My Motors got me to Tap into Radiant Energy

[iankoglin]

Motorola LM339 pins

Kogs,

The pinout of the top drawing is right. The bottom one is different.

I'm trying to get things to work. I have been trying for a week to use a NPN in place of MOSFETs while I'm waiting for them to arrive.

Bob

G'Day Bob
Thanks for your input
I finally found a pinout schematic for the bottom one a motorola LM339
it is a standard pinout Its hereLM339 datasheet(1/6 Pages) MOTOROLA | Quad Single Supply Comparators
It should work OK
Kindest regards Kogs

[Ufopolitics]

Hey Kogs

G'Day Bob
Thanks for your input
I finally found a pinout schematic for the bottom one a motorola LM339
it is a standard pinout Its hereLM339 datasheet(1/6 Pages) MOTOROLA | Quad Single Supply Comparators
It should work OK
Kindest regards Kogs

Hello Iankoglin!

I am so glad you are getting there!!
I am sorry could not help in that circuit...mine is still the old 555 type...
Btw Your Coil looks awesome!

Good testing and will hear from U soon!

Regards friend!

Ufopolitics

[torpex]

Hi @Bob,

Kogs,

The pinout of the top drawing is right. The bottom one is different.

Bob

Sorry, to clarify, I may be wrong.

The only thing different is that Texas Instruments alters the internal name of the comparators, but externally is the same.
We can use the comparators we want and in any order you want, no matter the internal name.
Comparators and its inputs are isolated from each other, have in common only power source (pins 3&12)

In other words, a pcb designed for use with Texas is 100% compatible with the others manufacturers and vice versa.



@Kogs
Sorry for my confusion, not Motorola ... is Texas Instruments. Motorola has the same description.

[larryross]

You are 100% correct torpex. 100% pin compatible.

Hi @Bob,


Sorry, to clarify, I may be wrong.

The only thing different is that Texas Instruments alters the internal name of the comparators, but externally is the same.
We can use the comparators we want and in any order you want, no matter the internal name.
Comparators and its inputs are isolated from each other, have in common only power source (pins 3&12)

In other words, a pcb designed for use with Texas is 100% compatible with the others manufacturers and vice versa.



@Kogs
Sorry for my confusion, not Motorola ... is Texas Instruments. Motorola has the same description.

[bobfrench@fastmail.fm]

Jumper?

G'Day Torpex
Thankyou for you inspection
Yes the circuit is from component side also I can see that the jumper is not right and I have corrected it.
The + is going to the LM317 output of the LM317 via the end of the 50k pot as described in Bob French's diagram

I have loaded the ammended and clearer circuits here Kogs UFO Photos pictures by Kogs1 - Photobucket

Thanks a lot
Kindest Regards Kogs

Kogs & Torpex,

There is no jumper from 5 to ground in my drawing. I don't know where that came from. As UFO pointed out a LM393 can be used instead of the LM339, but I prefer the LM339 because most everything comes off the one side (and we may want to add circuitry to this basic circuit later).
I'm still having trouble with it and I don't know why...very frustrating. I had it working well at first and others have made it work, but I'm dead in the water at the moment. It won't oscillate for me at the moment. (?)

Any help would be appreciated.

Bob

[bobfrench@fastmail.fm]

TI naming change

Hi @Bob,


Sorry, to clarify, I may be wrong.

The only thing different is that Texas Instruments alters the internal name of the comparators, but externally is the same.
We can use the comparators we want and in any order you want, no matter the internal name.
Comparators and its inputs are isolated from each other, have in common only power source (pins 3&12)

In other words, a pcb designed for use with Texas is 100% compatible with the others manufacturers and vice versa.



@Kogs
Sorry for my confusion, not Motorola ... is Texas Instruments. Motorola has the same description.

Torpex & Kogs,

THANK YOU! for the clarification. How stupid of TI to do that. Let me know how this circuit wrks for you. I must be doing something wrong every time and am just not seeing it.

Bob

[Netica]

Hi all,

Regarding the controller, I have found that this one RMCybernetics - DIY Homemade Power Pulse Controller has worked well for me. It worked straight away with no problems. I have 5 different C1's which I switch between to vary the frequency range. I don't know if it is the best and I haven,t a scope to measure how fast it switches on and off.
You can vary the frequency.
You can vary the duty cycle.
The voltage is full on and off.
You will still need a regulator and just replace the transistor to the mosfets UFO has said to use.
Through my own fault I have blown the 555 and 393 many times but I have sockets and it only takes a minute to replace. Unfortunately I have blown my mosfets so I haven't done anything with it for awhile but that was my own fault again.
I also run it with a separate battery with a common neg to drive batt for coil.

netica

[torpex]

Hey Torpex,

Glad you are obtaining good results...Now, be carefull with Inductors...some have very low resistance, almost zero...those will blow your MOSFET's very fast...
On the other hand, how are the Toroid s make it?
I understand they have magnetic field within core...not expanded outwards...so, do they behave same as your bifilar cylindrical coil ?

Thanks for posting it here

Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi @Ufo,

Yes, I have carefully, I always start pots to a minimum and 12v only.

They are simple inductors, are not made especially, from other circuits and tests.

The behavior is similar or equal to the cylindrical coil.

Basically I observe if the bulb lights and efficiency in drain current versus output.

Must be remembered, I have doubts about my circuit.

[torpex]

Hi @Netica

I think the pwm with 555 + LM393 works well, to activate the gate better with the comparator output.

