Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Chris Albertson]

A few might fail.  If you were repairing TVs 20 years ago you only saw the
one in a million that failed.  I'd guess a dozen of these NTC Thermistors
are in every house in the world and few people ever notice them.

OK, you like switches and timers.  If a circuit breaker is popping then my
guess is that you might be switching an inductive load.  Where does the
energy in the magnetic field (back EMF) go?  Is it finding a path through
the circuit breaker?   I've never tripped a breaker with a switched
circuit like that but I've have a problem with a switched inductive load
tripping GFCI protected circuits (All outdoor and garage circuits are GFCI.)

Look for common problems like your outlet is misfired and you are actually
switching the neutral or if this is 220 that you are using a couple pole
switch.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Gene Heskett  wrote:


> > http://www.ametherm.com/inrush-current/inrush-current-faq.html
>
> It is an attractive idea, Chris, but from my experience in servicing tv's
> etc with them included to serve as degauser drivers, the failure rate
> has been noticeably often.  They fail high R, get progressively hotter
> as the R rises, and can affect the life of nearby parts from that heat,
> or even cook the degausing circiutry, and thats a large enough item to
> be considered a fire hazard.  I have seen several that self destructed,
> leaving just the wires sticking up out of the circuit board with little
> balls of melted copper on the ends of the wires, or hanging on the
> terminal strips prior to PCB's taking over from discreet circuitry.
>
> I thought of it, and the memory came back of all the failures in crt
> based tv's and monitors, so it was discarded. I have enough fire hazards
> on my premises as is.
>
> Thanks for the idea though as it gave me a reason to explain why I didn't
> do that.  Or, did I chase electrons for a living for too many years?
> Over 65 now. :(
>
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Gene Heskett 
> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 03 February 2016 21:38:27 Jon Elson wrote:
> > > > On 02/03/2016 02:09 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > Now I have spent 20 minutes doing a slow dance on those 2
> > > > > buttons, and haven't tripped the breaker yet, probably
> > > > > more than 50 full cycles.
> > > >
> > > > Well, still don't exactly know why it wasn't working
> > > > before.  Did these charge pumps DIRECTLY drive the SSRs?  I
> > > > can easily see how marginal or decaying analog outputs from
> > > > a charge pump could do unwanted things to an SSR, like make
> > > > it conduct ONLY on one polarity for a couple cycles as the
> > > > charge pump cap was draining.  In fact, if you give typical
> > > > SSRs marginal input voltages, I'll bet most of them will do
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > >
> > > You could have hit it squarely there, Jon.  Perhaps the
> > > mosfet/hexfet output might have been replaced with a comparator with
> > > a bit of a schmidt trigger hysteresis so that the output wasn't ever
> > > in that grey area. I'd be a bit spooked about running it all on a
> > > normal logic voltage supply though.  I did note that I had quoted
> > > the wrong voltage yesterday, coming out of the buck switcher, its
> > > display says 25.6 volts, not 12. But since the original 4000 family
> > > of cmos logic can and has survived on 28 volts on my watch with only
> > > nominal heating while being switched at 1/4 microseconds speed, I'm
> > > sure it could survive a nearly dc mode.  RCA only rated it for 15
> > > volts in their propaganda.
> > >
> > > There is such a circuit I've seen someplace that used 1 gate of a
> > > 4050 inverting buffer, with it driving the other 5 gates in the
> > > package so the end result is non-inverting, and that can easily
> > > supply 50 mills of output, and ack the SSR data we need 4 mills.
> > >
> > > One could adjust the trip point, since it would be at nominally 50%
> > > of VCC, simply by adjusting the supply VCC, so if the bucker was
> > > turned down to about 7.5 volts, the on/off response would
> > > essentially duplicate the nominally 3.75 volts on point of the
> > > hexfet.
> > >
> > > Hind sight, 20-05, I never thought of that when I laid it out in
> > > pcb. :( Perhaps I should?  That would make the board wider, or
> > > longer, but its nominally .9 by 1.75" now. Where I have them
> > > mounted, width could go up an inch w/o impinging on the rest of the
> > > stuff in that box.
> > >
> > > With that amount of gain in the buffering, I doubt if any schmidt
> > > triggering hysteresis would be needed to get a clean switch. About a
> > > .05 u-f feedback capacitor from the output back to cF to speed it up
> > > would be a great plenty I'd think.
> > >
> > > Food for thought and experimentaton when I am next bored.  But its
> > > working with the big current limiting resistor now, and its only
> > > heating 2 or 3 degrees per on/off cycle to do it, so my natural
> > > tendency 

