play tonight, i don't have all the bits, i tried using a 555 timer set for the min mark/space i could get, unfortunately i could only get down to 1uS i then used a ttl fet BUK552-60A, it worked, i only had 1n5402 so put 2 in series and used a 47ohm load resistance & 6/4 turns for L1 & L2

The 1uS drive pulse was way too large, i only managed to get 30V, quiet a sharp pulse which tailed off really slowly over 250nS.

I will use a pic micro tomorrow to drive a 250nS pulse and see if i can get the ttl fet to work, i need a higher amp fet and better higher voltage diode.

@verpies

Thank you for the detailed explanations.  O0
I will now try to understand why my circuit in reply#8 works well.

About the diodes, I tested two dozens of miscellaneous fast power diodes used in CRT or switching power supplies. Almost all of them work but very badly, the "pulses" being not sharp nor with a significant amplitude. Only my FUF5404 work well. I have 4 ou 5 FUF5404 and they all work in the same way. I'm surprised that there is no commercial models specially designed for this purpose.

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.04, 22:06:43
Great stuff Ex
I had a play tonight, i don't have all the bits, i tried using a 555 timer set for the min mark/space i could get, unfortunately i could only get down to 1uS i then used a ttl fet BUK552-60A, it worked, i only had 1n5402 so put 2 in series and used a 47ohm load resistance & 6/4 turns for L1 & L2

The 1uS drive pulse was way too large, i only managed to get 30V, quiet a sharp pulse which tailed off really slowly over 250nS.

I will use a pic micro tomorrow to drive a 250nS pulse and see if i can get the ttl fet to work, i need a higher amp fet and better higher voltage diode.

It is also important to have a very low duty cycle. Mine is now around 1/2000, otherwise the components will heat. Good luck. I will not be on line tomorrow.

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.04, 22:06:43
I had a play tonight, i don't have all the bits, i tried using a 555 timer set for the min mark/space i could get, unfortunately i could only get down to 1uS i

You could use the attached cheap nanosecond monostable to produce shorter pulses (20ns - 800ns).
You can drive it with the output of the 555 Astable or any other 0-5V waveform in the kHz range.

P.S.
The older 74HCT02 is weaker but it works, too.

Thanks Verpies & Welcome.

That's a nice simple circuit  O0

Peter

It would seem that the technology is well
developed. (http://megaimpulse.com/products/nano/)

Another technical treatise. (http://przyrbwn.icm.edu.pl/APP/PDF/115/a115z627.pdf)

Insights from the recent past (http://www.radiobanter.com/showthread.php?t=82706&page=2).

I have used a 74LS123 (monostable) for a full and easy control of the pulse width in the range 50-550ns, independently of the frequency. It works well. You just need an external RC circuit, see the datasheet.
The difficulty now is to amplify enough the TTL level to drive the mosfets. It's painful to fight their input capacitance. Despite a supplementary stage, I have not exceeded 250v pulses on 52Ω load while I got 600v with my previous setup. The best value for the pulse was 500ns.
More work needed  :(. My goal is to reached 10KW. I'm convinced it's feasible.

Quote from: Dumped on 2012.11.06, 02:49:09
It would seem that the technology is well developed. (http://megaimpulse.com/products/nano/)

Not a bad solution...  18kV => 75Ω  = 4,43 MW :D
But what's the price?

Quote
Another technical treatise. (http://przyrbwn.icm.edu.pl/APP/PDF/115/a115z627.pdf)
Insights from the recent past (http://www.radiobanter.com/showthread.php?t=82706&page=2).

Thanks for the links. I have tested 1N4004 without success (very weak pulses) but perhaps a different circuit is needed.

Quote from: Dumped on 2012.11.06, 02:49:09
It would seem that the technology is well
developed. (http://megaimpulse.com/products/nano/)

Another technical treatise. (http://przyrbwn.icm.edu.pl/APP/PDF/115/a115z627.pdf)

Insights from the recent past (http://www.radiobanter.com/showthread.php?t=82706&page=2).

Nice finds Dumped!

The treatise has an interesting "physics" explanation of the the devices studied.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.06, 22:01:24
The difficulty now is to amplify enough the TTL level to drive the mosfets. It's painful to fight their input capacitance.

The UCC27511 drivers are cheap strong and effective down to 15ns.

According to the Pg.4 of the Belkin Document (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8656), the transformer should saturate when the voltage in the capacitor on the secondary side is at its maximum and the current in the secondary winding is crossing zero.

So much power gets wasted trying to drive the fet gate, it would never make a viable low power driver, maybe we would be better to try a transistor driver if possible

pulsing 6 Amps to the gate just seems to suck to me.

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.07, 12:58:32
So much power gets wasted trying to drive the FET gate, it would never make a viable low power driver, maybe we would be better to try a transistor driver if possible
pulsing 6 Amps to the gate just seems to suck to me.

But 6A is not much power at 12V and several nanoseconds at low duty cycles.  Remember that after the gate is charged it does not draw any current anymore, yet the MOSET keeps conducting between the source and the drain.
Also, the charge stored in the gate could be returned to the power supply when the MOSFET is turned OFF.  Not many engineers try to recover that charge because it's too much hassle for little reward.

BJT transistors require base current during their whole conduction period, so I can't see how they would be more efficient.
Those UCC27511 MOSFET drivers are cheap, quick, strong and readily available and they can drive BJTs, too.

Don't get me wrong, fet drivers are a great way to drive a fet, i have been using them for a number of years with the pulsers i have built, but a cop 2 device would stand little to no chance of self sustaining using a fet driver, even if it was only switched on for a very short time.

For instance i can inject 25nS pulses into a coil that's being tested from a 50V supply and draw a mean current of 3mA, where as the fet driver is drawing a mean current in the 10's of mA when running at a few khz, in some cases i am not going anywhere without a cop>10 because of the wasted power i used to drive the fet.

Now i dont have a transistor circuit so i cannot say and my theory is not as good as you guys, but if i drive the base for 25nS do i still need to inject 6A @ 18V to turn the transistor on, if it's less then it's better from my point of view.

offcourse none of this really matters until we start seeing free energy in the first place and we then need to start looping, my logic says design as low power as possible ready for that day because that day will come sooner.

Quote from: verpies on 2012.11.07, 10:50:37
The UCC27511 drivers are cheap strong and effective down to 15ns.

I just read the datasheet. It seems to be really the solution, thanks. I wasted two hours today for unsatisfying results, so I will probably order one.

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.07, 16:34:36
...
because that day will come sooner.

I hear this from at least 10 years and Tom Bearden repeats it since the 80's!
Don't put the cart before the horse.
It reminds me politics, preparing for the big day that never came.
"Stand up, damned of the Earth
Stand up, prisoners of starvation
Reason thunders in its volcano
This is the eruption of the end.
Of the past let us make a clean slate
Enslaved masses, stand up, stand up.
The world is about to change its foundation
We are nothing, let us be all."

This is the final struggle.    :)

I did not say free energy will be coming, just that if it did it would come faster by using less to create it in the first place.

It is a nice chip if you have surface mount rework gear and are able to make pcbs  or are you going to manually solder wires to the legs ;D

It 1.45mm x 2.75mm with 6 legs.

I lost my patience with sm fet drivers when i kept getting EMP pulses wiping them out during one of my experiments, i ended up reverting to dip.

@Peterae

QuoteI did not say free energy will be coming, just that if it did it would come faster by using less to create it in the first place.

It's already here, now consider all the time spent here and the results you have, then consider 3x6 solar cells on Ebay at $265/kw versus what you have spent on FE research. The only thing we have to understand is that if we invest our own time wisely then the payback period can be a matter of a few years ..... then it's all free.
I don't think it will be very long before what we are doing here will become a mute point as the cost to build or buy an exotic FE device may be double the future cost of solar which is dropping like a rock. It's actually kind of funny that the price point that some of the FE sellers are at is almost right on par with solar if you DIY, now which do you think would be a better investment?.
Personally I see no difference between FE and solar FE as the source is most likely one and the same.
AC

Yes indeed solar is coming down in price, it's close to £1/watt here in the UK that is £1000 per 1kW if i install it myself, offcourse the law says you cannot install it yourself as it is not accredited to be connected to the grid, so to be lawfull here, i would need to disconnect from the grid to use my solar unless i pay the £8000-£14000 they are charging to install them for me,so there are a few problems.

During our cloudy winter months which seem to be about 7 months of the year, they just don't work well enough, then you need roof space that is south facing for them to work well, and then they don't work at all at night, so then you need to buy expensive storage batteries to store the excess for night use, i have looked at it very closely.

If it was summer here all year and we did not have nights even then to meet my family needs we would need 3-4kw of panels, but i would first need to demolish the house and rebuild it, because i have a west facing roof.
If you live in a flat you are screwed, if you don't have £6000 for the controller, batteries and solar panels then you are also screwed, other countries the situation maybe different.

If i stuck up a 3kw wind turbine, which would be huge my neighbours would probably form an orderly line outside my house with bags of tomatoes, so that is out as well.

There is a free energy thought!

Run all your external drainage to a cistern converted to a galvanic cell.

Install a very large and obnoxious satellite dish and wind generator (non-functional).

Power your house from your new battery energized by the acidic fluids of the veggies/fruits thrown by the neighbors. I would need to install bullet proof sheathing, here.

Problem solved  O0

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.07, 16:34:36
For instance i can inject 25nS pulses into a coil that's being tested from a 50V supply and draw a mean current of 3mA, where as the fet driver is drawing a mean current in the 10's of mA when running at a few khz, in some cases i am not going anywhere without a cop>10 because of the wasted power i used to drive the fet.

For 25ns the gate charge time will take significant part of the total pulse period. That energy delivered by the gate charging cannot be calculated by multiplying 18V by 6A because both such current and voltage does not exist at the same time at the gate.  The gate waveforms are triangular or trapezoidal.  It's better to treat it as energy delivered to charge a capacitor (E=0.5CV² ).
At 25ns the BJT has significant parasitic capacitance too, so a detailed study would have to be made to compare two specific BJTs and MOSFETs at 25ns.
However the DSR Diode forward pumping time is in the range of several 100s ns, and at those time the gate charge time will constitute a small part of the total pulse width.

Here (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA409276) is an article about people that were trying to manufacture a Silicon Carbide (SiC) DSR Diodes for picosecond range switching.

Thank you verpies for the analysis on switching efficiency.  If gate is conduct by voltage and base conduct by current, then we can compare how much energy spent for each type?

gate = .5CV^2 where V is full conducting voltage
base = I^2Rt  where I is full conducting current and t is pulse time

Gate energy is a set value while base energy depends on pulse time.  If we take the ratio of gate/base or reverse, we can see which one is more efficient.  For non recoverable switching energy, base would approaches zero if pulse time approaches zero.  For recoverable, gate energy is almost zero.  However, if gate is being charge like a capacitor, then there is a specific time it takes to charge up (if we use too high voltage, it may break?).  We can put a spikes into the base to have short pulse with low energy.  I think this method use little energy for switching.  Jonnydavro seems to mastered this.  But it seems the energy put/stored into the system must be many time greater than the energy use for switching if OU is possible. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXI7B0j0Ajc&feature=related

I like the concept of solar panel.  What if every coil or conductor is a receiver?  Similarly it absorb energy just like a solar panel.  I speculate the reason energy does not build up in a wire naturally because it just pass right through it.  I'm thinking of a theory which initially or continually excite the atoms so it can capture those energy.  If atoms vibrates violently, it has more chance of being hit by incoming energy of any wavelength. 

@peterae

QuoteYes indeed solar is coming down in price, it's close to £1/watt here in the UK that is £1000 per 1kW if i install it myself, offcourse the law says you cannot install it yourself as it is not accredited to be connected to the grid, so to be lawfull here, i would need to disconnect from the grid to use my solar unless i pay the £8000-£14000 they are charging to install them for me,so there are a few problems.

Here in Canada bulk cells bought in volume on Ebay can approach the $0.25/watt mark at which point we must build our own panels which is fairly inexpensive and easy. As well I build all my own electronics which relates directly to the topic here in that a Buck/Boost converter could be made inexpensive if very little materials were used. This means a low turn/low resistance, high power MPPT converter switching KW in the nanosecond range instead of slow switching bulky converters using long conductors and inferior core materials.
It should be noted that most all the manufacturers give data from ideal conditions which never actually occur in actual use which is another way of saying the real numbers will never be even remotely close to what they claim.

