RE: CDI gr8flyer55

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 Gallery slideshow

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Search This Thread

Printable Version

All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> Engine Conversions >> RE: CDI gr8flyer55

Page: << < prev 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/21/2012 10:15 AM 1 votes

Gompy

Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

If Jack gone use a 3V3 chip, it's possible to get the Voltage from one cell.
The other cells from the packege are use for the CDI, don't matter how many cell left.
Same can do with 5 Volt, you only need 2 cells and a regulator to stabilize the 5 Volt.
Most cellloader will also balans the cell wile loaded and the chip don't use much current.
Regulatet electronics need more Voltage to keep the reable.
I'm working on a new HV-board, and 4V8 is hard to get reable.
Allmost at start of the CDI the Voltage of the batteries goes down between 4V2 and 4V6.
After a wile HEX-FET's don't swich, PIC's don't get a TTL-signal, it's all or nothing with 4V8.
A 2S LiPo packege will say, 2V4 extra befor it will be critical for the electronics.

Using only the the HV-board John use with a hallsensor it's no problem at all.
But with a advange timerboard it's a differend cookie

_____________________________

CU, Rob
http://www.electronics.gompy.net

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)

Post #: 851

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/21/2012 10:36 AM

jakestew

Posts: 144
Score: 180
Joined: 8/13/2011
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Moscow, ID, USA
Status: offline

> I have a way that works to kill the signal to the SCR by opening the trigger connection for a positive kill of the spark output.

That would be great! The TX/RX pins have only those two choices. They can be split up also, so TX can be 7 or 3, RX can be 6 or 2. The sensor input needs to stay on the same pin, everything else can be moved around whatever way is easiest for the hardware layout (Pin 4 is input only).

Aside from the restrictions I just mentioned, it's very easy to change the pins around in the software.

> EDit....... sorry....are you referring to the physical pin or the port number.???

Kind of silly how microchip did things. I've got the datasheet handy so I try to mention actual pin numbers for the hardware guys.

> First of all, why don't we use LiPo batteries ?

I use LiPo batteries. It's easy enough to get an ESC or UBEC from HK. They're like $3, so I don't think we can really hope to put a regulator and power filtering on the board for cheaper than that.

> Third, first finish version 1 with the 12F683 befor start version 1 with a 12F1840.

The reason I did it this way is because it's the EXACT same code for both. The only changes are the processor differences... just the pin names and some register settings. Other than that, it runs the same code at the same processor speed. The versions will split soon, but right now the code is the same for both. Since they both use the same calculations and spreadsheet tables I couldn't see any reason to not put them together.

> Wait for some time, atleast until some of us have test the version 1 of the 12F683 software.

Progress waits for no man.

> Fifth, we need layouts and schematics to make it easy to the people who want build the CDI.

I agree 100%.

> he will invert the killswitch and the table switch, but thats only possible if the PCB's are ready for this change.

The current PCB is fine for that change, I only have to change the software and people will have to use a different type of switch. Instead of a normally open switch people will have to use a normally closed switch, or use a toggle switch.

> If the topic will be longer it's also hard to find the sollutions for common errors of one version.

There should probably be three threads for this project. One for hardware development, one for software development, and one for questions and helping new users. If someone wants to do this I'm all for it, but we really need someone to write up a summary of everything that has gone on, with all the pics and links, and then start new threads.

I'll make a deal with everyone... If you guys write up a summary and start new hardware and help threads... I'll review everything I've done and post up a complete software summary and programming instructions thread.

In any case, things are going well on my end. I have one more major feature to add for the 683, then I will concentrate on the 1840. I want to add instantaneous RPM measurement from the hall pulse length based on the processor learning the hall pulse relation to the RPM and storing that data in the eeprom. This will be used to solve the first revolution timing problem, and eliminate the need for settings related to estimated starting RPM, etc..

