The Smell of Molten Projects in the Morning

Ed Nisley's Blog: Shop notes, electronics, firmware, machinery, 3D printing, laser cuttery, and curiosities. Contents: 100% human thinking, 0% AI slop.

Category: Electronics Workbench

Electrical & Electronic gadgets

  • NTC 2.5 Power Thermistor Characteristics

    From a surplus batch, with no provenance, measuring the resistance with current increasing (upper = squares) and then decreasing (lower = diamonds):

    NTC 2.5 Resistance vs Current
    NTC 2.5 Resistance vs Current

    The resistance at a given current need not lie between those bounds, because it depends strongly on the thermistor’s temperature (duh), which depends on heat loss to the surroundings.

    With that in mind, 1 or 2 Ω looks like the right ballpark for these gadgets. Figure around half a watt each at 600 mA; string three in series to get 9 Ω during a cold start and 3 Ω for warm starts. It’s not clear that would solve the transistor killing spike, but it’s a thought.

    Compared to the SCK055 NTC thermistor, they have about the same resistance at the same current, despite starting at half the initial cold resistance. I think that’s because they’re somewhat larger and thus run cooler at a given current.

    The original data and a portrait of the thermistor:

    NTC 2.5 Power Thermistor - measurements
    NTC 2.5 Power Thermistor – measurements

    Anybody recognize the logo? The symbol in the striped triangle is S+M, if that helps.

    It’s from TDK/EPCOS: datasheets.

  • Heating Blanket Controller: Soldering QC

    A friend reported that three of the four heating blankets he’s bought over the last several years have failed, so he sent the lot to me for teardown and maybe repair.

    Looking inside one controller showed some obviously bad solder joints:

    Blanket controller - bad joints
    Blanket controller – bad joints

    Hitting the joints with the soldering iron improved their outlook on life, but the controller remained dead; they weren’t really bad joints, they just looked that way.

    If the “lot number” labels on the controllers mean anything, they’ve tried three different triac mounts over the years:

    • A through-hole triac screwed to the board with no heatsink
    • An SMD triac using the PCB copper as a heatsink
    • A through-hole triac with a big aluminum heatsink

    That’s in order of ascending lot number, suggesting the triac caused some reliability problems.

    I’m still trying to figure out how to probe the circuitry without killing myself. An isolation transformer comes to mind, because the blanket dissipates only 85 W.

    Surely the triacs have snubbers…

  • Sony HDR-AS30V Audio vs. Wind Noise

    With the Sony HDR-AS30V in its skeleton frame atop my bike helmet, the audio track for all my rides consists entirely of horrendous wind noise. You can get an idea of the baseline quality from the sound track of a recent Walkway Over The Hudson crossing.

    The camera has two mics, although I’m not sure 15 mm of separation really produces meaningful stereo sound:

    Sony HDR-AS30V - front view
    Sony HDR-AS30V – front view

    Note that two of the five pores on each side are closed flat-bottom pits. As with earbud vents , it must be a stylin’ thing.

    I added a rounded pad of the same acoustic foam that forms an effective wind noise buffer for the boom mic:

    Sony HDR-AS30V - foam mic cover
    Sony HDR-AS30V – foam mic cover

    That reduced the overall noise load by buffering direct wind impact, but non-radio conversations remained unintelligible; there’s just too much low-frequency energy.

    Surprisingly, closing the mic pores with ordinary adhesive tape didn’t impair the audio in a quiet room:

    Sony HDR-AS30V - closed mic pores
    Sony HDR-AS30V – closed mic pores

    Out on the road that’s even better than foam over open mic pores; I think it reduces the peak volume enough that the internal compression can regain control. Sticking the foam pad over the tape slightly reduced the noise during high-speed (for me, anyhow) parts of the ride, but didn’t make much difference overall.

    The wind noise remains too high for comfort, even if I can now hear cleats clicking into pedals, shifters snapping, and even the horrible background music when I’m stopped next to the Mobil gas station on the corner.

    Next step: raid the cloth scrap box for a flap of faux fur to make a mic mop. This might be an opportunity to recycle some roadkill

  • SCK055 NTC Power Thermistor Characteristics

    While pondering the dead ET227 transistors, I dug an inrush current limiter (a.k.a. NTC power thermistor) out of the heap and made some measurements:

    SCK055 NTC Power Thermistor - measurements
    SCK055 NTC Power Thermistor – measurements

    That’s from a bench power supply attached to a meter and the limiter with clip leads, which was entirely too messy for a picture.