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 05 February 2016 11:52:00 Chris Albertson wrote:

> A few might fail.  If you were repairing TVs 20 years ago you only saw
> the one in a million that failed.  I'd guess a dozen of these NTC
> Thermistors are in every house in the world and few people ever notice
> them.
>
> OK, you like switches and timers.  If a circuit breaker is popping
> then my guess is that you might be switching an inductive load.  Where
> does the energy in the magnetic field (back EMF) go?  Is it finding a
> path through the circuit breaker?   I've never tripped a breaker
> with a switched circuit like that but I've have a problem with a
> switched inductive load tripping GFCI protected circuits (All outdoor
> and garage circuits are GFCI.)
>
> Look for common problems like your outlet is misfired and you are
> actually switching the neutral or if this is 220 that you are using a
> couple pole switch.

Actually, Chris, it was one of those names I'd love to see on the ballot, 
none of the above.

I solved it by renameing some stuff in my main hal file so it was easier 
for this old fart to follow the logic, as I had found the resistor and 
hard switches weren't timed correctly when I checked with a scope. Jon's 
idea that the slow decay of my charge-pump buckets may have been half 
cycling the power also entered into it I believe.

Anyway, after the renaming, I went down to that section of the hal file 
and tore out everything but the gpio setups for those two BoB pins, and 
reconfigured the whole thing to, when turning it on, a delay for the SSR 
feeding the resistor for .1 seconds. and 8 seconds later turning on the 
SSR feeding the toroids direct.

Then at off, I killed the direct feed in .1 seconds, and the resistors 
feed in 2 seconds (the response time of the detectors is about 1/3 
second to on, and about 3/4 second to off).  So now if it half cycles 
going off, the resistor is already back in circuit, controlling that dc 
surge to a bit over 2.4 amps and no problems.

The bottom line was that I had the SSR's in series before and now they 
are in parallel and the timing is now correct.  End of problem, the 
resistor (a 51 ohm 200 watter) controls the half cycle dc surge if it 
occurs.  In retrospect, I should have used a comparator/buffer so the 
SSR switching was instant, but this works.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Chris Albertson]

A more simple design for a "soft start" is just to place a "thermistor" in
series with the transformer (either side).  This device will offer a high
resistance at first, then heat up and the resistance lowers to about an
Ohm.  It is completely passive and very low cost.   They are used in many
consumer devices from TV sets to computers and in larger industrial devices
too.   The guys below will help you to select a part then offer free
samples.  You can even use them in parallel if you need to absorb more
power.

The higher resistance is only needed for a second or so.  You select the
part based on current and the thermal "mass" of the part

For really large power designed the thermistor can control some other
device.  I think it is better then using a timer because the thermistor
actually looks at the inrush current and reacts to it by changing its
resistance,then use the voltage drop across it to control something else.

For info here
http://www.ametherm.com/inrush-current/inrush-current-faq.html

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Gene Heskett  wrote:

> On Wednesday 03 February 2016 21:38:27 Jon Elson wrote:
>
> > On 02/03/2016 02:09 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Now I have spent 20 minutes doing a slow dance on those 2
> > > buttons, and haven't tripped the breaker yet, probably
> > > more than 50 full cycles.
> >
> > Well, still don't exactly know why it wasn't working
> > before.  Did these charge pumps DIRECTLY drive the SSRs?  I
> > can easily see how marginal or decaying analog outputs from
> > a charge pump could do unwanted things to an SSR, like make
> > it conduct ONLY on one polarity for a couple cycles as the
> > charge pump cap was draining.  In fact, if you give typical
> > SSRs marginal input voltages, I'll bet most of them will do
> > this.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> You could have hit it squarely there, Jon.  Perhaps the mosfet/hexfet
> output might have been replaced with a comparator with a bit of a
> schmidt trigger hysteresis so that the output wasn't ever in that grey
> area. I'd be a bit spooked about running it all on a normal logic
> voltage supply though.  I did note that I had quoted the wrong voltage
> yesterday, coming out of the buck switcher, its display says 25.6 volts,
> not 12. But since the original 4000 family of cmos logic can and has
> survived on 28 volts on my watch with only nominal heating while being
> switched at 1/4 microseconds speed, I'm sure it could survive a nearly
> dc mode.  RCA only rated it for 15 volts in their propaganda.
>
> There is such a circuit I've seen someplace that used 1 gate of a 4050
> inverting buffer, with it driving the other 5 gates in the package so
> the end result is non-inverting, and that can easily supply 50 mills of
> output, and ack the SSR data we need 4 mills.
>
> One could adjust the trip point, since it would be at nominally 50% of
> VCC, simply by adjusting the supply VCC, so if the bucker was turned
> down to about 7.5 volts, the on/off response would essentially duplicate
> the nominally 3.75 volts on point of the hexfet.
>
> Hind sight, 20-05, I never thought of that when I laid it out in pcb. :(
> Perhaps I should?  That would make the board wider, or longer, but its
> nominally .9 by 1.75" now. Where I have them mounted, width could go up
> an inch w/o impinging on the rest of the stuff in that box.
>
> With that amount of gain in the buffering, I doubt if any schmidt
> triggering hysteresis would be needed to get a clean switch. About a .05
> u-f feedback capacitor from the output back to cF to speed it up would
> be a great plenty I'd think.
>
> Food for thought and experimentaton when I am next bored.  But its
> working with the big current limiting resistor now, and its only heating
> 2 or 3 degrees per on/off cycle to do it, so my natural tendency toward
> lazyness and to not fix what isn't broken will likely detour that
> effort.  Sad, but as a former Bro-in-Law used to say, its good enough
> for the girls I go with. :)
>
> But I'd like to get this furniture project done & delivered while I take
> a grand tour to Nebraska & Kansas to deliver 3 of them to my son's
> sometime this summer before I fall over.  And get a couple small 45
> degree dovetail mills ordered so I can hack out a teeny QC mount for
> this endoscope camera. Then I can do double sided PCB's without all the
> foolishness changing the tool out for a sensing contact to locate a hole
> in piece of brass tubing set into the corner of the pallet & calculate
> all the offsets needed to do the back side of a board.  That got quite
> tedious on the toy mill too.
>
> Snooping around on fleabay last night I found this:
>
> <
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-PC-3-8-X-45-DEGREE-PREMIUM-HSS-DOVETAIL-CUTTER-MILLING-HIGH-SPEED-STEEL-/131511946248?hash=item1e9eb90c08:g:JmcAAOSwBahVVON-
> >
>
> Which looks like a decent price, but the pix doesn't match the
> description, so which is correct?  If its as small as it claims, it
> would be ideal. I thought 

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Jon Elson]

On 02/04/2016 01:46 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Snooping around on fleabay last night I found this: 
> 
>  
> Which looks like a decent price, but the pix doesn't match 
> the description, so which is correct? If its as small as 
> it claims, it would be ideal. I thought of hitting the buy 
> it now for 4 of them since they are HSS and would need to 
> be drowning in cutting oil. Should I? Cheers, Gene Heskett 
I'm thinking the SHANK is 3/8", maybe.  Not clear the angle 
is 45 degrees, either, but that could just be the angle the 
photo was shot at.  I don't use ANY HSS anymore.  Maybe the 
stuff from China is all crap metallurgy, but quite some time 
ago I had really poor cutting life with them.  I got some 
M42 and such Cobalt HSS, and they last a LOT longer, for 
just a few pennies more.

Jon

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 04 February 2016 12:40:35 Chris Albertson wrote:

> A more simple design for a "soft start" is just to place a
> "thermistor" in series with the transformer (either side).  This
> device will offer a high resistance at first, then heat up and the
> resistance lowers to about an Ohm.  It is completely passive and very
> low cost.   They are used in many consumer devices from TV sets to
> computers and in larger industrial devices too.   The guys below will
> help you to select a part then offer free samples.  You can even use
> them in parallel if you need to absorb more power.
>
> The higher resistance is only needed for a second or so.  You select
> the part based on current and the thermal "mass" of the part
>
> For really large power designed the thermistor can control some other
> device.  I think it is better then using a timer because the
> thermistor actually looks at the inrush current and reacts to it by
> changing its resistance,then use the voltage drop across it to control
> something else.
>
> For info here
> http://www.ametherm.com/inrush-current/inrush-current-faq.html