-Jake

_____________________________

http://www.electrofunnel.com/CDI-2012/index.htm

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)

Post #: 852

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/21/2012 11:40 AM

bluejets

Posts: 234
Score: 205
Joined: 3/25/2009
Last Login: 4/15/2013
From: xnot applicable, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline

Jake,
I started to do the schematics and the boards layout but it became a bit confusing as to what was being used. That and it appeared someone else also started so I held back a bit to see what the outcome was.

Cheers ...Jorgo

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jakestew)

Post #: 853

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/21/2012 1:45 PM

Nav-Aids

Certified

Posts: 48
Score: 200
Joined: 9/5/2012
Last Login: 5/9/2013
From: Winnipeg, MB, CANADA
Status: offline

I don't think we are at a point when we can lock-down the PCB design of the 683, at least until Jake splits the development of the 2 processors. everything that has be done so far has been development work. Once the 683 is locked down a separate thread for the 1840 should be made. As for documentation, yes this needs to be taken care of asap and a summary would be best. If a new thread is started I recommend that it be switched to RCGroups, this way posting / uploading of files won't be a hassle. Jake and John if you guy's are ok with that I'll start a RCG thread for the 1840.
>There should probably be three threads for this project. One for hardware development, one for software development, and one for questions and helping new users.
Since the hardware and software go hand-in-hand, there should be a 683, 1840, and a help thread. After your next change, if it is common, keep the thread as is for now otherwise split the dev. and the threads
I've been working on a program flow chart for newbie’s which makes things a lot clearer to follow. We need to co-ordinate the rest of the docs. (PCB, Sch, and so forth) any volunteers?

Ray

_____________________________

Everything is easy......Once you know how.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jakestew)

Post #: 854

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/21/2012 4:04 PM

gr8flyer55

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline

Sent you a PM Ray.

John

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Nav-Aids)

Post #: 855

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 4:05 PM 1 votes

Gompy

Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

Modify Johns transformer for the new HV-board.
Remove the 10 winds of the flyback and split the 20 winds primary into two peaces of 10 winds.
The hole transformer is 15x15mm, it's work for a Swiss watchmaker

Attachments

Click for fullsize

_____________________________

CU, Rob
http://www.electronics.gompy.net

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)

Post #: 856

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 4:42 PM 1 votes

gr8flyer55

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline

Rob, that looks promising!
If we are splitting the 20 winds into 2 winds of 10, is this for a FET push - pull oscillator circuit? That would seem a logical choice for how you made the transformer. It should be a powerful hv circuit.

John

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)

Post #: 857

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 4:54 PM 1 votes

Gompy

Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

With a transformer wind 1:10 and 4V8 I get 88 Volt to load the capacitor.
Theoretical it must be 96 Volt (2x 48 Volt), so the designe is ~90% effective, not bad

You transformer is with the modification wind 1:40, so the output Voltage will be (4x 96) x 90% Volt = 345 Volt
With load the Volatge can be a littlebit lower but I think still enough.

_____________________________

CU, Rob
http://www.electronics.gompy.net

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)

Post #: 858

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 5:49 PM 1 votes

nyemi

Posts: 129
Score: 210
Joined: 2/19/2010
Last Login: 5/13/2013
From: szarvas, HUNGARY
Status: offline

Congratulations Gompy.
I have always said that the push - pull oscillator circuit is a good solution. The efficiency of over 90%.
Here the transformer drive circuit is simple.(See circuit diagrams)
Not used Choke coil.
Easy to zoom out.
Link:www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10936-flip-flop-inverter-using-low-voltage-input.html
I ask.
Use air gap in the transformer?

Attachments

Click for fullsize

_____________________________

Regards nyemi.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)

Post #: 859

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 6:02 PM 1 votes

Gompy

Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

I realy dont know if there is a aircap, the tranformer is standard from John.
I broke the ecore and have to glue this one, so this one have a aircap thats be sure

Now i use a big transformer with IRL540, but i think I can use smaller FETs like TO92 case.
The question....wat type do I need, there are a lot.

