time-nuts@lists.febo.com

Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement

View all threads

Maser 0.7 nsec jumps solved

JP
Jim Palfreyman
Sun, May 22, 2016 1:58 AM

Hi all,

Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different
masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia.

Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have
in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling
only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from
the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's
electrical because moving to another phase did not change things.

These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a metre
or 2 away.

Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather
cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the air
con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished.

So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not
much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts.

Jim Palfreyman

Hi all, Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia. Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's electrical because moving to another phase did not change things. These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a metre or 2 away. Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the air con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished. So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts. Jim Palfreyman
MD
Magnus Danielson
Sun, May 22, 2016 11:43 AM

Jim,

On 05/22/2016 03:58 AM, Jim Palfreyman wrote:

Hi all,

Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different
masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia.

Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have
in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling
only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from
the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's
electrical because moving to another phase did not change things.

These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a metre
or 2 away.

Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather
cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the air
con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished.

So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not
much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts.

Good that you have found the offender, but have you been able to remedy
it by other means than turning the AC off?
I think others H-maser owners would love to know, and potentially the
vendor you have.

Cheers,
Magnus

Jim, On 05/22/2016 03:58 AM, Jim Palfreyman wrote: > Hi all, > > Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different > masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia. > > Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have > in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling > only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from > the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's > electrical because moving to another phase did not change things. > > These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a metre > or 2 away. > > Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather > cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the air > con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished. > > So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not > much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts. Good that you have found the offender, but have you been able to remedy it by other means than turning the AC off? I think others H-maser owners would love to know, and potentially the vendor you have. Cheers, Magnus
BC
Bob Camp
Sun, May 22, 2016 12:01 PM

Hi

That’s a pretty good example for the “why you don’t do your timescale based on
a single brand of gear / single setup” file.

Thanks for sharing!!

Bob

On May 21, 2016, at 9:58 PM, Jim Palfreyman jim77742@gmail.com wrote:

Hi all,

Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different
masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia.

Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have
in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling
only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from
the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's
electrical because moving to another phase did not change things.

These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a metre
or 2 away.

Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather
cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the air
con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished.

So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not
much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts.

Jim Palfreyman


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi That’s a pretty good example for the “why you don’t do your timescale based on a single brand of gear / single setup” file. Thanks for sharing!! Bob > On May 21, 2016, at 9:58 PM, Jim Palfreyman <jim77742@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different > masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia. > > Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have > in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling > only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from > the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's > electrical because moving to another phase did not change things. > > These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a metre > or 2 away. > > Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather > cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the air > con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished. > > So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not > much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts. > > > Jim Palfreyman > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.
TV
Tom Van Baak
Sun, May 22, 2016 1:09 PM

Hi Jim,

Thanks much for the update. I can see how this was a pain to track down.

For those that don't remember the issue, the archive starts here:
https://www.febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts/2015-December/094904.html
And note that 1 / 0.704 ns = 1420 MHz, the frequency of a H-maser.

So it's either electrical or magnetic or seismic, yes? Does it happen every time the HVAC turns on/off? Can you run a high-resolution phase comparator during the event to find the time constant of the phase jump / cycle slip? 1 kHz sample rate should be more than enough. That may help narrow down which circuit is at fault.

/tvb

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Palfreyman" jim77742@gmail.com
To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement" time-nuts@febo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 6:58 PM
Subject: [time-nuts] Maser 0.7 nsec jumps solved

Hi all,

Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different
masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia.

Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have
in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling
only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from
the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's
electrical because moving to another phase did not change things.

These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a metre
or 2 away.

Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather
cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the air
con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished.

So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not
much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts.

Jim Palfreyman


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi Jim, Thanks much for the update. I can see how this was a pain to track down. For those that don't remember the issue, the archive starts here: https://www.febo.com/pipermail/time-nuts/2015-December/094904.html And note that 1 / 0.704 ns = 1420 MHz, the frequency of a H-maser. So it's either electrical or magnetic or seismic, yes? Does it happen every time the HVAC turns on/off? Can you run a high-resolution phase comparator during the event to find the time constant of the phase jump / cycle slip? 1 kHz sample rate should be more than enough. That may help narrow down which circuit is at fault. /tvb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Palfreyman" <jim77742@gmail.com> To: "Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement" <time-nuts@febo.com> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 6:58 PM Subject: [time-nuts] Maser 0.7 nsec jumps solved > Hi all, > > Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different > masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia. > > Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have > in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling > only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from > the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's > electrical because moving to another phase did not change things. > > These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a metre > or 2 away. > > Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather > cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the air > con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished. > > So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not > much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts. > > > Jim Palfreyman > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.
TS
Tim Shoppa
Sun, May 22, 2016 2:44 PM

Interesting math: Hydrogen maser frequency standards use the 1420 MHz line.

Period of 1420MHz is 0.7 ns.

It's not so clear to me that the maser itself is being disrupted, it seems
more likely the external noise is inducing an extra count or causing a
count to be slipped.

A different Australian observatory 1400 MHz RFI problem:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02165 "Subsequent tests revealed that a peryton
can be generated at 1.4 GHz when a microwave oven door is opened
prematurely and the telescope is at an appropriate relative angle. Radio
emission escaping from microwave ovens during the magnetron shut-down phase
neatly explain all of the observed properties of the peryton signals."

Tim N3QE

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Magnus Danielson <
magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote:

Jim,

On 05/22/2016 03:58 AM, Jim Palfreyman wrote:

Hi all,

Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different
masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia.

Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have
in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling
only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from
the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's
electrical because moving to another phase did not change things.

These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a
metre
or 2 away.

Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather
cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the
air
con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished.

So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not
much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts.

Good that you have found the offender, but have you been able to remedy it
by other means than turning the AC off?
I think others H-maser owners would love to know, and potentially the
vendor you have.

Cheers,
Magnus


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Interesting math: Hydrogen maser frequency standards use the 1420 MHz line. Period of 1420MHz is 0.7 ns. It's not so clear to me that the maser itself is being disrupted, it seems more likely the external noise is inducing an extra count or causing a count to be slipped. A different Australian observatory 1400 MHz RFI problem: http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02165 "Subsequent tests revealed that a peryton can be generated at 1.4 GHz when a microwave oven door is opened prematurely and the telescope is at an appropriate relative angle. Radio emission escaping from microwave ovens during the magnetron shut-down phase neatly explain all of the observed properties of the peryton signals." Tim N3QE On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Magnus Danielson < magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: > Jim, > > On 05/22/2016 03:58 AM, Jim Palfreyman wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different >> masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia. >> >> Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have >> in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling >> only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from >> the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's >> electrical because moving to another phase did not change things. >> >> These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a >> metre >> or 2 away. >> >> Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather >> cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the >> air >> con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished. >> >> So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not >> much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts. >> > > Good that you have found the offender, but have you been able to remedy it > by other means than turning the AC off? > I think others H-maser owners would love to know, and potentially the > vendor you have. > > Cheers, > Magnus > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >
JP
Jim Palfreyman
Mon, May 23, 2016 3:15 AM

As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only
switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current,
and hopefully the magnetic impulse.

If this doesn't work, then a better model of air conditioner might have to
be installed. These ones do come on with a big "thump".

Jim Palfreyman

On 22 May 2016 at 21:43, Magnus Danielson magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org
wrote:

Jim,

On 05/22/2016 03:58 AM, Jim Palfreyman wrote:

Hi all,

Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different
masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia.

Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have
in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling
only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from
the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's
electrical because moving to another phase did not change things.

These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a
metre
or 2 away.

Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather
cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the
air
con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished.

So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not
much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts.

Good that you have found the offender, but have you been able to remedy it
by other means than turning the AC off?
I think others H-maser owners would love to know, and potentially the
vendor you have.

Cheers,
Magnus


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current, and hopefully the magnetic impulse. If this doesn't work, then a better model of air conditioner might have to be installed. These ones do come on with a big "thump". Jim Palfreyman On 22 May 2016 at 21:43, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: > Jim, > > On 05/22/2016 03:58 AM, Jim Palfreyman wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Awhile back I posted about some mysterious 0.7 ns jumps in three different >> masers (of the same brand) at three different locations around Australia. >> >> Well we think we've found the problem. All three locations also have >> in-room air conditioners of the same brand. These are used for cooling >> only. When these units turn on, we think they induce a magnetic field from >> the inrush current that briefly disrupts the maser. We don't think it's >> electrical because moving to another phase did not change things. >> >> These air conditioners are all quite close to the masers. Typically a >> metre >> or 2 away. >> >> Much was done to discover this, but the clincher was that when the weather >> cooled enough at the southern most location (Hobart), we turned off the >> air >> con (only heating was needed) and the problem vanished. >> >> So there's a lesson here for all maser owners. The jump of 0.7 nsec is not >> much, but it's huge for VLBI and for time-nuts. >> > > Good that you have found the offender, but have you been able to remedy it > by other means than turning the AC off? > I think others H-maser owners would love to know, and potentially the > vendor you have. > > Cheers, > Magnus > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >
PK
Poul-Henning Kamp
Mon, May 23, 2016 6:44 AM

As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only
switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current,
and hopefully the magnetic impulse.

If that is not enough, consider a small VFD drive, and ramp up voltage+frequency
over 10 seconds.  It's slightly more intrusive, as you will need to remove the
starting capacitor from the motor to install the VFD.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp      | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG        | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer      | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

-------- In message <CALH-g5b0C+aBz53MUM7bkJ00441AvNxwFLc2RgjgPj=k1FPOKA@mail.gmail.com>, Jim Palfr eyman writes: >As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only >switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current, >and hopefully the magnetic impulse. If that is not enough, consider a small VFD drive, and ramp up voltage+frequency over 10 seconds. It's slightly more intrusive, as you will need to remove the starting capacitor from the motor to install the VFD. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
A
Andy
Tue, May 24, 2016 2:24 AM

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Jim Palfreyman jim77742@gmail.com wrote:

As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only

switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current,
and hopefully the magnetic impulse.

