RE: CDI gr8flyer55    Gallery
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
    Search This Thread  
 
Printable Version


TurboHeader Muffler
Seller:  RC Specialties
Details:   $69.95   |  4/28/2013   |  Classified Ad
We will rotate YOUR AD in this spot if you select "Forum Featured" when placing or editing your ad!

All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel & Mfg Support Forums >> Engine Conversions >> RE: CDI gr8flyer55
Page: <<   < prev  35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 44   next >   >>  

Tower Hobbies Get Coupon Codes Brands  
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 11/30/2012 10:37 PM  1 votes
Gompy



Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 6/16/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline 		I find it also into the code, but I want to use the original code of Jack and not modify lines.
Thats wat I mean with ONE code and ONE piece of hardware, for ONE CDI.
Not make changes in software or hardware, not even by Exelsheet..
Not all users are smart enough to change the code, it must be plug and play.
Make the boards, program the PIC and fly away

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)
       Post #: 926

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 2:13 AM  1 votes
gr8flyer55


 

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline 		I think you are right Rob. If we are all working towards the same goal, there should be just one board with one software program for that board. I guess I am just used to tweaking everything that is proposed on here to my way of doing things that I overlooked the main objective.
I haven't etched the newest "B" board yet, but I will. If Jake's software works with it then it should be the final version of the hardware if the limitations of the 12F683 chip's have been reached. The "B" board should be the BASIC version which would be a standard version, suitable for the beginner in this project. If we do split off into the 12F1840 chip project, which I feel we should to avoid the confusion, then it should be started in a different thread. Most of us have developed this project into what it is because we care enough to share. A new project should bring new ideas and possibilities.

In your testing Rob, does the latest software support this version of the board in it's present form?

John



Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)
       Post #: 927

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 10:18 AM  1 votes
Gompy



Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 6/16/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline 		For the moment I can only test the latest hardware on the bench with the testrig.
It's very bad weather and I don't have a barn (yet) and some lawsuit about the barn take my time this week.
The timerboard is given a puls, HV-board fired the spark, but I can't see if the spark is coming at the right time (rise / fall).
My digital LCD scope is to slow and I given my old fast tube scope away

I need a timerboard to see if the HV-board, I work on for the bikes, will do wat it have todo.
The timerboard is not priority number one at the moment, we use differend software and timerboards for the bikes.
Some one have to tell me if there is something wrong with the timerboard your using.
But I can see you are the only one who test......others are waiting for your results.

I'll sent you today the latest software for the timerhardware.
Same board I using, so it must to be good

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)
       Post #: 928

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 10:48 AM  1 votes
jakestew


 

Posts: 144
Score: 180
Joined: 8/13/2011
Last Login: 6/4/2013
From: Moscow, ID, USA
Status: offline 		To make the current code work with this new timer board, just delete the first line of code in the main loop which calls CheckPins(). It reads "CheckPins();" followed by the comment. This will disable the table switch and kill switch.

I'll put out another version of the code with these changes made and I'll also change it to use the magnet leaving the sensor for the timing.

In other news... this board just lost another post of mine. And I can't properly post any code here, even within the "code" tag. It doesn't handle files right either.

I'm sick of this ****e, so I'm ready to move the project thread over to RCG or wherever when I find the time to write up a first post. If someone else wants to do that instead, please do and post the link here.


-Jake

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)
       Post #: 929

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 11:11 AM  1 votes
Gompy



Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 6/16/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline 		If I understand well......
Removing the lines will also remove the function of the pins (2 and 3)
The functions must be there, only the high or low detection have to change.

The output to the opto / SCR can be change, rise or fall, just wat you like.
This can be done without changing the software, but I have to know wat I have to create !
Rewrap a small part of the PCB isn't a problem.

I think the users will wait for some time to get the best 

while(1){  // Main loop, Run this loop forever
        CheckPins();    // Check our TableSelect and KillSwitch pins
        __delay_ms(10); // Delay here so main loop runs at around 10-20 ms (100-50 times/sec)
    }
}


< Message edited by Gompy -- 12/1/2012 11:45 AM >

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jakestew)
       Post #: 930

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 12:36 PM  1 votes
gr8flyer55


 

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline 		Jake, in order for the "B" revision board to function properly, Rob tells me that pin 4 must remain as it is set on the board for the ICP function to work. If that pin is used for any other input or output, the design would have to undergo Major changes. Keeping pins 2 and 3 as switches does work fine. Changing the trigger to the magnet leaving the sensor is just fine and is basically the industry standard so that is good.
A new board will be designed for the capabilities of the 1840 chip. I'm sure with the capability of the 683 chip at its max, this board now is at it's peak. Like you mentioned before, board B is a one design board. Rob is willing to develop the next one for us, but keep this last design as the final.
Later today I will post a clearer PDF file of the etch pattern for it. The JPG copy that is online now is a bit fuzzy and didn't make a good print for me so I graphically enhanced it for better etch.

