Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Benches > Peterae (Moderator: Peterae) > Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions

2024-11-26, 09:42:57
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

« previous next »

Author Topic: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions (Read 231485 times)

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #250 on: 2016-12-07, 14:06:23 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	Thanks Grump, looking into it. Itsu

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #251 on: 2016-12-07, 21:01:00 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	Quote from: Itsu on 2016-12-06, 21:46:54 I removed the both Pic's and used my dual channel FG to feed white noise (5Vpp, 1.5V offset) to the both MOSFET driver inputs via a 50 Ohm series resistor. There seem to be some (thermal?) runaway condition happening as (with no drain voltage on the MOSFETs), gradually the current into the PCB (driver only) increases untill its that hot i can smell it. Same when also putting on the drain voltage on the MOSFETs, gradually the current through the MOSFETs increase untill i stop it. I think the circuit is missing some kind of MOSFET driver output / MOSFET gate clamping (10K to ground and / or zeners). I will add that tomorrow to see if it stabilize it. Itsu I added a 1K resistor across gate/source of each MOSFET, but with direct white noise input into the both MOSFET driver inputs at a certain point i get again the runaway. So i added again the high pass filters between the FG and the MOSFET driver inputs. Now it seems to be stable, as we have violet noise on each gate and some serious noise on one of the MOSFETs drain, see screenshot. But this does not generate any crackling noises anymore in the coils., even when running on 41V on the drains and with or without the 2 stackted neo's attached to the coils. Yellow is gate 1 signal, blue is gate 2 signal and purple is MOSFET 2 drain signal. So i think that the crackling only occurres when using this specific white noise (FM like) generated by the Pic's. Itsu ------------------------ Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions real white (violet) noise.png (118.23 kB, 640x600 - viewed 728 times.)

verpies	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #252 on: 2016-12-08, 01:39:30 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3498	Quote from: Itsu on 2016-12-07, 21:01:00 So i added again the high pass filters between the FG and the MOSFET driver inputs. So now you re brave enough to connect your FG to this circuit ? ...or are you going to order these digital isolators from Silicon Labs or finish the EL2009 buffers ? Quote from: Itsu on 2016-12-07, 21:01:00 Now it seems to be stable, as we have violet noise on each gate and some serious noise on one of the MOSFETs drain, see screenshot. Both drains? Quote from: Itsu on 2016-12-07, 21:01:00 But this does not generate any crackling noises anymore in the coils., even when running on 41V on the drains and with or without the 2 stackted neo's attached to the coils. Are the two noise channels from your FG phase-synchronized ? I know it is weird to talk about phase synch between two noise signals ...but it is possible in a digital FG. Quote from: Itsu on 2016-12-07, 21:01:00 So i think that the crackling only occurres when using this specific white noise (FM like) generated by the Pic's. Maybe and if so that would be highly unusual. Let's investigate the phase of the two noise signals appearing at the two outputs of your FG, first.

Grumpy	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #253 on: 2016-12-08, 02:53:52 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Peter demonstrated repeatable crackling with a delay of around 220ns between his two signals. To do anything with whatever is happening, you need predictable repeatability.

verpies	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #254 on: 2016-12-08, 09:15:13 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3498	Well, Itsu has a 2-ch Function Generator that can output any phase offset of any two signals down to nanoseconds with a turn of a dial. I just do not know if he is brave enough to use it without galvanic isolators (...such as the ones from SiliconLabs).

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #255 on: 2016-12-08, 10:11:47 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	Quote from: verpies on 2016-12-08, 01:39:30 So now you re brave enough to connect your FG to this circuit ? ...or are you going to order these digital isolators from Silicon Labs or finish the EL2009 buffers ? I made sure first without any drain voltage on the MOSFETs that there were no abnormall signals on the gates like there are when using the Pics. But you are right, that is certainly not full proof, so i will first hook up those EL2009's before doing any further tests. Concerning those digital isolators from Silicon Labs, do you recommend 2 single or 1 dual-channel unidirectional one(s)? Quote Both drains? yes, both drains. Quote Are the two noise channels from your FG phase-synchronized ? I know it is weird to talk about phase synch between two noise signals ...but it is possible in a digital FG. Hmmm, don't think so as there seems to be no phase sync setting on the FG screen when on noise, just amplitude and offset, but i will take another look, perhaps the CH1=CH2 button? Itsu

Grumage	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #256 on: 2016-12-08, 18:32:49 »
Group: Renaissance Man Hero Member Posts: 2765	Dear All. Off topic, I know but... Does anyone remember the website that sold all those " Exotic " wires ? UK based? Kind regards, Graham. --------------------------- Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

Peterae	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #257 on: 2016-12-08, 18:35:57 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3960	Dont connect your FG, it's not worth it, i will as soon as i get a chance send you my uproc signal gen i built especially for this, you will need to add fet stages to it but i cannot see why the pcb fet drivers could not be hooked up to it. Problem i have is that i only see day light at the weekend, but not this weekend as i am working, so i guess i can only send the weekend after this coming one Grum wires.co.uk sell all sorts of wires, not sure what you mean by exotic.?