If the load being switched on is inductive, it would be better to switch
the AC waveform at the voltage peaks, not at 0V.  This might seem
counter-intuitive, but it's real.  Switching on at the 0V crossing may
maximize the current pulse through the magnetics.

OTOH, if the origin of the impulse is mechanical in nature, neither remedy
may help.

Regards,
Andy

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Jim Palfreyman <jim77742@gmail.com> wrote: As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only > switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current, > and hopefully the magnetic impulse. > If the load being switched on is inductive, it would be better to switch the AC waveform at the voltage peaks, not at 0V. This might seem counter-intuitive, but it's real. Switching on at the 0V crossing may maximize the current pulse through the magnetics. OTOH, if the origin of the impulse is mechanical in nature, neither remedy may help. Regards, Andy
GH
Gerhard Hoffmann
Tue, May 24, 2016 9:11 AM

Am 23.05.2016 um 05:15 schrieb Jim Palfreyman:

As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only
switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current,
and hopefully the magnetic impulse.

In the context of transformers and motors, switching on at 0V is
actually the worst point in time.

< https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einschalten_des_Transformators > (German)

<
http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/practical-considerations-of-transformer-inrush-current

regards, Gerhard

Am 23.05.2016 um 05:15 schrieb Jim Palfreyman: > As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only > switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current, > and hopefully the magnetic impulse. > > In the context of transformers and motors, switching on at 0V is actually the worst point in time. < https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einschalten_des_Transformators > (German) < http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/practical-considerations-of-transformer-inrush-current > regards, Gerhard
PK
Poul-Henning Kamp
Tue, May 24, 2016 10:55 AM

In message 57441ACA.8070609@arcor.de, Gerhard Hoffmann writes:

Am 23.05.2016 um 05:15 schrieb Jim Palfreyman:

As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only
switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current,
and hopefully the magnetic impulse.

In the context of transformers and motors, switching on at 0V is
actually the worst point in time.

Well...

The motor is almost certainly an "Squirrel-cage" induction motor and
that means it is three phase, although one of the phases is probably
created with a "starting capacitor".

So which of the three phases is going to be the lucky one that
switches at maximum voltage, or are you going to switch the phases
on sequentially ?

A 4kW Variable Frequency Drive costs less than $1k and allows you
to control both the voltage/time and the frequency/time both
during startup and during rundown.

I wouldn't bother fuzzing around with hacks - I'd just go for the
known-to-work solution.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp      | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG        | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer      | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

-------- In message <57441ACA.8070609@arcor.de>, Gerhard Hoffmann writes: >Am 23.05.2016 um 05:15 schrieb Jim Palfreyman: >> As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only >> switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current, >> and hopefully the magnetic impulse. >> >> >In the context of transformers and motors, switching on at 0V is >actually the worst point in time. Well... The motor is almost certainly an "Squirrel-cage" induction motor and that means it is three phase, although one of the phases is probably created with a "starting capacitor". So which of the three phases is going to be the lucky one that switches at maximum voltage, or are you going to switch the phases on sequentially ? A 4kW Variable Frequency Drive costs less than $1k and allows you to control *both* the voltage/time and the frequency/time *both* during startup and during rundown. I wouldn't bother fuzzing around with hacks - I'd just go for the known-to-work solution. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
MM
Mike Monett
Wed, May 25, 2016 4:59 PM

Am 23.05.2016 um 05:15 schrieb Jim Palfreyman:

As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only
switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current,
and hopefully the magnetic impulse.

In the context of transformers and motors, switching on at 0V is
actually the worst point in time.

< https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einschalten_des_Transformators > (German)

<
http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/practical-considerations-of-transformer-inrush-current

regards, Gerhard

LTspice shows  switching  at 0V is the best point in  time.  With no
flux in the magnetics, the inrush current is limited by  the circuit
resistance. The magnitude is given by Ohm's law: I = E / R.

Switching at 0V,

I = E / R
= 0 / R
= 0A

However, switching  at  the peak of the voltage can  give  very high
inrush currents. You can verify this with LTspice. The  schematic is
at

http://www.pst.netii.net/misc/48b961a6.gif

There are two circuits. They are identical except the second has the
applied voltage  shifted  by 90 degrees. The  inductors  have  1 Ohm
series resistance (not shown.)

The waveforms are at

http://www.pst.netii.net/misc/48b96217.gif

The currents are IL1 and IL2.

Switching at  0V, IL1 starts at zero. It rises to a  peak  of 900mA,
then falls  back  to  zero. The DC offset takes 3  or  4  seconds to
decay, then the current is stable at zero +/- 450mA.

Switching at the peak, IL2 is

I = E / R
= 169.7 / 1
= 169.7A

It takes over twice as long for the starting surge to decay. I could
still detect it past 8 seconds.

This analysis shows switching at 0V is the best option.

If you wish to do further analysis, the LTspice .ASC and  .PLT files
are at

http://www.pst.netii.net/misc/48b96262.zip

The wikipedia  article  states "To avoid magnetic  inrush,  only for
transformers with  an air gap in the core, the inductive  load needs
to be synchronously connected near a supply voltage peak."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current

Clearly, from  the  above LTspice waveforms, switching  at  the peak
gives the  highest inrush surge that is possible to obtain.  It also
takes the longest time to decay.

MRM

>Am 23.05.2016 um 05:15 schrieb Jim Palfreyman: >> As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that only >> switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush current, >> and hopefully the magnetic impulse. > >In the context of transformers and motors, switching on at 0V is >actually the worst point in time. > >< https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einschalten_des_Transformators > (German) > >< >http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/practical-considerations-of-transformer-inrush-current > > > >regards, Gerhard LTspice shows switching at 0V is the best point in time. With no flux in the magnetics, the inrush current is limited by the circuit resistance. The magnitude is given by Ohm's law: I = E / R. Switching at 0V, I = E / R = 0 / R = 0A However, switching at the peak of the voltage can give very high inrush currents. You can verify this with LTspice. The schematic is at http://www.pst.netii.net/misc/48b961a6.gif There are two circuits. They are identical except the second has the applied voltage shifted by 90 degrees. The inductors have 1 Ohm series resistance (not shown.) The waveforms are at http://www.pst.netii.net/misc/48b96217.gif The currents are IL1 and IL2. Switching at 0V, IL1 starts at zero. It rises to a peak of 900mA, then falls back to zero. The DC offset takes 3 or 4 seconds to decay, then the current is stable at zero +/- 450mA. Switching at the peak, IL2 is I = E / R = 169.7 / 1 = 169.7A It takes over twice as long for the starting surge to decay. I could still detect it past 8 seconds. This analysis shows switching at 0V is the best option. If you wish to do further analysis, the LTspice .ASC and .PLT files are at http://www.pst.netii.net/misc/48b96262.zip The wikipedia article states "To avoid magnetic inrush, only for transformers with an air gap in the core, the inductive load needs to be synchronously connected near a supply voltage peak." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inrush_current Clearly, from the above LTspice waveforms, switching at the peak gives the highest inrush surge that is possible to obtain. It also takes the longest time to decay. MRM
PK
Poul-Henning Kamp
Wed, May 25, 2016 5:05 PM

In message b222ff$74b01p@out.teksavvy.com, "Mike Monett" writes:

The wikipedia  article  states "To avoid magnetic  inrush,  only for
transformers with  an air gap in the core, the inductive  load needs
to be synchronously connected near a supply voltage peak."

You ought to have stopped and wondered at the "with an air gap in the core"
and pondered if you SPICE models use of an ideal inductor was appropriate
for something as electrically complex as an induction motor...

--
Poul-Henning Kamp      | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG        | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer      | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

-------- In message <b222ff$74b01p@out.teksavvy.com>, "Mike Monett" writes: >The wikipedia article states "To avoid magnetic inrush, only for >transformers with an air gap in the core, the inductive load needs >to be synchronously connected near a supply voltage peak." You ought to have stopped and wondered at the "with an air gap in the core" and pondered if you SPICE models use of an ideal inductor was appropriate for something as electrically complex as an induction motor... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
OE
Orin Eman
Wed, May 25, 2016 7:22 PM

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Mike Monett timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com
wrote:

Am 23.05.2016 um 05:15 schrieb Jim Palfreyman:

As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that

only

switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush

current,

and hopefully the magnetic impulse.

In the context of transformers and motors, switching on at 0V is
actually the worst point in time.

< https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einschalten_des_Transformators > (German)

<

regards, Gerhard

LTspice shows  switching  at 0V is the best point in  time.  With no
flux in the magnetics, the inrush current is limited by  the circuit
resistance. The magnitude is given by Ohm's law: I = E / R.

Switching at 0V,

I = E / R
= 0 / R
= 0A

However, switching  at  the peak of the voltage can  give  very high
inrush currents. You can verify this with LTspice. The  schematic is
at

http://www.pst.netii.net/misc/48b961a6.gif

There are two circuits. They are identical except the second has the
applied voltage  shifted  by 90 degrees. The  inductors  have  1 Ohm
series resistance (not shown.)

The waveforms are at

http://www.pst.netii.net/misc/48b96217.gif

The currents are IL1 and IL2.

Switching at  0V, IL1 starts at zero. It rises to a  peak  of 900mA,
then falls  back  to  zero. The DC offset takes 3  or  4  seconds to
decay, then the current is stable at zero +/- 450mA.

