My Motors got me to Tap into Radiant Energy

[thugugly]

Dana,

Are you guys switching high /low or just the low side?

[JohnStone]

CAPs / INDUCTORS / VOLTAGE / CURRENT

Some hints for mere mortals like us all!

• Charging a cap with constant current will increase the voltage lineraly (no additional resistor applied).
• Charging an inductance with constant voltage will increase the current linearly (no additional resistor applied).
• If you use constant voltage and a resistor we get the "shark" into our circuits eating up all of teh linearity formula = "e"power xx => shark fin

Charging a cap: KnowHow

Shark fin calculated roughly:

• Multiply resistance times capacitance (OHM*Farad) and you get the time for charging upto 63.5% of input voltage applied . Multiply by 5 and you get the 99% charge time applied. (applies for discharge as well) see
• Multiply resistance times inductance (OHM*Henry) and you get the time for charging current to 63.5% of maximum possible (Imax = Uin / R). Multiply by 5 and you get the charge time for 99% of maximum possible current. (applies for current discharge as well)

USE:

• With the calculations above you can estimate the maxiumum useful duty cycle for our coils . Any current above 80% of max. value (i.e. 36V / 1 Ohm) is source for heat only. Decide for the count of FETs to be employed!
• Calculate the charging time of the gate capacitance (usually 1nF) if you have a 10K resistor (pullup) to 12v. Decide if this is fast or slow regarding your frequency chosen.
  (i.e. 10 000OHM

Please consider that these laws above apply to standard knowledge of hot electricity. SHE will not necessarly obey them as she is of other nature

[prochiro]

thugugly

We have done both but at this time are only using high. I am using Johns circuit and that is high only for now . It would be easy to convert Johns modular system to high and low also by using madscientist diagram as a referance.
Dana

[thugugly]

To anyone,

here is what I thought, I must have been wrong, but this isn't really my expertise.

If I switch the same or less then my signal then I could hook up a dual phase and run a p-fet high and an n-fet low. Like mad scientist's circuit.

If I switch more then my signal, then the p-fet won't shut off and I needed a shifter, which was another n-fet, before the p-fet, on the high side. But can only switch a limited amount because this becomes vgs at p-fet. Then you don't need a dual phase output, you only need one output, since I want the n-fets on the high(feeding p-fets) and low side to switch on/off in phase.
It worked good.

If I want to switch a lot more then my signal voltage ( which I have a feeling I will need to do, eventually), then I must use a driver capable of suppling a lower vgs to n-fet suppling high side (no p-fet now with ir2101).

I also thought I could only drive low side with john's circuit as is.

Maybe this will help others as well.

Thanks Thug

[thugugly]

So if I want to switch say 200 volts with a 12 volt signal, high and low simultaneously.
Would I simple use johnstones circuit/or mad scientists, and hook up a p-fet high and n-fet low(or many p and n's).
I thought an n-fet high and low supplied by ir2101 or similar was way to go.

Thanks suggestions would be greatly appreciated

Thug

[mikec_ut]

UFO - Anti Phase

There are many of us who are lurking in the background, thank you and please continue. I have been successful!
You have mention that the end project will require Anti Phase pulse signals to get more Radiant Energy. I am not one to replacate systems but I love to replacate ideas by redesign. To acheive the Anti Phase you want to use I have a couple of questions.
1. If the current pulse starts above zero and has a top at 5 volts does the anti phase signal start below zero and has a top at -5 volts?
2. Or do both signals start above zero and have a top at 5 volts but just out of phase, one is up the other is down.
Next topic,
3. When the duty cycle changes does one of the signals go from 10% to 90% while the other anti phase goes from 90% to 10%
4. Or do both signals need to have there max signal values change at the same duty cycle rate, meaning that when the duty cycle goes to 10% on the positive signal does the positive part of the anti signal go to 10%.

Depending on your choice I could burn out the P-FET when the N-FET signal goes to 10%. I have burned my share of FETs. On question #4 when the duty cycle is 50% both signals are in phase but opposit strengths, but when the duty cycle changes the turn on time will no longer be in phase.