It is very similar to the kEhYo77 circuit.

[torpex]

Torpex & Kogs,

THANK YOU! for the clarification. How stupid of TI to do that. Let me know how this circuit wrks for you. I must be doing something wrong every time and am just not seeing it.

Bob

Hi @Bob

I'm working in lm oscillator.

It's hard to know what could be happening without inspecting the circuit.
It's strange because it has few components.

Some steps:

Separate circuit parts: lm-oscillator, lm317 regulator, mosfets, coil and pots.

In oscillator section take pics and upload, both sides.
Power only with 12v battery or psu, no lm317 reg. Measure frequency in output pin 1. Measure freq. in pin 2 and pin 4&6.
Extract lm339 and check connections in pcb, measure resistors.

Inspect pot's state, measure in ohms, try turning and measure.

In lm317 section: Connect to 24v or 36v, check output volts, put a load around to 500mA (30-50 ohms or 5w car bulb) and check volts.

Coil: Measure ohms. May be damaged internally. Try other coil you have around with 12v.

Mosfets: Try other mosfets (200-400v rated), only one, only 12v. Measure resistors.

Good luck

[kEhYo77]

I ordered some parts and I'll have to wait for couple of weeks, because they are so exotic and quite expensive ! Daaamn
Anyways, I believe we can go a bit further with this and do coil shorting on peaks of those high frequency radiant oscillations from collapsing field.
Ismael Aviso style...

[larryross]

Hi all,

Ufo and all that has worked,

Behavior of my circuit:
When Freq and DTC are set the bulb lights up.
Then turn off the circuit.
Then turn on the circuit without touching anything, in my circuit the bulb lights like before.

This is normal behavior?

I think that does not correspond with the description of Ufo to invoke Radiant.

Hi torpex and all

If you are using the schematic and the values in post 753, I would suggest you use a 1K Ohm pull up resistor on pin one in stead of the 10K. This should give you more power out to drive the gates on your fets especially if you are using a 10K or smaller resister for the bias on your fets gates. In fact you may want to use 100K resistors to bias your fets as the out put of the oscillator sees them as being paralleled. I think this could be your problem. Worth a try. JMHO

I finally have my oscillator soldered together and ready to test... maybe today. Got to dig out my scope.

Regards
Larry

[ZeropointEnergy]

Seems logical

Hi torpex and all

If you are using the schematic and the values in post 753, I would suggest you use a 1K Ohm pull up resistor on pin one in stead of the 10K. This should give you more power out to drive the gates on your fets especially if you are using a 10K or smaller resister for the bias on your fets gates. In fact you may want to use 100K resistors to bias your fets as the out put of the oscillator sees them as being paralleled. I think this could be your problem. Worth a try. JMHO

I finally have my oscillator soldered together and ready to test... maybe today. Got to dig out my scope.

Regards
Larry

Hey Larry,

The LM339 circuit that all have been using is not working as it should, had issues with the high current draw, even on 12V and had to use the LM317 to limit to 1-1.5A.
The 555 PWM circuit has worked for me all along but the LM339 is another story.

Just hooked up a LM393 (only 2 comparators) and swapped the components on the breadboard and worked with the neon test first try.
But, current draw is high and needs to be resovled before I solder as a completed circuit These LM393/LM339 have given me no joy.
Easy to swap the 47k negative feedback network resistor with the 100k and the output pull up resistor to 1k.

I thought the 10k pull up resistor was to protect the LM339/LM393 to I think 18mA or so, is this true?

Regards
Zero

[torpex]

Hi torpex and all

If you are using the schematic and the values in post 753, I would suggest you use a 1K Ohm pull up resistor on pin one in stead of the 10K. This should give you more power out to drive the gates on your fets especially if you are using a 10K or smaller resister for the bias on your fets gates. In fact you may want to use 100K resistors to bias your fets as the out put of the oscillator sees them as being paralleled. I think this could be your problem. Worth a try. JMHO

I finally have my oscillator soldered together and ready to test... maybe today. Got to dig out my scope.

Regards
Larry

Hi @Larry

Thanks for your input. My current circuit is only 555. The LM oscillator is not yet built, in process...

Good luck with your tests.

[larryross]

Hey Larry,

The LM339 circuit that all have been using is not working as it should, had issues with the high current draw, even on 12V and had to use the LM317 to limit to 1-1.5A.
The 555 PWM circuit has worked for me all along but the LM339 is another story.

You should figure out why you have too high current draw and fix that... not use a device at max to limit current, using the LM317 at full current will cause a lot of heat and wasted energy and eventual failure of the device. You are doing like doctors do and treat the symptoms and not the cause. Always use a current limiting resistor to control small currents when you have to.

Just hooked up a LM393 (only 2 comparators) and swapped the components on the breadboard and worked with the neon test first try.
But, current draw is high and needs to be resovled before I solder as a completed circuit These LM393/LM339 have given me no joy.
Easy to swap the 47k negative feedback network resistor with the 100k and the output pull up resistor to 1k.

No I didn't mean the feedback resistor don't change that one, I was talking about the resistor that is used to bias the fets.

I thought the 10k pull up resistor was to protect the LM339/LM393 to I think 18mA or so, is this true?

Regards
Zero

No that isn't true... pull up resisters are used to increase out put power of a device above what it would normally output or to make sure it out puts the right voltage which also helps to maintain a proper signal.


Got to go for now
Larry