Switching at the peak, IL2 is

I = E / R
= 169.7 / 1
= 169.7A

Er, no.  It's an RL circuit for which:

V(R) = E(1-e^(-(R/L)t)

so I(R) = I(L) = (E/R)(1-e^(-(R/L)t)

for t close to zero where E is essentially constant, I is going to rise
with the time constant of R/L which for a 1H inductor and 1 ohm resistance
is 1 second.

I suggest running the simulation with a pulse voltage source, Tdelay 1ms,
period 1s, Ton 0.5s (Period and Ton are fairly arbitrary, the Tdelay is
important).

You only need to run the simulation for a few ms.  You will get a very
different result.

Now as Poul-Henning Kamp suggested, an induction motor is anything but an
ideal inductor...

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Mike Monett <timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com> wrote: > >Am 23.05.2016 um 05:15 schrieb Jim Palfreyman: > >> As far as a remedy goes we are going to try a solid state relay that > only > >> switches on at 0V in the AC waveform. This should slow the inrush > current, > >> and hopefully the magnetic impulse. > > > >In the context of transformers and motors, switching on at 0V is > >actually the worst point in time. > > > >< https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einschalten_des_Transformators > (German) > > > >< > > > http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/practical-considerations-of-transformer-inrush-current > > > > > > >regards, Gerhard > > LTspice shows switching at 0V is the best point in time. With no > flux in the magnetics, the inrush current is limited by the circuit > resistance. The magnitude is given by Ohm's law: I = E / R. > > Switching at 0V, > > I = E / R > = 0 / R > = 0A > > However, switching at the peak of the voltage can give very high > inrush currents. You can verify this with LTspice. The schematic is > at > > http://www.pst.netii.net/misc/48b961a6.gif > > There are two circuits. They are identical except the second has the > applied voltage shifted by 90 degrees. The inductors have 1 Ohm > series resistance (not shown.) > > The waveforms are at > > http://www.pst.netii.net/misc/48b96217.gif > > The currents are IL1 and IL2. > > Switching at 0V, IL1 starts at zero. It rises to a peak of 900mA, > then falls back to zero. The DC offset takes 3 or 4 seconds to > decay, then the current is stable at zero +/- 450mA. > > Switching at the peak, IL2 is > > I = E / R > = 169.7 / 1 > = 169.7A > Er, no. It's an RL circuit for which: V(R) = E(1-e^(-(R/L)t) so I(R) = I(L) = (E/R)(1-e^(-(R/L)t) for t close to zero where E is essentially constant, I is going to rise with the time constant of R/L which for a 1H inductor and 1 ohm resistance is 1 second. I suggest running the simulation with a pulse voltage source, Tdelay 1ms, period 1s, Ton 0.5s (Period and Ton are fairly arbitrary, the Tdelay is important). You only need to run the simulation for a few ms. You will get a very different result. Now as Poul-Henning Kamp suggested, an induction motor is anything but an ideal inductor...
GH
Gerhard Hoffmann
Wed, May 25, 2016 11:25 PM

Am 25.05.2016 um 18:59 schrieb Mike Monett:

This analysis shows switching at 0V is the best option.

No, it doesn't. :-)

First, the single inductor does not represent a transformer; the second
inductor
and the coupling declaration ( style: K1 L1 L2 0.99 or so) and the load are
missing.

The most important thing is that the Inductor is nonlinear which is not
represented in the model. If there has remained some magnetism in
the core from previous operation, the transformer won't be able to further
increase the magnetism as needed to induce an opposing voltage
in the primary winding. When the core saturates, the inductance
collapses and leaves only the copper resistance to limit the current.

The catastrophe builds up in the first 90 degrees of the source wave,
not right at the start.

In the simulation, the current at t=0 is at its maximum already when at
t=0 the input voltage is just switched on. You'd expect that from a
capacitor, never from an inductor.

The reason is that the simulation does not really start at t=0, but
much earlier. The simulator computes the conductance matrix,
applies the initial sources and waits until everything has calmed down.
That may require repeated recalculation of the matrix to respect
nonlinearities.

Your circuit must contain hidden resistors btw, otherwise the computation
of the initial condition at "t<=0" would result in numeric overflow
as required by an assumed initial DC voltage across an inductor, before
the transient simulation.

One can enforce initial conditions with statements like  .IC v(my_node) = 0V

regards, Gerhard

BTW I've got the first 20 pcs. of the VCXO carrier / voltage regulator /
lock to reference / squarer / iso amp or frequency doubler / 1pps board.
That won't be soldering for beginners or jittery hands.  :-)

Am 25.05.2016 um 18:59 schrieb Mike Monett: > > This analysis shows switching at 0V is the best option. > No, it doesn't. :-) First, the single inductor does not represent a transformer; the second inductor and the coupling declaration ( style: K1 L1 L2 0.99 or so) and the load are missing. The most important thing is that the Inductor is nonlinear which is not represented in the model. If there has remained some magnetism in the core from previous operation, the transformer won't be able to further increase the magnetism as needed to induce an opposing voltage in the primary winding. When the core saturates, the inductance collapses and leaves only the copper resistance to limit the current. The catastrophe builds up in the first 90 degrees of the source wave, not right at the start. In the simulation, the current at t=0 is at its maximum already when at t=0 the input voltage is just switched on. You'd expect that from a capacitor, never from an inductor. The reason is that the simulation does not really start at t=0, but much earlier. The simulator computes the conductance matrix, applies the initial sources and waits until everything has calmed down. That may require repeated recalculation of the matrix to respect nonlinearities. Your circuit must contain hidden resistors btw, otherwise the computation of the initial condition at "t<=0" would result in numeric overflow as required by an assumed initial DC voltage across an inductor, before the transient simulation. One can enforce initial conditions with statements like .IC v(my_node) = 0V regards, Gerhard BTW I've got the first 20 pcs. of the VCXO carrier / voltage regulator / lock to reference / squarer / iso amp or frequency doubler / 1pps board. That won't be soldering for beginners or jittery hands. :-)
A
Andy
Thu, May 26, 2016 3:13 AM

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Monett timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com
wrote:

LTspice shows  switching  at 0V is the best point in  time.  ...

Bzzzt!  Your simulation is seriously flawed, and your conclusions are
wrong.  What you forgot, or may not have realized, is that SPICE's initial
transient solution is obtained by having the signal sources already turned
on (at the moment of the Big Bang) and set to their initial value, so the
current through L2 is limited by DC conditions.  That is not anything close
to switching the driving voltages on.  It is having one waveform sit at
+169.7V DC for a very long time ('forever'), and then letting it follow a
cosine wave.

Re-run the simulation with "UIC" added to the .tran statement (.tran 50ms
uic) and see what it shows.  Using UIC forces the initial voltage to be 0V
at time=0, the start of the simulation.  That's like having the switch
initially open.

Or if you don't like that, multiply the sources by a PWL waveform that
starts both voltages at 0V and then switches them on, a few milliseconds
into the simulation, with the appropriate phase.

Or use an actual switch.  LTspice has a switch element you could use.

I guarantee you, the case with the voltage switching on at the 0V point in
the voltage waveform, causes greater currents.

The smaller surge current happens when the source is connected at the
moment when the current i(t) would be 0A if it were a continuous waveform.
For an inductive load, this happens when the voltage v(t) would be +/- peak
(or near peak, for a real load which has both inductance and a little
resistance).  This condition also results in no surge, thus no L/R decay.

All of this might not be relevant to a mechanical system, where surge
current is caused by rotational inertia, rather than anything electrical.

Regards,
Andy

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Monett <timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com> wrote: LTspice shows switching at 0V is the best point in time. ... Bzzzt! Your simulation is seriously flawed, and your conclusions are wrong. What you forgot, or may not have realized, is that SPICE's initial transient solution is obtained by having the signal sources already turned on (at the moment of the Big Bang) and set to their initial value, so the current through L2 is limited by DC conditions. That is not anything close to switching the driving voltages on. It is having one waveform sit at +169.7V DC for a very long time ('forever'), and then letting it follow a cosine wave. Re-run the simulation with "UIC" added to the .tran statement (.tran 50ms uic) and see what it shows. Using UIC forces the initial voltage to be 0V at time=0, the start of the simulation. That's like having the switch initially open. Or if you don't like that, multiply the sources by a PWL waveform that starts both voltages at 0V and then switches them on, a few milliseconds into the simulation, with the appropriate phase. Or use an actual switch. LTspice has a switch element you could use. I guarantee you, the case with the voltage switching on at the 0V point in the voltage waveform, causes greater currents. The smaller surge current happens when the source is connected at the moment when the current i(t) would be 0A if it were a continuous waveform. For an inductive load, this happens when the voltage v(t) would be +/- peak (or near peak, for a real load which has both inductance and a little resistance). This condition also results in no surge, thus no L/R decay. All of this might not be relevant to a mechanical system, where surge current is caused by rotational inertia, rather than anything electrical. Regards, Andy
JP
Jim Palfreyman
Fri, Jun 3, 2016 5:00 AM

Hi All,

Thanks so much for your input and thoughts. It has really proved helpful
here at the observatory.

As it turned out we easily obtained a zero-crossing solid state relay so we
thought we'd try it.

And, drumroll......

It made things so much terribly worse than ever before. (As predicted by
many of you above.)

We are going to try a SSR that switches at the peak - but we need to order
one. So stay tuned on those results.

There is of course the "move the bloody thing far away from the maser"
solution which could end up being a serious option. These air conditioning
units are small and cheap (window-type), so we are trying to find the
cheapest solution - and if that ends up being some ducting - so be it!