I wanted to design this concept into my circuit but I could not find an answer in this forum. I do have all of the above working (breadboard) but it is time for a prototype.
The Future Is Ours - MikeC

[Ufopolitics]

Anti-phase

There are many of us who are lurking in the background, thank you and please continue. I have been successful!
You have mention that the end project will require Anti Phase pulse signals to get more Radiant Energy. I am not one to replacate systems but I love to replacate ideas by redesign. To acheive the Anti Phase you want to use I have a couple of questions.
1. If the current pulse starts above zero and has a top at 5 volts does the anti phase signal start below zero and has a top at -5 volts?
2. Or do both signals start above zero and have a top at 5 volts but just out of phase, one is up the other is down.
Next topic,
3. When the duty cycle changes does one of the signals go from 10% to 90% while the other anti phase goes from 90% to 10%
4. Or do both signals need to have there max signal values change at the same duty cycle rate, meaning that when the duty cycle goes to 10% on the positive signal does the positive part of the anti signal go to 10%.

Depending on your choice I could burn out the P-FET when the N-FET signal goes to 10%. I have burned my share of FETs. On question #4 when the duty cycle is 50% both signals are in phase but opposit strengths, but when the duty cycle changes the turn on time will no longer be in phase.

I wanted to design this concept into my circuit but I could not find an answer in this forum. I do have all of the above working (breadboard) but it is time for a prototype.
The Future Is Ours - MikeC

Hello Mike!!

Welcome and I am very glad you have been successful, is great to know.

Now to your questions on Dual Anti-Phase...

The real anti-phase occurs at the low voltage oscillator side, and is in order to excite P or N Channel Mosfet's,where the final task is for both channels carrying Positive and Negative to Coil, to pulse both simultaneously. Therefore and answering your questions.

Both signals stay above zero, (answering question 2 choice) one high, one low to excite the Gates of P and N channels respectively. However, those of you who are deep into electronics know that the same exact final task could be achieved with just N-Channels, which I agree is a much better and inexpensive approach as P-Channels.

The main task, the purpose of both Pos-Neg outputs to Coil to pulse at exact same rhythm, creates a Dual Vacuum Space (Dual Times Off)allowing Radiant to enter at a better and more organized Traffic Flow, like ultra fast signal lighting in a High Speed Highway...(Ooops, I know you guys do not have this example, established on this planet yet... , Vehicles travel non stopping till exit on Hwys, but I put it so you have a better view)

Therefore, Duty Cycle is like you have written on question 4.

Now, talking about a different approach, but related to the same issue, I believe that our -or very close to-final frontier to acquire Radiant in huge amounts, with very minimal expense on our side, would be to reduce duty cycle at very, very low percentages, while increasing very short, extremely short but very high peaks of high voltages to coils...However, this part relates to be able to regulate just the Higher Voltage side between Mosfet's and Power Source Neg-Pos, and not touching the low volts-signal oscillator side. Which I do not think would be a big deal at all...because it could be just regulated linearly and Fet's will do the On-Off (I know it could be done more "elegant and sophisticated)...I just did not have the time to make this testing . And I am not talking about too HV at beginning , but 400-600 Volts...according to Fet's capabilities.
The thing is that HV pulses, will throw at space a very strong magnetic field, of much bigger spectrum volume, and that fact will reach and align or excite bigger areas of the Radiant Field.

Thanks a lot for sharing your tests with Us here!
You guys just writing here you have been successful in my set-up, justifies my work and time here...plus will encourage others to give it a try...
Thanks again

Regards


Ufopolitics

[JohnStone]

... As Dana mentioned, I found it to a be superior circuit. It worked fantastic as a low side driver.

That's fine. Please disclose which of my posted driver circuit you replicated in particular in order to help others.

... I am having a problem trying to connect an ir2101 mosfet driver, as cinan mentioned. I can't seem to get it to work right. First I blew mosfets, high first then the low, reconnected and fried the ir2101. It worked while connected to seperate mini lights, be fried when i hooked up coil...

I am so sorry about the loss of your FETs and driver. To your question: I have a very precise answer - it depends
I will go somewhat deeper in the matter in order to educate others as well.

