PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-05-21, 12:00:55
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
Author Topic: Itsu's workbench / placeholder.  (Read 4867 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1669

I build the nanopulser according to the PDF attached below (see diagram taken from pdf).

The pulse across a 50 ohm resistor can be seen in the screenshot.
Voltage on the drain was 200V.

I used my Russian KD226 Diode as the P600M diode in the diagram only produced a 820v pulse.

I still try various other things to improve on the nanopulse, but i have a hard time believing i could
come close to the claimed 2kV @ 2ns pulse mentioned in the pdf.


Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1669

Hmmm, it seems that the capacitor(s) in series with dsr diode D (P600M) are critical.

This C (2n2/10kV and 4n7/10kV) of 6.9nF needs to be around 6.9nF in combination with P600M to produce the highest pulse.

My used 3x paralleled 2n2/3kV ceramic caps (so 6.6nF) seems to be very instable due to heat.
After soldering them in, the P600M produced, like mentioned, only a 820V pulse.
Lateron it suddenly was at 1.5kV then dropping down again to 900V or so.

Heating up those 3 capacitors with my sodering iron close by, changed the capacitance from around 7nF to more then half.

Even touching them with my finger shows a significant drop to way below the needed 6.6nF.
As they also heat up under normal operation it is hard to stabilize them at the needed 6.6nF.

I added a 4th 2.2nF cap parallel and was able by heating up those 4 caps to attain the highest pulse (1.5kV).
I need either some better quality caps or create a temperature controlled setup for those caps.


Another problem is that there is HV noise at both the gate and drain right after they switch which pops up at about 150V and higher on the drain.

This 80V HV gate noise (allthough i have a 18V tvs there) and similar 800V drain noise (allthough i have a 440V tvs) occure with or without the nanopulse present (so even if i disconnect the dsr diode).

Guess its the general MOSFET setup which causes this noise / feedback, so better chokes and decoupling is in order.


Found this pdf using the humble 1N4007 diode as pin diode to switch HV RF loads, to be used lateron:

Itsu
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3504
It's turtles all the way down
Good work and experiments, Itsu. Thank you for demonstrating this sharp pulser.

What do you intend to do with these very sharp pulses? Do you have an end goal in mind?

Regards


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1669

Hi ion,

the idea is as mentioned in post #124 of this thread:

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg71665#msg71665

it says:


Quote
Meanwhile back at the ranch.........


Concerning the hunt for the 45.5Mhz NMR response to an iron powdered toroid:

I dusted off my nanopulser and i will try to make it alive again, stable and boxed in.

The idea is to use this nanopulse (± 1KV) as the big gun to be fired to the iron powdered toroid to
see if this will cause any 45.5Mhz NMR response.

One of the problems will be to protect the Spectrum Analyzer / Scope inputs during the pulse, but have it
fully opened for "listening" for the response.


The above attached pdf would be a cheap circuit to try to switch the SA input off and on on the right moment.

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1669


Busy with some replications on overunity.com, like:

https://overunity.com/17491/confirmation-of-ou-devices-and-claims/msg534026/#msg534026

and

https://overunity.com/18210/radiant-power-from-solid-state-tesla-hairpin-circuit/msg533994/#msg533994

For the first one ION made a simulation in LTspice which would be interesting to have for some tuning on the real thing.

ION, you could attach it here if you like,  thanks.


Itsu   
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3504
It's turtles all the way down
Dear Itsu

My simulation was crude and maybe not even that accurate, but only a starting point. You can get any output value less than unity by adjusting K. This  effectively loosely correlates to the distance between coils.

partzman and poynt are much better at these sims than I am. These guys are my mentors with simulations so maybe they can offer better versions. Perhaps they can figure out a way to sweep the frequency over a small range of interest and log power in the load resistors.

I guess the so called "disruptive" drive circuit (touted by AKing21, RF) that we call an FET driver could also be added.

At any rate I will post the first crude draft and it can be modified or upgraded as needed. I saw no need for the diodes and storage caps as the power could go directly to the 50 ohm resistors, but those can also be added.

Thank you for your diligent work and as always excellent builds.

Regards

P.S. Can anyone explain why there is an offset in the power supplied by V1 ?


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1669

Thanks ION,

Its a good start.
i do not see any offset though.