It is an attractive idea, Chris, but from my experience in servicing tv's 
etc with them included to serve as degauser drivers, the failure rate 
has been noticeably often.  They fail high R, get progressively hotter 
as the R rises, and can affect the life of nearby parts from that heat, 
or even cook the degausing circiutry, and thats a large enough item to 
be considered a fire hazard.  I have seen several that self destructed, 
leaving just the wires sticking up out of the circuit board with little 
balls of melted copper on the ends of the wires, or hanging on the 
terminal strips prior to PCB's taking over from discreet circuitry.

I thought of it, and the memory came back of all the failures in crt 
based tv's and monitors, so it was discarded. I have enough fire hazards 
on my premises as is.

Thanks for the idea though as it gave me a reason to explain why I didn't 
do that.  Or, did I chase electrons for a living for too many years? 
Over 65 now. :(

> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Gene Heskett  
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 February 2016 21:38:27 Jon Elson wrote:
> > > On 02/03/2016 02:09 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Now I have spent 20 minutes doing a slow dance on those 2
> > > > buttons, and haven't tripped the breaker yet, probably
> > > > more than 50 full cycles.
> > >
> > > Well, still don't exactly know why it wasn't working
> > > before.  Did these charge pumps DIRECTLY drive the SSRs?  I
> > > can easily see how marginal or decaying analog outputs from
> > > a charge pump could do unwanted things to an SSR, like make
> > > it conduct ONLY on one polarity for a couple cycles as the
> > > charge pump cap was draining.  In fact, if you give typical
> > > SSRs marginal input voltages, I'll bet most of them will do
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Jon
> >
> > You could have hit it squarely there, Jon.  Perhaps the
> > mosfet/hexfet output might have been replaced with a comparator with
> > a bit of a schmidt trigger hysteresis so that the output wasn't ever
> > in that grey area. I'd be a bit spooked about running it all on a
> > normal logic voltage supply though.  I did note that I had quoted
> > the wrong voltage yesterday, coming out of the buck switcher, its
> > display says 25.6 volts, not 12. But since the original 4000 family
> > of cmos logic can and has survived on 28 volts on my watch with only
> > nominal heating while being switched at 1/4 microseconds speed, I'm
> > sure it could survive a nearly dc mode.  RCA only rated it for 15
> > volts in their propaganda.
> >
> > There is such a circuit I've seen someplace that used 1 gate of a
> > 4050 inverting buffer, with it driving the other 5 gates in the
> > package so the end result is non-inverting, and that can easily
> > supply 50 mills of output, and ack the SSR data we need 4 mills.
> >
> > One could adjust the trip point, since it would be at nominally 50%
> > of VCC, simply by adjusting the supply VCC, so if the bucker was
> > turned down to about 7.5 volts, the on/off response would
> > essentially duplicate the nominally 3.75 volts on point of the
> > hexfet.
> >
> > Hind sight, 20-05, I never thought of that when I laid it out in
> > pcb. :( Perhaps I should?  That would make the board wider, or
> > longer, but its nominally .9 by 1.75" now. Where I have them
> > mounted, width could go up an inch w/o impinging on the rest of the
> > stuff in that box.
> >
> > With that amount of gain in the buffering, I doubt if any schmidt
> > triggering hysteresis would be needed to get a clean switch. About a
> > .05 u-f feedback capacitor from the output back to cF to speed it up
> > would be a great plenty I'd think.
> >
> > Food for thought and experimentaton when I am next bored.  But its
> > working with the big current limiting resistor now, and its only
> > heating 2 or 3 degrees per on/off cycle to do it, so my 

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 04 February 2016 12:16:12 Jon Elson wrote:

> On 02/04/2016 01:46 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Snooping around on fleabay last night I found this:
> >  >UTTER-MILLING-HIGH-SPEED-STEEL-/131511946248?hash=item1e9eb90c08:g:Jm
> >cAAOSwBahVVON-> Which looks like a decent price, but the pix doesn't
> > match
> > the description, so which is correct? If its as small as
> > it claims, it would be ideal. I thought of hitting the buy
> > it now for 4 of them since they are HSS and would need to
> > be drowning in cutting oil. Should I? Cheers, Gene Heskett
>
> I'm thinking the SHANK is 3/8", maybe.  Not clear the angle
> is 45 degrees, either, but that could just be the angle the
> photo was shot at.  I don't use ANY HSS anymore.  Maybe the
> stuff from China is all crap metallurgy, but quite some time
> ago I had really poor cutting life with them.  I got some
> M42 and such Cobalt HSS, and they last a LOT longer, for
> just a few pennies more.
>
> Jon

This is, ATM, a one job need, that of making a teeny dovetail mount for 
this camera. And I ordered 4 of them from an outfit in Huntington Beach 
Cal this morning.  Expected delivery next Tuesday. I turned my pattern 
upside down so when its removed, theres only 3/8" of stuff hanging off 
the bottom on the spindle lock collar, which since I am using those 
Chinese R8-ER32 adapters, should clear most of the jigging studs etc.

Hopefully the dovetailed mount will let me remove it, and replace it, 
without needed to re-do all the calibrations for offsets etc.

Someone had advised me about te limited lifetime of a SQ-D breaker panel.
And one of the North Central WV Electical suppliers are in the process of 
opening up a supply house right here in Weston, so I drove out & found 
it today, and was able to source a 15 amp 250 volt breaker for the VFD 
circuit, be here tomorrow.  Along with some of that no-ox alu grease.

I mentioned the SQ-D gotcha and he replied that that was exactly the 
reason they were stocking Murray panelboxes.  They were all copper, and 
amazingly, cheaper than SQ-D for the same thing.

He was well aware of the SQ-D problem. He also said it you take it apart, 
and seal the fingers to the bars with an Silicon Lube, that it was  not 
ever a problem, but once in service thats not practical to do.  He also 
had some handy-boxes on the shelf already, so it appears I'll have a 
handier source for all this stuff without a 40+ mile round trip to Lowes 
or Tolley Electric.

Possible silly Q: The SSR that drives the resistor, first on/last off in 
the sequence, can I also parallel its output to switch those switcher 
supplies for the steppers?

The BoB's (2) one is powered by a wall wart plugged into the main strip 
on the end of the box, the other is self contained power but also 
plugged into that same strip, and I've been using the cheap rocker on 
that strip as a master switch.  But, if that SSR and those switchers 
could tolerate each other, then I could control everything but the 2 BOB 
powers with the first on, last off SSR.  The box with the SSR's in it 
also has its own supply, so with everything else off, standby power draw 
would probably be less than 25 watts, less that the computer draws.  And 
the ability to switch everything elses power is attractive as it would 
be both automatic and essentially free except for a few wire nuts I buy 
by the boxfull.

Neither of those stepper psu's contain any PF comp that I'm aware of, so 
it seems like it ought to work ok.

But this is dirt I've not kicked around yet, so advice would be 
appreciated.

Thanks Jon.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 03 February 2016 00:36:29 Jon Elson wrote:

> On 02/02/2016 10:03 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I believe they are. Would you like to see the .hal file?
>
> Hmm, not sure I could tell much from it.  Is this using a
> Pico Systems PWM controller,
Yes
> or a Mesa board?
Yes, a 5i25.
> (I've lost  
> track.) Following info assumes my PWM controller.  When you
> hit F2 to go from "machine on" to "machine off", then the
> PWM outputs are disabled, and so the PWM output goes to a
> low (zero Volts) state. That should turn off the transistors
> of the PWM servo amp, assuming the PWM output goes to the
> servo amp's PWM+ input, and the PWM- input is grounded.

The pwm signal is already off, long enough that if I want to start the 
spindle, I have to trigger the boot module to restart it.

> When you hit F1 to go to the E-STOP state, then the PWM is
> forced to zero, all SSR drive signals are forced to the Hi-Z
> state.  The SSRs have the + terminal connected to +3.3 V,
> and the - terminal is grounded to turn the SSR on.
>
The SSR + is fed by a 12 volt supply, and the charge pump detector sinks 
the - terminal.  The 12 volt supply is fed by its own transformer 
powered straight from the main switch on a power strip.  The 12 volt 
supply is a small buck switcher I got from MPJones for about 6 bucks 
each, good for better than an amp.  They looked to be handy as you could 
squirrel on away anyplace you needed a set voltage, even has a small 
display to show either the input or the output voltage.