In my new setup, a 74123 monostable generates 50-550ns pulses from the signal of a function generator which is used only to fix the repetition rate.
Then a NPN 2N3553 amplifies the pulse so that the voltage is now compatible with a MOSFET input.

I have put a new stage between the 2N3553 and the final IRF640. It's a MOSFET BUK152-100A BUK452-100B mounted in source follower to drive the IRF640.
By adjusting the pulse width and L1 (see post 18), the DSRD pulses reach 500V/52Ω, i.e, near 5KW. It's not my previous record of 600v but the signal now is better, the pulses driving the IRF640 are more clean. I clearly see on the oscilloscope the step of the charge of the diode. Then the back emf happens at about the same moment as the DSRD pulse. Probably the back emf helps the diode to quickly release its charge. I think it's interesting to not block the back emf, it enhances the process.

Very impressive whats your source resistor value, you mean BUK552 not 152 i think. good move  O0

The BUK552 is a logic level fet do you still need your pre driver transistor because i have been driving this fet from a pic micro with good results.

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.08, 21:04:42
Very impressive whats your source resistor value, you mean BUK552 not 152 i think. good move  O0

The BUK552 is a logic level fet do you still need your pre driver transistor because i have been driving this fet from a pic micro with good results.

I made a typo for the 1st digit and last letter, sorry. This transistor comes from a recovery of waste materials. It's a BUK452-100B. Here is the datasheet: http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/philips/BUK452-100B.pdf.
I took it because it was the MOSFET of my collection with the lowest input capacitance, while being compatible with the level of required power. For example it allows a better pulse shape than an IRF630 that I tested before.

For the today program, I will test many diodes and double-diodes in flat cases like IRF640 transistor. I had forgotten them and tested only my cylindrical diodes with axial terminals. I hope to find other working models.

None of my diodes beats the 5404 for the DSRD effect.
Several give pulses around 2/3 of these from the 5404:
ERC38, BYW51, BYV32, FMUG2Y, YG912S6, STPR1020, FMU-G2YXS

Most are fast recovery diodes (15<t<50ns). But there are also fast diodes that present a reduced DSRD effet, or very reduced. For instance, the S3L gives pulses of 1/3 of the 5404 and nevertheless has a recovery time of 35ns. The datasheets are useless to choose the best diodes.

Only one diode is not far from the 5404: RG2.

Great work ex thanks for your time on testing these diodes.

Looks like i better order some 1n5404 diodes  O0

Now i am thinking of modifying your drive circuit as follows
BUK552-60A (I have these) driving the gate of a PFET to ground, then put the transformer primary in the source of the PFET IRF9640.

I will use your monostable to drive the BUK552-60A

Does this sound like it may work.

@Peterae

It is important to switch off as quick as possible the last stage. The switch on is not critical.
I have also tested many NFET. The NFETs in the range 200-600v 10A give the best results. The more powerful FET able to handle bigger currents and lower voltages give poorer results. I suppose it's due to the higher output capacitance and predominatingly to the inside protecting diode which cancels the back emf while the interesting voltage for blocking the DSR diode is not yet reached.

QuoteIt is important to switch off as quick as possible the last stage.

OK Thanks, i see.

I think that lower amp devices have faster on and off times generally as well for the reasons you explained.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.09, 17:36:30
It is important to switch off as quick as possible the last stage. The switch on is not critical.

I think you are confused.
The DSR Diode interrupts the current in the secondary winding - not the power switch (e.g. MOSFET). This current interruption is responsible for the generation of the short pulse via the inductive effect of the secondary circuit.

The power switch (e.g. MOSFET) on the primary side should switch OFF when the voltage in the capacitor on the secondary side is at its maximum and the current in the secondary winding is zero (or just crossing zero).  This happens after the time that is equal to half of the self-oscillation period of the RLC circuit formed on the secondary side.

Quote from: verpies on 2012.11.10, 13:09:40
I think you are confused.
The DSR Diode interrupts the secondary current - not the power switch (e.g. MOSFET) on the primary side.

The power switch (e.g. MOSFET) on the primary side should switch OFF when the voltage in the capacitor on the secondary side is at its maximum and the current in the secondary winding is zero (or just crossing zero).  This happens afer the time that is equal to half of the self-oscillation period of the RLC circuit formed on the secondary side.

You missed the point of the back emf which motivated my previous reply. From what I observed, the DSR pulse is a lot increased by the back emf pulse when they coincide. The back emf pulse is rather wide in comparison with the DSR pulse. A quick switch off narrows the back emf pulse and so improves the effect. I adjust the synchronization thanks to the "pumping" pulse width.
I wonder why most of the DSR circuits that I see here and there, possess a diode that prevents the back emf to occur.

It is also to be emphasized that L in the RLC circuit formed on the secondary is (theoretically) 100% coupled to the primary coil. If the primary is not switched off quickly enough, the NFET which is not yet fully open presents a not negligible load for the DSR pulse induced in the primary coil and so reduces the efficiency.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.10, 13:49:59
I wonder why most of the DSR circuits that I see here and there, possess a diode that prevents the back emf to occur.

The flyback diode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_diode) is there to ensure that the currents keeps flowing through the primary winding after the power switch (e.g. MOSFET) stops conducting.
The current flowing in the flyback diode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_diode) keeps the core of this transformer saturated, which has the effect of decreasing the inductance of the secondary winding. The latter increases the reverse current through the DSR diode which results in a larger nanosecond inductive spike when that diode abruptly stops conductiong that high current.

Remember, that the current in the primary winding flows in the same direction after the power switch turns off.
This current does not reverse direction when the power switch transitions from the ON state to the OFF state.  Many people think that the current reverses because of the word "back" in the phrase "back EMF" - wrong!

The core must remain saturated between t₁ and t₂. See the Belkin paper and my waveform diagram.

Welcome, verpies!

Would you please comment on the MrClean device which you have diagrammed at EF? -- here's the thread

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1566.msg26388#msg26388

Quote from: verpies on 2012.11.10, 15:54:00
The flyback diode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_diode) is there to ensure that the currents keeps flowing through the primary winding after the power switch (e.g. MOSFET) stops conducting.
The current flowing in the flyback diode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_diode) keeps the core of this transformer saturated, which has the effect of decreasing the inductance of the secondary winding. The latter increases the reverse current through the DSR diode which results in a larger nanosecond inductive spike when that diode abruptly stops conductiong that high current.

Remember, that the current in the primary winding flows in the same direction after the power switch turns off.
This current does not reverse direction when the power switch transitions from the ON state to the OFF state.  Many people think that the current reverses because of the word "back" in the phrase "back EMF" - wrong!

I know your last point and I agree. It is the ordinary functionning of the back emf, following the simple rule of the direction of the current passing either from + to -  through a load , or from - to + through a generator.

• During the back emf, the voltage reverses direction but not the current because the coil is now a current generator releasing its current which continues its way as before, while before, it was the power supply that provided the current to the coil acting as a load.


• 
  The equivalent effect for a capacitor is to charge it and then to shortcut it. Thus the capacitor status changes from load to generator but now, as we have a voltage generator, it's the voltage that remains in the same direction while the current reverses its direction. The current peak of the capacitor discharging in a shortcut is the equivalent of the voltage pulse of a coil whose we open the circuit.

With our DSR diode, we have a capacitor, and so, as you say, the current is reversed. Nevertheless the Belkin's paper is not the best explanation of the pure DSR effect because he mixes the problem with the question of the core saturation. The core saturation is not an obligatory step of the process but just a possible improvement. The pulse can occur without core saturation.

It's clearly explained in wikipedia:
"The principle of DSRD operation can be explained as follows: Short pulse of current is applied in the forward direction of the DSRD effectively "pumping" the P-N junction, or in other words, "charging" the P-N junction capacitively. When the current direction reverses, the accumulated charges are removed from the base region. As soon as the accumulated charge decreases to zero, the diode opens rapidly. A high voltage spike can appear due to the self-induction of the diode circuit. The larger the commutation current and the shorter the transition from forward to reverse conduction, the higher the pulse amplitude and efficiency of the pulse generator (Kardo-Sysoev et al., 1997)."

So we understand that the DSR pulse is not mainly due to the release of the diode charge but to the opening of the inductive circuit by the diode. As the inductance of the secundary circuit is coupled to the primary, both have to be taken into account for the final result, using the coefficient of mutual induction. If the primary is looped by a flyback diode, then the inductance viewed from the secundary is reduced. I agree that a current can be increased by reducing an inductance but if the inductance is already reduced at the moment of the DSR pulse, the  current stored inside the inductance and available for the impulse, is less because it is proportionnal to the inductance. Without flyback diode, the full current stored in the inductance is available for the pulse, including that one of the primary: the DSR diode is using the current that the flyback diode could waste. It's my option.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.10, 21:08:10

It's clearly explained in wikipedia:

Funny,  please take a look at the (co)author of that wikipedia article.

Regards Itsu

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.11.10, 16:04:41
Would you please comment on the MrClean device which you have diagrammed at EF?

Please take a look at my comments about this schematic diagram here (http://www.overunity.com/13090/mr-cleans-device/).

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.10, 21:08:10
I know your last point and I agree.

I am glad, but I was not writing about the current direction for your benefit.  I always think of beginners and lurkers that also read my replies.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.10, 21:08:10
Nevertheless the Belkin's paper is not the best explanation of the pure DSR effect because he mixes the problem with the question of the core saturation. The core saturation is not an obligatory step of the process but just a possible improvement. The pulse can occur without core saturation.

That is true - the saturation effect is not mandatory.  However, if the saturable transformer is used, then the flyback diode prolongs the time when the core is saturated. 
Actually, I am a proponent of the transformerless method because there are less variables to coordinate in a circuit without a saturable transformer. That's why I described such circuit here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1556.msg26288#msg26288)

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.10, 21:08:10
So we understand that the DSR pulse is not mainly due to the release of the diode charge but to the opening of the inductive circuit by the diode.

Correct. That's why the reverse current must be maximized and di/dt @ t₂ must be the greatest when the DSR diode interrupts the current abruptly.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.10, 21:08:10
As the inductance of the secondary circuit is coupled to the primary, both have to be taken into account for the final result, using the coefficient of mutual induction.

That's where you go wrong, because as soon as the transformer's core becomes saturated, the primary and secondary windings become uncoupled.  In other words, their coefficient of mutual inductance decreases drastically.  That's why Mr. Belkin states, that after t₁, the primary charging circuit can be neglected.

Quote from: Itsu on 2012.11.10, 21:46:52

Funny,  please take a look at the (co)author of that wikipedia article.

Regards Itsu

I don't care who writes but what is written.

Quote from: verpies on 2012.11.11, 03:37:51

Quote
As the inductance of the secondary circuit is coupled to the primary, both have to be taken into account for the final result, using the coefficient of mutual induction.

That's where you go wrong, because as soon as the transformer's core becomes saturated, the primary and secondary windings become uncoupled.  In other words, their coefficient of mutual inductance decreases drastically.  That's why Mr. Belkin states, that after t₁, the primary charging circuit can be neglected.

Replace "uncoupled" by "much less coupled" and I agree.
Now you speak of a setup which is not mine. In mine, the coupling is maintained, this can be observed by the correlation of the signal of each coil, and so the back emf is available at the secondary winding and used differently than in Belkin's setup. So I'm perplex because my previous explanations concern essentially my setup but your objections consist in considerations about the functioning of another circuit. They don't apply to mine.

Yes, less coupled is more accurate because mutual inductance does not fall down all the way to zero, even if the core saturates and behaves like air.

If your device does not take the core of the transformer into saturation, then this circuit might as well be built without a transformer, e.g. like this one (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1556.msg26288#msg26288), with inductors only.

Quote from: verpies on 2012.11.11, 13:20:37
...
If your device does not take the core of the transformer into saturation, then this circuit might as well be built without a transformer, e.g. like this one (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1556.msg26288#msg26288), with inductors only.

Agreed. I have tried with a single coil, a sliding core and a connection point to the capacitor that I could move along the coil, but I got a bit inferior result whatever the position of the core, the position of the contact, and the input pulse width. Nevertheless I'm not convinced that it is a question of principle, because the output pulse was disturbing the functioning of the monostable and the quality of the input pulse. With the transformer, the output is more isolated from the electronics, it is floating, and the reaction problem is weaker. More experiments are needed and also to redesign the circuit according to the rules of engineering in matter of HF amplifiers, for example it is needed to shield the stages from each other, to filter the connection to the supply power with choke inductances and so on...

