@duff - It's been many years since I was in a classroom, so I've had to really scrape the edges of my memory to recall much about reflection and I haven't had sufficient time yet to research it properly again. But the more I think about it the more I'm convinced we're not seeing reflection, as the kick appears on the leading edge of the pulse event. If memory serves, reflection happens after an event and may superimpose itself in such a way as to appear to be part of a pulse train. But we aren't necessarily talking about pulse trains here - a single pulse will show a kick. For it to be otherwise, we'd be looking at Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and I don't think we're working in that realm.

@buzz

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't very clear when I posted about the reflections.

I was not implying that the reflection constituted a kick.
I meant to request that a effort be made to eliminate possibility of what  was being seen as a kick was really a reflection.


@Paul

At times it's difficult to discern between what is norm vs anomalyous.

I've been trying to model your test and compare the model against your results.

The following is what I've come up with so far.
I don't know if I've got the model right but the spikes are there, only the amplitude much lower in the model.


(http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/890/pauldudekickexpschem2sm7.jpg)

(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/5941/kickcir22jh4.jpg)


I used ngspice. Here's the netfile if anyone is interested.



-Duff

so there's been a tiny bit of comments about the kicks and the experiment, but that's it?

are you guys more interested in putting each other down and other such things

has no one any explanations, questions, comments, arguments, whatever?

is this how we get to the bottom of the kick mystery? (it's still a mystery to me even though others may not feel the same).

duff thanks for the modeling. what do you conclude from your particular (slightly odd) circuit and its results? is your circuit correct? why are you measuring between node 1 and 2? is anyone paying attention to this...pick up an error maybe?

i know there's more than this going on in the brains out there, c'mon guys post your thoughts.

@all

Here is the coil current flow pattern. Remember, the current is flowing from the inside of the inner coil, to the outside, while the current is flowing from the outside of the outer coil towards the inside with the current direction arrows as indicated.

(http://www.randallsteward.com/TPU/pauldude000/kick/CoilSchematic2.jpg)

1. is the FG RED and probe connection
2. is ground for both FG and probe

Ignore 3 and 4. These were just for the original post, and were representative of which coil was being referenced.

By definition they are hooked in parallel, but in current flow they are parallel mirror opposites. That is why a regular schematic or simulation program can be worthless, unless it can differentiate pancake coil connections and action. If spice can, that would be great.

Paul Andrulis

@Duff

I have been puzzling out your setup and I have one thing to say. I am lousy at explanation.

Dang, maybe this is too complicated of a setup. I made it opposing in all factors. Direction of rotation of current, spatial directional current flow, and generated magnetic field alignment. It is designed for all factors to hit an electrical "brick wall". The harder this is hit, the harder the wall.

You have two to many coils in your setup. There are no resistors. The necessary resistance is provided by each coils self-inductance and mutual opposing fields. The coils are not center tapped. (I bet you thought 3 and 4 were nodes. My fault not yours.)

It is an interesting concept though. the current flow would be strange, along with the magnetic fields..... kewl. A simple schematic of two coils in parallel is more accurate though.

By the way, if you build, try the magnet exeriment I suggested to poynt earlier.

Paul Andrulis

@poynt99

Hmmm......... Coil type doesn't matter....... Winding direction doesn't matter.......


Basically you are stating is is an incorrect usage of the scope connections? (It is possible, I am not an expert.) 

Or  are you saying a basic principle? (Equally possible, as I tend to get lost in field examination sometimes.)

I have to disagree on the schematics statement though. Unless your schematics show the winding relationship and style of coil, then no conception of current flow/vs/magnetic field alignment can be attained without extra in detail winding explanation also provided.

Paul Andrulis

Paul,

see my diagram above. i've marked the poles of each coil so you know by looking that the currents are running in opposite directions for the two. that's how it is done.

the type of transformer is not critical, but some will work better than others. the method you used is not ideal. even though it looks like your two concentric coils worked, a better way would have been to wind a single pancake coil, but as bifilar (both wires wound in the same direction). then hook them up as i've shown in opposition. the problem with yours is the two coils have unequal inductances, and the coupling is poor and uneven between them.

your scope connection is ok. your basic principle is fine too. you are canceling the fields, which is the goal. winding the two coils as i described will give better canceling as they are both occupying the same space (tighter and more consistent coupling), and they both have very close to the same inductance (will react identically to the input pulse).

you could have used a basic bifilar solenoid coil (a stretched out pancake coil), or a bifilar toroid too. results should be similar.