John


Hide Signatures

(in reply to jakestew)
       Post #: 931

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 12:47 PM  1 votes
Gompy



Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 6/16/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gr8flyer55

Keeping pins 2 and 3 as switches does work fine.


But have to reverse, if the jumper is not set table1 must be active and if there is no closed contact for the killswitch the engine must stop.


quote:

Changing the trigger to the magnet leaving the sensor is just fine and is basically the industry standard so that is good.


Keep the Exelsheet in mind, it have to calculate with this change.

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)
       Post #: 932

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 12:51 PM  1 votes
gr8flyer55


 

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline 		Jake, in another message from Rob, he suggests leaving the sensor trigger where you now have it, otherwise the sensor has to be moved on the engine 10 to 20 degrees to have it work. Some engines would not be hard to change, but others it is a catastrophe!
I tried the current software with the last board before B board and didn't have to move a thing.

If anyone else has a different view on this, tell us.


John


Hide Signatures

(in reply to jakestew)
       Post #: 933

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 2:49 PM   
w8ye



Posts: 36486
Score: 318
Joined: 12/11/2001
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Shelby, OH, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jakestew

. . . .

In other news... this board just lost another post of mine. And I can't properly post any code here, even within the "code" tag. It doesn't handle files right either.

I'm sick of this ****e, so I'm ready to move the project thread over to RCG or wherever when I find the time to write up a first post. If someone else wants to do that instead, please do and post the link here.


-Jake

I agree that there are problems with the editor of RCU. The biggest thing I see is that there is no automatic saved draft function for the editor like with V-Bulletin. There's no draft saver period! There are many people that edit their posts on their computer editor and then copy and paste the content to the RCU editor. So when the entry evaporates into thin air, they have not lost their work and can try again.

I would like to see this website support more alternative attachment formats and sizes also.

The owner of this web site is Internet Brands who also own V-Bulletin. (RCG and FG use V-Bulletin). IB has been saying for two years that they are going to change the format over to V-Bulletin but so far, it has not happened? Someone at IB with enough authority has not taken the interest or effort to make it happen?

This website's operating system is written in a hodge podge of code patches. At the time it was written, along about 2002, (the original code person, Mark Vigod is no longer with the organization)  it was better than the existing V-Bulletin software. Since then, V-Bulletin has surpassed the RCU patchwork of disorganized code which is not written in distinct documented modules to make it easy for a new code person to just jump in and start adding features. 

I wish I could give you some answers or promises but at this time the support is just not there.


_____________________________

Attended the CutFinger Institute of DirtNap University for years but never did graduate....
Recipient, Mangledhand award August 2008
Club Saito Member #7
Original AMA #31261

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jakestew)
       Post #: 934

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 9:22 PM  1 votes
gr8flyer55


 

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline 		Well, I just tested the "B" board with my ignition and used version 1 software in a 683 chip and it is working. You need a jumper on both pins 2 and 3 for it to start. If you take pin 3 jumper for the kill switch off, the ignition quits just like it is supposed to do. The table switch does work but I have 2 very closely programmed curves in my chip at the moment and could only tell you that it switches curves, but at this point I'm not sure which one is in position 1, jumper off.
Pin 4 jumper didn't seem to matter if it was on or off since there was no real function for it at this time other than the ICP with the chip clip adapter that Rob showed. The LEDs also work.

So I would say the board is 100% functional with version 1 software as is. Any changes from here will need to be tested and documented per function.

John




Hide Signatures

(in reply to jakestew)
       Post #: 935

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 9:35 PM  1 votes
Gompy



Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 6/16/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline 		Have you change the software line(s) Jack say todo or not ?

BTW, if you switch pin 4 to ground the PIC will be reset........normaly.
It will do the same if you shutdown the power and connect again.
If pin 4 isn't use, Jack have to set pin 4 to normal use into the cnfiguration sertup of the PIC.
The resetswitch must be a normal pushbutton.

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)
       Post #: 936

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 9:48 PM  1 votes
gr8flyer55


 

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline 		I didn't change any software lines at all. I want to test the reset function of pin 4 jumper though since I had it off during my test.
If you leave the kill jumper off, the ignition fires a few times and then quits. Must be the loop for checking pins and the 4.7k resistor in place so till it doesn't see a full ground it fires a few times. That part of the code needs some work I think. Probably the same thing with pin 2 table jumper, but at least the board is functioning as built Rob!! Nice work!!