The pulse tests systematically crashed my sat receiver which was powered and in stand-by, not at the same floor. Then it was impossible to start it again from the remote. This is the clear sign that the pulses travel everywhere along the mains lines and that I am far from good experimental conditions  >:(.

QuoteWith the transformer, the output is more isolated from the electronics

This is what i really like about this pulsar, the transformer gives electrical isolation, i want to be able to build 2 of these and delay the pulse between each stage firing by a variable nS, i have the electronics already built to do this, i have used fet stages before to do this, but always had lack of isolation and the resulting pulses always managed to feedback to the driving circuit to cause false triggering and eventually self destruction, using the transformer hopefully will give me that isolation  O0

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.11, 14:27:35

The pulse tests systematically crashed my sat receiver which was powered and in stand-by, not at the same floor. Then it was impossible to start it again from the remote. This is the clear sign that the pulses travel everywhere along the mains lines and that I am far from good experimental conditions  >:(.

Have you considered placing a flyback 'Zener' with series resistor directly across the offending inductance? This will waste less energy and provide some protection for devices susceptible to the flyback spike but not the intended result spike.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.11, 14:27:35
With the transformer, the output is more isolated from the electronics, it is floating, and the reaction problem is weaker.

The additional isolation is a good point. Extra isolation is more forgiving to non-optimally laid out circuits.

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8750)
R1 and R2 are usually tailored to the individual characteristics of Q1 (in the neighborhood of 4.7Ω).

@ww
The perturbation is proportional to the back emf. If I limited it with one way or another, I would also reduce the effect that I want to use to enhance the DSR effect.

@verpies
I will try later. For the moment I defer the experiments until I receive the mosfet drivers that I ordered today (TC4429).

verpies,

Won't there be a problem with that scope ground?

Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.11.12, 13:54:16
Won't there be a problem with that scope ground?

No, the +150V supply rail is galvanicaly isolated from the scope's power supply.

If a rectifier was used to produce +V₂ and it was directly connected to the mains line, then it would be a problem if the scope's ground was also connected to the main's neutral - but nobody in their right mind would do such a thing.

P.S.
When using N-Channel MOSFETs it's good to keep current sensing resistors (CSR) on the high side in order to avoid making a Source Follower, inadvertently.
Also, it is convenient to keep the scope probe's ground wire on the +V₂ rail when obtaining the trigger signal for the scope. See diagram below:

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8748)

Before you suggest that it would be better to use a 1:1 isolation transformer to get at the trigger signal at pin 4/8 while scoping the CSR on the high side of the power supply, watch this video (http://youtu.be/W7Q-80r_PIw) and this video (http://youtu.be/C_RgII6sXU8?t=5m48s).

First tests with my mosfet driver, received today (TC4429 (http://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/75060/MICROCHIP/TC4429CPA.html)).

I'm not familiar with this kind of component but I'm very impressed. It is given to drive 6A peak onto a 10nF load in about 30ns and seems really do its job, without heating.
I am using a quadruple OR NAND HEF4011 to générate the pulse adjusted around 400ns. The weak output from the HEF4011 is connected through a 1K resistance to the TC4429. Both are powered by the same 8v power supply. The output of the TC4429 is connected to the IRF640 gate. The IRF640 is powered with 30v.

This works perfectly. I easily get 500v pulses on 50Ω

The bad news is that the 1N5408 diodes that I ordered also with the TC4429 (7 for only 1€  :)) don't work at all. They are reputed for their DSR effect but none of mines work. I conclude that the effect depends on the fabrication process which can depend on the maker or the factory. So I advise everybody rather to try diodes from old electronics scraps until finding one.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.14, 18:26:10
The weak output from the HEF4011 is connected through a 1K resistance to the TC4429. Both are powered by the same 8v power supply. The output of the TC4429 is connected to the IRF640 gate. The IRF640 is powered with 30v.

I connect the output of my NOR gates directly to the UCC27511 MOSFET driver and I supply my NOR Gates with +5V and my MOSFET Driver with +16V.  Power MOSFETs' gates benefit from higher voltage (as long as it is below V_GS Max - apx.20V)

Quote from: verpies on 2012.11.14, 19:27:02
I connect the output of my NOR gates directly to the UCC27511 MOSFET driver and I supply my NOR Gates with +5V and my MOSFET Driver with +16V.  Power MOSFETs' gates benefit from higher voltage (as long as it is below V_GS Max - apx.20V)

I can vary the 8v power supply. I didn't note any difference above 8v, up to 15v. Now my IRF640 works under its possibilities. Under 150v, maybe I would need more gate voltage, and it's right now possible. To be continued...

These MOSFET drivers are so easy to use... The electronics industry has never disappointed me since the time of the germanium and the AF116 from Philips.  O0

I have replaced the IRF640 by a 2SK2545.

Here are the main differences:
IRF640 -  200V max - 18A max - 125W - Rds 0.18Ω - Input cap: 1.3nF
2SK2545 - 500V max - 8A max -  30W - Rds 0.8Ω - Input cap: 1.3nF

The pulses have increased from 500V up to 850V / 50Ω (14.4 KW), with only 30v power supply. I think that the difference is due to the stronger back emf, probably due to the higher voltage that can handle the 2SK2545. The DSR pulse is around 6-7 ns. It is maximum when synchronized with the falling edge of the back emf. The radio EMI have increased in intensity and frequency up to 400 Mhz.
So the good choice for the transistor when one wants use the back emf voltage, seems to be a high voltage MOSFET. We don't need a big power, because the peak power of a MOSFET can be near 16 times the mean power (4 times the current), which is enough taking into account that the duty cycle of the pulses is very low.

Verpies was right: to increase the voltage of the driver from 8 to 11v now increases the output pulse.

Here is the shematic, only the 4011 used for generating the input pulse is not represented:
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8744)

Next step: to increase the power supply voltage to 60V.

Hi exnihiloest,

very impressive, one question concerning the 4429.
This is an "inverting" MOSFET driver.
So this means that the output of it (and the gate of the MOSFET) is always positive except for the pulse duration, meaning it keeps the MOSFET conducting all the time except for the pulse time, Right?


Regards Itsu

Not bad.

What is the polarity of the pulse train at pin 2 of your MOSFET driver?
Also, could you post a scopeshot of the current flowing in the DSR Diode ?

Quote from: Itsu on 2012.11.16, 13:11:19
Hi exnihiloest,

very impressive, one question concerning the 4429.
This is an "inverting" MOSFET driver.
So this means that the output of it (and the gate of the MOSFET) is always positive except for the pulse duration, meaning it keeps the MOSFET conducting all the time except for the pulse time, Right?

Regards Itsu

Hi Itsu,

The TC4429 is inverting. I send it an inverting pulse (high level except during the pulse, I should have precised this point in my previous post), so that the gate MOSFET is provided with a positive pulse and the MOSFET is conducting only during the pulse.

Quote from: verpies on 2012.11.16, 14:04:30
Not bad.

What is the polarity of the pulse train at pin 2 of your MOSFET driver?

negative (I mean from high level to zero)

Quote
Also, could you post a scopeshot of the current flowing in the DSR Diode ?

I'm working on. I just realize that the capacity of the probe which was connected to the drain to see the back emf, plays a great role. As the back emf was to large for my scope, I put a resistive divider between drain and ground to connect the scope, but in the same time the DSR pulse reduced from 850V down to not even 400V.
So I will add a variable capacitor between drain and source and will come back soon with the scopeshots. Update: effect not confirmed. Probably a misinterpretation from me of the signals from scope channels 1 and 2 due to their mix on the screen.

Here is the DSR signal on the terminals of R4. I increased the duty cycle to obtain a brighter trace and reduced the peak voltage to 600V. To get the voltage at the diode terminals, the scope voltage scale must be multiplied by around 100 (x10 for the probe and x10 for the resistive divider R3/R4). Note the short time scale (20ns) showing that the pulse is around 6-7 ns at the base:
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8752)

The back emf was 475V, exceeding my scope screen.


Here is a view of both the back emf at the MOSFET drain (low trace) and the DSR pulse (high trace), the MOSFET being powered at a lower voltage (10V instead of 30) for both traces to be clearly viewed separately at the screen. This screen shot is just to see the time relation between the DSR pulse and the back emf.
The back emf is here only 180V while the DSR pulse is 280V. There is no direct proportionality between the back emf and the DSR pulse. The better DSR pulses are obtained when they occur during the falling edge of the back emf. Each time the drain voltage is changed, both L1 and the input pulse width must be adjusted to maximize the pulse. Here I have retuned neither L1 nor the pulse width between the two shots but just reduced the drain voltage.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8754)

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.17, 11:23:06
Here is the DSR signal on the terminals of R4.

Unfortunately voltage measured across R4 does not represent the current flowing through the DSR diode.

Quote from: verpies on 2012.11.17, 16:18:02
Unfortunately voltage measured across R4 does not represent the current flowing through the DSR diode.

Not much time now to return to my previous setup and to put a very low value resistance between anode and ground to measure the current. I have modified the transformer with tighter windings and a secondary of larger section. In spite it is better designed for HF, the pulses are much weaker (150V). So I'm trying to identify the key points that enhance the pulse. They seem to be so numerous that I don't even know if I would be able to duplicate my own setup with different components!  >:(

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.18, 10:31:53
Not much time now to return to my previous setup and to put a very low value resistance between anode and ground to measure the current.

Without the current through the diode, we are blind.

Quote from: verpies on 2012.11.18, 12:47:17
Without the current through the diode, we are blind.

I don't know how to measure. I have tried with 0.33Ω in series with the DSR diode anode. Either the resistance is inductive, or it is not low enough: the output signal changed drastically. Then I tried with a current sense transformer (FIS 115) in series with the anode but the output was ringing at low frequency.
A suggestion?

Now I have solved some problems and clarified important points. My new transformer windings work as the previous. I just had a bad contact around the monostable and the pulse width had changed, letting me believe that the winding was critical. It's not. The ratio must be: primary 5 or 6 turns, secondary 2 turns.
I've tried many configurations by adding variable capacitors or inductances, as it is the habit in HF for impedance matching. None improved the functioning.

There are four important points. Point (1) is L3 (see reply #73). It is the most important. The adjustment of L3 ferrite changes the output pulse from less than 100v to more than 800. Point (2) is the pulse width around 350ns and point (3) the drain cc voltage. These three possible adjustements depend on each other. If you tune L3, you must retune the pulse width and the voltage, and so on...
The last point is the MOSFET. The 2SC2543 (500v and only 30W) seems to be very fast and produces pulses up to 800v. It's my today configuration. This MOSFET under 30 v draws 60 mA only. The IRF640 (200v 125W) limits the pulses to 600v. With a 2SK2850 (900v 125W), the output pulses are around 700v.
It seems that a drain voltage higher than 30v doesn't improve the output pulses. For me we just need to have enough power to charge the junction, and to have a back emf as high as possible to help the diode to open after it is charged.

Update: I just realized that the pulse limit was due to the back emf which is limited by the internal protection diode of the MOSFET. So in order to increase the back emf at the secondary of the transformer, we only need to reduce its ratio. I changed the primary winding to 3 turns instead of 5 or 6, and still 2 turns for the secondary. Bingo! After retuning L3 and the pulse width to near 400ns, I get 1000v DSR pulses. The MOSFET is now drawing 80mA under 28v (pulse frequency: 30 Khz). I think it can be now optimized again. Back to work...

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.18, 16:46:23
I don't know how to measure. I have tried with 0.33Ω in series with the DSR diode anode. Either the resistance is inductive, or it is not low enough: the output signal changed drastically. Then I tried with a current sense transformer (FIS 115) in series with the anode but the output was ringing at low frequency.
A suggestion?

Only a non-inductive 0.1Ω current sensing resistor.
The most fundamental law of the DSR Effect is: The forward charge (Q_F) must be equal to the reverse charge (Q_R).
For newbies: Charge equals to current integrated over time ( Q=i*t )

Thus, in the DSR diode the forward conduction time (t_F) must be longer than reverse conduction time (t_R) and to keep the forward and reverse charges equal, the forward current (i_F) must be smaller than the reverse current (i_R), in order to satisfy i_F*t_F = i_R*t_R.

That's why it is so important to observe the current flowing in the DSR Diode (which can be quite high) - the higher the i_R, the better
Also t_F cannot be too long or the charge carriers have the time to reach the other side of the PN junction and the DSR Effect disappears.