_____________________________

CU, Rob
http://www.electronics.gompy.net

Hide Signatures

(in reply to nyemi)

Post #: 860

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 6:10 PM 1 votes

CH Ignitions

Certified

Posts: 311
Score: 420
Joined: 8/20/2009
Last Login: 5/6/2013
From: West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Status: offline

Those transformers have "air gap" Between each winding is a piece of tape.
Also each transformer from the factory comes "tunned" up. If you look between the E cores you will see also little tape.
If you remove this between the ecores....that changes the caracteristics.

Thanks
Adrian

Attachments

Click for fullsize

_____________________________

www.ch-ignitions.com

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)

Post #: 861

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 6:28 PM

Gompy

Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

Hi Adrian, the one I modify dont have tape between the cores, that also the reason why the core was broken.
This core, I have only one, was welding together....old stock ?

_____________________________

CU, Rob
http://www.electronics.gompy.net

Hide Signatures

(in reply to CH Ignitions)

Post #: 862

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 6:41 PM

nyemi

Posts: 129
Score: 210
Joined: 2/19/2010
Last Login: 5/13/2013
From: szarvas, HUNGARY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gompy

I realy dont know if there is a aircap, the tranformer is standard from John.
I broke the ecore and have to glue this one, so this one have a aircap thats be sure
Now i use a big transformer with IRL540, but i think I can use smaller FETs like TO92 case.
The question....wat type do I need, there are a lot.

I tell you from experience.(push - pull)
The transformer, ferrite core center: 0.1 mm air gap.
The three core: the adhesive is suitable. (0.05 mm)

I shows an example circuit.
If you need small circuit.
Do not insist on "ZVS" inverter.
Because its performance is very high.
The "ZVS" Motorcycle ignition is perfect.
The ignition engine model airplanes,
rather transistorised push - pull inverter recommend it.

_____________________________

Regards nyemi.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)

Post #: 863

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 7:15 PM

Gompy

Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

Whit transistor, the internal resistant will be higher.
It means more heat and thats the last I want to have.
Thats also why I want to use (small) FET and not transistor.
Other reason will be the GS-Voltage, with 5 Volt the Gate push the DS all open.
Because they want to use a low Voltage batterie pack a FET is also the perfect component.

For use with a 12 Volt accu it's no problem, but 4V8 is a problem.
Thats also why I want to use a 2S lipo pack, a littlbit more Voltage to play with.

_____________________________

CU, Rob
http://www.electronics.gompy.net

Hide Signatures

(in reply to nyemi)

Post #: 864

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 8:20 PM

nyemi

Posts: 129
Score: 210
Joined: 2/19/2010
Last Login: 5/13/2013
From: szarvas, HUNGARY
Status: offline

You can think about this circuit?
Link:homemadecircuitsandschematics.blogspot.hu/2012/09/mini-50-watt-mosfet-inverter-circuit.html

_____________________________

Regards nyemi.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)

Post #: 865

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 8:37 PM

Gompy

Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

I was thinking about a controled pulsdriver who I can switch on / off.
The PIC is also possible, low rpm - less pulses and high rpm more pulses.
This will also means less components and controled current by use.
But first I have to test more with transformers and the schematic I use.
I know the FETs are working and the schematic isn't critical in components.

_____________________________

CU, Rob
http://www.electronics.gompy.net

Hide Signatures

(in reply to nyemi)

Post #: 866

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 9:10 PM

nyemi

Posts: 129
Score: 210
Joined: 2/19/2010
Last Login: 5/13/2013
From: szarvas, HUNGARY
Status: offline

I think the circuit is secret.

I did not ask you to continue.
But I ask you. Write down the results.
When you have finished testing.
Thank you.

_____________________________

Regards nyemi.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)

Post #: 867

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/22/2012 9:43 PM

Gompy

Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

The schematic is not secret, it's a normal push pull schematic you show.
It's even based on your ZVS schematic but with differend component to use iot with 4V8.
Now I try to find the "ready to use" hardware any one can make or buy.
Winding a transformer is not everbody can or will do.
And I don't want people gone build some not good working hardware.

