Use for the Tesla Switch

[Matthew Jones]

Your not listening. The protection for the mosfet stops what you are looking for from the serial switch. Why I don't know.

Same thing happen in a motor when you inductively protect the switch (BJT or Mosfet). No more spikes. No more BEMF surges.

You should really grab 4 batteries and give it a try.

Matt

!!!OOH!!! 100 pages aren't we cool.

[SeaMonkey]

Your not listening. The protection for the mosfet stops what you are looking for from the serial switch. Why I don't know.

Same thing happen in a motor when you inductively protect the switch (BJT or Mosfet). No more spikes. No more BEMF surges.

You should really grab 4 batteries and give it a try.

Matt

!!!OOH!!! 100 pages aren't we cool.

If the 'protection' for the MosFet 'stops what you are
looking for' then the 'protection' is too intense.

The protection should only 'kick-in' in the event the
surplus energy 'spike' isn't absorbed by the extraction
portion of the circuit.

In my cases where the MosFet experienced avalanche
the connection to the 'load' had deteriorated and
there was nothing to absorb the excess energy. It
was a fault of the 'breadboard' connection scheme.

The transient absorbers should have a threshold that
matches the avalanche rating of the MosFet so as
not to impede extraction of the 'spikes' under normal
circumstances.

By carefully designing the protection it is possible to
(really hate to say this!) have your cake and eat it
too...

Yes, the lead acid battery has some very remarkable
pulse characteristics. Everything that Bedini and Bearden
have revealed regarding their unique properties is
indeed verifiable with a good scope and patience.

Lots of patience.

Bedini has somberly predicted that most experimenters
will not succeed in duplicating what he's discovered -
simply because they lack the where-with-all to do the
necessary research and the patience to perform the
many repetitions until success is finally seen.

Sadly, he is correct.

[ren]

I could be wrong here SeaMonkey, but what I believe Matt is saying is that the internal diode within the mosfet creates an unwanted path that the transient spike will pass through, instead of traveling where you want it to go.

If there are two options/paths for that inductive discharge to travel, it will pick the easier of the two. Im far from qualified in the world of electrical engineering but I have seen other comments from people who do know better than me and they agree that the inbuilt diode within the mosfet can be problematic. Of course, you could do a simple test to see if it makes a difference I guess. The addition of another diode correctly orientated negates the inbuilt one easily enough, in terms of its ability to short the transient spike back on the source.

Im not sure I fully understand your description of the diodes protection being "too intense".

Forgive my intrusion, as I havent posted in this thread much, but Im interested in this particular aspect of mosfets vs transistors in terms of harvesting the inductive discharges, pros and cons.

Regards

[StevanC]

SeaMonkey and all:
As we "speak" i run a series of thests in LTspice (version 4) and have reached few conclusions "as is" (without reachng the bottom of the sack yet):


1. In the TS-PV-AMP configuration i wrote about before (links are in this thread) there are exactly seven (=7) switching positions of interest
2. There are also exactly four "valve" positions of interest.
3. There are in both switching and valve positions, parts that may be omitted and yet still retain correct operaion, as we all know by now (right? :B-) )
4. If further parts be omitted (shorted out) the performance changes, but the operation is still a kind of "pulsing mode"
5. In one extreme example, we can only keep the four valves and the "middle output" switch and have the lowest BOM variant (JB used a SCR there)
6. In one other extreme, we can use four (4) MOSFETS with high side drivers and only two diode "valves" and get one really hard kicking (EMI?) bastard off (only) ~8000uF, but the problem is: the single "load diode" in between the buffer capacitor (near the PV/PSU) and the "hot buss rail" charging the (+) of the two cap-banks has spikes in excess of the 2x output peak (=bad) in my simulation = ~180A.this looks like calling for an array of diodes (10 or so?). This diode can be reffered to as the "input diode"
7. In another extreme config, where all critical switching points are covered with MOSFET+driver, i can't get the upper drivers "boost" to charge: I need a "floating power supply" of 12V 300mA with 2...7 outputs (trafo windings). too complex IMHO, but sort of "right way"...
8. there are two positions where switches unavoidably are subject to alternating current: the two "outermost" of the "input switches" go "inverted" the moment the output stage begins to "Que": as the two cap-banks get spawned "apart" voltage wise, the potential gets higher than the input and the MOSFET simply can't "brake" it to flow "backwards" (body diode).
9. Only way besides putting a diode here (there is aconfig with four diodes and four MOSFETs better than this) is to use a SCR: the instant a "inversion" occurs, the SCR will lock out (zero line crossed).

What gives?


Please forgive me for lack of dravings, as this info is all preliminary (and early issue)


Stevan C.

[StevanC]

a basic sketch

This is just the basic idea:

(just to give my thoughts a "face" )

[StevanC]

* I guess it is possible to swap the "valve" and "switch" blocks on the left side (four valves and two switches) and get same operation.
I see now I have to make a series of this sort of charts (I'll be back later with more)

* The yellow "texted" switches undergo alternating current loads

* the dark red ones are "output"

* the violet ones are "input"

* I placed a input cap to be a part of the circuit (i think it belongs there for PV purposes)

* in BJT config, the valves can be omitted

* the input valves "suffer" twice the output peak


Best regards,
Stevan C.