If Jake fixes the code now to reflect my test results, we have a winner.

John


Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)
       Post #: 937

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 10:04 PM  1 votes
Gompy



Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 6/16/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline 		The switch of pin 4 must be open, it have to be a pushbutton.
If you make contact to ground, the PIC will be reset.
Do not change the capacitor or resistor of this input, they must be 4k7 and 100nF.

The problem of pin 2 and 3 will be the capacitors of 100nF in combination with the 4k7 or 10k resistor.
The capacitor delay the time to switch off, but they also filter the nois.
You can lower the value of the capacitors to 10nF without problems.
Don't lower the resistor, it will pull to much current with a lower value.
It will filter also a bad switch and vibration of contacts.



Maybe I have to add the 100R resistor.

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)
       Post #: 938

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 10:40 PM  1 votes
gr8flyer55


 

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline 		Just tested pin 4 jumper. It does nothing either way, on or off as far as I can tell. In the timer I was using, pin4 was tied direct to ground and I think Jake left it that way in the software. I used a 7.2 volt battery pack for all my testing and the regulator works great. Instead of the 100uh choke you use, I had a 1uh choke and that also works. I will order some 100uh chokes if required but what I used seems fine, no noise spikes on the supply + line.

John


Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)
       Post #: 939

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 11:11 PM  1 votes
Gompy



Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 6/16/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline 		With some luck you have the latest cosmetic PCB and schematic changes into your mailbox
You make it complete with Jack ?

I'm not the programmer, but I think Jack switch off the MCLR into the config line
Line 49

__CONFIG(FOSC_INTOSCIO & WDTE_OFF & PWRTE_ON & MCLRE_OFF & CP_OFF & CPD_OFF & BOREN_OFF & IESO_OFF & FCMEN_OFF);

Change to
__CONFIG(FOSC_INTOSCIO & WDTE_OFF & PWRTE_ON & MCLRE_ON & CP_OFF & CPD_OFF & BOREN_OFF & IESO_OFF & FCMEN_OFF);
This will change the MCLRE on again I think

===============================================
Line 239

WPU = 0b110100; // Internal pull-ups on GP2,4,5

Change to
WPU = 0b000000; // Internal pull-ups all off
This will shutoff the internalpullup resistors, not needed with external resitors

===============================================
The piece below have also change to make the switches work OK.
I think I know wat have to be change......Jack correct me if I'm wrong.
I will learn !
===============================================
static void CheckPins(void){
if(GPIObits.GP4 == 1){ // If kill switch is on (grounded)
if(KillSwitch < 10){ // Less than debounce value
KillSwitch++; // Increment value
if(KillSwitch == 10){ // Debounce value reached
INTCONbits.GIE = 0; // Disable interrupts
sGPIO.GP1 = 1; // Make sure HV trigger is off (turn GP1 on)
GPIO = sGPIO.ALL; // Update GPIO
}
}
}
else if(KillSwitch < 1){ // Kill switch off (low)
KillSwitch; // Decrease counter
if(KillSwitch == 0){INTCONbits.GIE = 1;} // If debounced back to 0, enable interrupts
}
if(GPIObits.GP5 == 1){ // If Table switch is on (high)
if(TableSwitch < 10){ // Less than max value
TableSwitch++; // So increment
if(TableSwitch == 10){ // Debounce value reached
TablePointer = AdvanceTable2; // Point pointer at table 2
LoadSettings(); // Load the user settings from the currently selected table
}
}
}
else if(TableSwitch < 1){ // Table switch has been turned on
TableSwitch; // Decrease the debounce value
if(TableSwitch == 1){ // Table switch really is on
TablePointer = AdvanceTable1; // Point TablePointer at table 1
LoadSettings(); // Load the user settings from the currently selected table
}
}
}
===================================================

< Message edited by Gompy -- 12/2/2012 12:10 AM >

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)
       Post #: 940

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/1/2012 11:57 PM  1 votes
bluejets


 

Posts: 234
Score: 205
Joined: 3/25/2009
Last Login: 4/15/2013
From: xnot applicable, AUSTRALIA
Status: offline 		Rob,
To disable internal pull-up, shouldn't the line read 0b000000....????

bit 2-0 WPU<2:0>: Weak Pull-up Control bits
1 = Pull-up enabled
0 = Pull-up disabled

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)
       Post #: 941

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/2/2012 12:12 AM  1 votes
Gompy



Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 6/16/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline 		Your right, I count from the left to right, but I've todo from right to left.....I make allways the same mistake

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bluejets)
       Post #: 942

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/2/2012 11:50 AM   
jakestew


 

Posts: 144
Score: 180
Joined: 8/13/2011
Last Login: 6/4/2013
From: Moscow, ID, USA
Status: offline 		Hopefully I can remember everything to reply to...