_____________________________

CU, Rob
http://www.electronics.gompy.net

Hide Signatures

(in reply to nyemi)

Post #: 868

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/23/2012 7:56 PM

Gompy

Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

OK John, 485 Volt from your transformer

Attachments

Click for fullsize

_____________________________

CU, Rob
http://www.electronics.gompy.net

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)

Post #: 869

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/23/2012 9:14 PM 1 votes

gr8flyer55

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline

Very impressive Rob indeed !!!
Maybe mine was low because I used a much smaller transformer. The only thing I was after was using a transformer that anyone can buy at a place like Radio Shack here in the U.S. while it does work, the output voltage was just lower at 200. I'm still looking for a small readily available transformer that will give the same results your modified transformer did.
Great work Rob !!

John

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)

Post #: 870

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/23/2012 9:32 PM 1 votes

Gompy

Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline

Uhhhh, smaller transformer.....the one I get from you and modify is 15x15mm.
Thats the one I use on the pictures above.

I just wind me own transformer 250x AWG33 and 2x 12 AWG25.
It fit on a 20x20mm E-core transformer.
360 Volt at 6 Volt, 283 Volt at 4V8.
This kind of transformers everybody can wind.
Using a normal transformer can't be, the e-core don't have a aircap !!

_____________________________

CU, Rob
http://www.electronics.gompy.net

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)

Post #: 871

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/23/2012 11:52 PM 1 votes

gr8flyer55

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 5/20/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline

My smaller transformer was only a test to see if it worked and it did, but lower voltage. It was only 15x15 size, laminated core, not ferrite.
A 20x20 is an easy size to wind. It should be fine.
I'm just looking for a reliable source here in the U.S. , haven't found any yet. They make it hard to find both ecore and bobbin to fit it. You usually can find one or the other but not both.
Anyone have a source for a 15x15 or a 20x20 ecore and bobbin? We need the source and part numbers.

I tried a toroid today with the same winds, but got different results. 400 turns was fine, but the primary winds were a problem. You have to go bigger on the core size than .5" od. I tried a .625" od and got better results but still not enough voltage output, only 250 volts compared to 375 with an ecore. Must be the length of wire on the core and total resistance for 20 winds on each. My ohm meter doesn't show a difference.... Not sensitive enough.

John

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)

Post #: 872

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/24/2012 5:09 AM

bluejets

Posts: 234
Score: 205
Joined: 3/25/2009
Last Login: 4/15/2013
From: xnot applicable, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline

http://australia.rs-online.com/web/c/power-supplies-transformers/transformers/transformer-ferrite-cores/?searchTerm=Core+ferrite+&sort-by=default&sort-order=default&applied-dimensions=4294558589&lastAttributeSelectedBlock=4294960100

anything like this John..????

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)

Post #: 873

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/24/2012 5:58 AM 1 votes

nyemi

Posts: 129
Score: 210
Joined: 2/19/2010
Last Login: 5/13/2013
From: szarvas, HUNGARY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gompy

Uhhhh, smaller transformer.....the one I get from you and modify is 15x15mm.
Thats the one I use on the pictures above.

I just wind me own transformer 250x AWG33 and 2x 12 AWG25.
It fit on a 20x20mm E-core transformer.
360 Volt at 6 Volt, 283 Volt at 4V8.
This kind of transformers everybody can wind.
Using a normal transformer can't be, the e-core don't have a aircap !!

I congratulate you, Rob.
What are the secondary circuit are you using?
Doubling the voltage?
You tested resistance inverter? 4.7 k/5W (~10000RPM) switched capacitor to charge. You diagnose, inverter performance.
If the capacitor voltage, 130V below, does not fall. Proper performance of the inverter.
Examples:
200V/4,7K=0,0426A *200V=8,5W/166Hz(10000RPM)= 0,051J=51mJ Spark Energy.
160V/4,7K=0,034A*160V=5,45W/166Hz(10000RPM)= 0,033J=33mJ Spark Energy.
130V/4,7K=0,027A*130=3,6W/166Hz(10000RPM)= 0,021J=21mJ Spark Energy.
My opinion: 20mJ sparks of energy, 10000rpm.
Appropriate model airplane engine.