    Turning those numbers into a spreadsheet to calculate the resistances:

    SCK 055 NTC Power Thermistor
    5 Ω @ 25 °C
    Imax = 5 A
    Time constant on the order of 90 seconds
    Current mA Initial mV Final mV Initial Ω Final Ω
    36 190 5.3
    65 350 5.4
    95 500 5.3
    124 638 5.1
    153 770 5.0
    180 880 790 4.9 4.4
    210 910 870 4.3 4.1
    242 980 4.0
    260 1025 944 3.9 3.6
    520 1500 1090 2.9 2.1
    710 1430 1066 2.0 1.5
    1010 1320 1050 1.3 1.0
    910 1020 1.1
    709 920 1030 1.3 1.5
    1010 1480 1040 1.5 1.0
    30 52 110 1.7 3.7

    The data sheet recommends a minimum current above 30% of the maximum, which would be 1.5 A. That’s above the motor’s 1 A operating current, let alone the low-speed current limited conditions, but in this situation that just means the resistance will remain around 1 to 2 Ω with the motor chugging along.

    If I had more of ’em, I could put them in series to build up the resistance, but it’s not clear why that would be better than, say, a 6 Ω aluminum-heatsink resistor dissipating a few watts.

  • ET227 Transistor: SOA Violation

    The ET227 transistor (labeled A from the DC gain tests) I’d been using, ever since the very beginning, failed with a collector-to-emitter short when I started it for a data taking run. In most circuits, that would be a catastrophic failure accompanied by arcs & sparks, but the Kenmore 158 simply started running at full speed and ignored my increasingly desperate attempts to regain control.

    OK, those transistors date back to the 1980s (or maybe even earlier), so maybe It Was Time.

    I swapped in ET227-B, buttoned everything up, and continued taking data.

    Two days later, ET227-B failed with a collector-to-emitter short when it turned on.

    Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. A third time means I missed the cluetrain.

    Although the ET227 can switch 1 kV and 100 A, the Safe Operating Area plot shows that the DC limit passes through 1 A at 200 V:

    ET227 - Safe Operating Area
    ET227 – Safe Operating Area

    Bearing in mind that peak line voltage hits 170 – 180 V, 200 V looks like a convenient upper limit. Also, those limits apply at 25 °C case temperature and drop as the junctions warm up, although the datasheet remains mute as to the difference.

    The circuit puts the following elements in series across the AC line:

    • 5 A fast-blow fuse
    • Normally open relay
    • Full-wave rectifier block
    • 120 VAC / 100 W universal motor
    • ET227 NPN transistor
    • 25 T x 2 parallel 24 AWG winding

    After screwing around with Spice for a while, I can’t convince myself that the simulation means anything, but the general idea is that closing the relay at maximum line voltage (about 180 V) produces a staggeringly high current pulse through the series capacitances. A small amount of stray capacitance across the motor passes line voltage to the collector, the collector-base capacitance feeds it to the base, the transistor’s gain slams essentially unlimited current against line voltage, and the operating point squirts through the top of the SOA graph.

    I made up a snubber from a 220 nF X capacitor and a 5.6 Ω resistor. That won’t have any effect on the spike, because the various stray / parasitic capacitors remain directly in series across the line, so the snubber looks like an open circuit. The snubber does damp the ringing after the spike vanishes, but that’s not the problem.

    Some scope shots from ET227-C show the magnitude of the problem; it hasn’t blown yet, but obviously this can’t go on. Note the varying horizontal time scales and vertical current scales (all are at 10 mV/div, with the Tek probe providing the scaling).

    At 50 mA/div, the two humps come from the (damped) ringing. This one doesn’t have much of a spike:

    Snubbed power on transient - ET227C 50 mA-div
    Snubbed power on transient – ET227C 50 mA-div

    At 100 mA/div, I must have caught it at a higher point in the voltage waveform:

    Snubber 5.6 ohm  220 nF - 650 mA spike - 100 mA-div
    Snubber 5.6 ohm 220 nF – 650 mA spike – 100 mA-div

    At 200 mA/div, this one looks seriously worse:

    Snubber 5.6 ohm  220 nF - 1600 mA spike - 200 mA-div
    Snubber 5.6 ohm 220 nF – 1600 mA spike – 200 mA-div

    Now, agreed, a 1.6 A spike in a transistor rated for 200 A pulses doesn’t sound like much, but catching the spikes depends on random chance. If the collector voltage starts at 100 V, then that spike comes pretty close to the DC SOA limit; that’s not enough to kill the transistor, but it’s certainly suggestive.

    Putting an NTC power thermistor in series would add some resistance to the circuit and reduce the magnitude of the spike, but they’re really intended for power supplies that draw a constant load, not a sewing machine that starts and stops all the time. If the motor runs for a while, then the thermistor will be hot for the next startup and the relay will close with relatively little resistance in the circuit.

    More doodling seems in order.

     

  • Kenmore 158: Acceleration and Deceleration

    Plotting the motor RPM every 500 ms while increasing the nominal current by 50 mA per step from 550 mA:

    Motor RPM vs Current Steps - Accelerating
    Motor RPM vs Current Steps – Accelerating

    And then downward from 950 mA:

    Motor RPM vs Current Steps - Decelerating
    Motor RPM vs Current Steps – Decelerating

    No, the steps aren’t the same size going down as they are going up. The nominal current setting is open-loop = constant DAC values: the actual current for a given DAC value varies as the transistors heat up.