Jim Palfreyman

On 26 May 2016 at 13:13, Andy AI.egrps+tn@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Monett <timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com

wrote:

LTspice shows  switching  at 0V is the best point in  time.  ...

Bzzzt!  Your simulation is seriously flawed, and your conclusions are
wrong.  What you forgot, or may not have realized, is that SPICE's initial
transient solution is obtained by having the signal sources already turned
on (at the moment of the Big Bang) and set to their initial value, so the
current through L2 is limited by DC conditions.  That is not anything close
to switching the driving voltages on.  It is having one waveform sit at
+169.7V DC for a very long time ('forever'), and then letting it follow a
cosine wave.

Re-run the simulation with "UIC" added to the .tran statement (.tran 50ms
uic) and see what it shows.  Using UIC forces the initial voltage to be 0V
at time=0, the start of the simulation.  That's like having the switch
initially open.

Or if you don't like that, multiply the sources by a PWL waveform that
starts both voltages at 0V and then switches them on, a few milliseconds
into the simulation, with the appropriate phase.

Or use an actual switch.  LTspice has a switch element you could use.

I guarantee you, the case with the voltage switching on at the 0V point in
the voltage waveform, causes greater currents.

The smaller surge current happens when the source is connected at the
moment when the current i(t) would be 0A if it were a continuous waveform.
For an inductive load, this happens when the voltage v(t) would be +/- peak
(or near peak, for a real load which has both inductance and a little
resistance).  This condition also results in no surge, thus no L/R decay.

All of this might not be relevant to a mechanical system, where surge
current is caused by rotational inertia, rather than anything electrical.

Regards,
Andy


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hi All, Thanks so much for your input and thoughts. It has really proved helpful here at the observatory. As it turned out we easily obtained a zero-crossing solid state relay so we thought we'd try it. And, drumroll...... It made things so much terribly *worse* than ever before. (As predicted by many of you above.) We are going to try a SSR that switches at the peak - but we need to order one. So stay tuned on those results. There is of course the "move the bloody thing far away from the maser" solution which could end up being a serious option. These air conditioning units are small and cheap (window-type), so we are trying to find the cheapest solution - and if that ends up being some ducting - so be it! Jim Palfreyman On 26 May 2016 at 13:13, Andy <AI.egrps+tn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Monett <timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com > > > wrote: > > LTspice shows switching at 0V is the best point in time. ... > > > > Bzzzt! Your simulation is seriously flawed, and your conclusions are > wrong. What you forgot, or may not have realized, is that SPICE's initial > transient solution is obtained by having the signal sources already turned > on (at the moment of the Big Bang) and set to their initial value, so the > current through L2 is limited by DC conditions. That is not anything close > to switching the driving voltages on. It is having one waveform sit at > +169.7V DC for a very long time ('forever'), and then letting it follow a > cosine wave. > > Re-run the simulation with "UIC" added to the .tran statement (.tran 50ms > uic) and see what it shows. Using UIC forces the initial voltage to be 0V > at time=0, the start of the simulation. That's like having the switch > initially open. > > Or if you don't like that, multiply the sources by a PWL waveform that > starts both voltages at 0V and then switches them on, a few milliseconds > into the simulation, with the appropriate phase. > > Or use an actual switch. LTspice has a switch element you could use. > > I guarantee you, the case with the voltage switching on at the 0V point in > the voltage waveform, causes greater currents. > > The smaller surge current happens when the source is connected at the > moment when the current i(t) would be 0A if it were a continuous waveform. > For an inductive load, this happens when the voltage v(t) would be +/- peak > (or near peak, for a real load which has both inductance and a little > resistance). This condition also results in no surge, thus no L/R decay. > > All of this might not be relevant to a mechanical system, where surge > current is caused by rotational inertia, rather than anything electrical. > > Regards, > Andy > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >
PS
paul swed
Fri, Jun 3, 2016 1:24 PM

Jim,
My head is precisely in the get it away from the unit approach.
Did not mention it for the following reason.
Its well understood and for time-nut boring. Its more fun to figure out
peak currents and such.
But I tend to fall into the get it done camp and move on.
That doesn't mean its a simple answer. Flex duct is bad. So only use it in
the last few feet. You want low resistance hard duct.
Then the fun of the return feed. Often overlooked and poorly considered.
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Jim Palfreyman jim77742@gmail.com wrote:

Hi All,

Thanks so much for your input and thoughts. It has really proved helpful
here at the observatory.

As it turned out we easily obtained a zero-crossing solid state relay so we
thought we'd try it.

And, drumroll......

It made things so much terribly worse than ever before. (As predicted by
many of you above.)

We are going to try a SSR that switches at the peak - but we need to order
one. So stay tuned on those results.

There is of course the "move the bloody thing far away from the maser"
solution which could end up being a serious option. These air conditioning
units are small and cheap (window-type), so we are trying to find the
cheapest solution - and if that ends up being some ducting - so be it!

Jim Palfreyman

On 26 May 2016 at 13:13, Andy AI.egrps+tn@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Monett <

wrote:

LTspice shows  switching  at 0V is the best point in  time.  ...

Bzzzt!  Your simulation is seriously flawed, and your conclusions are
wrong.  What you forgot, or may not have realized, is that SPICE's

initial

transient solution is obtained by having the signal sources already

turned

on (at the moment of the Big Bang) and set to their initial value, so the
current through L2 is limited by DC conditions.  That is not anything

close

to switching the driving voltages on.  It is having one waveform sit at
+169.7V DC for a very long time ('forever'), and then letting it follow a
cosine wave.

Re-run the simulation with "UIC" added to the .tran statement (.tran 50ms
uic) and see what it shows.  Using UIC forces the initial voltage to be

0V

at time=0, the start of the simulation.  That's like having the switch
initially open.

Or if you don't like that, multiply the sources by a PWL waveform that
starts both voltages at 0V and then switches them on, a few milliseconds
into the simulation, with the appropriate phase.

Or use an actual switch.  LTspice has a switch element you could use.

I guarantee you, the case with the voltage switching on at the 0V point

in

the voltage waveform, causes greater currents.

The smaller surge current happens when the source is connected at the
moment when the current i(t) would be 0A if it were a continuous

waveform.

For an inductive load, this happens when the voltage v(t) would be +/-

peak

(or near peak, for a real load which has both inductance and a little
resistance).  This condition also results in no surge, thus no L/R decay.

All of this might not be relevant to a mechanical system, where surge
current is caused by rotational inertia, rather than anything electrical.

Regards,
Andy


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Jim, My head is precisely in the get it away from the unit approach. Did not mention it for the following reason. Its well understood and for time-nut boring. Its more fun to figure out peak currents and such. But I tend to fall into the get it done camp and move on. That doesn't mean its a simple answer. Flex duct is bad. So only use it in the last few feet. You want low resistance hard duct. Then the fun of the return feed. Often overlooked and poorly considered. Regards Paul WB8TSL On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Jim Palfreyman <jim77742@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Thanks so much for your input and thoughts. It has really proved helpful > here at the observatory. > > As it turned out we easily obtained a zero-crossing solid state relay so we > thought we'd try it. > > And, drumroll...... > > > > It made things so much terribly *worse* than ever before. (As predicted by > many of you above.) > > We are going to try a SSR that switches at the peak - but we need to order > one. So stay tuned on those results. > > There is of course the "move the bloody thing far away from the maser" > solution which could end up being a serious option. These air conditioning > units are small and cheap (window-type), so we are trying to find the > cheapest solution - and if that ends up being some ducting - so be it! > > > Jim Palfreyman > > > > On 26 May 2016 at 13:13, Andy <AI.egrps+tn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Monett < > timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > LTspice shows switching at 0V is the best point in time. ... > > > > > > > > Bzzzt! Your simulation is seriously flawed, and your conclusions are > > wrong. What you forgot, or may not have realized, is that SPICE's > initial > > transient solution is obtained by having the signal sources already > turned > > on (at the moment of the Big Bang) and set to their initial value, so the > > current through L2 is limited by DC conditions. That is not anything > close > > to switching the driving voltages on. It is having one waveform sit at > > +169.7V DC for a very long time ('forever'), and then letting it follow a > > cosine wave. > > > > Re-run the simulation with "UIC" added to the .tran statement (.tran 50ms > > uic) and see what it shows. Using UIC forces the initial voltage to be > 0V > > at time=0, the start of the simulation. That's like having the switch > > initially open. > > > > Or if you don't like that, multiply the sources by a PWL waveform that > > starts both voltages at 0V and then switches them on, a few milliseconds > > into the simulation, with the appropriate phase. > > > > Or use an actual switch. LTspice has a switch element you could use. > > > > I guarantee you, the case with the voltage switching on at the 0V point > in > > the voltage waveform, causes greater currents. > > > > The smaller surge current happens when the source is connected at the > > moment when the current i(t) would be 0A if it were a continuous > waveform. > > For an inductive load, this happens when the voltage v(t) would be +/- > peak > > (or near peak, for a real load which has both inductance and a little > > resistance). This condition also results in no surge, thus no L/R decay. > > > > All of this might not be relevant to a mechanical system, where surge > > current is caused by rotational inertia, rather than anything electrical. > > > > Regards, > > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > > To unsubscribe, go to > > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > > and follow the instructions there. > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >
PS
paul swed
Fri, Jun 3, 2016 1:26 PM

One more thought.
Is the aircon on the same power phase as the maser?
Are you split phase in the facility at least.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:24 AM, paul swed paulswedb@gmail.com wrote:

Jim,
My head is precisely in the get it away from the unit approach.
Did not mention it for the following reason.
Its well understood and for time-nut boring. Its more fun to figure out
peak currents and such.
But I tend to fall into the get it done camp and move on.
That doesn't mean its a simple answer. Flex duct is bad. So only use it in
the last few feet. You want low resistance hard duct.
Then the fun of the return feed. Often overlooked and poorly considered.
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Jim Palfreyman jim77742@gmail.com wrote:

Hi All,

Thanks so much for your input and thoughts. It has really proved helpful
here at the observatory.