The MCLR pin is used as input. It should not reset the pic. (This should be disabled by the __config line I use)

Disabling the switches is just a quick method so you can test the boards. I will fix this shortly to the new board setup.

Since John is cool with the new board design I assume he's finished with the v1.0 boards (I guess we'll call them that), and is ready to switch to Rob's version B boards.

The switch thing is probably getting a little complicated for people. If you use v1.0 with version B you can jumper the switches OR disable them by removing the "CheckPins();" line. I just posted this so people can test the new boards and actually get them to run. Each time I put out a new version I have to do quite a few things and check to make sure everything works right. The code edit is easy, but then I have to put that into the Excel file and check everything to make sure it works! I also have to make sure the instructions work right and people understand what is what. That's why I'm not cranking out new versions every few days.

As far as I can figure... if you jumper the pins right now with version B you will have the internal pull-ups on and the external pull-downs will be fighting. Hopefully this just wastes some current, it should not burn anything out but is not optimal.


Right now I have too much going on in my life! I will release a new version for the new board tomorrow, but I can't test it because I just don't have the time to etch and make the new board design. Somebody needs to send me a new version B board! Otherwise I'll put out a version B firmware, but will have to keep developing on the board I have.


As far as this forum is concerned... I try to copy and paste or write in an editor, but sometimes I forget. Losing posts really pisses me off and I'm ready to switch. My preference is vBulletin, phpBB, or UBBthreads.

RCgroups was suggested, and I don't really care. I think I'm registered on most of them. Let's just take a vote and switch! I'd even set up our own forum with phpBB on one of my domains, but it seems silly to not just move this somewhere else if there's something decent available.

So let's vote... Who wants RCgroups or something else? Who's unwilling to switch? Who's willing to ditch the people unwilling to switch? (I'm willing to occasionally post back here, but the main thread needs to be on a better forum software.) I like phpBB because it is open source, but vBulletin and UBBthreads are good commercial solutions that I'm willing to use.


-Jake

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)
       Post #: 943

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/2/2012 12:05 PM   
Gompy



Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 6/16/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline 		@Jack, I can sent you a board but it takes 2 or 3 weeks befor you get the board.
I hope John will be so kind to make a board for you too.

This will be the last version (B) I make of the timerboard.
I make only some cosmetic changes, like lead / connector positions (P + -) and power into the middle.

Here you can download a free demoprogram to print the PCB files like they are.
http://www.baas.nl/layo1pcb/uk/downloads.htm
Download PCB.txt, rename it to PCB.zip en im port the files into the Lay1 program.
The PDF-file have a 2:1 and a 1:1 layout.

BTW, I think we can close down this topic if your code is ready to use.
To vote if we have to move somewhere for this last post is silly.
For the new 12F1840 CDI we can move to a other forum.

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see the file in new window.Attachment.pdf Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see the file in new window.Attachment.txt


_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jakestew)
       Post #: 944

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/2/2012 12:14 PM  1 votes
jakestew


 

Posts: 144
Score: 180
Joined: 8/13/2011
Last Login: 6/4/2013
From: Moscow, ID, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bluejets

Rob,
To disable internal pull-up, shouldn't the line read 0b000000....????

bit 2-0 WPU<2:0>: Weak Pull-up Control bits
1 = Pull-up enabled
0 = Pull-up disabled 


******   GP 543210  *******/
    ******  Pin 234567  *******/
    TRISA     = 0b111100;    // 1=Input, 0=Output,
    WPUA      = 0b110101;    // Internal pull-ups on GP5+4+2+0


Right, to turn off all the pull-ups the line should be: (1840 or 683, respectively)
WPUA = 0b000000;
or
WPU = 0b000000;

Pullups on the sensor can be left on, the pullup on the LED output doesn't matter. To have pullups on the sensor line...
WPUA = 0b000100;
or
WPU = 0b000100;

AFAIK either of these will work just fine. I've tested both and it makes no difference IME. I suggest keeping the sensor pullup on (2nd set of lines), but it probably doesn't matter witch one you use.