@ pont99

what do  you want a verry simple test that CAN NOT BE PROVEN WRONG??

if this is what you want perhaps this is what you will get but remember YOU WANTED IT!!!


IST'S SIMPLE LIL TEST  prof of concept ...

this test proves it is the kick .....it was what opened my eyes ......

power supply transformer light bulb  simple......

pluse hot electricty 5 amps 1 amp there bouts  no more than that, that will sacre you enough    take a few pics and readings....

NOW I WANT TO HEAR YOUR RESULTS!!!

it seams you want to see and hear everyonelses work where is yours perhaps i missed it but none the less

i dont think anyone missed mine!!!

ist !i!

why am i useing mot trannys not only because the secondary is biased to the core there is another reason INDUCTANCE.... i have a primary that is hi selfiductance  and low selfinductance and the kick is only allowed 1 path out......

@duff

Concerning nodes1 & 2 on your schematic.... My coil is not center tapped, but I might be able to guess where center of coil is and scrape off some insulation and measure. I will have to reset frequency on my FG, but I can get it extremely close to the test setting. (I have been playing)

I will see what I can do....

@Poynt and all

Seriously, build this and try the magnets. I am encouraging this for many more reasons than a just a kick demo.........

Watch the magnets as you change frequency, as they start to oscillate, then rotate. Keep changing the frequency slowly up, then watch them oscillate then rotate.... in another plane of orientation..... and at certain frequencies rotate in both......

The magnetic effects are worth building for, and some bright boy might be able to replace a quadrature setup using this for field rotation, maybe, I don't know. (I think the quad setup gives stronger field strength.

@all

I have been wanting to bite something, quite literally. I felt like a retard.

This demo shows a kick, but I do not think it is the necessary setup for use in a TPU. Now, for how common it is? Have you considered the waveform if this kick is allowed to reflect inside a normal inductor? It will oscillate. With no reinforcement, it will dampen and die. So, you would see an oscillation in the voltage section of the waveform. As soon as the voltage dies, so does the oscillation effect. You then should see a square wave with a high initial edge, which oscillates the top of the waveform from high on left, down to line voltage on right...... SOUND FAMILIAR? (Some call it TRANSFORMER ACTION <- I wanted to bite myself it was so simple.)

I think SM made pulsed kick trains. I also think stan meyers did in his HHO setup (based off of waveform, though his "kicks" may well have been artificial). This should give the SAME effect that Tesla used in his disruptive discharge setup. Active input small wattage, active apparent output kilowatts. This DRIVES THE TPU, not the load! (If I am correct, as you could use it to actively drive a load.)

To build such a kick train, I would need a low frequency with long wavelength, then find frequencies which are true harmonics. (both low and high rising at the same time, yet when low frequency falls, it is imperative that the shorter high frequency wave falls at same time.) The bad thing is at exact frequency, they should also sum, and the kicks should as well.

POSSIBLE SAFETY NOTE: Don't get me wrong, this is an "if I am correct" situation.

This summing can be very bad. Each resonance of said frequencies in a tuned coil should sum as well..... GK's scope shots posted elsewhere show that he is almost there concerning this. He is getting kick trains, but his coils are not tuned. What happens when the voltage rise is doubled geometrically with each resonation of the signal? OUCH. P=IV

Some thoughts to think on, and I welcome comments by all.

Paul Andrulis

@duff

Concerning nodes1 & 2 on your schematic.... My coil is not center tapped, but I might be able to guess where center of coil is and scrape off some insulation and measure. I will have to reset frequency on my FG, but I can get it extremely close to the test setting. (I have been playing)

I will see what I can do....

@Paul

My mistake, you've already provided scope shot between L1 & L2.

I tried some more models this morning but did not have good results so I think I'll just drop this model business for the time being.

It's more of an distraction than help...


-Duff