As it turned out we easily obtained a zero-crossing solid state relay so
we
thought we'd try it.

And, drumroll......

It made things so much terribly worse than ever before. (As predicted by
many of you above.)

We are going to try a SSR that switches at the peak - but we need to order
one. So stay tuned on those results.

There is of course the "move the bloody thing far away from the maser"
solution which could end up being a serious option. These air conditioning
units are small and cheap (window-type), so we are trying to find the
cheapest solution - and if that ends up being some ducting - so be it!

Jim Palfreyman

On 26 May 2016 at 13:13, Andy AI.egrps+tn@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Monett <

wrote:

LTspice shows  switching  at 0V is the best point in  time.  ...

Bzzzt!  Your simulation is seriously flawed, and your conclusions are
wrong.  What you forgot, or may not have realized, is that SPICE's

initial

transient solution is obtained by having the signal sources already

turned

on (at the moment of the Big Bang) and set to their initial value, so

the

current through L2 is limited by DC conditions.  That is not anything

close

to switching the driving voltages on.  It is having one waveform sit at
+169.7V DC for a very long time ('forever'), and then letting it follow

a

cosine wave.

Re-run the simulation with "UIC" added to the .tran statement (.tran

50ms

uic) and see what it shows.  Using UIC forces the initial voltage to be

0V

at time=0, the start of the simulation.  That's like having the switch
initially open.

Or if you don't like that, multiply the sources by a PWL waveform that
starts both voltages at 0V and then switches them on, a few milliseconds
into the simulation, with the appropriate phase.

Or use an actual switch.  LTspice has a switch element you could use.

I guarantee you, the case with the voltage switching on at the 0V point

in

the voltage waveform, causes greater currents.

The smaller surge current happens when the source is connected at the
moment when the current i(t) would be 0A if it were a continuous

waveform.

For an inductive load, this happens when the voltage v(t) would be +/-

peak

(or near peak, for a real load which has both inductance and a little
resistance).  This condition also results in no surge, thus no L/R

decay.

All of this might not be relevant to a mechanical system, where surge
current is caused by rotational inertia, rather than anything

electrical.

Regards,
Andy


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

One more thought. Is the aircon on the same power phase as the maser? Are you split phase in the facility at least. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:24 AM, paul swed <paulswedb@gmail.com> wrote: > Jim, > My head is precisely in the get it away from the unit approach. > Did not mention it for the following reason. > Its well understood and for time-nut boring. Its more fun to figure out > peak currents and such. > But I tend to fall into the get it done camp and move on. > That doesn't mean its a simple answer. Flex duct is bad. So only use it in > the last few feet. You want low resistance hard duct. > Then the fun of the return feed. Often overlooked and poorly considered. > Regards > Paul > WB8TSL > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Jim Palfreyman <jim77742@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Thanks so much for your input and thoughts. It has really proved helpful >> here at the observatory. >> >> As it turned out we easily obtained a zero-crossing solid state relay so >> we >> thought we'd try it. >> >> And, drumroll...... >> >> >> >> It made things so much terribly *worse* than ever before. (As predicted by >> many of you above.) >> >> We are going to try a SSR that switches at the peak - but we need to order >> one. So stay tuned on those results. >> >> There is of course the "move the bloody thing far away from the maser" >> solution which could end up being a serious option. These air conditioning >> units are small and cheap (window-type), so we are trying to find the >> cheapest solution - and if that ends up being some ducting - so be it! >> >> >> Jim Palfreyman >> >> >> >> On 26 May 2016 at 13:13, Andy <AI.egrps+tn@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Monett < >> timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com >> > > >> > wrote: >> > >> > LTspice shows switching at 0V is the best point in time. ... >> > >> > >> > >> > Bzzzt! Your simulation is seriously flawed, and your conclusions are >> > wrong. What you forgot, or may not have realized, is that SPICE's >> initial >> > transient solution is obtained by having the signal sources already >> turned >> > on (at the moment of the Big Bang) and set to their initial value, so >> the >> > current through L2 is limited by DC conditions. That is not anything >> close >> > to switching the driving voltages on. It is having one waveform sit at >> > +169.7V DC for a very long time ('forever'), and then letting it follow >> a >> > cosine wave. >> > >> > Re-run the simulation with "UIC" added to the .tran statement (.tran >> 50ms >> > uic) and see what it shows. Using UIC forces the initial voltage to be >> 0V >> > at time=0, the start of the simulation. That's like having the switch >> > initially open. >> > >> > Or if you don't like that, multiply the sources by a PWL waveform that >> > starts both voltages at 0V and then switches them on, a few milliseconds >> > into the simulation, with the appropriate phase. >> > >> > Or use an actual switch. LTspice has a switch element you could use. >> > >> > I guarantee you, the case with the voltage switching on at the 0V point >> in >> > the voltage waveform, causes greater currents. >> > >> > The smaller surge current happens when the source is connected at the >> > moment when the current i(t) would be 0A if it were a continuous >> waveform. >> > For an inductive load, this happens when the voltage v(t) would be +/- >> peak >> > (or near peak, for a real load which has both inductance and a little >> > resistance). This condition also results in no surge, thus no L/R >> decay. >> > >> > All of this might not be relevant to a mechanical system, where surge >> > current is caused by rotational inertia, rather than anything >> electrical. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Andy >> > _______________________________________________ >> > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> > To unsubscribe, go to >> > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> > and follow the instructions there. >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. >> > >
MM
Mike Monett
Fri, Jun 3, 2016 4:37 PM

To All;

I found a significant error in the LTspice analysis. I was wondering how
the current could jump instantaneously at zero when the voltage is applied
at the peak. That violates magnetism.

It turns out it doesn't. When LTspice starts an analysis, it first
calculates the operating point. For the Sine voltage source at 90
degrees, it applies the full voltage across the load. In this case,
it was 169.7V across 1 ohm, resulting in 169.7 Amps. That is what
was plotted, and is a significant error.

I embarked on a search to find examples where switching at the peak could
reduce the inrush current.

Out of 13 examples I analyzed, I found only one that involves unloaded
transformers.

I found many references that discuss transformer inrush current caused by
core saturation. This is a serious problem as it puts stress on the
components and reduces operating life.

I could find no reference that states switching at the peak would reduce or
eliminate the inrush current. I also found most major suppliers do not
offer SSR's that will switch at the peak.

Obviously, switching at the peak would be worse for capacitive loads.

This was a major project and turned out to take a lot more time and effort
than expected. For those who may be interested, the results are shown at

http://www.pst.netii.net/timenuts/zvs.htm

MRM

To All; I found a significant error in the LTspice analysis. I was wondering how the current could jump instantaneously at zero when the voltage is applied at the peak. That violates magnetism. It turns out it doesn't. When LTspice starts an analysis, it first calculates the operating point. For the Sine voltage source at 90 degrees, it applies the full voltage across the load. In this case, it was 169.7V across 1 ohm, resulting in 169.7 Amps. That is what was plotted, and is a significant error. I embarked on a search to find examples where switching at the peak could reduce the inrush current. Out of 13 examples I analyzed, I found only one that involves unloaded transformers. I found many references that discuss transformer inrush current caused by core saturation. This is a serious problem as it puts stress on the components and reduces operating life. I could find no reference that states switching at the peak would reduce or eliminate the inrush current. I also found most major suppliers do not offer SSR's that will switch at the peak. Obviously, switching at the peak would be worse for capacitive loads. This was a major project and turned out to take a lot more time and effort than expected. For those who may be interested, the results are shown at http://www.pst.netii.net/timenuts/zvs.htm MRM
AK
Attila Kinali
Fri, Jun 3, 2016 5:40 PM

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:37:26 -0400
"Mike Monett" timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com wrote:

I found a significant error in the LTspice analysis. I was wondering how
the current could jump instantaneously at zero when the voltage is applied
at the peak. That violates magnetism.

It turns out it doesn't. When LTspice starts an analysis, it first
calculates the operating point. For the Sine voltage source at 90
degrees, it applies the full voltage across the load. In this case,
it was 169.7V across 1 ohm, resulting in 169.7 Amps. That is what
was plotted, and is a significant error.

Actually, spice (the engine behind LTspice) does a DC analysis before
almost all modes of operation. This DC analysis has the intention to
start the circuit from a steady-state point and thus to reduce simulation
time. In order for this to work properly, you have to specify the DC voltage
and currents for all sources correctly. Spice messes this up at times
making the first part of a transient simulation worthless (it has even
worse problems when you do an AC analysis). Additionally LTspice hides
too much of these small complications for the problems to be visible to
the untrained eye and also at times makes it harder to provide the correct
values. Thus, caution is advised.

The general rule of "Never trust a simulation you haven't
forged yourself" applies.

Out of 13 examples I analyzed, I found only one that involves unloaded
transformers.

I found many references that discuss transformer inrush current caused by
core saturation. This is a serious problem as it puts stress on the
components and reduces operating life.

I only had a quick glance at your webpage, but it seems that you used
the standard LTspice transformer model. Unfortunately, this is not a
good model to study this kind of behaviour. For one, the only loss considered
in the model is the winding coupling, it doesn't even directly consider
resistive losses in the windings. In this case, the two most important effects
that you need to include are saturation and core losses, which are both
frequency dependent. The cores of electric machine transformers are very
poor when it comes to their "high" frequency behaviour. Where high frequency
starts somewhere closely above mains frequency. Ie 1kHz is already so far off
that somewhere around 90% of the energy would be dissipated in the core.
The sharp rise in voltage and the leading inrush current have frequency
components that are way higher than mains frequency. Hence the linear model
you used will give inaccurate results, to put it mildly.