-Jake





_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to bluejets)
       Post #: 945

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/2/2012 12:24 PM   
jakestew


 

Posts: 144
Score: 180
Joined: 8/13/2011
Last Login: 6/4/2013
From: Moscow, ID, USA
Status: offline 		> I can sent you a board but it takes 2 or 3 weeks befor you get the board.

I understand. I'm sure John will send me a board. I just want to make people understand that I can't actually test anything if I don't have the hardware.

I have a good motor setup now, so if I have the board I can actually test it on a real motor to make sure that it 100% works.

Changing forums is a serious issue though. I want your input. The whole project will move to where we decide. I don't want to leave anyone behind. There are several major RC boards, so we have to make sure we choose the best one.


-Jake

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jakestew)
       Post #: 946

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/2/2012 12:39 PM   
jpanhalt


 

Posts: 168
Score: 115
Joined: 10/4/2005
Last Login: 5/9/2013
From: Parma Heights, OH, USA
Status: offline 		Regarding changing forums, I do not spend a lot of time on model-related forums. This thread is about it. However, I occasionally go to RC Groups and its section on DIY electronics. That might be a good fit, as you suggested too.

As an alternative, you might consider Electro-Tech Online. It has several sub-forums, including one for automotive (http://www.electro-tech-online.com/automotive-electronics/). Although it says automotive, it is really for anything with an engine. There are several avid modelers who are active participants. It is vBulletin and quite accepting of different file formats. It's biggest advantage would be on the electronic end of the design, both analog and digital. I don't think the same level of engine expertise exists there as exists here, but if those interested join, then that resource will not be lost. There is almost no advertising on that forum.

John

Hide Signatures

(in reply to jakestew)
       Post #: 947

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/2/2012 4:08 PM  1 votes
Gompy



Posts: 402
Score: 460
Joined: 7/3/2010
Last Login: 6/16/2013
From: Alkmaar, NETHERLANDS
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nyemi


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.




I just test the new HV-board with the 4k7 resistor.

I get with a 6 Volt powersupply 174 Volt this mean 36mJ of energie at 10,000 rpm.

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to nyemi)
       Post #: 948

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/2/2012 7:43 PM   
gr8flyer55


 

Posts: 800
Score: 600
Joined: 11/30/2005
Last Login: 6/19/2013
From: Hamburg, PA, USA
Status: offline 		Now I have lost 2 important postings. I will now wait till the 1840 project gets moved somewhere reliable before I send anything. This used to be a nice forum, not anymore. It took me over 2 hours of editing of pictures, instructions and board designs for my final post on this forum and it's gone. Oh well, if anyone can manage to figure things out from here on their own, good luck to you. I am finished, have a working board with half completed software, not what I would call a successful project.

John


Hide Signatures

(in reply to Gompy)
       Post #: 949

RE: CDI gr8flyer55 - 12/2/2012 9:15 PM  1 votes
jakestew


 

Posts: 144
Score: 180
Joined: 8/13/2011
Last Login: 6/4/2013
From: Moscow, ID, USA
Status: offline 		I just lost a big post too! Again! My fault *again* for not copying it before posting! Every time I do this I try to copy the post right after hitting submit, before it goes to the error message, then kick myself for forgetting!

Anyways, there is a new version B Excel file on my site. Pull-ups are turned off and the polarity is reversed on the kill switch. All I can verify at the moment is that the code compiles.

John, email me some pics and schematics and I'll put them up on the project web site.


> I am finished, have a working board with half completed software, not what I would call a successful project.

v1.0 is done! It works perfectly. We now have two versions for the different boards. I've put out software for two different boards each of which can run on two different processors. That's four softwares, two of which I've fully tested on an actual engine!

This is, by far, the most complete CDI project out there! Shake off the bad vibes from this stupid forum software losing your hard work and give yourself a big pat on the back!


-Jake

_____________________________

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

Hide Signatures

(in reply to gr8flyer55)
       Post #: 950

Page:   <<   < prev  35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 44   next >   >>  
All Forums >> Glow Engines, Gas Engines, Fuel &amp; Mfg Support Forums >> Engine Conversions >> RE: CDI gr8flyer55
Page: <<   < prev  35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 44   next >   >>  




Jump to:


 
Google 



Search | Marketplace | Event Calendar | Local Clubs | Magazine | Product Ratings | New Products | Discussion Forums

Photo Gallery | Instructor Search | Field|Track|Marina Search

Advertisers | Hobby Vendor Resources | Rate Manufacturers | Sign In/Sign Up

SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

RC Universe is a service of Internet Brands, Inc. Copyright © 2001-2013.

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


0.969RCU1