Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Mr.Clean's Device  (Read 59827 times)

synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2012, 11:17:02 PM »
@Tinselkoala,
 
                 Here's a single toroid I designed that includes the bi-toroid 10x reluctance ratio between primary and secondary paths. Mr. Clean's choice of high permeability ferrite toroid should work well with the holes for $27. The metglass toroid is cost prohibitive. I plan to build this one now with Mr. Clean's part and Lasersaber's Joule Ringer 3 primary circuit. The ferrite toroid can be scored and fractured prior to drilling along the 9 and 3 o'clock latitude to facilitate ease of winding. This looks like a pretty neat package to me!

kEhYo77

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2012, 11:43:18 PM »
Hi Synchro1


I think there should be alternate paths for the counter EMF from the secondaries in your design to follow BiTT topology.
But there aren't any.

synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2012, 11:51:58 PM »
@KEHY077,
 
              I see your point. How would you envision an improvement? Do you think cutting a semi circular notch though the middle of the ferrite toroid between the secondaries may help?

crazycut06

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #48 on: November 14, 2012, 12:11:44 AM »
Hi Synchro1


I think there should be alternate paths for the counter EMF from the secondaries in your design to follow BiTT topology.
But there aren't any.


I agree with kEhYo, but im thinkin about placing adjacent coil windings like the sergdo toroid to catch cemf? CW+CCW, I remembered woopy experimenting on this and gettin more power out without consuming more input...

synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #49 on: November 14, 2012, 12:43:38 AM »
@KEHY077,
 
I think 1 & 1/2 ferrite rings clamped together with a semi circular seration running through the middle of double thick section, between and under the secondaries, might better conform to the topology and keep the reluctamce ratios intact as well.
 
@Crazycut06,
 
The Sergdo wraps pose a seperate problem and threaten to take the discussion off topic. Sounds like a possibility, but we may need a new thread to explore that area?

Tito L. Oracion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2203
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #50 on: November 14, 2012, 12:54:03 AM »
MR.CLEANS DEVICE IS DIRTY  ;D  JOKE


I CANNOT SMELL IT  :(

kEhYo77

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #51 on: November 14, 2012, 01:49:10 AM »
This is what I propose: a configuration based on four 'C' (or 'U') type cores and one 'I' matching type.
Those are not too hard to get nice and square ferrite cores, flat surface, great for configs like this!

synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #52 on: November 14, 2012, 02:04:11 AM »
@KEHY077,
 
What's the permeability rating on those C cores? Mr. Clean's ferrite toroids are close to 4000. Anything less then that may fail to work. Some guy tried welding rods and failed for that reason.

kEhYo77

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #53 on: November 14, 2012, 02:45:21 AM »
Their permeability is 2200 but I think that it might not matter as much as the right geometry and core volume. Worth a try...

synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #54 on: November 14, 2012, 03:05:38 AM »
@KEHY077,
 
I would'nt build my hopes too high at that low a rating. I think you'd be better off sticking with the higher rated material. One and a half toroids might work better. Split and rejoined. The two secondaries on a complete pronate toroid, and the primary half arched overhead with holes drilled on either side of the primay wrap. Good luck anyway, and thanks for the help.

e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #55 on: November 14, 2012, 04:19:08 AM »
Mr. Clean,

Do you run your oscillator circuit from a 9 Volt battery?
What is the value on the resistor connected to the base of transistor BFY51?
Is your 3 Watt LED lamp a 12 Volt lamp?

GL.

I can give you a little info on your last question.  I mentioned to mr. clean that the LED lamp he shows in video looks like the ones that are either 12 VDC or 120 VAC and that nearly everything I've seen in those type of packages will all have a step down circuit of some sort inside them.  His reply was a confirmation that it was one of those two types but he didn't mention which one.  I brought it up to him because they are not a direct diode type load and it may be important to know what type of actual load was being put in the circuit there.   So far the diagrams being drawn just show an LED (diode) but I'm sure it's going into some step down circuit before it goes to the LED.  Most LED driver circuits regulate both voltage and current and have an IC chip or three, inductor, caps and resistors so it's not just a simple diode across the output. 

crazycut06

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #56 on: November 14, 2012, 06:16:04 AM »
@KEHY077,
 
What's the permeability rating on those C cores? Mr. Clean's ferrite toroids are close to 4000. Anything less then that may fail to work. Some guy tried welding rods and failed for that reason.

@syncrho1,
Remember that thane heins used laminates from ordinary trafos on his prototype, but using High permeability cores would be best.

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #57 on: November 14, 2012, 07:02:46 AM »
I will have to back and check but I believe the perm. on the 3.5" toroids we used on the Jeanna's circuit was around 10,000.  I still have some around.

Bill

stprue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1025
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #58 on: November 14, 2012, 01:36:50 PM »
10,000 wow, thats great news.  I still have 4 of those!

synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4720
Re: Mr.Clean's Device
« Reply #59 on: November 14, 2012, 04:32:23 PM »
@syncrho1,
Remember that thane heins used laminates from ordinary trafos on his prototype, but using High permeability cores would be best.

What kind of ordinary transformers? Silicon steel laminations have a much higher permeability then iron. Just briefly; Metglass toroids are a lamination as well. A rolled up strip. Laminations decrease eddy currents in any magnetic core material. This helps the material demagnatize from the induced electromagnetic field. 4000u is not that great compared to Metglass at 1,000,000u. This is a measure of frequency. How fast can the core magnatize and then return to it's demagnatized state per second. At 2200u it's about half the rate. Mr. Clean has an operating frequency that is around 30khz. Half the frequency will transform half the power. Those C cores are only capable of transforming around half the power of Mr. Clean's ferrite toroids. Without knowing exactly what kind of material Thane Hein's laminations are made from, it's not safe to assume anything. Where's it say they're not Mu-metal? You're right that the higher the permeability, the better the magnetic transformer core. Thane's transformer laminations could easily be made from metglass strips with the highest possible permeability. This would be my guess over soft iron.