[Matthew Jones]

If the 'protection' for the MosFet 'stops what you are
looking for' then the 'protection' is too intense.

Hmmm...

Lots of patience.
Bedini has somberly predicted that most experimenters
will not succeed in duplicating what he's discovered -
simply because they lack the where-with-all to do the
necessary research and the patience to perform the
many repetitions until success is finally seen.
Sadly, he is correct.

Have you done any experiments? I have, ALOT, You should probably keep that BS to yourself. Comments like that have to make one wonder what your intentions are, as you won't share an practical experience but you maintain your abundance of knowledge. Then when someone argues your point you a have to insult them, subtly. Instead of countering with practical experience.

Show me a circiut that is inductively protected that harvests any kind of spike at its full potential. Even if its on paper.
If you cant after you said that its possible, then I think your just full of crap and you not here to help.

I think thats fair to ask?

Matt

[ldissing]

Hmmm...

Show me a circiut that is inductively protected that harvests any kind of spike at its full potential. Even if its on paper.

Matt

That is what I was asking for too, Matt. A freak'in circuit. What does put in the research time mean? There are a plethora of things that can be changed from frequency to components, to etc., etc., etc. The reason struggle continues, is because secrets are still being kept....or maybe no one really knows. My guess is the latter but one may be able to make some money in the process and I can guarantee that the component merchants have made some money at the very least.

Harvest the spike at its full potential, that was the question.

I would like to proffer a suggestion in that regard. We know that a battery (or cap) can absorb that spike, so any diode to a battery would "harvest" that spike energy and would fit the bill. Since this battery is "charging", it can be swapped out to be a source battery when full (or a cap when full could be dumped to a charging battery). If using batteries, one can see that this would mean a plentiful supply of batteries and a lot of switches to get the batteries swapped in and out, but it is doable with enough resources.

If one used caps, then you could set the threshold dump of the cap to be "below" the breakdown of the mosfet, i.e. protecting it but "not too much" as Mr. Seamonkey has suggested.

I have not tried this, but I'm not using Mosfets either. Seems like a workable solution to the mosfet issue. Don't know where that cap ground would need to be connected, talking out of my @$$ again.

Leroy

P.S. When you look at Dave's mosfet circuit, maybe that is why his mosfets did not crash and burn. He had some caps to take excess potential away from the mosfets? Or maybe they were JUST high side drivers?

[SeaMonkey]

...t I have seen other comments from people who do know better than me and they agree that the inbuilt diode within the mosfet can be problematic. Of course, you could do a simple test to see if it makes a difference I guess. The addition of another diode correctly orientated negates the inbuilt one easily enough, in terms of its ability to short the transient spike back on the source.

Im not sure I fully understand your description of the diodes protection being "too intense".

Forgive my intrusion, as I havent posted in this thread much, but Im interested in this particular aspect of mosfets vs transistors in terms of harvesting the inductive discharges, pros and cons.

Regards

Ren,

Please do not feel as if you've intruded! All who read
should feel welcome to participate in the discussion
and add to the 'knowledge base' of information.

The MosFet body diode would normally be reverse
biased to the flyback pulse appearing at the Drain,
however, the body diode is essentially a 'zener' diode
and will go into 'avalanche' when the Drain potential
goes too highly positive with a flyback 'spike.'

A transient absorber is similar but is specially designed
to absorb and safely dissipate excessive 'spike' energy
thereby protecting the MosFet from avalanche.

In reality, there would be little difference in circuit
operation whether driven by a bipolar transistor or
a MosFet - apart from the enhanced flyback energy
resulting from the extremely rapid 'cut-off' of the
MosFet.

The bipolar transistor 'cut-off' is much more gradual
and therefore 'absorbs' some of the flyback as it is
developing which limits the 'rate of change' of the
flyback pulse; attenuating it.

[SeaMonkey]

Hmmm...

Have you done any experiments? I have, A LOT, You should probably keep that BS to yourself. Comments like that have to make one wonder what your intentions are, as you won't share an practical experience but you maintain your abundance of knowledge. Then when someone argues your point you a have to insult them, subtly. Instead of countering with practical experience.

Show me a circuit that is inductively protected that harvests any kind of spike at its full potential. Even if its on paper.
If you cant after you said that its possible, then I think your just full of crap and you not here to help.

I think thats fair to ask?

Matt

Matt,

The emotional state of your response is very puzzling.

Bedini himself explained why so few will be able to
duplicate what he's done. In fact, he laments that
most will not succeed because of their lack of desire
to do the hard work. Especially the 'studying.'

I agree with Bedini. I also agree with his reasoning
for not 'spoon feeding' the experimenter community.

Unless we first UNDERSTAND the principles we'll never
be able to master the 'art.'