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8756)
Idealized current vs. time flowing through a diode exhibiting the DSR Effect.

Belkin at al, state that the forward pumping time must be shorter than 1/10 of the lifetime of charge carriers.
Table 2 on page 8 of Belkin's paper (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8656) lists these lifetimes (t_zh) for various diodes.

I am wondering, this DSRD pulse looks very much like the delayed pulse i found.
I would use 2 fet's to drive 2 bifilar coils, each coil has a diode across it just as in the DSRD config, i fire 1 pulse and wait a variable nS before firing the 2nd coil, there comes a certain nS delay that causes a large pulse to appear.

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.19, 21:21:39
I am wondering, this DSRD pulse looks very much like the delayed pulse i found.
I would use 2 fet's to drive 2 bifilar coils, each coil has a diode across it just as in the DSRD config, i fire 1 pulse and wait a variable nS before firing the 2nd coil, there comes a certain nS delay that causes a large pulse to appear.

It's not clear the way your setup is functioning. If the 2 coils were 100% coupled and their resistance negligible, you would have exactly the same signal at their respective terminals, and imposing different voltages would be impossible (like a shortcut). So the possibility to drive each coil with a shifted signal is due partly to the resistance and mainly to a coefficient of coupling less than 100%. So there is not much difference with taking the difference of the outputs of two independent coils.
Such pulses should be rather wide when connected to a 50Ω load. The interest of the DSR is that the output circuit of the diode has an excessively weak inductance, ns compatible, unlike a pulse coming from coils. Another interest is that the DSR principle is a capacitor providing a current pulse from a voltage while coils provide a voltage pulse from a current. From a practical viewpoint, the former needs high impedance loads to use the energy in a short time while the latter accepts practical loads like 50Ω or less, which moreover are compatible with transmission lines.

Quote from: verpies on 2012.11.19, 02:05:17
...
Belkin at al, state that the forward pumping time must be shorter than 1/10 of the lifetime of charge carriers.
...

It makes sense. For the better DSR pulses, I observe that the input pulse width must be around 350ns. Now it is also stated that the released charge is not only that one of the diode acting as a capacitor, but also due to the current released by the coil when the diode opens: 5ns pulses on 50Ω implies that C only should be around 200pF which is 4 times more than the junction capacity of my FUF5404. Even if its capacity is more with a direct voltage than reverse, and a dC/dt effect plays a role when the current reverses, I don't think that it could explain the difference.
I will try to measure the current this evening (european time).

QuoteIt's not clear the way your setup is functioning. If the 2 coils were 100% coupled and their resistance negligible, you would have exactly the same signal at their respective terminals

The coils are wound side by side, i cannot remember now but about 15-17 turns, their resistance is very low, one side of each coil is connected together and connected to a +V supply, each coils other end is driven by a fet to ground.
So one fet pulls 1 coil down to ground for about 100nS then get's opened then comes along the other fet after 200nS(Varies) and connects other coil to ground at which point you get the sharp large pulse occur, each coil has a UF4007 across, i was wondering if maybe at a certain time delay that the diode may be in a recovery mode that allows the DSRD effect to enhance.

My other theory was that if you drive a coil with 2 pulses, each pulse spaced in time to the period of resonance then the amplitude becomes much larger as the impedance gets larger.

For instance if a coil is pulsed with 2 pulses 100nS apart and the coil has a resonant frequency of 10Mhz, just 2 pulses are needed to make the coil think it is being driven into resonance, so at 90nS delay the amplitude is less, only at 100nS is the coil being driven into resonance.

Anyway sorry for going off topic i thought it maybe worth throwing this at you just in case it explained my pulse.

I have tried to reduce the number of parameters acting on the functioning and came to a schematic without transformer, and even without ferrite:

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8770)

At the begining, L1 and L2 can be wound with spaced turns and adjusted with a ferrite core. Then their inductance can be increased by compressing the turns, and the ferrites can be removed. It doesn't a matter, there is no difference, so we can conclude that the ferrites were not saturated and play no role here except increasing the inductance.

Here are the results.
The pulse width is around 6.5ns and the measurement is made at a repetition rate of 20 Khz.

Under 20v, 61mA, i.e. 1.22W only for the MOSFET power consumption, the pulse peak voltage is around 600v under 50Ω. This mean an instantaneous peak power of 600²/50=7.2KW.
Now with my radio receiver I observed that the harmonics are at least 20 dB down the fundamental near 77 Mhz. They are negligible. So we must not consider that the pulses are square, we must rather approximate them with half-sine. Consequently their rms value is 600/√2 and the rms power in the 6.5ns period is: 600²/4*50=1.8KW.

The instantaneous peak power is not instructive. Only the rms power allows us to know how much energy is carried by the pulses: E = rms Power*6.5ns.
It is also interesting to evaluate the mean rms power. The duty cycle is 6.5ns/(1/20Khz) = 0.13*10^-3. The mean rms power is therefore 0.13*10^-3*1.8KW=0.23W. The input power being 1.22W, no overunity  :(. In fact the efficiency is higher due to energy in the ripples after the pulse. The load heats significantly although it is made of two resistances in series of 23.5Ω, 1/2W, followed by the third of 4.7Ω for the output divider.

Above 20v, the consumption increases but not the pulses.
With 2 diodes in parallel or with 3 diodes in series, I didn't notice any improvement. With two diodes in series, under 28v, 94mA, i.e. 2.63W for the MOSFET power consumption, the peak pulse voltage is around 800v under 50Ω, meaning a rms power in the 6.5ns period of: 800²/4*50=3.2KW, and a mean rms power of 0.4W. Nevertheless the load resistances become hot, so we can consider that my power calculus is underestimated (probably because of insufficient pass-band of the scope) and the mentioned powers should be considered as minimum.

What I may conclude:
- 600v/50Ω pulses are easily reached with this setup, provided that the diode is as good as the FUF5404.
- L1, C2 and the pulse width are the critical parameters, and they depend on each other.
- L2 can have to be also adjusted but is of less importance
- the MOSFET must be fast and able to handle high voltages (500-900v) rather than high currents
- the better DSR pulses are obtained when they are synchronized with the falling edge of the back emf

19% efficient.  Where could 80% of the energy go?

Great work again Ex

Quote19% efficient.  Where could 80% of the energy go?

I would imagine something should be getting hot? would be interesting to know where the waste goes  ^-^

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.25, 21:37:52
would be interesting to know where the waste goes  ^-^

To the apple tree.  It's OU  :D

Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.11.25, 17:29:31
19% efficient.  Where could 80% of the energy go?

- heating the MOSFET
- heating the diode
- radiating EM
- heating the load outside the 6.5ns pulse duration (during the ripples, and also a part of the direct voltage that "loads" the diode during the 420ns period is also wasted in the load resistance).

I didn't see this setup as a possible OU device, but as a tool to output powerful current pulses that could be used elsewhere to "shake" anything in new experiments. Pulses of 600v/50Ω=12A at ns rise/fall time, is something unattainable by ordinary generators or by back emf.

QuoteI didn't see this setup as a possible OU device, but as a tool to output powerful current pulses that could be used elsewhere to "shake" anything in new experiments. Pulses of 600v/50Ω=12A at ns rise/fall time, is something unattainable by ordinary generators or by back emf.

Indeed i fully understand that.

I was just trying to understand the losses a bit better  O0, doesnt matter as you say it's a good acheivement with a simple circuit.

Still playing with DSRD...
I observe strange effects with old diodes probably dating the 70's. Unfortunatly these diodes are not marked. They need a longer time of pumping 1->3ms so I needed to modify my monostable generator to exceed its previous limits.

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8787)

One of the diodes, this one with the alligator clip, outperforms the FUF5404 in term of voltage, but not in efficiency nor sharpness. It produces 1200v pulses on 50Ω. I burnt it. I had another one of same type which gives the same results, but I limited the pulses to 800v. It's astonishing to see these old diodes which obviously are not fast recovery diodes and were probably used for mains voltage rectifying, to produce pulses with width around 15ns at voltages that are surely exceeding what was specified for their reverse voltage. I think that the reason for DSR diodes to exceed the specified reverse voltage is due to the current direction. In a normal case, an reverse voltage is applied and the diode acts as a load which absorps the current. During the DSR pulse, the diode is the generator, so the current is provided by the diode in a reverse direction. The two cases are totally different and so, the maximum voltage of DSR pulses can't be estimated from the datasheet.

The second diode gives a stranger effect. After a long time of pumping as the previous one, this one gives a negative pulse limited to near 200v. I don't understand what happens, it's surely depending on the physical implementation of the junction and needs surely physics for explaining. The pulse appears far after the back emf, after its ripples, at a time when the input signal from the MOSFET drain is back to zero.

So if you have old elecronics thingamajigs in your drawers, don't throw them, you may have fun with them...   ;)

I wonder if old transistor junctions could be tested as well, would that also work?

Quote from: exnihiloest
So if you have old elecronics thingamajigs in your drawers,
don't throw them, you may have fun with them...    ;)

Hmmmmmmm.  Still thinking about that one...

In my "drawers" you say?  ;D  >:-)  :-[

This kind of drawer:
http://kripton2035.free.fr/contest/P1000344.JPG
http://www.sonelec-musique.com/photos/electronique_rangement_transduct_001.jpg

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.12.01, 19:33:55
I wonder if old transistor junctions could be tested as well, would that also work?

I have also tried base/emitter and base/collector junctions of some old silicium NPN (2N3055, 2N2219). There is no DSR effect. Now it's not ended, more transistors must be tested, PNP also, unijunction, germanium...

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.03, 17:48:49
Drift Step Recovery Diodes seem to be the best way today to produce high power pulses (up to GW) at ns time rise, and with simple means.

I am not up to speed in these matters but is this not exactly what Bob Boyce and his remarkable 101 plate HHO electrolysers need
for "cracking" water?
See page 34:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf

Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.12.02, 14:55:26
I am not up to speed in these matters but is this not exactly what Bob Boyce and his remarkable 101 plate HHO electrolysers need for "cracking" water?
See page 34:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf

Possibly. I see page 34 that a full-wave rectification at mains frequency is called "pulsing DC". It's rather soft for "pulses".
Page 61, it's a little better, the back emf is used to electrolyse water. Nevertheless for equivalent setups, the back emf gives about the same energy than DSR pulses but much less peak power, because the pulse is spread over a time duration that is tens to several tens times this one from DSR: the lower the load resistance, the wider the back emf pulse. For the DSR pulse, it's the contrary: the lower the load, the narrower the pulse. This is due to the fact that the back emf is a current pulse while the DSR pulse is a voltage pulse (the diode acts as a capacitor, not as a coil).
So I presume that DSR is the best way to work with pulses when peak power and sharpness are the key points for the experiment that is considered.

After a (failed) Dally replication attempt (see my youtube account "itsusable"), i am left with a nano-pulser.

This thing is able to produce a 1100V pulse of 18nS width over a 56 Ohm resistor at a repetition frequency of 2Khz (actually ranging between 1 and 10Khz).

This means the power is U^2/R = 1210000/56 = 21607W (21.607KW).

According to this website: http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/optics/pulsed_source  the peak power in that pulse = 563.845MW (as in MegaWatt).

I was wondering what i can do with this pulse, so i used my copper tube coil which has a wire inside its tube, basically making it a coiled coax and terminated it with a 56 Ohm resistor.
This wire is the center conductor and its PE isolation from a piece of RG-316 coax cable which i have stripped.
This center conductor is made out of steel and is magnetic.

My plan is to hook up all kind of coils on/in/underneath/above etc. to see what effect this MegaWatt pulse has on the other coils.

Another plan is to make a coaxial tube (2 tubes inside each other) from stainless steel and submerge that coaxial tube in an electrolyte (open, closed or terminate with a resistance at the end).

Some preliminary tests with 2 separate tubes show that my scope goes crazy from the pulses, so it surely needs to be a coaxial tubing, or i need to shield the tubing.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na34jh1HqfQ&feature=youtu.be

Regards itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.03.16, 15:37:45
...
This thing is able to produce a 1100V pulse of 18nS width over a 56 Ohm resistor at a repetition frequency of 2Khz (actually ranging between 1 and 10Khz).

This means the power is U^2/R = 1210000/56 = 21607W (21.607KW).

According to this website: http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/optics/pulsed_source  the peak power in that pulse = 563.845MW (as in MegaWatt).
...