Unfortunately, building an accurate transformer model in spice is not
easy and depends on higher order functions that might or might not be
available in the flavour you use. Not to mention that you will need
to have good (measured) numbers on the non-ideal behaviour of a transformer,
which are also not easy to get by.

			Attila Kinali

--
It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. All
the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world is of no
use without that foundation.
-- Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:37:26 -0400 "Mike Monett" <timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com> wrote: > I found a significant error in the LTspice analysis. I was wondering how > the current could jump instantaneously at zero when the voltage is applied > at the peak. That violates magnetism. > > It turns out it doesn't. When LTspice starts an analysis, it first > calculates the operating point. For the Sine voltage source at 90 > degrees, it applies the full voltage across the load. In this case, > it was 169.7V across 1 ohm, resulting in 169.7 Amps. That is what > was plotted, and is a significant error. Actually, spice (the engine behind LTspice) does a DC analysis before almost all modes of operation. This DC analysis has the intention to start the circuit from a steady-state point and thus to reduce simulation time. In order for this to work properly, you have to specify the DC voltage and currents for all sources correctly. Spice messes this up at times making the first part of a transient simulation worthless (it has even worse problems when you do an AC analysis). Additionally LTspice hides too much of these small complications for the problems to be visible to the untrained eye and also at times makes it harder to provide the correct values. Thus, caution is advised. The general rule of "Never trust a simulation you haven't forged yourself" applies. > Out of 13 examples I analyzed, I found only one that involves unloaded > transformers. > > I found many references that discuss transformer inrush current caused by > core saturation. This is a serious problem as it puts stress on the > components and reduces operating life. I only had a quick glance at your webpage, but it seems that you used the standard LTspice transformer model. Unfortunately, this is not a good model to study this kind of behaviour. For one, the only loss considered in the model is the winding coupling, it doesn't even directly consider resistive losses in the windings. In this case, the two most important effects that you need to include are saturation and core losses, which are both frequency dependent. The cores of electric machine transformers are very poor when it comes to their "high" frequency behaviour. Where high frequency starts somewhere closely above mains frequency. Ie 1kHz is already so far off that somewhere around 90% of the energy would be dissipated in the core. The sharp rise in voltage and the leading inrush current have frequency components that are way higher than mains frequency. Hence the linear model you used will give inaccurate results, to put it mildly. Unfortunately, building an accurate transformer model in spice is not easy and depends on higher order functions that might or might not be available in the flavour you use. Not to mention that you will need to have good (measured) numbers on the non-ideal behaviour of a transformer, which are also not easy to get by. Attila Kinali -- It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. All the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world is of no use without that foundation. -- Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson
CA
Chris Albertson
Sat, Jun 4, 2016 6:06 AM

Don't let the start of the simulation be the power on time.  Best to
set up the AC mains volts at zero volts for a half second then go up
to 120 VAC.  So you actually simulate the power switch.  The time
before the start of the run is not defined

Also you should Google "spice transformer model" and see how others
have done it.  You will need to add some extra inductors and series
resistance.  As you found the Spice model does not have magnetics in
it.  It is simply a pair of coupled inductors.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Attila Kinali attila@kinali.ch wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:37:26 -0400
"Mike Monett" timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com wrote:

I found a significant error in the LTspice analysis. I was wondering how
the current could jump instantaneously at zero when the voltage is applied
at the peak. That violates magnetism.

It turns out it doesn't. When LTspice starts an analysis, it first
calculates the operating point. For the Sine voltage source at 90
degrees, it applies the full voltage across the load. In this case,
it was 169.7V across 1 ohm, resulting in 169.7 Amps. That is what
was plotted, and is a significant error.

Actually, spice (the engine behind LTspice) does a DC analysis before
almost all modes of operation. This DC analysis has the intention to
start the circuit from a steady-state point and thus to reduce simulation
time. In order for this to work properly, you have to specify the DC voltage
and currents for all sources correctly. Spice messes this up at times
making the first part of a transient simulation worthless (it has even
worse problems when you do an AC analysis). Additionally LTspice hides
too much of these small complications for the problems to be visible to
the untrained eye and also at times makes it harder to provide the correct
values. Thus, caution is advised.

The general rule of "Never trust a simulation you haven't
forged yourself" applies.

Out of 13 examples I analyzed, I found only one that involves unloaded
transformers.

I found many references that discuss transformer inrush current caused by
core saturation. This is a serious problem as it puts stress on the
components and reduces operating life.

I only had a quick glance at your webpage, but it seems that you used
the standard LTspice transformer model. Unfortunately, this is not a
good model to study this kind of behaviour. For one, the only loss considered
in the model is the winding coupling, it doesn't even directly consider
resistive losses in the windings. In this case, the two most important effects
that you need to include are saturation and core losses, which are both
frequency dependent. The cores of electric machine transformers are very
poor when it comes to their "high" frequency behaviour. Where high frequency
starts somewhere closely above mains frequency. Ie 1kHz is already so far off
that somewhere around 90% of the energy would be dissipated in the core.
The sharp rise in voltage and the leading inrush current have frequency
components that are way higher than mains frequency. Hence the linear model
you used will give inaccurate results, to put it mildly.

Unfortunately, building an accurate transformer model in spice is not
easy and depends on higher order functions that might or might not be
available in the flavour you use. Not to mention that you will need
to have good (measured) numbers on the non-ideal behaviour of a transformer,
which are also not easy to get by.

                             Attila Kinali

--
It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. All
the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world is of no
use without that foundation.
-- Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

--

Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California

Don't let the start of the simulation be the power on time. Best to set up the AC mains volts at zero volts for a half second then go up to 120 VAC. So you actually simulate the power switch. The time before the start of the run is not defined Also you should Google "spice transformer model" and see how others have done it. You will need to add some extra inductors and series resistance. As you found the Spice model does not have magnetics in it. It is simply a pair of coupled inductors. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Attila Kinali <attila@kinali.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:37:26 -0400 > "Mike Monett" <timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com> wrote: > >> I found a significant error in the LTspice analysis. I was wondering how >> the current could jump instantaneously at zero when the voltage is applied >> at the peak. That violates magnetism. >> >> It turns out it doesn't. When LTspice starts an analysis, it first >> calculates the operating point. For the Sine voltage source at 90 >> degrees, it applies the full voltage across the load. In this case, >> it was 169.7V across 1 ohm, resulting in 169.7 Amps. That is what >> was plotted, and is a significant error. > > Actually, spice (the engine behind LTspice) does a DC analysis before > almost all modes of operation. This DC analysis has the intention to > start the circuit from a steady-state point and thus to reduce simulation > time. In order for this to work properly, you have to specify the DC voltage > and currents for all sources correctly. Spice messes this up at times > making the first part of a transient simulation worthless (it has even > worse problems when you do an AC analysis). Additionally LTspice hides > too much of these small complications for the problems to be visible to > the untrained eye and also at times makes it harder to provide the correct > values. Thus, caution is advised. > > The general rule of "Never trust a simulation you haven't > forged yourself" applies. > > >> Out of 13 examples I analyzed, I found only one that involves unloaded >> transformers. >> >> I found many references that discuss transformer inrush current caused by >> core saturation. This is a serious problem as it puts stress on the >> components and reduces operating life. > > I only had a quick glance at your webpage, but it seems that you used > the standard LTspice transformer model. Unfortunately, this is not a > good model to study this kind of behaviour. For one, the only loss considered > in the model is the winding coupling, it doesn't even directly consider > resistive losses in the windings. In this case, the two most important effects > that you need to include are saturation and core losses, which are both > frequency dependent. The cores of electric machine transformers are very > poor when it comes to their "high" frequency behaviour. Where high frequency > starts somewhere closely above mains frequency. Ie 1kHz is already so far off > that somewhere around 90% of the energy would be dissipated in the core. > The sharp rise in voltage and the leading inrush current have frequency > components that are way higher than mains frequency. Hence the linear model > you used will give inaccurate results, to put it mildly. > > > Unfortunately, building an accurate transformer model in spice is not > easy and depends on higher order functions that might or might not be > available in the flavour you use. Not to mention that you will need > to have good (measured) numbers on the non-ideal behaviour of a transformer, > which are also not easy to get by. > > > Attila Kinali > > -- > It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. All > the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world is of no > use without that foundation. > -- Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California
MM
Mike Monett
Wed, Jun 8, 2016 12:31 AM

On    Fri,    03  Jun  2016  12:37:26  -0400    "Mike  Monett"
timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com wrote:

I found  a  significant  error in  the  LTspice  analysis.  I was
wondering how the current could jump instantaneously at zero when
the voltage is applied at the peak. That violates magnetism.

It turns  out  it doesn't. When LTspice  starts  an  analysis, it
first calculates the operating point. For the Sine voltage source
at 90  degrees, it applies the full voltage across  the  load. In
this case, it was 169.7V across 1 ohm, resulting in 169.7 Amps.

That is what was plotted, and is a significant error.

Actually, spice  (the  engine behind LTspice) does  a  DC analysis
before almost  all  modes of operation. This DC  analysis  has the
intention to start the circuit from a steady-state point  and thus
to reduce simulation time. In order for this to work properly, you
have to  specify  the  DC voltage  and  currents  for  all sources
correctly. Spice messes this up at times making the first  part of
a transient simulation worthless (it has even worse  problems when
you do  an  AC analysis). Additionally LTspice hides  too  much of
these small  complications for the problems to be  visible  to the
untrained eye  and  also at times makes it harder  to  provide the
correct values. Thus, caution is advised.