Even a circuit. Very promising.
See the picture. link:www.next.gr/inside-circuits/power-mosfet-inverter-l9896.html
I will start testing this out.
In order to increase reliability.
Components is necessary.

Attachments

Click for fullsize

Attachment.pdf

< Message edited by nyemi -- 11/24/2012 6:49 AM >

_____________________________

Regards nyemi.

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)

Post #: 874

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/24/2012 10:52 AM 1 votes

jakestew

Posts: 144
Score: 180
Joined: 8/13/2011
Last Login: 5/18/2013
From: Moscow, ID, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nav-Aids
I don't think we are at a point when we can lock-down the PCB design of the 683, at least until Jake splits the development of the 2 processors. everything that has be done so far has been development work. Once the 683 is locked down a separate thread for the 1840 should be made.

Rob and I have been talking about how best to do the switches. I'd like for the kill switch to work (kill the engine) both if the switch comes loose OR if the wires short out. If anyone knows a good way to do this feel free to chime in!

Other than that the PCB design works just fine. For the next version I'll make the switch normally closed (closed = run). That will work with the same hardware. But that won't solve if the switch wires short out. If there's an easy way to fix that it will be great. But if not I figure that someone can just rip the switch out and the circuit will go open and the engine will die.

But the timer board is pretty well locked down. I have no problems with the design. Some filtering on the hall sensor would be nice, but it has always worked well enough for me so far.

I'd like to keep the 683 and 1840 together because they run essentially the same code. With the plan I have there won't really be a "split" in the software... when I've done all I can with the 683 it will pretty much just be dropped from further development. I thought that time had already come, but I figure I can add the instantaneous measuring and learning feature to the 683. Since it can't write it's own memory or do serial communication, I just simply can't think of any more features to add to it!

A couple people wanted me to do a 683 version and it has kept me writing good code that will benefit all the future versions. That's really the only reason I wrote code for the 683. There's no reason for people not to switch over to the 1840. They're pin compatible and almost the same price (the 1840 is actually cheaper from my supplier last I checked). We're only talking about $1.80 for the 1840, so I just don't really see many people using the 683 much longer. That's why I don't want to invest much time in doing anything special for it or trying to separate the two.

> I recommend that it be switched to RCGroups, this way posting / uploading of files won't be a hassle.

I'm fine with that. RCU can be a real pain sometimes, and it's lost just enough of my posts to piss me off to the point where I wouldn't mind switching. We've got a lot of good contributors here though, so we'll have to make sure we can get them to come along!

> I've been working on a program flow chart for newbie’s which makes things a lot clearer to follow.

Good instructions is key to a good project. I couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on when I first started. There are lots of VERY long threads here and it seemed impossible to figure anything out. If it wasn't for John PM'ing me and sending me out working hardware I'd have probably never gotten anywhere.

I've also gotten hardware and help from other people, but if you have to post and ask to find out what's working and how to get or build the hardware... most people will figure that it's just too hard and look elsewhere. AFAIK we have the best system and CDI project out there, so if people overlook us it's a real shame. It took me a LONG time to even find this project and figure out that it was the best one going.

I'm fine with however everyone wants to split up the threads, as long as it prevents the current situation of long and confusing threads. For me it always has seemed like there is a lot of hardware discussion that is hard to understand, and that makes things confusing for a lot of people I think. I suppose the hardware people find the software discussion equally confusing, but I can only speak from my own perspective. I like reading the hardware discussion, but it does make the threads a lot longer to have everything lumped together. Better to have two or three shorter threads than one massive and confusing one.

-Jake

_____________________________

http://www.electrofunnel.com/CDI-2012/index.htm

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Nav-Aids)

Post #: 875

Page: << < prev 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 next > >>

All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> Engine Conversions >> RE: CDI gr8flyer55
Page: << < prev 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 next > >>

Jump to:

Charities we support that also need your help
Yorkie Rescue | Humane Society | ASPCA | Crohn's-Colitis America

1.032RCU1