Wrong calculation.
The peak power is 21607W, only 21607W. It's the max power during 18ns each 0.5ms (= 2Khz repetition rate). It's not a mean power but you have wrongly use it as mean power in the formula.
And considering that the pulse is surely not rectangular, but rather with a half-wave sine shape, you have to divide the peak power by 2 to get the mean power during 18ns and to multiply by the duty cycle 18*10^-9/0.5*10^-3 to get the continuous mean power (=0.38W).

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.17, 08:24:27
Wrong calculation.
The peak power is 21607W, only 21607W.

Thanks exnihiloest, i realized later on that those calculations are being done for rectangular pulses which my pulse is not.

I will review those calculations and in the mean time find a good use for this pulse, if any.

Regards Itsu

@Itsu

In any case, 21607W is a remarquable result. Be sure of the measurement. Sometimes induction in the probe disturbs the measurement, I have had the problem.

Right, i did measure also with a normal probe and a 1:10 resistor divider like you did and the results where comparable as with the HV probe, so i believe the 1100V (and thus the 21.6KW) is accurate.

Anyway, i will make some measurements with different coils coupled to this pulsed coaxial coil to see if any abnormalities can be seen.

Here a video of a few combinations i have tried, but many more are possible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6cDvS3hg2A&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.03.19, 14:14:18
Right, i did measure also with a normal probe and a 1:10 resistor divider like you did and the results where comparable as with the HV probe, so i believe the 1100V (and thus the 21.6KW) is accurate.

Anyway, i will make some measurements with different coils coupled to this pulsed coaxial coil to see if any abnormalities can be seen.

Here a video of a few combinations i have tried, but many more are possible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6cDvS3hg2A&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

Great work, obviously you took all the necessary precautions to guarantee a correct measurement! O0

Coupled coils can add ringing phenomena due to capacitance and inductance and so destroy the interest of a sharp and strong pulse. Maybe experimenting the pulses for electrolysis, spark gap, dielectric stress, longitudinal wave could lead to interesting results, and there are surely many other fields to probe with pulses.

QuoteMaybe experimenting the pulses for electrolysis,.....

yes, i am working on a stainless steel coax tubing construction to see how it reacts in a electrolysis solution.

Also thanks to Conradelektro, 3zdayz and T1000 for their comments via my YT channel.

Schematic provided in below video, but it is kind of evolved into a MOSFET driven circuit, see this thread on overunity.com:
http://www.overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/960/#.UUmGw1eM71w

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5eqGp8J4EA&feature=youtu.be

Important item is the DSRD (Drift Step Recovery Diode) in my case a Russian KD226D which outperforms other DSR diodes i used.

Next to the SS tubing experiment i will be using a big pancake bifilar coil and some tesla/kacher like coils.

Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.03.20, 11:06:24
yes, i am working on a stainless steel coax tubing construction to see how it reacts in a electrolysis solution.

Also thanks to Conradelektro, 3zdayz and T1000 for their comments via my YT channel.

Schematic provided in below video, but it is kind of evolved into a MOSFET driven circuit, see this thread on overunity.com:
http://www.overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/960/#.UUmGw1eM71w
...

It's likely that the behavior of the circuit will be quite different from the modelization at http://www.iue.tuwien.ac.at/phd/nentchev/node48.html, due to the high water permittivity.
Another point is the pulse width in comparison with the relaxation time of the ions. Both seem to be of the same order. Moreover the relaxation time can be different between positive and negative ions. So the pulse width could be >, or < or between the relaxation times of ions of both polarities, possibly giving miscellaneous effects.
The frequency response of ionic solutions seems to have been much more studied with continuous signal up to hundreds Ghz than their time response with pulses. So your project of experimenting this field is interesting.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.03.16, 15:37:45
I was wondering what i can do with this pulse,

When you are done playing with different types of coils let's use the nanopulser to spin-up some copper nuclei immersed in a polarizing static magnetic field.
According to the Reiss Howard patent EP0099946A1 (http://www.google.com/patents/EP0099946A1?cl=en) when certain nuclei are spun-up, then they fall apart and release fast electrons  :D

Such experiments would involve winding a Maxwell Coil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_coil) to obtain a static homogeneous magnetic field and some kind of matter to spin up.  
e.g.:  a copper (or brass) sheet  / thick rod (10s of cm) / thick walled  pipe.

The experiment would look approximately like this:
The nanopulser would be connected to the coil in the middle...

It would seem the inductance of the small coil would be incompatible with the fast risetime of the DSRD.

How would we know we have the effect of nuclear spin up?

Could you expand on this or supply any additional info?

I like the basic idea.

Of course the coil in the middle has too high of an inductance for a nanopulse.  I just did not have a better picture on hand.

Conventionally, the resonance would persist for around a second and would be detectable as FID on an oscilloscope.

Unconventionally, I believe that the increased angular momentum of the nucleons would destabilize them (see the Reiss patent) leading to a conversion of unpaired neutrons into protons with emission of very high speed electrons.  These electrons can be trapped inside the "gain medium" e.g. the copper pipe/rod, by Lorentz forces and cause additional neutron conversions, leading to an amplified stimulated directionalized emission of fast electrons by the magnetic + DSRD RF stimulation. Such a pulse of directionalized fast electrons will create huge current pulse in the gain medium (copper/brass pipe/rod/sheet) that can be magnetically coupled and utilized.

Just like in a conventional laser but with a circular path of electrons instead of straight path of photons (and with different confinement mechanism and different origin of energy).

Thank you for your find of the Howard Reiss patent. For anyone who can wade through it, there are many clues regarding possible operation of the TPU of Steven Mark. A "must read" for serious researchers.

One hypothesis I've considered is the small toroidal coil (a CM choke?) on the TPU is a pulse reflector and  pulse sharpener attached to the ends of the transmission line (lamp cord). (see attachment)

This work is very interesting, as the possible "gain medium" sources are long lived and abundant. Takes some of the mystery out of how devices of the past may have operated.

We will also have to research some of the cited patents.

Would very fine metallic powders have any value as opposed to solid material? e.g. as in Colman_Gillespie?

Quote from: ION on 2013.04.23, 21:38:12
Would very fine metallic powders have any value as opposed to solid material? e.g. as in Colman_Gillespie?

Definitely.
The advantage of passivated and compressed fine powders over solid metals is their increased resistivity without affecting their density much.
High resistivity is good because it increases the penetration of the nanopulses into the gain medium.

With low resistivity, the RF penetration into conductor is equal to:
D = 503292 * SQRT( R/(f*μ_r) )
where D: skin depth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_depth#Material_effect_on_skin_depth) in mm, R: resistivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistivity#Resistivity_of_various_materials)  in Ωm, f: frequency in Hertz, μ_r: relative permeability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_%28electromagnetism%29#Values_for_some_common_materials)  

Which for solid copper means that a 100MHz RF signal penetrates it only 6.5μm deep before it is attenuated 63% (or 26μm for 98% attenuation).
So the skin-effect is a major enemy that prevents large volumes of the gain medium matter from being penetrated and excited.
Powderization and passivation increases the resistivity of the gain medium to a point where the skin-effect is mitigated.

Electric current composed of very fast electrons does not require a conductive chunk of metal, thus high resistivity does not have a negative impact on it like it would have on ordinary slow conduction electrons.

P.S.
At lower frequencies the RF penetrates deeper so even a solid brass or copper rod/pipe/sheet should work as the gain medium. The presence of a copper pipe inside a transformer (or coil) is often met with objection on the basis that it constitutes a shorted winding, which kills most of the transformer action through shielding via eddy currents / Lenz effect.  This objection is not applicable here, because the "copper pipe" acts as a source of the electric current and the resulting magnetic field (like a primary winding) not as a shorted secondary winding.

Still trying to find good use for my nano-pulser.

Seems that it won't work in making HHO, as no bubbles are detected when
sweeping the repetition frequency between 1 and 10Khz with a 1900V / 12nS pulse.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkWYNU30dYk&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

I did some further testing, but it looks like my nano-pulse is not making it to the coax tube in the electrolyte.
So no electrolysis will take place.

I hooked up my HV probe to the tube directly, but only a small ac-like ringing signal remains there.

After changing the short coax cable (75 Ohm) by a shorter piece of speaker wire (also 75 Ohm impedance if i remember correctly, but symmetrically), there is a slight improvement, but no where near the 1900V nano-pulse that is across the DSRD.

Perhaps i should shortout the bottom of the coax tubing, or terminate it with a 50 Ohm resistor.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x3R3m31KEY&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.02, 16:35:24
Still trying to find good use for my nano-pulser.

Waddaya mean !?
Didn't you read my last 3 posts posts above?

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.02, 22:50:26
I did some further testing, but it looks like my nano-pulse is not making it to the coax tube in the electrolyte.

That can be caused by either:
1) an impedance mismatch between your DSR Diode circuit and the coax's intrinsic impedance.
2) the DC offset generated by your electrolysis cell is biasing the DSR Diode (destroying the charge carrier front across its junction)

Quote from: verpies on 2013.05.03, 09:50:17
Waddaya mean !?
Didn't you read my last 3 posts posts above?

Right, like what you said here:

QuoteWhen you are done playing with different types of coils let's use the nanopulser to spin-up some copper nuclei immersed in a polarizing static magnetic field.

Offcourse, silly me, will start right away with it   ;)

QuoteThat can be caused by either:
1) an impedance mismatch between your DSR Diode circuit and the coax's intrinsic impedance.
2) the DC offset generated by your electrolysis cell is biasing the DSR Diode (destroying the charge carrier front across its junction)

Hmmm, would that not also cause "no pulse" when measure across the DSRD directly?
I have a nice 1900V / 12nS pulse there.

Regards Itsu

The cause #2, would

OK, so impedance mismatch is probably the reason for the vanishing pulse.

I first checked out if my cell was working ok, using plain DC.
I got some electrolysis going using 7.8V at 10.5A (82W), so the cell is working.
It shows also that using ohms law i have a resistance of about 0.7 Ohm in this cell.

This 0.7 Ohm is probably the problem as the nano-pulser works best around 50/75 Ohm.

So i filled a jar with plain tap water, and now the DC test showed 40V at 5.5A (220W), meaning 7 Ohm.
Using the nano-pulser with this cell showed a pulse of 500V / 50nS, but no electrolysis.

Lowering the level of plain tap water to only 2cm, increased the pulse to 1250V at 21nS.
However, still no electrolysis visible in this small amount of water.

But it proves that the resistance of the cell is very important to get out a good pulse.

Next i will try to make a electrolysis mixture which has high resistance (acid?  alkaline?)
or have to redo my coax tubing dimensions, like a much smaller inner tube diameter.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsU0Zt_3EmE&feature=youtu.be

Regards itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.03, 22:52:07
Next i will try to make a electrolysis mixture which has high resistance (acid?  alkaline?)

Rather a distilled deionized water that is completely nonconductive like in the cell described here (http://jnaudin.free.fr/wfcbooster/WFCbooster04en.htm)...and with a series diode.
A Video of breaking down non-conductive pure water is here (http://youtu.be/4nnvley2N4g?t=1m58s).

Itsu look at this

http://www.aa5tb.com/loop.html

As you are a radio Ham you should know about these, the thing is to adapt the principle to the tubes, and yes the water should be distilled or it will not work as it will see a short.

just thought this would help, by the way water vapour will split instantly, but I can't go into that, but not stopping you from doing it O0

Mike 8)

Centraflow,

The link above is missing the final "l"
It is a most informative page:

Small Transmitting Loop Antennas (http://www.aa5tb.com/loop.html)

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.05.04, 17:07:50
Centraflow,

The link above is missing the final "l"
It is a most informative page:

Small Transmitting Loop Antennas (http://www.aa5tb.com/loop.html)

Glad you like it Dumped, I used the principle of this for RF splitting of water mist and if you modulate the carrier or inject two carriers, well that is for others to find out ^-^

Mike 8)

P.S. corrected link, thanks

Thanks verpies and centraflow for your comments.

I will study the mentioned links.

But as i had some double distilled water available, i just poured a cup and did some testing.

The nano-pulser behaves much better now with this water, i have a 1160V / 40nS pulse with some ringing.
Probably the resistance now is much higher then is good for the nano-pulser.

later on i measured/calculated that the resistance of the cell is 1805 Ohm.