After starting  with Intusoft in 1985, moving to  Microcap  in 1991,
having a  brief  fling  with PSpice around  1998,  and  switching to
LTspice in 2006, I can say LTspice has the easiest and  fastest data
entry of any SPICE program I have tried.

There is no problem with specifying the sources in  LTspice. Nothing
is hidden.  The  setup  menus  are  extremely  easy  to  view and
understand. If you wish, you can have the input parameters displayed
on screen, as I have done with two of the functions.

LTspice checks all the information given, and if it detects an error
it generates an error message and won't run.

My original  problem  was not the setup menus.  It  was  picking the
wrong model.

The general  rule of "Never trust a simulation you  haven't forged
yourself" applies.

Most people would be hard put to do a hand simulation of  a wideband
op amp in a closed-loop feedback network. That is what SPICE is for.

Out of  13  examples I analyzed, I found only  one  that involves
unloaded transformers.

I found  many references that discuss transformer  inrush current
caused by  core saturation. This is a serious problem as  it puts
stress on the components and reduces operating life.

I only  had a quick glance at your webpage, but it seems  that you
used the  standard LTspice transformer model.  Unfortunately, this
is not a good model to study this kind of behaviour. For  one, the
only loss  considered  in the model is  the  winding  coupling, it
doesn't even directly consider resistive losses in the windings.

You would  be advised to learn LTspice as it would save you  a great
deal of misconceptions about how it works.

The winding  resistances  are included in  the  inductor  model. You
specify them as needed. I usually used a series resistance of 1 Ohm,
but changed  it  in some examples to suit the  application.  You can
also specify the parallel winding capacitance and resistance.

In this  case,  the two most important effects  that  you  need to
include are  saturation and core losses, which are  both frequency
dependent. The  cores  of electric machine  transformers  are very
poor when it comes to their "high" frequency behaviour. Where high
frequency starts somewhere closely above mains frequency.  Ie 1kHz
is already  so  far off that somewhere around  90%  of  the energy
would be dissipated in the core.

I was not interested in examining the frequency response, saturation
effect or core losses. These are only important after the  core goes
into saturation.

I was  only interested in the result of switching at the peak  or at
the zero  crossing. This is clearly defined at the beginning  of the
document.

The sharp  rise  in voltage and the  leading  inrush  current have
frequency components that are way higher than mains frequency.

Hence the  linear model you used will give inaccurate  results, to
put it mildly.

Unfortunately, building an accurate transformer model in  spice is
not easy and depends on higher order functions that might or might
not be  available in the flavour you use. Not to mention  that you
will need  to  have  good  (measured)  numbers  on  the non-ideal
behaviour of a transformer, which are also not easy to get by.

The saturation  and  core  losses  are  outside  the  scope  of the
investigation. The  investigation was only to examine the  effect of
switching at  the  peak or at the zero  crossing.  This  was clearly
stated at the beginning of the paper.

My analysis  correctly defined an unloaded transformer  as  the only
case where  switching  at  the peak or the  zero  crossing  made any
difference. This was the goal, and it was met.

I also showed that very few solid state switches were available that
switched at  the peak, that most vendors simply supply  devices that
switch at  the  zero  crossing and state to get  a  model  that will
accept the  surge currents, that switching at the  peak  could cause
severe surge  currents with capacitive loads, and that  I  could not
find any reference that stated switching at the peak would not cause
core saturation.

Your comments  offer  no  additional  information  regarding the
advisability of  switching  at the peak or  the  zero  crossing. The
information you  do supply is irrelevant to the problem,  and mostly
irrelevant to LTspice.

Attila Kinali

It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded.
All the  prosperity and technological sophistication in  the world
is of no use without that foundation.

            - Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson

You need to consider getting new sigs. The two you post  have little
or nothing  to  do  with timenuts, and I'm  sure  everyone  has them
memorized by now.

MRM

> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:37:26 -0400 "Mike Monett" > <timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com> wrote: >> I found a significant error in the LTspice analysis. I was >> wondering how the current could jump instantaneously at zero when >> the voltage is applied at the peak. That violates magnetism. >> It turns out it doesn't. When LTspice starts an analysis, it >> first calculates the operating point. For the Sine voltage source >> at 90 degrees, it applies the full voltage across the load. In >> this case, it was 169.7V across 1 ohm, resulting in 169.7 Amps. >> That is what was plotted, and is a significant error. > Actually, spice (the engine behind LTspice) does a DC analysis > before almost all modes of operation. This DC analysis has the > intention to start the circuit from a steady-state point and thus > to reduce simulation time. In order for this to work properly, you > have to specify the DC voltage and currents for all sources > correctly. Spice messes this up at times making the first part of > a transient simulation worthless (it has even worse problems when > you do an AC analysis). Additionally LTspice hides too much of > these small complications for the problems to be visible to the > untrained eye and also at times makes it harder to provide the > correct values. Thus, caution is advised. After starting with Intusoft in 1985, moving to Microcap in 1991, having a brief fling with PSpice around 1998, and switching to LTspice in 2006, I can say LTspice has the easiest and fastest data entry of any SPICE program I have tried. There is no problem with specifying the sources in LTspice. Nothing is hidden. The setup menus are extremely easy to view and understand. If you wish, you can have the input parameters displayed on screen, as I have done with two of the functions. LTspice checks all the information given, and if it detects an error it generates an error message and won't run. My original problem was not the setup menus. It was picking the wrong model. > The general rule of "Never trust a simulation you haven't forged > yourself" applies. Most people would be hard put to do a hand simulation of a wideband op amp in a closed-loop feedback network. That is what SPICE is for. >> Out of 13 examples I analyzed, I found only one that involves >> unloaded transformers. >> I found many references that discuss transformer inrush current >> caused by core saturation. This is a serious problem as it puts >> stress on the components and reduces operating life. > I only had a quick glance at your webpage, but it seems that you > used the standard LTspice transformer model. Unfortunately, this > is not a good model to study this kind of behaviour. For one, the > only loss considered in the model is the winding coupling, it > doesn't even directly consider resistive losses in the windings. You would be advised to learn LTspice as it would save you a great deal of misconceptions about how it works. The winding resistances are included in the inductor model. You specify them as needed. I usually used a series resistance of 1 Ohm, but changed it in some examples to suit the application. You can also specify the parallel winding capacitance and resistance. > In this case, the two most important effects that you need to > include are saturation and core losses, which are both frequency > dependent. The cores of electric machine transformers are very > poor when it comes to their "high" frequency behaviour. Where high > frequency starts somewhere closely above mains frequency. Ie 1kHz > is already so far off that somewhere around 90% of the energy > would be dissipated in the core. I was not interested in examining the frequency response, saturation effect or core losses. These are only important after the core goes into saturation. I was only interested in the result of switching at the peak or at the zero crossing. This is clearly defined at the beginning of the document. > The sharp rise in voltage and the leading inrush current have > frequency components that are way higher than mains frequency. > Hence the linear model you used will give inaccurate results, to > put it mildly. > Unfortunately, building an accurate transformer model in spice is > not easy and depends on higher order functions that might or might > not be available in the flavour you use. Not to mention that you > will need to have good (measured) numbers on the non-ideal > behaviour of a transformer, which are also not easy to get by. The saturation and core losses are outside the scope of the investigation. The investigation was only to examine the effect of switching at the peak or at the zero crossing. This was clearly stated at the beginning of the paper. My analysis correctly defined an unloaded transformer as the only case where switching at the peak or the zero crossing made any difference. This was the goal, and it was met. I also showed that very few solid state switches were available that switched at the peak, that most vendors simply supply devices that switch at the zero crossing and state to get a model that will accept the surge currents, that switching at the peak could cause severe surge currents with capacitive loads, and that I could not find any reference that stated switching at the peak would not cause core saturation. Your comments offer no additional information regarding the advisability of switching at the peak or the zero crossing. The information you do supply is irrelevant to the problem, and mostly irrelevant to LTspice. Attila Kinali > It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. > All the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world > is of no use without that foundation. > - Miss Matheson, The Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson You need to consider getting new sigs. The two you post have little or nothing to do with timenuts, and I'm sure everyone has them memorized by now. MRM
GH
Gerhard Hoffmann
Wed, Jun 8, 2016 7:54 AM

Am 08.06.2016 um 02:31 schrieb Mike Monett:

I was not interested in examining the frequency response, saturation
effect or core losses. These are only important after the  core goes
into saturation.

I was  only interested in the result of switching at the peak  or at
the zero  crossing. This is clearly defined at the beginning  of the
document.
...
The saturation  and  core  losses  are  outside  the  scope  of the
investigation. The  investigation was only to examine the  effect of
switching at  the  peak or at the zero  crossing.  This  was clearly
stated at the beginning of the paper.

My analysis  correctly defined an unloaded transformer  as  the only
case where  switching  at  the peak or the  zero  crossing  made any
difference. This was the goal, and it was met.

Saturation is not outside the scope. It is the very heart of the problem.
You need to build up a voltage opposite to the grid voltage to keep the
current small.
That requires an inductance and that requires a core that can be magnetized.
If the core is already magnetized to the limit from a previous session,
it is as good
as simply not there at all. What remains is some meters of copper wire
without an
appreciable L and that is not enough.

I'm haunted by that effect myself on a regular base in that I have a fat
class A  Krell
audio amplifier and it pops the fuse of my living room once in about 5
times of
switching it on.