Grumage	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #258 on: 2016-12-08, 19:27:31 »
Group: Renaissance Man Hero Member Posts: 2765	Hi Peterae. Many thanks. That's the one. Anything other than Iron was classed as exotic in my workshop!! Old " in house " joke !! Cheers Graham. --------------------------- Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #259 on: 2016-12-08, 19:53:37 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	Thanks Peter, with the EL2009CT buffer/amplifiers in place the FG will be protected enough. I just need to make a neat RF tight enclosure (or 2) which will be the main problem together with a clean + and - 16V power supply. Itsu

verpies	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #260 on: 2016-12-08, 20:57:01 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3498	Quote from: Itsu on 2016-12-08, 10:11:47 Concerning those digital isolators from Silicon Labs, do you recommend 2 single or 1 dual-channel unidirectional one(s)? 2 single because they offer less crosstalk and more versatile isolation. Just pick the fast ones. S.L. has some slow ones, too. Quote from: Itsu on 2016-12-08, 19:53:37 I just need to make a neat RF tight enclosure (or 2) which will be the main problem together with a clean + and - 16V power supply. Just put some heavy chokes in series with the power supply lines. The good old solderable feedthrough capacitors are a good way to get the power lines into metal enclosures ...with RF bypassing! ------------------------ Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions Feedthrough Capacitor.png (10.65 kB, 334x395 - viewed 951 times.) Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions Feedthrough_cap.jpg (10.39 kB, 219x54 - viewed 634 times.) « Last Edit: 2016-12-08, 21:47:06 by verpies »

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #261 on: 2016-12-08, 21:45:06 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	Quote 2 single because they offer less crosstalk and more versatile isolation. Right, sounds logical. Quote Just put some heavy chokes in series with the power supply lines. with heavy you mean mH's? Would a simple circuit like the one below (with the heavy chokes and feedthrough capacitors added) be enough? Thanks, itsu ------------------------ Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions EL2009.png (7.95 kB, 847x610 - viewed 584 times.)

verpies	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #262 on: 2016-12-08, 21:53:56 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3498	Quote from: Itsu on 2016-12-08, 21:45:06 with heavy you mean mH's? Whatever you can fit in the enclosure....and beads, beads, beads on the power lines inside the enclosure BEFORE the bypass cap. Quote from: Itsu on 2016-12-08, 21:45:06 Would a simple circuit like the one below (with the heavy chokes and feedthrough capacitors added) be enough? Yes, but the output should not have that 50Ω resistor in series (just a 0Ω direct connection) because the output impedance of this amplifier is around 1Ω and you want that because such low impedance will be very useful for driving high current loads (coils etc...) in the future. Also, the 50Ω input resistor might be wrong because this amplifier and enclosure already have some intrinsic input impedances and that parallel input resistor should be selected to make up a total 50Ω impedance in combination with them, in order to match it to the output impedance of your FG and any coax cable. The way to select this input resistor it is to put a T-splitter at the FG's output and scope short-pulse reflections there, while adjusting this input resistor until these reflections are minimal ...or use a VSWR meter with a CW sine signal. P.S. To minimize distortions, the EL2009 might need a resistor to ground on the output pin in order to force it to always source some small idle current. I think that is mentioned in the datasheet

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #263 on: 2016-12-09, 10:27:05 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	Thanks verpies, i read about an optional R2 in the datasheet, which seems connected to the minus rail, but only needed when driving multiple outputs. Itsu

verpies	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #264 on: 2016-12-09, 16:17:12 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3498	The EL2008 datasheet, which is also applicable to the EL2009, states: Quote DRIVING "INDUCTIVE LOADS": To prevent damage to the EL2008 when the output kicks beyond the supplies it is recommended that catch diodes be placed from each supply to the output. So a pair of fast Schottky diodes from the output to the supply rails is a good idea, too. Reverse-biased, of course, and rated over 2A. (40V is enough). It is worth to keep in mind the warnings described in the "CAPACITIVE LOADS" section of this datasheet, when driving purely capacitive loads (such as driving piezos or MOSFET gates directly without a gate driver chip). The solution to this is simple: a single resistor or an RC snubber, but you have to remember about adding them externally when driving such peculiar loads. The "OP AMP BOOSTER" section is not applicable to your simple FG buffer, because you do not have any op-amps in it. The only advantage of adding an op-amp to the EL2009 is that you can get more output voltage than your FG can output. Watch this video if you ever want to play with op-amps. « Last Edit: 2016-12-09, 16:46:09 by verpies »