Still no HHO to be produced, guess i now have to lower the cells resistance to ideally 50 Ohm.
Or use the link from centraflow to build a matching device to match the 1800 Ohm of the cell to the 50 ohm of the nano-pulser.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpxYfgbbPCI&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

Itsu:

You could try making a simple impedance matching autotransformer transformer e.g. 10 turns of heavy wire wound on a cardboard tube. The first turn would be the DSRD output, the last turn  would feed the cell. This would give you about 1:10 step up of the pulse and a better impedance match. You could vary the primary  tap or output tap on the coil to find the best match.

It is best to keep the DSRD operating into a low inductance primary tap to preserve pulse "crispness".

This is just an example. Your autotransformer could be whatever ratio desired.

Thanks ION, i tried your autotransformer idea.

50:1800 = 1:36, so i made a 72 turns autotransformer of 2mm copper wire.
The DSRD is across the bottom 2 turns representing 50 Ohm, and the tube is on the top (72) and bottom turns representing 1800 Ohm.


The DSRD produces a nice pulse now (650V at 13ns with 81V on the drain), but the HV noise (caused by the autotransformer?) feeds back into the scope making it go crazy.

When measuring across the tubes, i only have a ringing like signal of 130V p2p, so again the pulse is gone.
Probably the inductance of the autotransformer is causing this.

Nice try, but no cigar  ;-)

Video here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeBkNhFDeLA&list=UUdJ2A-075yx9y4bKqu_8Q8A&index=1

Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.05, 21:56:39
The DSRD produces a nice pulse now (650V at 13ns with 81V on the drain), but the HV noise (caused by the autotransformer?) feeds back into the scope making it go crazy.

Does it mess up the new electronic electric energy meters from your power company (electric utility), too ?

Have you measured the capacitance of the cell?  It may be resonating the pulse at the output of your autotransformer.

I was thinking of a lower turns ratio, like 1:5 or 1:10 using a single turn primary.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.05.05, 23:56:12
Does it mess up the new electronic electric energy meters from your power company (electric utility), too ?

Not really, it only makes it turn in the opposite direction; is that bad?   ;D

Regards Itsu

Quote from: ION on 2013.05.06, 02:26:33
Have you measured the capacitance of the cell?  It may be resonating the pulse at the output of your autotransformer.

I was thinking of a lower turns ratio, like 1:5 or 1:10 using a single turn primary.

Not sure i can measure the capacitance with this residual voltage in it, but i will try.

I will also try to use a 1:10 transformer.

Thanks,  regards Itsu

Quote from: ION on 2013.05.06, 02:26:33
Have you measured the capacitance of the cell?

Yes, the electrolysis cell with pure water should be measured like a capacitor.  See Capacitive Reactance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Capacitive_reactance).
You can do it even with the low voltage signal from your signal generator and the oscilloscope across a CSR.

If you are getting some residual voltage generated by this cell then it means that your water is not clean enough and that you are using dissimilar metals that had some residual contamination on the surface from previous experiments.  
If you scrub the surfaces with sanding paper and wash them well with deionized water, the residual voltage will disappear.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.04, 23:23:46
But as i had some double distilled water available, i just poured a cup and did some testing.
The nano-pulser behaves much better now with this water, i have a 1160V / 40nS pulse with some ringing.

It would be very interesting to see if this ringing waveform changes a little in the presence of a magnet outside of the glass beaker in this configuartion (http://youtu.be/EpxYfgbbPCI?t=1m5s).

Quote from: verpies on 2013.05.06, 15:55:49
It would be very interesting to see if this ringing waveform changes a little in the presence of a magnet outside of the glass beaker in this configuartion (http://youtu.be/EpxYfgbbPCI?t=1m5s).

As i did not test this present stainless steel 316 tubing i am not sure, but all my other stainless steel 316 tubing was nonmagnetic, and i expect this one also to be nonmagnetic and therefor i doubt a magnet will change the signal.
But i will try to test this.

Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.06, 19:45:00
i expect this one also to be nonmagnetic and therefor i doubt a magnet will change the signal.
But i will try to test this.

I hope the stainless tubing is nonmagnetic. I don't want it to move in response to the magnet!
I had something else in mind, namely proton precession in that pure water...

Quote from: verpies on 2013.05.06, 22:52:04
I hope the stainless tubing is nonmagnetic. I don't want it to move in response to the magnet!
I had something else in mind, namely proton precession in that pure water...

OK, i repeated that specific experiment (nano-pulser with short leads to the cell), and used a stack of neo's to approach the beaker and even the tubing.
But no change is to be seen in the waveform or the amplitude.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY5hVtiIDwM&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

Thanks for checking this out.
The setup had the wrong geometry for proton precession but I thought that the strong nanopulses might fringe out in the water and interact with the static magnetic field slightly.
As it is now, the LC resonance simply overshadows any proton precession signals (the stainless steel tubing forms the capacitance C, with water as a dielectric and the rest of the circuit and wires form the inductance L).

To see the proton precession, you'd have to feed the nanopulses to the thin copper tubing coil, that you have sitting nearby, and put the beaker of water inside that coil.
Also the water would have to be inside a large perpendicular Maxwell Coil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_coil) supplied with DC, in order to generate a static uniform field throughout the water (because magnets do not generate uniform magnetic fields).

Quote from: verpies on 2013.05.08, 08:37:47

To see the proton precession, you'd have to feed the nanopulses to the thin copper tubing coil.................

Right, so a different setup alltogether.

I will leave that for some future experiments,  thanks.

Regards Itsu

I tried to make some measurements of my cell, but only could find that the coaxial tubing has a capacitance (outside the water) of 30pF.

When putting it into the water, the voltage on this tubing raises to 300mV which makes any resistance and capacitance measurements present wrong info.

I then used a 8 turns copper tubing coil as an autotransformer, but we see the same problem as with the earlier used autotransformer, nice pulse across the DSR diode, but a ringing like signal (3.3Mhz) on top of the cell and no HHO.

Got severall comments/advices also on my youtube channel, so need some time to follow them up, like this:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a567653.pdf (thanks kleeph)

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWm1IHSnyVA&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.08, 10:06:00
When putting it into the water, the voltage on this tubing raises to 300mV which makes any resistance and capacitance measurements present wrong info.

That really should not happen with a very clean cell.
Anyway if a DC offset interferes with your capacitance measurements then connecting a LARGE non-polarized capacitor in series with the electrolysis cell would make the measurement possible.

I brought the cell together with the 8 turn air coil in resonance by loosely coupling my FG signal via a 1 wire loop.
It resonates at 3.190Mhz.

Then i substituted the cell by a variable air capacitor and was hunting for the same 3.190Mhz resonance frequency.
When found, i measured the variable air capacitor to be 500pF.

An online calculator calculated the 8 turn coil to be 5uH
 
So there it is;

cell capacitance 500pF
auto transformer inductance 5uH
resonance frequency 3.190Mhz

So how do i get my 1200V / 12ns nano-pulse effectively transferred into this 500pF cell?
Could i use a capacitive matching network?

known data:

input impedance 50 Ohm
output impedance 1800 Ohm
output capacitor 500pF

input capacitor?

Found some "matching capacitor calculators" on the net, but they all need to know frequency and Q, while i think that would not be needed


Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.08, 21:01:20
cell capacitance 500pF
auto transformer inductance 5uH
resonance frequency 3.190Mhz
<<impedance 1800 Ohm>>

Your, cell capacitance seems to be measured properly using the LC resonance circuit and substituting known C.
I don't question your 3.19MHz resonance if you used a sine waveform to stimulate the LC.
With the 5μH inductance of the coil, I just have to trust your inductance meter, however it is unclear whether this inductance refers to the primary of this autotransformer or to the inductance of the primary + secondary.

The "impedance 1800Ω" most likely refers to a DC measurement and should be called DC "resistance 1800Ω". 
For non-DC signals, the capacitive reactance of your cell and the inductive reactance of your coil matters as well. They can be subtracted from each other and they are dependent on the frequency of your stimulating signal (the nanopulse spectrum - not the PRF alone!). Think of them as frequency-variable resistances.  See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance#Inductive_reactance).

BTW:  Resistance + Reactance = Impedance.

Finally, don't forget about getting the signal from the pulser to the cell - a transmission line gotcha.  See this video (http://video.linear.com/21).

Quote from: ION on 2013.05.05, 12:01:53
Itsu:
You could try making a simple impedance matching autotransformer transformer e.g. 10 turns of heavy wire wound on a cardboard tube. The first turn would be the DSRD output, the last turn  would feed the cell.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.08, 21:01:20
So how do i get my 1200V / 12ns nano-pulse effectively transferred into this 500pF cell?

Since it was ION's idea to go with an autotransformer, I will leave it to him to do the impedance calculations.  Without the knowledge of nanopulses' spectrum, I wish him good luck.

QuoteI don't question your 3.19MHz resonance if you used a sine waveform to stimulate the LC.

I used both sine and square wave, showing both the sine wave resonance of 3.19Mhz

QuoteWith the 5μH inductance of the coil, I just have to trust your inductance meter, however it is unclear whether this inductance refers to the primary of this autotransformer or to the inductance of the primary + secondary.

The 5uH was calculated with an online calculator using the now known 500pF and 3.19Mhz.
My inductance meter was not able to measure this low inductance.
As the LC was over the whole coil, its the inductance of both primary + secondary.

QuoteThe "impedance 1800Ω" most likely refers to a DC measurement and should be called DC "resistance 1800Ω". 

Right, calculated in an earlier post from the measured peak voltage.

QuoteBTW:  Resistance + Reactance = Impedance.

i know, but you are right, i keep mixing them up.

QuoteFinally, don't forget about getting the signal from the pulser to the cell - a transmission line gotcha.  See this video.

Good info, i have some copper tape which i could use to do some experiments with.

So basically, its not that simple to get this nano-pulse transferred to the cell without losses or signal corruption and probably would take lots of experiments.

Thanks,  regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.09, 10:29:53
I used both sine and square wave, showing both the sine wave resonance of 3.19MHz.

You were lucky. A square wave has many frequency peaks (lobes) that can confuse the measurement.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.09, 10:29:53
The 5uH was calculated with an online calculator using the now known 500pF and 3.19Mhz.

That's even better if the 500pf is trustworthy.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.09, 10:29:53
Right, calculated in an earlier post from the measured peak voltage.

Peak voltage at what frequency?

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.09, 10:29:53
Good info, i have some copper tape which i could use to do some experiments with.

Remember that you have 1kV pulse and that is very different from the 1V pulse on that video.  You don't need a 1Ω transmission line at that voltage

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.05.09, 10:29:53
So basically, its not that simple to get this nano-pulse transferred to the cell without losses or signal corruption and probably would take lots of experiments.

If your pulse is 10ns wide then it means that is similar to a 50MHz square wave. (20ns period).

For 50MHz square wave, a 5μH inductance has an inductive reactance of 1273Ω.
X_L=5.09*f*L  for square voltage source (here (http://www.overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg339593/#msg339593) is why)
X_L=6.28*f*L  for sine voltage source
The coil is a low pass filter.  It has low reactance at low frequencies and high reactance at high frequencies.

The capacitance of the cell behaves oppositely. It is a high pass filter. It has high reactance at low frequencies and low reactance at high frequencies.
In this case, a 500pf capacitor has 8Ω capacitive reactance to a 50MHz square wave.

Of course, your waveform is not square but a low DUC rectangular waveform, consisting of a dense comb of frequencies from 1kHz to 50MHz (see attachment (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=10167))
Also, the transformer action decreases the primary winding's inductance of any loaded transformer (Lenz Law).


P.S.
The frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal to the capacitive reactance is your LC resonance frequency (in your case 3.19MHz).

QuotePeak voltage at what frequency?

Well, peak voltage was not the correct wording, i mean i calculated the DC resistance of the cell by Ohms law when i used
my maximum DC voltage of my PS (363V) and measured the current to be 200mA (via a 0.1 Ohm csr).

Regards Itsu

The effect of the nanopulse is easily subducted.

Hi Itsu

do you still have your pulser? let me know, what you were trying to do with the cell was missing certain things for it to work.

I will be explaining how this works in the near future once I have got a few things together, and also another European replication being built right now.

regards

Mike 8)

Ps I think you are away for a couple of weeks, no problem, when you return. O0

Oops,   did not see that one recently.

Yes, still have it and i did fire it up just last night using 12V on the MOSFET driver logic and 24V on the drain.
Here a screenshot of the output pulse in a 56 Ohm resistor with a pulse repetition rate of 100KHz using my FG as pulse source.