I also showed that very few solid state switches were available that
switched at  the peak, that most vendors simply supply  devices that
switch at  the  zero  crossing and state to get  a  model  that will
accept the  surge currents, that switching at the  peak  could cause
severe surge  currents with capacitive loads,

Nobody uses large transformers anymore, everybody has a diode bridge ,
capacitor
and a DC/DC behind it. Then zero voltage switching makes sense.

and that  I  could not
find any reference that stated switching at the peak would not cause
core saturation.

I provided references that zero voltage switching leads to saturation,
and so did others.

Your comments  offer  no  additional  information  regarding the
advisability of  switching  at the peak or  the  zero  crossing. The
information you  do supply is irrelevant to the problem,  and mostly
irrelevant to LTspice.

you are right. This is not a LTspice problem but your modelling problem.

Attila Kinali

It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded.
All the  prosperity and technological sophistication in  the world
is of no use without that foundation.

You need to consider getting new sigs. The two you post  have little
or nothing  to  do  with timenuts, and I'm  sure  everyone  has them
memorized by now.

OMG , I'm not Attila, but I may need a special time nuts .sig!

regards, Gerhard

--
Es ist schon alles gesagt worden, aber noch nicht von jedem. (Valentin)

Am 08.06.2016 um 02:31 schrieb Mike Monett: > I was not interested in examining the frequency response, saturation > effect or core losses. These are only important after the core goes > into saturation. > > I was only interested in the result of switching at the peak or at > the zero crossing. This is clearly defined at the beginning of the > document. > ... > The saturation and core losses are outside the scope of the > investigation. The investigation was only to examine the effect of > switching at the peak or at the zero crossing. This was clearly > stated at the beginning of the paper. > > My analysis correctly defined an unloaded transformer as the only > case where switching at the peak or the zero crossing made any > difference. This was the goal, and it was met. Saturation is not outside the scope. It is the very heart of the problem. You need to build up a voltage opposite to the grid voltage to keep the current small. That requires an inductance and that requires a core that can be magnetized. If the core is already magnetized to the limit from a previous session, it is as good as simply not there at all. What remains is some meters of copper wire without an appreciable L and that is not enough. I'm haunted by that effect myself on a regular base in that I have a fat class A Krell audio amplifier and it pops the fuse of my living room once in about 5 times of switching it on. > I also showed that very few solid state switches were available that > switched at the peak, that most vendors simply supply devices that > switch at the zero crossing and state to get a model that will > accept the surge currents, that switching at the peak could cause > severe surge currents with capacitive loads, Nobody uses large transformers anymore, everybody has a diode bridge , capacitor and a DC/DC behind it. Then zero voltage switching makes sense. > and that I could not > find any reference that stated switching at the peak would not cause > core saturation. I provided references that zero voltage switching leads to saturation, and so did others. > > Your comments offer no additional information regarding the > advisability of switching at the peak or the zero crossing. The > information you do supply is irrelevant to the problem, and mostly > irrelevant to LTspice. you are right. This is not a LTspice problem but your modelling problem. > Attila Kinali >> It is upon moral qualities that a society is ultimately founded. >> All the prosperity and technological sophistication in the world >> is of no use without that foundation. >> >> You need to consider getting new sigs. The two you post have little >> or nothing to do with timenuts, and I'm sure everyone has them >> memorized by now. >> OMG , I'm not Attila, but I may need a special time nuts .sig! regards, Gerhard -- Es ist schon alles gesagt worden, aber noch nicht von jedem. (Valentin)
JP
Jim Palfreyman
Thu, Jun 9, 2016 1:36 AM

Hold your horses folks.

There is more on this tale!

To recap we put the SSR on the aircon (at zero crossing) and the jumps got
very very worse. So we turned the aircon off again (winter here - so not
really needed) and the jumps dropped, but didn't go away. :-(

So we also have a heater in the room (simple 1200W column heater) and a
temperature monitor that turns the cooling or heating on as appropriate. So
we also replaced the heating relay with an SSR and it all now seems to have
gone away.

We are now thinking that the aircon AND heating relays had started to pit
after years of use and so give off radio transients which managed to get in
and interfere with the extremely low (-100 dBm) signal coming from the
physics package and going into the maser electronics.

We have now run for four days with no clock jumps with both aircon and
heater on and with 0V crossing SSR relays.

"Welcome to the jungle, we've got fun and games..."

Jim Palfreyman

On 3 June 2016 at 15:00, Jim Palfreyman jim77742@gmail.com wrote:

Hi All,

Thanks so much for your input and thoughts. It has really proved helpful
here at the observatory.

As it turned out we easily obtained a zero-crossing solid state relay so
we thought we'd try it.

And, drumroll......

It made things so much terribly worse than ever before. (As predicted by
many of you above.)

We are going to try a SSR that switches at the peak - but we need to order
one. So stay tuned on those results.

There is of course the "move the bloody thing far away from the maser"
solution which could end up being a serious option. These air conditioning
units are small and cheap (window-type), so we are trying to find the
cheapest solution - and if that ends up being some ducting - so be it!

Jim Palfreyman

On 26 May 2016 at 13:13, Andy AI.egrps+tn@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Monett <
timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com>
wrote:

LTspice shows  switching  at 0V is the best point in  time.  ...

Bzzzt!  Your simulation is seriously flawed, and your conclusions are
wrong.  What you forgot, or may not have realized, is that SPICE's initial
transient solution is obtained by having the signal sources already turned
on (at the moment of the Big Bang) and set to their initial value, so the
current through L2 is limited by DC conditions.  That is not anything
close
to switching the driving voltages on.  It is having one waveform sit at
+169.7V DC for a very long time ('forever'), and then letting it follow a
cosine wave.

Re-run the simulation with "UIC" added to the .tran statement (.tran 50ms
uic) and see what it shows.  Using UIC forces the initial voltage to be 0V
at time=0, the start of the simulation.  That's like having the switch
initially open.

Or if you don't like that, multiply the sources by a PWL waveform that
starts both voltages at 0V and then switches them on, a few milliseconds
into the simulation, with the appropriate phase.

Or use an actual switch.  LTspice has a switch element you could use.

I guarantee you, the case with the voltage switching on at the 0V point in
the voltage waveform, causes greater currents.

The smaller surge current happens when the source is connected at the
moment when the current i(t) would be 0A if it were a continuous waveform.
For an inductive load, this happens when the voltage v(t) would be +/-
peak
(or near peak, for a real load which has both inductance and a little
resistance).  This condition also results in no surge, thus no L/R decay.

All of this might not be relevant to a mechanical system, where surge
current is caused by rotational inertia, rather than anything electrical.

Regards,
Andy


time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Hold your horses folks. There is more on this tale! To recap we put the SSR on the aircon (at zero crossing) and the jumps got very very worse. So we turned the aircon off again (winter here - so not really needed) and the jumps dropped, but didn't go away. :-( So we also have a heater in the room (simple 1200W column heater) and a temperature monitor that turns the cooling or heating on as appropriate. So we also replaced the heating relay with an SSR and it all now seems to have gone away. We are now thinking that the aircon AND heating *relays* had started to pit after years of use and so give off radio transients which managed to get in and interfere with the extremely low (-100 dBm) signal coming from the physics package and going into the maser electronics. We have now run for four days with no clock jumps with both aircon and heater on and with 0V crossing SSR relays. "Welcome to the jungle, we've got fun and games..." Jim Palfreyman On 3 June 2016 at 15:00, Jim Palfreyman <jim77742@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Thanks so much for your input and thoughts. It has really proved helpful > here at the observatory. > > As it turned out we easily obtained a zero-crossing solid state relay so > we thought we'd try it. > > And, drumroll...... > > > > It made things so much terribly *worse* than ever before. (As predicted by > many of you above.) > > We are going to try a SSR that switches at the peak - but we need to order > one. So stay tuned on those results. > > There is of course the "move the bloody thing far away from the maser" > solution which could end up being a serious option. These air conditioning > units are small and cheap (window-type), so we are trying to find the > cheapest solution - and if that ends up being some ducting - so be it! > > > Jim Palfreyman > > > > On 26 May 2016 at 13:13, Andy <AI.egrps+tn@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Mike Monett < >> timenuts@binsamp.e4ward.com> >> wrote: >> >> LTspice shows switching at 0V is the best point in time. ... >> >> >> >> Bzzzt! Your simulation is seriously flawed, and your conclusions are >> wrong. What you forgot, or may not have realized, is that SPICE's initial >> transient solution is obtained by having the signal sources already turned >> on (at the moment of the Big Bang) and set to their initial value, so the >> current through L2 is limited by DC conditions. That is not anything >> close >> to switching the driving voltages on. It is having one waveform sit at >> +169.7V DC for a very long time ('forever'), and then letting it follow a >> cosine wave. >> >> Re-run the simulation with "UIC" added to the .tran statement (.tran 50ms >> uic) and see what it shows. Using UIC forces the initial voltage to be 0V >> at time=0, the start of the simulation. That's like having the switch >> initially open. >> >> Or if you don't like that, multiply the sources by a PWL waveform that >> starts both voltages at 0V and then switches them on, a few milliseconds >> into the simulation, with the appropriate phase. >> >> Or use an actual switch. LTspice has a switch element you could use. >> >> I guarantee you, the case with the voltage switching on at the 0V point in >> the voltage waveform, causes greater currents. >> >> The smaller surge current happens when the source is connected at the >> moment when the current i(t) would be 0A if it were a continuous waveform. >> For an inductive load, this happens when the voltage v(t) would be +/- >> peak >> (or near peak, for a real load which has both inductance and a little >> resistance). This condition also results in no surge, thus no L/R decay. >> >> All of this might not be relevant to a mechanical system, where surge >> current is caused by rotational inertia, rather than anything electrical. >> >> Regards, >> Andy >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. >> > >