    The motor starts running at 3700 RPM with 550 mA and stops well under 1000 RPM with 400 mA. Obviously, starting slowly and smoothly will require finesse: a swift kick of maybe 600 mA to get it turning, then immediately drop to 400-ish mA for slow stitching. Those currents must be the actual motor current, not the nominal DAC values, so the motor sees the proper current regardless of the transistor temperature.

    The sewing machine requires four samples = two seconds to stabilize at each new speed on the way up, so the mechanical time constant is 2/3 second. Trying to stabilize the speed with a loop running much faster than that will certainly cause oscillation.

    There is absolutely no deceleration control authority: reducing the current allows freewheeling as the machinery slows down to match the current. The undershoot after each step on the way down lasts 2.5 s, then there’s a persistent oscillation with a period of 3 s.

    Forcing the firmware to run slowly enough to match the hardware should pose an interesting challenge… you don’t want to lock up the UI while the motor stabilizes!

  • Kenmore 158: Current Sensor Calibration

    The first task: produce an equation that converts raw ADC values into actual motor current. This is not quite the same as the DC calibration, because the motor current is neither clean nor stable.

    Step the output current setpoint in 50 mA increments from 450 mA to 1100 mA and remain at each setpoint for 10 seconds while dumping measurements every 500 ms. The ADC count comes from the sampling / sorting / selection process that attempts to pick out either the not really flat top of the current-limited waveform or the peak of the non-limited sine wave.

    Convert the raw data dump into a spreadsheet to get a block like this for each current setpoint:

    Motor RPM Shaft RPM Setpoint mA DAC count ADC count Noisy mA Comp mA
    Setpoint: 600 DACvalue: 2372
    3797 334 600 2372 266 724 540
    4465 399 600 2372 263 715 532
    4734 416 600 2372 265 721 538
    4834 438 600 2372 263 715 532
    4829 433 600 2372 264 718 535
    4857 438 600 2372 264 718 535
    4900 438 600 2372 265 721 538
    4859 436 600 2372 266 724 540
    4887 445 600 2372 265 721 538
    4926 446 600 2372 263 715 532
    4884 438 600 2372 265 721 538
    4890 442 600 2372 264 718 535
    4913 440 600 2372 264 718 535
    4866 436 600 2372 263 715 532
    4895 434 600 2372 264 718 535
    4890 442 600 2372 266 724 540
    4884 438 600 2372 266 724 540
    4913 442 600 2372 265 721 538
    4913 441 600 2372 266 724 540
    4878 436 600 2372 264 718 535
    265

    The lone number on the bottom row is the computed average of the ADC counts for the block, which I did in the spreadsheet rather than in the firmware.

    During each ten second interval, set the scope voltage cursor to the eyeballed “correct” value of the motor current waveform, as measured on the Tek current probe. There’s no way to automate this, because only the human eyeball can pick out the, ah, true current measurement amid all the clutter:

    Calibrate - Hall amp - Tek 200 mA-div
    Calibrate – Hall amp – Tek 200 mA-div

    For each current setpoint value, create a line with the manually measured true voltage from the scope trace, the calculated true current (using the Tek probe’s front panel scale), along with the DAC setpoint and the average ADC values extracted from each block of that giant data dump:

    Setpoint mA Scope mV Actual mA DAC count ADC count
    450 21.80 436 2205 197
    500 25.94 519 2261 225
    550 29.06 581 2316 245
    600 31.56 631 2372 265
    650 34.38 688 2427 285
    700 36.88 738 2483 304
    750 39.69 794 2538 324
    800 42.19 844 2594 340
    850 45.00 900 2649 350
    900 47.50 950 2705 361
    850 46.86 937 2649 356
    800 43.75 875 2594 348
    750 41.25 825 2538 335
    700 39.06 781 2483 318
    650 36.56 731 2427 302
    600 34.38 688 2372 285
    550 32.50 650 2316 270
    500 30.31 606 2261 253
    450 27.81 556 2205 237
    400 25.63 513 2150 220

    Plot each actual motor current against the corresponding average ADC value:

    ADC Calibration Curve
    ADC Calibration Curve

    The linear fit breaks down toward 1 A, because measuring the actual peak of a noisy sine wave doesn’t work well, but the values aren’t all that far off.

    Given an ADC value, that equation converts it directly into the actual motor current as estimated by the human eyeball, taking into account all the measurement weirdness. The Hall sensor produces a voltage that’s linearly related to the current, so the reasonable linearity of the data says that the sampling / sorting / selection process actually produces pretty nearly the correct result across the entire operating current range.

    Note that the equation doesn’t depend on the DAC output calibration; the ADC and Tek probe simply measure whatever current happens to pass through the motor for that DAC value. The current through the ET227 transistor doesn’t seem to change over the ten seconds required to take the manual measurement, so it’s all good.