Regards Itsu

Hi all,

i am experimenting with a circuit to produce 1 nanosecond wide pulses (with 350 picoseconds rise time) using a 2n2369 transistor and a Lt1073 dc-dc chip.
The circuit used is found in the LT1073 datasheet on page 14.

First tests shows it produces 15ns wide pulses (rise time 4ns) of about 4V in 50 Ohm.

Looking closer to the circuit shows that the LT only provides the needed 90V bias voltage, so can be omitted.
But using a barebone circuit with only the 2n2369, 3 resistors and a trimmer cap using very short leads on a ground plane pcb does not improve the situation,  we still have 15ns wide pulses and not the promised 1ns with 350ps rise time.
Is the probe/scope the limiting factor here?

When using a breadboard shows the same data, but makes it more easily to swap transistors etc.
It shows that the only transistor producing these pulses in this circuit is the 2n2369, many others show nothing, see video for transistors used.

Any idea why this 2n2369 is so special in this case?
Any suggestions for an other (better) one?

Anyway, first video here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGdBW2NLR1Y&feature=youtu.be

Next will be to change the fixed resistors (base 10K and emitter 56 Ohm) to variable potmeters and to add more capacitance across the collector.

Regards Itsu

PS, for a good answer on the above questions why the 2n2369 is so special (avalanche transistor), see the reply from muDped here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.msg41178#msg41178

For an additional circuit to play with, see this answer from Les Banki here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2578.msg41180#msg41180

I made some changes yesterday by changing the fixed 10K and 56 Ohm resistors to variable ones.
Also the capacitor was increased from 4pf via 16pF till finally about 80pF.

The change of the 10K base resistor to a 20K pot did not do much, only at the lower end (300 Ohm) a change to lower amplitude was seen.
The change of the 56 Ohm emitter resistor to a 500 Ohm pot was more noticeable as the amplitude of the pulse went up considerable.
The change of the 4pF cap to finally 80pF made the amplitude increase even more till 36V with a pulse width of 44ns.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Wy4ef4EiI&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

Nice work Itsu.

Grumpy is the Avalanche expert, we did quiet a bit with it at one point

I built a Marx Avalanche stack, add more stacks and you get higher voltage/ Energy dumped, very easy to build.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=307.msg9605#msg9605

QuoteLooks like i am getting a fall rate of about 18nS for the 1K load @ 740V pulse

I have never tried driving a HHO cell but still have the electronics that i built  O0

Peter

Itsu:

The local power supply bypass capacitor 0.1 uF shown on the schematic is an important part of the original circuit.

I don't see a local power supply bypass capacitor on your ground plane board. As it is now, your power supply leads will contribute some inductance, and you should not get a perfect pulse. This should be a good quality film type of 0.1 uF or tantalum may also work well or other low esr cap.

Scope ground leads will also have some inductance, so best to use a direct BNC to BNC connection to the scope.

Spiral trimmed resistors also could add some inductance to the output circuit. The output 50 ohm would best be a carbon slug rather than carbon film or metal film spiral trimmed types.

This may or may not improve the pulse, there are other variables. You might also try a short length of coax as the storage capacitor for a more square pulse.

Quote from: Peterae on 2014.08.25, 11:12:00
Nice work Itsu.

Grumpy is the Avalanche expert, we did quiet a bit with it at one point

I built a Marx Avalanche stack, add more stacks and you get higher voltage/ Energy dumped, very easy to build.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=307.msg9605#msg9605

I have never tried driving a HHO cell but still have the electronics that i built  O0

Peter

Dear Peter.

I have a multi cell device I built a number of years back just waiting for some electronics ! !  :)

With the huge amount of " FUEL " that has fallen lately, Bank Holiday weather!!  ;D  Perhaps we can come to some arrangement?

Cheers Graham.

Hi Grumage

Indeed dont we always get loads of fuel on Bank Holidays  ;D

Sounds good i will dig it out and check it is OK, you can have it for tests  O0

Cheers
Peter

Quote from: Peterae on 2014.08.25, 11:12:00
Nice work Itsu.

Grumpy is the Avalanche expert, we did quiet a bit with it at one point

I built a Marx Avalanche stack, add more stacks and you get higher voltage/ Energy dumped, very easy to build.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=307.msg9605#msg9605

I have never tried driving a HHO cell but still have the electronics that i built  O0

Peter

Thanks Peter, 

lots of good info in that thread.     I will order some of those 2N5551, they are really cheap     (and some extra 2n2369's    :)  )

Regards Itsu

Quote from: ION on 2014.08.25, 12:33:05
Itsu:

The local power supply bypass capacitor 0.1 uF shown on the schematic is an important part of the original circuit.

I don't see a local power supply bypass capacitor on your ground plane board. As it is now, your power supply leads will contribute some inductance, and you should not get a perfect pulse. This should be a good quality film type of 0.1 uF or tantalum may also work well or other low esr cap.

Scope ground leads will also have some inductance, so best to use a direct BNC to BNC connection to the scope.

Spiral trimmed resistors also could add some inductance to the output circuit. The output 50 ohm would best be a carbon slug rather than carbon film or metal film spiral trimmed types.

This may or may not improve the pulse, there are other variables. You might also try a short length of coax as the storage capacitor for a more square pulse.

Good tips ION   as always.

especially the  short length of coax as the storage capacitor  is a good one.


Regards Itsu

Ok,  slowly getting there, using the groundplane pcb with the components shortly soldered to each other and as storage cap a 20cm long open ended piece of RG-316 coax cable.

And also very important...... remove the bandwidth limitation from the scope  :-[  C.C

Closing in to the 1ns pulse width, see screenshot.


Still using the normal probe, when using a piece of 50 Ohm coax directly to the a scope port set to 50 Ohm shows an even smaller pulse, but the signal is to strong as in this 50 Ohm setting, the scope can only handle max. 5V RMS, so i need an attenuator.


Regards Itsu

Itsu:

You can form a voltage divider as part of the 50 ohm load for the scope input and still use the direct BNC to BNC to the scope.

ION, 


like changing the present one 56 Ohm emitter resistor to two resistors in series, one 47, the other 4.7 Ohm, and measuring across the 4.7 Ohm resistor?


Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2014.08.26, 08:35:32
ION, 


like changing the present one 56 Ohm emitter resistor to two resistors in series, one 47, the other 4.7 Ohm, and measuring across the 4.7 Ohm resistor?


Regards Itsu

Yes, that should give you 11 times divider. A potentiometer in place of the 50 ohm would allow adjustment to exactly 10 to one or any divider ratio you choose.

Properly terminating the cable at each end would also be helpful. Right now the scope end is terminated in meg ohms. I sometimes use a tee coupler at the scope with a 50 ohm terminator inserted when working with a low impedance line to subdue reflections and standing waves.

Quote from: Peterae on 2014.08.25, 11:12:00
Nice work Itsu.

Grumpy is the Avalanche expert, we did quiet a bit with it at one point

I built a Marx Avalanche stack, add more stacks and you get higher voltage/ Energy dumped, very easy to build.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=307.msg9605#msg9605

I have never tried driving a HHO cell but still have the electronics that i built  O0

Peter

I'm not an expert, but I have built several avalanche stacks using the 2N5551's and other transistors and diodes.

I use the calculator at hyperphysics to generate resistor values for voltage dividers to scope the pulses.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/voldiv.html

I use metal oxide resistors mounted on a piece of acrylic or polyethylene sheet.

I have dividers for 1000:1, and 100:1

Thanks for the info guys, i made a 10:1 voltage divider (47:4.7 Ohm) using carbon resistors and measure across the 4.7 Ohm resistor with a coax cable directly attached to the ch. 4,  set to 50 Ohm.

The coax cable storage cap was replaced by a high quality trimmer as the coax cable was very sensitive to the surroundings.

A pulse width of less then 1ns was achieved with rise and fall times around half a ns, see screenshot.

I guess still some improvement could be possible by using metal oxide resistors, using different transistors and/or putting the circuit in a shielded box with proper connectors

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_2Ea8_9o5k&feature=youtu.be


Regards Itsu

 O0

Quote from: poynt99 on 2014.08.26, 22:43:41
O0

what is Afro?

G I have never noticed before, it looks like there is an error in the smiley set we use  O0
but i think we all know what a thumb up means  8)

I received some 2n5551's, but they do not pulse in the circuit i used, see below.
I went up till 400V dc bias, but no pulse was seen.
Any idea why?

Regards Itsu

"...Any idea why this 2n2369 is so special in this case?
Any suggestions for an other (better) one...?"
Because it have frenquency 500 Mhz.
Better is mosfets, I think. And I think, that 50 ns pulse is good on 50 omhs load. Ruslan also say, that it have 50 ns pulse duration...

Itsu, that you get voltage of pulse in this picture?
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=14738;image

:)

Hi menofFather,

yes, that pulse was made with my nanopulser using a 2n2369 transistor.
The amplitude (2.3V) is 1/11 of the real amplitude (28V) because i use a 1/10 voltage divider to measure this pulse.

Regards Itsu

I made some improvements to the nanopulser and it now rightfully can be called a picopulser.
I used metal oxide resistors for the avalanche transistor base resistor and the emitter load/voltage divider resistors and put this avalanche part in a copper sheet box using proper bnc plugs.

Not sure why the negative pulse is so strong now (please compare with earlier screenshot above), most inductance should be gone.

When my BNC attenuator plugs arrive i could measure the real output for amplitude and width.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqgof8zgZZc&feature=youtu.be


Regards Itsu

Beautiful screenshot Itsu.

It exemplifies the extreme difficulty of getting
"clean" pulses at picoSecond pulse widths.

Even very tiny distributed capacitance and
inductance is able to form a resonant circuit
of sorts.  It is also possible that the metallic
circuit enclosure is beginning to operate as a
resonant cavity.

You're getting on up there in frequencies
approaching microwaves!

Nice to see avalanche pulses!

How are you setting the pulse width and what are you using for a load?

Quote from: muDped on 2014.09.04, 22:49:22
Beautiful screenshot Itsu.

It exemplifies the extreme difficulty of getting
"clean" pulses at picoSecond pulse widths.

Even very tiny distributed capacitance and
inductance is able to form a resonant circuit
of sorts.  It is also possible that the metallic
circuit enclosure is beginning to operate as a
resonant cavity.



You're getting on up there in frequencies
approaching microwaves!

Thanks muDped,

yes, that copper sheet box could act as a wave guide, good observation.
How do i counteract that, i bigger box?

Regards Itsu

Quote from: Grumpy on 2014.09.05, 00:36:11
Nice to see avalanche pulses!

How are you setting the pulse width and what are you using for a load?

The pulse width is set by the 2-7pF trimmer capacitor, but manipulating the load (here a 50 Ohm terminator plug) also has influence

The load at the time of the above screenshot was the 50 Ohm terminator plug.
But when using a 56 Ohm metal oxide resistor in series with a red led increased the pulse width / fall time to about 800ps producing a faint glow in the led.

(using the following pdf circuit on page 1108 as a guide:   http://academic.reed.edu/physics/courses/Physics332.s12/pdf/LED%20Luminescence%20Decay.pdf )
 
Regards Itsu

Both ends of your BNC signal cable (scope end and driven end) should be terminated with 50 ohms or whatever the cable impedance is to prevent unwanted reflections and ringing.

The virtual open end at the scope is probably causing reflections.

This might require that your attenuator be re-arranged a bit, but not at all difficult to do.

The LED in series with the terminator resistor is not a good idea, as the line is virtually open until the threshold voltage is met, and definitely open in the reverse direction. The terminator impedance will drastically change with the series LED.

Quote from: Itsu on 2014.09.05, 09:44:44
The pulse width is set by the 2-7pF trimmer capacitor, but manipulating the load (here a 50 Ohm terminator plug) also has influence

The load at the time of the above screenshot was the 50 Ohm terminator plug.
But when using a 56 Ohm metal oxide resistor in series with a red led increased the pulse width / fall time to about 800ps producing a faint glow in the led.

(using the following pdf circuit on page 1108 as a guide:   http://academic.reed.edu/physics/courses/Physics332.s12/pdf/LED%20Luminescence%20Decay.pdf )
 
Regards Itsu

I use the circuit on page 1108, a) with only the coax delay line to set width, and the trigger is isolated with a tiny transformer.  For a load, I use a very large air-core coil (high impedance) and there are no reflections

Quote from: ION on 2014.09.05, 12:49:32
Both ends of your BNC signal cable (scope end and driven end) should be terminated with 50 ohms or whatever the cable impedance is to prevent unwanted reflections and ringing.