Anyway, i changed the RX circuits to be a series LC (same as the TX) and changed V1 to a pulsed DC square wave
9V 50% duty cycle and removed the 50 Ohm resistor (10 Ohm series resistance).

Unloaded (K = 0.0) i now have some similar voltage as my real circuit across TX L and C (350V) at resonance frequency (1.246mhz).

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1669

I added a gate driver so the sim is now close to what i have (still no FWBR / buffer cap on the receivers though).

picture shows the sim running with a probe across the R5 resistor.

Itsu
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 828
Ion and Itsu,

Just a thought on your current simulations of the RF circuit,  your K factor statement as structured isn't accurate as you have specified that the centers between any and all coils are identical.  This is impossible with 5 coils equally spaced in an outer circumference with the primary in the center.  Without equal spacing of the coils, the K factor statements will become really complicated in order to accurately model the coupling factors.

So, without showing the math solution, the number of divisions needed in the circumference to provide the spacing equal to the radius is N = 2*pi = 6.28.  So, 6 coils equally spaced in the circumference is closer to equaling the radius of the circle than does five.  This will more than likely not affect the outcome however.

Regards,
Pm 
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1669

PM,

thanks for the heads up, sounds logical, i did not realize that.

But as you said it will be really complicated to accuratly model them and probably will not affect the outcome much, so will leave it as it is.

Thanks anyway.


Itsu
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 828
Well, the weather is horrible at the moment so just for kicks, here is a sim with six secondaries with specs taken from actual coils.  The coils are placed tightly together as shown with a minimum but equal distance between centers.  This results in a coupling factor K of -.07.  Data is also shown for K = -.03 by moving the coils out evenly but still maintaining equal distance between centers which results in a higher output but lower efficiency.

The 1k load resistors on the parallel resonant outputs yield an approximate maximum efficiency with the series resonant input on the primary.

As is seen, the maximum COP with K = -.07 is 1.0789/1.1169 = .966 .  With K = -.03 as the coils are moved farther away from the primary, the COP = 5.6009/6.9381 = .807 .

Regards,
Pm

   
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1669

Hi PM,

nicely done,   but how do you know the used setup (7 coils) results in the coupling factor of -.07?

And i would of thought that any negative coupling factor would not be possible, at least not in the real world.

Anyway, the cop of 0.966 is very good.


Thanks   Itsu
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 828
Hi PM,

nicely done,   but how do you know the used setup (7 coils) results in the coupling factor of -.07?

And i would of thought that any negative coupling factor would not be possible, at least not in the real world.

Anyway, the cop of 0.966 is very good.


Thanks   Itsu

Thanks and good Questions! 

First, the coupling factor was determined by using just two identical air coils placed vertically on a flat surface and moved together so the windings just touch.  The start of each coil winding is at the top and we'll call that the "dot".  Then by using the six secondary/one primary configuration with equal centers between coils, we can tell LtSpice that the coupling factor between any two adjacent coils is a single K factor we calculate and LtSpice will generate the needed coupling matrix between any and all of the coils.

To calculate the K factor, we place the coils as described above and first connect the dot of L1 to an inductance meter (IM), the finish of L1 to the dot of L2, and the finish of L2 to the IM.  This results in a measurement of 612uH or Lplus.  If this is confusing, picture the coils placed end-to-end and we have them connected in a series inductance aid configuration.  We then simply move the coils into the position as described. 

We then connect dot of L1 to the dot of L2 and the finish of L1 to the IM with the finish still connected also to the IM.  This results in a measurement of 703uH or Lminus.  With the coils again pictured end-to-end we now have them connected in a buck configuration.

We will now calculate the mutual coupling using M = (Lplus-Lminus)/4 = (612e-6-703e-6)/4 = -2.275e-5 .  From this we can now calculate the coupling using K = M/(L1*L2)^.5 or because L1 = L2 we can use K = M/L1 = -2.275e-5/332e-6 = -.0685 rounding to -.07 .

Changing the K factors to positive does slightly change the numbers so this may all be up for interpretation.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1669
PM,

OK, i understand you calculate the the coupling factor using real coils, then use that found data to use in the SIM.


Thanks for the additional info.

Regards Itsu 
« Last Edit: 2019-05-08, 13:14:03 by Itsu »
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-05-21, 12:00:55