1. Do not confuse regular operation of a tested circuit with the first switch on of a prototype. Prototyping is some kind of blind flight!
And do not underestimate apparent simplicity. If you overdrive it without certain expertise you convert it to sadness! I claim: The lower count of components the higher experise required! Given the same functionality of course. With this in mind I posted my PWM circuit - more components, better debuging - less expertise requried .

2. A good idea would be to devise first tests of your circuit with resitive load only. Second step with coil and smaller resistance in series.

3. You might decide to prepare in order to measure the peak voltage later on at your coil. Given you do not own an oscilloscope.

• Connect across FET or coil
• Regard polarity
• Discharge before every measurement
• Wait until your meter reads stable

Please understand that this is for initial and basic testing only. It is just for educating yourself. I do not know what happens to your meter if SHE enters the circuit.

Anyway you can check with this simple circuit at what duty cycle adjustment you get 80% of maximum peak voltge. Do not go above for constant operation - thanks from your FETs!

4. If using coils first time in your circuit you should understand that if you use a good and strong driver the FET will switch switch very fast indeed. That might be one of the problems.
Imagine:A fork lifter driving with a ton of load across the yard. If there are some bumps across the trace it will shake and suffer on additional load and oscillations. The magentic field shows some kind of inertia as well like mass and the example above is similar to a FET being driven by a weak driver.
Now throw a piece of timber of about 4 inch diameter across the trace and see what happens. While the fork lifter continues its way the assembly experiences a shock of 200g = 200tons not gramm! This is not an estimation but was measured scientifically. This is like your FET being driven fast.
Like decelleration of mass emits force the decelleration of current emits voltage.

This condition is not necessarly wrong for your circuit but it eats up some distance to damage and additional other types of stress might lead to dmage.

5. Tesla in his time had mechanical switchis available only and different from electronic parts you can hear, smell, see switches being at limits. FETs suffer silently downstairs in the darkness and you detect it only if they vomit onto your stairs. So keep them gently and learn how to make them happy. If they are happy - you are happy!

6. It would be wise (if driving coils) to add some kind of overvoltage protection across source / drain as long you do not know the kind of stress produced. Some neons in series would be fine because you can see without using any meter what's going on (ca. 90V per neon). Get one neon first and check at what pulse width it gives light. Then get two in series and repeat the procedure. So you can calibrate every individual coil for parameters: source voltage / pulsewidth / switch off voltage.
Remeber: Prototyping is blind flight!

The neons act like a kind suspension to the load of our fork lifter!

7. Did you operate the coil without HER diodes? Beware of that if you operate the coil under full load and have no neons attached.

8. Do not confuse a simple push pull circuit with what we do here!
A typical standard push pull circuit connects the drain of the bottom FET to the source of the upper FET. This middle point will switch high or low. The dedicated FET driver will switch the bottem FET off first and after some minute delay the upper one will get drive voltage. @thugugly- see the datasheet of your driver!

The following notions refor to a circuit with N-FET only. I never used P-FETs.

What we do here is completely different. We separate the FETs and put some wild and oscillating beast of coil inbetween. There is no reference point for the gate of the upper FET. (BTW: P-FETs still have their reference to the battery voltage! @UFO: You got it right! And you did'nt encourage to use N-FET only ) I never used high side N-FETS in such a setup up to now but I can imagine FETs suffering extremely.
At weak driving it might be OK but the shorter the switching time the wilder the beast - especialy if HER diodes missing! I do not know what your driver does exactly internally but there are certain limits as well. Different scenarios are possible - all of them spreading death and devastation.
I do not claim that your circuit can't work but at prototype state it is extremely dangerous. Can anybody post if he built this direct drive circuit successfully with heavy loaded coil?

9. I did not dare up to now to drive an upper FET directly. It is much more cheaper (less losses) to get an opto driver (i.e. FOD3180 the price is for four parts)
Additionally we need a small DC/DC PSU / regulator for driving the high side driver. I choose the RE1215 It separates securely 1000V.
I will use the same circuit for low side and high side FET in order to protect my generartor.
Here a keyhole view to my circuit under construction. For me it will be the lowest cost of ownership and I assume for you as well.
But please do not understand this as instructable - it is not finished and not proven. It is for envisioning the matter and educating myself and I disclose it just for teasing your mind in advance.
And please try to understand before you build. I do my best to help.