Hmmm,   the driven side is terminated with the 4.7 Ohm of the voltage divider, and i guess the scope end (set to 50 Ohm impedance) will internally be terminated with 50 Ohm,  right?
Or should i here use the trick with the BNC T with one end terminated into 50 Ohm?  And if so which side,  the 4.7 Ohm drive side, the 50 Ohm scope side or both?

QuoteThe virtual open end at the scope is probably causing reflections.

again, is that end not terminated internally with 50 ohm?

QuoteThis might require that your attenuator be re-arranged a bit, but not at all difficult to do.

Right, like with the BNC T with the 50 Ohm terminator?

QuoteThe LED in series with the terminator resistor is not a good idea, as the line is virtually open until the threshold voltage is met, and definitely open in the reverse direction. The terminator impedance will drastically change with the series LED.

Ok, but that was the setup as mentioned in the PDF i referenced.


Thanks and regards  Itsu

Quote from: Grumpy on 2014.09.05, 13:13:29
I use the circuit on page 1108, a) with only the coax delay line to set width, and the trigger is isolated with a tiny transformer.  For a load, I use a very large air-core coil (high impedance) and there are no reflections

Ok, the RG174 coax has a capacitance of 1pF/cm, like the RG316 i use, so the mentioned 9" would be something like 22pF.
Not sure if what they say (stops avalanching on the return pulse) is really working.

I can try to use a high impedance air coil,   thanks.


Regards itsu

just to avoid any confusion, this is my present layout of the avalanche part of my picopulser:

Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2014.08.30, 20:04:11
I received some 2n5551's, but they do not pulse in the circuit i used, see below.
I went up till 400V dc bias, but no pulse was seen.
Any idea why?

Regards Itsu

I used the circuit from the referenced PDF (see earlier) to test my 2n5551's, and finally they started to avalanche using 280V and more and having a 220pF capacitor (no coax).

First picture the test circuit used (without coax, 250Pf capacitor and 324V)
Second picture is the resulting screenshot of the scope with a nice 233V nano pulse

Regards Itsu

Your pulse looks great. 

You can string the transistors together for higher voltage pulses. I have used up to 16 for 4kv pulses.

thanks,   

My present DC PS is limited to about 400V, so that will not work.
I still have an old HAM tube power amplifier which should have the right parts.

Regards Itsu

Sorry Itsu, I missed the fact that you switched the scope to 50 ohms input, so disregard my input.

Best to try to maintain 50 ohms termination at each end of the cable and use a separate discharge resistor and a 450 ohm value to the terminator resistor. This will give you the 10x attenuator.

This could be fine tuned even further but you seem to be doing quite well now.

Regards, ION

Busting out my 2n5551's...wonderful circuit.

Reference for proper stack configuration?

Quote from: Itsu on 2014.09.07, 15:47:16
thanks,   

My present DC PS is limited to about 400V, so that will not work.
I still have an old HAM tube power amplifier which should have the right parts.

Regards Itsu

Itsu

You don't need much of a power supply for the avalanche circuit as the current is very low unless you plan on a very fast repetition rate of pulses which would probably overheat the transistor.

Those little electrostatic power supplies found in laser printers will probably work fine. I have tested some of them and you can vary the DC input to control HV output over quite a range. Trick is there are multiple inputs and after decoding the plus and minus inputs, there are other control inputs that turn the HV on and off by setting the inputs to ground or V+. It takes a bit of experimenting to find the right connections.

Alternately a Variac , MOT, rectifier and filter cap will get you there at high current capability.

Quote from: bte on 2014.09.08, 10:29:45
Busting out my 2n5551's...wonderful circuit.

Reference for proper stack configuration?

I use the circuit from Baker for stacks, first link below, with the capacitors and resistors across each transistor.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=378.msg5568#msg5568

http://cmosedu.com/jbaker/papers/1991/RSI621991.pdf

Replicated the monostable nanosecond pulse generator:  https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1556.msg26300#msg26300

I accidentally ordered NAND gate instead of NOR, so it required a few tweaks to get the equivalent circuit working.
Tightest pulses were ~20ns, but much smoother at >50ns.  Very repeatable.

I'm impressed to get that kind of performance from a breadboard circuit, but a small PCB should perform better... :)

It's a nice and cheap setup, Reiyuki, but I don't see the point. Is it to power a DSRD circuit or to directly generate short pulses as a DSRD generator could do?
In the first case, short pulses are not required at the start. On the contrary, rather long pulses, 50 to 500 ns, are needed to "charge" the diode, and it is when it becomes non-conducting that the short pulse occurs ( < 10 ns).
In the second case, even if it is followed by a power transistor, the power achieved will be far from being able to compete with those of DSRD pulses, neither in power nor in pulse narrowness. Only very advanced techniques such as magnetic pulse compression can compete, but much more expensive and complicated to implement than DSRDs.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.02.11, 10:32:38
It's a nice and cheap setup, Reiyuki, but I don't see the point. Is it to power a DSRD circuit or to directly generate short pulses as a DSRD generator could do?

The goal in the above test was multifold, but largely to provide a stable, repeatable isolation between function generator and FET driver.  I was getting irregularities when driving with pulses shorter than 50ns, and this provided an interesting solution.  With this setup, one could get precise nanosecond pulses with an arduino or even 555 timer.

---

I also replicated exnihiloest's DSRD circuit described here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1556.msg26722#msg26722   

Rather than wind coils, it appears that regular jumper leads provide enough inductance to get a decent result.
However the inductance-variability and time-delay between drive and pulse was disappointing, as it puts a fairly low limit on repetition frequency (under 300kpps).


Overall I am focused on developing a more standard design for generating short HV impulses that does not require custom coils or excessive tuning (IE: something that the average EE could repeatably build).

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.02.11, 15:24:32
Overall I am focused on developing a more standard design for generating short HV impulses that does not require custom coils or excessive tuning (IE: something that the average EE could repeatably build).

If you abhor custom cored coils then you can do this circuit with off-the-shelf coils.

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8651)

Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.11, 16:29:30
If you abhor custom cored coils then you can do this circuit with off-the-shelf coils.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=8651)

I tried that circuit, but was disappointed by the amount of tuning required to get a decent pulse back.
L1    Low nanohenries (lead wire)
C2   ~3.6uF
L2   1-100uH (adjustable)
D1   1n5404
Vcc  24v
Pulse ~380ns
Attached is result.

As a one-off it works OK, but I believe a replicator would have big problems trying to reproduce the circuit.  Varying the input voltage, pulse duration, capacitance, or inductances more than a few percent will significantly affect the output in my setup.

We could mitigate this difficulty by selling batches of prebuilt, pretuned boards, but I don't think my relatively mediocre 50ns pulses would be worth the development, given that >1kv nanosecond MOSFETs are already on the market that can likely surpass this performance.


It is indeed an interesting effect, apparently it's just not up my alley. C.C ;)

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.02.11, 21:14:00
I tried that circuit, but was disappointed by the amount of tuning required to get a decent pulse back.
L1    Low nanohenries (lead wire)
C2   ~3.6uF
L2   1-100uH (adjustable)
D1   1n5404
Vcc  24v
Pulse ~380ns
Attached is result.

Then stick with the true and tried method described here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=30975) and as a pulse controller use this 74VHC221 circuit with C2=22pF :

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.02.11, 15:24:32
The goal in the above test was multifold, but largely to provide a stable, repeatable isolation between function generator and FET driver.  I was getting irregularities when driving with pulses shorter than 50ns, and this provided an interesting solution.  With this setup, one could get precise nanosecond pulses with an arduino or even 555 timer.

Once again, short pulses are not suitable to drive DSRD diodes. You must charge the capacitor/diode which will provide the pulse energy when the diode is switched off. You can't reach high power if input pulses are short, the capacitor/diode will not be charged enough.
For isolation, the TC4429 I used in the setup you've reproduced is enough. If your generator can't provide pulses in the range 50-500ns, then a monostable can be added between the generator and the TC4429. It's important to be able to adjust it at will.

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.02.11, 21:14:00
I tried that circuit, but was disappointed by the amount of tuning required to get a decent pulse back.
...

I'm afraid that tuning is indispensable. Short pulses means high frequencies. If you have 6 ns pulses, the level of the harmonics being weak, it's like if you had one half-period of a 1000/6=166 MHz signal. It's like radio frequency amplification. The ouput circuit impedance must match the charge impedance otherwise very little power is transferred. This is done by tuning the ouput L/C.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.02.12, 09:57:38
I'm afraid that tuning is indispensable. Short pulses means high frequencies. If you have 6 ns pulses, the level of the harmonics being weak, it's like if you had one half-period of a 1000/6=166 MHz signal. It's like radio frequency amplification. The output circuit impedance must match the charge impedance otherwise very little power is transferred. This is done by tuning the output L/C.

Oh boy, I'm feeling these issues firsthand :P.  Challenges like this on top of the high-voltage tightrope are probably why there are so few successful replicators out there. C.C

I'm posting my own results to help give people behind me a gauge on the difficulty of the various paths through the forest. ;)

Quote from: verpies on 2019.02.11, 22:49:37
Then stick with the true and tried method described here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=30975) and as a pulse controller use this 74VHC221 circuit with C2=22pF :

Thanks, I'll get to that eventually.  For the time-being I'm still focused on fast-switching FET gates.

Quote from: Reiyuki on 2019.02.12, 15:28:32
Thanks, I'll get to that eventually.  For the time-being I'm still focused on fast-switching FET gates.

If you don't solder the MOSFET driver right on top of the MOSFET, you can forget about fast gate rise times.
Also, supplying the driver with 20V (V_{GS_MAX}) helps a lot and for best results use a symmetrical ±20V supply to your driver ...and if you are really ambitious, then use a gate driving waveform like this:

Hi everyone you will have to bear with me here but I'm interested with nano Pulser
i'm just thinking about how it works and whats going on, first has anyone got it to work correctly yet
and what device you are all using for the two stud diodes that are a bit unusual and difficult to get in the west
they are of course avalanche diodes the ones Lee used are quite slow.
anyway I think i will wait and see what comes back before I embarrass my self. ;D

Regards AG

These diodes are NOT avalanche diodes.  I described their mode of operation in this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1556.msg26288#msg26288) post....and subsequent ones.
The diodes that work well are described in this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1556.msg26292#msg26292) thread and in this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=31620) article.
Also the output of this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1556.0;attach=31116) control circuit has been confirmed to work well when connected to the A3 input designated in Fig.2 of this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3691.0;attach=31620) article.

Several members of this thread replicated this circuit successfully.  IMO Itsu's replication (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg73667#msg73667) is documented the best. (he eventually reached the power of 63kW within the pulse here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg95414#msg95414))

Quote from: AlienGrey on 2019.11.06, 23:49:27
Hi everyone you will have to bear with me here but I'm interested with nano Pulser
i'm just thinking about how it works and whats going on, first has anyone got it to work correctly yet
and what device you are all using for the two stud diodes that are a bit unusual and difficult to get in the west
they are of course avalanche diodes the ones Lee used are quite slow.
anyway I think i will wait and see what comes back before I embarrass my self. ;D

Regards AG

Hey welcome mate. Good intro. You can't go wrong following Verpies and Itsu advice and data.
Cheers

Hi there and thanks for all your previous comments and happy new year to you all, now I can log back in  ;)

I don't want to appear to be a dumb ass  :) but what is the purpose pf the nanosecond pulse ie around the GHz frequency?
Are we grabbing the rising electrons or ions before the magnetic vector begins? I can't help but compare what appears to be going on
with the capacitor of a LOPT and the dumping of the charged energy into the LOPT primary to produce the free EHT as it were.
But I could be completely off track  :(

AG

Did you forget?


https://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg492003/#msg492003


Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2020.01.02, 11:41:30
Did you forget?


https://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg492003/#msg492003


Itsu

Not really I didn't go back and would have skimmed over the large cartoon, I'm like that  :-[
But thanks it explains a lot like how early spark-gap transmitters transmitted over all bands   :'( O0

Hi, all re DSRD driver I used a Cmos555 and an inverter !N7000 and a 74AC00 on a Vero breadboard
still waiting for some other parts for the output stage I will put it on a Homemade PCB
once I get organised.
See the scope shot supplied.
Would have included a circuit but don't have an editer for thatmay be later.