Regarding the ability to "harvest any kind of spike at
its full potential." The objective is to harvest the
POWER within the spike, not just the exaggerated
potential.

That POWER is the result of a collapsing magnetic
field and it can appear in an impedance dependent
context. Fed into a low impedance it is 'transformed'
into low voltage/high current. Fed into a high impedance
it is 'transformed' into a high voltage/low current.

In each case the POWER content is the same.

We should 'harvest' the over-unity surplus power
in a format which presents NO HAZARD to the operation
of the circuit.

Thinking that the POWER must be harvested as a
HIGH VOLTAGE is erroneous thinking.

The Inductor functions as a DC TRANSFORMER and
thus is capable of supplying the POWER in any
convenient form (within reason.)

Observe the "h" waveform as the Magnetic Field
Energy is transferred to a load. Do you truly understand
what you see for the duration of the pulse?

[SeaMonkey]

That is what I was asking for too, Matt. A freak'in circuit.

Circuits are plentiful - where does one begin?

Does anyone have a circuit utilizing MosFets
which doesn't work as expected? Perhaps
that would be a good place to start.

It should be possible, through analysis, to
determine what the 'problem/s' is/are.

[Matthew Jones]

Yet not one example, just talk.

I have several switch's that work very well. And no one spoon fed me. Well enough in fact that I am trying to scale up. I have done alot research and alot of reading, background study and the work. It troubles me you have no desire to even hand us an example of what your talking about, Yet "Its easy..." in your words.

And you want me to take you and your "above average understanding" seriously?

I don't know, doesn't seem practical.

There is a mosfet circiut earlier in the thread.
http://img88.imageshack.us/i/sstsv51aw8.png/
We never got any follow up yet on it. He said it worked and I think at one time filmed it with meters but I am not sure about that.

Good luck
Matt

[citfta]

Doing the hard work

@ Seamonkey,

It is obvious that you know a lot about conventional circuits and especially Mosfet circuits. However it is also obvious you have not tried actually building a SSG or the Tesla Switch. You keep saying people don't succeed because they aren't willing to do the hard work. Well most of us on this thread have been doing the hard work as you say. Some, like Matt have been doing it for several years. I have only been at it for a couple of years. I have over 50 years experience working with electronics and I can tell you right now this technology of trying to capture radiant energy and using it has nothing to do with conventional circuits. If you really want to help then YOU need to do the hard work and then come back and tell us what works and what doesn't. If you really understood the SSG you would know that as soon as the transistor turns on a reverse bias is then applied to the trigger winding which forces the transistor back off. Maybe you should look a little more closely to the h wave and you can see just how quickly the transistor is forced back off.

On another note I am trying to understand why you think we need a really quick turn off of the transistor. I asked you once before and you didn't answer. From my studies of Tesla and John Bedini agrees the radiant event actually occurs with a very rapid turn on of power to an inductor. Yes we want a rapid turn off to help collect the collapsing field energy from the inductor but that energy is only equal to the energy to create the field. But according to Tesla when we have a very rapid voltage rise applied to an inductor we can create a radiant event which allows outside energy to enter the inductor.


With all due respect for your knowledge and experience may I suggest there may be some things going on with this technology that you don't understand yet. Please just build a SSG with a transistor like the MJL21194 and then after you have it working correctly try your Mosfets and see the difference.

Respectfully, Carroll

[ldissing]

Circuits are plentiful - where does one begin?

Does anyone have a circuit utilizing MosFets
which doesn't work as expected? Perhaps
that would be a good place to start.

It should be possible, through analysis, to
determine what the 'problem/s' is/are.

If a circuit develops "frost", I'd call that peculiar. Most circuits develop heat, not cold, so Dave's circuit is peculiar. Bedini said that the SG3524 would not run in cold temperatures...indicating cold, not heat from the circuit. He was going to run in underwater (from my understanding) to mitigate the "cold". These things are peculiar.

Do you have a circuit that is frosting up, or getting cold? Please post that one, but I doubt that I will see it from you.

Lots of information, but no substance. That is what I see, but others can be the judge of that. You can "help" us, or you can proffer suggestions that will go into the ether. We do not know you or your accomplishments. You have offered no "help" as far as I can understand. I am asking for expertise that I do not have, so a circuit and answers as to why it works is the only way to "help". Otherwise, it is more crap that does nothing for me personally. That is a problem of mine, others can judge for themselves.

Others may think you brilliiant, and you may be. Step up and help us if you can.

Leroy

[SeaMonkey]

Circuit 101

There is a mosfet circuit earlier in the thread.
http://img88.imageshack.us/i/sstsv51aw8.png/
We never got any follow up yet on it. He said it worked and I think at one time filmed it with meters but I am not sure about that.

Good luck
Matt

Yes, I have seen this particular circuit. It seems to be
a semiconductor implementation of the Brandt 4 battery
bank switching AC output converter.

What are your thoughts on this circuit?

From my point of view, it is entirely too complicated.