Get radiant with low side FET FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rgds John

[larryross]

Hi Larry,

The facts mentioned below are not meant as criticism at all but should forward the notion that - depending on the actual circuit - it might give no success to fight against nonlinear behaviour of the duty cycle. Total simplicity suffers on certain drawbacks but I think we can live with this and it will not prevent any initial experiment.

I experienced such nonlinear behaviour if the circuit charges the corresponding timing cap via resistors. Then the voltage is not of true linear sawtooth shape but is bent depending on the value of the charging resistor (shark fin shape). So the following comparator chanages the duty cycle because it senses voltage and not time.
This behaviour can be minimized if the charge discharge rate is low (i.e. 0V....5V) while the charging resistor is being connected to a considerably higher regulated voltage i.e. 24V. In this case the resistor acts like a current source of moderate quality. (We make use of the mostly linear bottom part of the shark fin only.) The current simple circuits in this forum try to make use of high voltage at the timing capacitors being almost alike the supply voltage. This is the source of the effect mentioned above.

Exact this nonlinear behaviour was defended thoroughly by applying a simple current source (see my doc) for charging the timing capswhile running completely at 5V supply.

Please bear with me! Simple approaches are entirely SIMPLE BUT NOT USELESS.
rgds John

Thanks John
I can't get to my shop for a few days, but I will check the saw tooth signal and see if it is distorted. I am running at 12V, but I did play with the feed back resistors and they are what charges the cap so I may just need to tweak it. You are wight about simple (KISS) approach. Thanks again for the heads up on it.

Regards
Larry

[larryross]

For those having trouble with their FETs, Keep in mind, if you have not checked the operation of your FETs without the coil load, you are asking for trouble. As I stated before a coil with a 1 ohm or lower resistance will allow 36 Amps to try to get through your FET/FETs. If you have 6, 8. or even 10 FETs in parallel and one isn't operating right and gets closed for too long the entire 36 amps will try to go through that one FET and it can't handle it so poof. If one goes poof it puts a load on the other FETs and if you exceed their Amp rating or their wattage rating, they will start dropping one by one.
Another thing to think about. If you are at 1% duty cycle and at very high frequency your FETs will be subjected to nearly DC voltage and current when attached to an inductive load. Inductive loads are mean critters. Make sure your system is capable (and verified by you) of starting at low frequency and low (below 5%) duty cycle. If you can't control both frequency and duty cycle then it is even more important you know exactly how your FETs are working.

Hope this helps
Larry

[larryross]

Therefore, Duty Cycle is like you have written on question 4.

UFO didn't you mean his question #3? If you meant 4 then I have the wrong understand of anti-phase too.

Larry

[Ufopolitics]

Hello Larry

UFO didn't you mean his question #3? If you meant 4 then I have the wrong understand of anti-phase too.

Larry

I meant as I wrote there Larry, the way is written in number four, I will try to explain it starting first by the desired result at the two ends (Positive and Negative) going to Coil.
What we are trying to achieve here, is for both terminals to Coil, to pulse at exact same time rates of On-Off, as per the set frequency and duty cycle for both simultaneously...no "dead time" between, no gaps or out of phase signals..In order that Coil will receive a switching from both ends.
And I realize this type of oscillation may not make sense at all, to many of you guys, highly experienced in electronics...but then again, we have to work-think here favoring the Magnetic Fields, therefore, the reason is to create the proper paths signaling for both currents to thrive even more independently...

Now, based on the above, in order to maintain exactly same T-On/T-Off for both channels, positive and negative, we must maintain same exact duty cycles and frequencies for both...Am I right so far?, and please Larry, correct me if I am wrong so I could edit my answer to member mikec_ut.

Now, this is not a "Push-Pull" arrangement where one goes On when other goes Off...nope...
And it must NOT have "Dead Times" either, between High-Low signals going to Gates like the BLDC Motor Controllers have, based on just N-Channels Three Phase signals.