Peterae	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #265 on: 2016-12-09, 17:17:23 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3960	Hi Itsu I forgot i had a half working day to day so managed to box up and ship the controller. The circuit is here http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=31.0 and even a video on it's capabilities and how to use it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSQFbPGvcgE

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #266 on: 2016-12-09, 20:22:21 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	verpies, I did notice the "pair of fast Schottky diodes from the output to the supply rails" when looking into the data sheets of the ELxxxx series yesterday. I will add them to the circuit. Thanks for the video on the op amps, it is pleasantly simple explained. Peter, thanks for that, it seems a very nice piece of equipment. I will take a further look into that thread as it seems to have some additional info. Itsu

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #267 on: 2016-12-10, 15:39:34 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	Updated EL2009 FG output protection circuit: Itsu ------------------------ Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions EL2009.png (9.25 kB, 802x488 - viewed 563 times.)

verpies	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #268 on: 2016-12-10, 16:52:48 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3498	Looks well but I'd add 10μF SMD tantalum caps in parallel with C1 and C2. You can get away without them if the power supply wires are very short and thick. Tight dead-bug construction is preferable for RF. I wonder how much R1 will turn out to be. P.S. The ± power supply for that thing is much larger than the entire device, isn't it? I am assuming you made a dedicated ±16V linear power supply for it. « Last Edit: 2016-12-10, 19:49:48 by verpies »

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #269 on: 2016-12-10, 21:10:02 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	Yes, these tantalum caps (no SMD) where also planned to be installed if needed. The ± PS is indeed much larger, its a 8A ± 24V circuit board with a bulky toroid transformer. Not sure yet if i will dedicate it to the EL2009's (adjusted to ± 16V) or that i use the ± 24V to feed into 2 separate LM337/LM317 regulators adjusted to ± 16V. Presently that ± PS is feeding a whole range of fixed + and - regulators so i have a lot of fixed + and - voltages available for quick test purposes. I should have (but you never know around X-mass) all the parts the coming week. Itsu

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #270 on: 2016-12-16, 15:07:13 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	Quote from: Peterae on 2016-12-09, 17:17:23 Hi Itsu I forgot i had a half working day to day so managed to box up and ship the controller. The circuit is here http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=31.0 and even a video on it's capabilities and how to use it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSQFbPGvcgE Peter, i received your digital controller box yesterday, thanks. Its a very nice piece of electronics / programming. I put it on 24V and i understand the lower SMA center pins carry the pulse, while their upper counterpart SMA center pins carry the return signal, right? I increased the frequency to see more then 1 pulse on the scope and display the both signals, see screenshot. But as the phase setting on the box was still at 0.00nS (see picture) i would expect to see the both signals in phase, but they are not. It that to be expected or do i need to sync those signals somehow. Itsu ------------------------ Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions peters box output.png (26.85 kB, 640x600 - viewed 466 times.) Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions peters box.png (555.05 kB, 640x480 - viewed 492 times.)

Peterae	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #271 on: 2016-12-16, 16:32:37 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3960	Hi Itsu Thanks & glad it arrived OK. That is right, 1 sma is gnd and the other is the signal, just my way of isolating the pulse from the case ground, i did have fet modules that screwed onto those sma's. You are indeed correct about an offset delay, i'm trying to remember the full story but it's basically inbuilt into the delay chips, i was going to alter the software in an update to negate this but never got to v1.1 OOPS i forgot to say i have the knob and back in a box in my loft but because i had very little time to wrap and send it, it went without them, but should not really be a problem.

Itsu	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #272 on: 2016-12-16, 20:35:45 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4159	Peter, thanks for the info, the blue signal is leading the yellow by 11nS, so i will call the blue (right hand side of the box) the primary. No problem with the knob and back, i will use a piece of double sided PCB to close it up and a knob will be available somewhere here. I was puzzled by the "storing" line on the display, i know it means "to store" in English, but in plain Dutch (my primary language) it means "failure". Toke me some time to make the switch Itsu

Peterae	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #273 on: 2016-12-16, 20:53:00 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3960	Quote i know it means "to store" in English, but in plain Dutch (my primary language) it means "failure". LOL it would work fine without the bottom on as the electronics is enclosed and facing the top of the case by using a double sided pcb.

verpies	Re: Controller No5 With Protection - Looking for Explosions « Reply #274 on: 2016-12-16, 21:12:47 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3498	Quote from: Peterae on 2016-12-16, 16:32:37 You are indeed correct about an offset delay, i'm trying to remember the full story but it's basically inbuilt into the delay chips, i was going to alter the software in an update to negate this but never got to v1.1 That's right. These delay chips require a calibration to be done in software. If you have the sources and a matching compiler, you can just hardcode the equalizing delay by adding a small integer in the IO routine. This way you will create a firmware that will be suited only to your box with minimal effort.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-26, 09:42:57

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2