I hope now based on the main objective to achieve that I explained in first paragraph, you will understand it...let me know please.

Thanks for the question, it will clear other members doubts as well.


Regards


Ufopolitics

P.D: Below I made a little diagram to illustrate Anti-Phase
Now, it is also understood that when using N-Channel Mosfet's at Positive-Negative Channel pulsing, there will not be necessary an Anti-Phase signal.

[larryross]

UFO
Sorry for being so dense.
Wow I really don't understand how this can be more helpful than 2 paths on n-channel out puts driven with the same signal. Even though you have complimentary signals, when using p and n FETs you have the same output. You even show it in your diagram both off non-conducting and both on and conducting at the same time as the other. Output of each is the same, but just using different signal to accomplish the same end. Much more explanation needed.

the below statement is in error so ignore please
Another thing showing on your diagram in this pulse with sample the n channel path is using more from our side (hot) with 90% on so you will always have a combine 100% on from our side no matter where the duty cycle is set. Duty cycle no longer has any efficiency advantage.

Larry

[Ufopolitics]

Larry...

UFO
Sorry for being so dense.
Wow I really don't understand how this can be more helpful than 2 paths on n-channel out puts driven with the same signal. Even though you have complimentary signals, when using p and n FETs you have the same output. You even show it in your diagram both off non-conducting and both on and conducting at the same time as the other. Output of each is the same, but just using different signal to accomplish the same end. Much more explanation needed.

the below statement is in error so ignore please
Another thing showing on your diagram in this pulse with sample the n channel path is using more from our side (hot) with 90% on so you will always have a combine 100% on from our side no matter where the duty cycle is set. Duty cycle no longer has any efficiency advantage.

Larry

Larry...

Please read my PD, in my previous post, it reads:

Now, it is also understood that when using N-Channel Mosfet's at Positive-Negative Channel pulsing, there will not be necessary an Anti-Phase signal.

And we all know it is best to just use N-Channels to do the job as one signal generated...

Here is my previous response to member Mikec_ut, - I set bold letters to what we are now, discussing...

The real anti-phase occurs at the low voltage oscillator side, and is in order to excite P or N Channel Mosfet's,where the final task is for both channels carrying Positive and Negative to Coil, to pulse both simultaneously. Therefore and answering your questions.

Both signals stay above zero, (answering question 2 choice) one high, one low to excite the Gates of P and N channels respectively. However, those of you who are deep into electronics know that the same exact final task could be achieved with just N-Channels, which I agree is a much better and inexpensive approach as P-Channels.

This "Anti-Phase" I thought, was a simpler way to show pulsing Coil from both ends...now I see instead, it just brings confusion, and I apologize for it.

To resume this confusion...I will just refer to as "Dual Coil Pulsing" from now on...where the different ways that each one decides to achieve it on their set-up is not the basic issue to discuss...as long as Coil is excited from Positive and Negative at same time-on/frequency and duty cycle...

Regards


Ufopolitics

[thugugly]

Larry,

I also thought that using p fets hi, and n fets low, would also get a counter effect, that's why I originally tried to involve the ir2101 driver, to drive only n fets, hi and low, making the on/off times equal.

I found mad scientists circuit was giving too much interference when using frequency and duty on same 393, that's too me why johnstone's circuit worked better.

Johnstone,

I am going to post a schematic of my circuit but I can't tonight, I wish I was better at uploading pics and vids, but I'm slow.
However, after I let the ir2101 cool down. It works again and so do my n fets. At least when I switch a small tailight inplace of coil (works forever). As soon as I try to switch my coil, it shuts off the ir2101 after about 3-5 seconds, first the hi side fet, then the low side fet.

I do have an oscilliscope now john and I will post some screen shots this weekend, and a better post. The input to the ir2101 ( from your comparetor/driver is more sharkfin then square, but the hi and Lo outputs from the ir2101 are perfect square waves, when I connect coil supply, the hi side input jumps to around 40 volts.

Anyway, thanks for all your help, your in-progress circuit looks like another piece of art. Such professional circuits john, you must design for a living, excellent work.

Thug