> >> But, maybe there is a momentary bobble on the commands to
> >> the SSRs when you click the button.
> >> I'm guessing that means the E-stop button here.
> >
> > Thats the second button in axis?  Just for grins I also tried the
> > first button, identical results,
> >
> > The charge pump itself is on full time, at 500 Hz. I am gating it
> > with and gates driven by timers.  That 500Hz is detected by charge
> > pump detectors that have about 200 milliseconds of storage before
> > they turn the SSR's off. So a wibble in the pump signal would have
> > to be pretty drastic to effect them I think.  Those I can look at
> > with halscope.
>
> Charge pump?  You are sending this out on one of the digital
> outputs to an SSR?

Yes, Peter insists that the disabled state of all his cards sits at a 
logic one when off. So without the charge pump, firing up LCNC means you 
have got to have curcuitry that considers a logic one as the off state, 
so all hell breaks loose for a while as LCNC starts if the psu starts 
first.  Same with bringing up the PSU's, so without the charge pump 
detection, everything gets a hiccup if the control box is powered up 
after LCNC starts.  And it does not do any good to program the 5i25's 
gpio output so off is logic low, it goes high when the 5i25 is disabled 
regardless.  The WDT still disables all outputs to a logic one.  Peter 
may know how to get around that, but I failed.

So the only way to do this relatively non-timing critical psu switching 
is to use the carge pump, and a charge pump detector to do that control, 
it can absorb the noises without triggering the outside world for 1/4 
second while its getting its shit in one sock.

A crapload of such problems could be avoided if the 5i25 failed to a 
logic zero, same as powered off, when its disabled.  I love the card 
otherwise. If BoB's inverted the signals, that would transfer to 
everything being off/low, solving many of these problems.  But I haven't 
found a BoB that inverts.  Working around that with charge pump 
detection seems to handle that PITA well, at least on paper.

Too bad it doesn't do it in the real world.  I think thats the first 
thing I check tomorrow, is the actual signal going up the wire to the 
charge pump detectors in the box containing that small psu, the 
regulator card, and two of those pump detectors to drive the SSR's.
If that stops at the same time I click the off button, because the 5i25 
has set all outputs high, then nothing I do with the off timings I set 
in hal means diddly-squat.  Both will lose drive pretty close to 
simultaneously, and so fast I probably couldn't hear the <100 
miliseconds it takes them to disable the SSR's, fairly close to 
simultaneously.  Those two detectors have common SS si diodes in the 
signal detector, so they don't drive the hexfets to the least resistance 
state. No biggie as it only takes 4mils to enable the SSR's.

The replacements I built, but haven't installed in that box yet, have 
schottky diodes so they develop another 3/4 volt to drive the hexfet 
with and have a slower off switch, I put one in the vacuum cleaner's 
control path, and its a good 3/4 second turning the vacuum off when I 
uncheck the flood button.  Perhaps 1/2 second to start it.

If that is the case, and my carefully timed signals aren't getting thru 
the 5i25 because its disabled already, then I am with Jackie Gleason, 
what a revolting development this is!  The scope will tell that tale 

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Erik Christiansen]

On 03.02.16 03:11, Gene Heskett wrote:
> So the only way to do this relatively non-timing critical psu switching 
> is to use the carge pump, and a charge pump detector to do that control, 
> it can absorb the noises without triggering the outside world for 1/4 
> second while its getting its shit in one sock.
> 
> A crapload of such problems could be avoided if the 5i25 failed to a 
> logic zero, same as powered off, when its disabled.

Now I'm not grokking the problem, Gene. The first component in a simple
charge pump is a capacitor, so the DC state of an inactive input is
quite irrelevant. Unless the input is hopping up and down, there's no
charge pumping possible - that's what it's designed to detect, after
all.

Erik

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 03 February 2016 04:26:07 Erik Christiansen wrote:

> On 03.02.16 03:11, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > So the only way to do this relatively non-timing critical psu
> > switching is to use the carge pump, and a charge pump detector to do
> > that control, it can absorb the noises without triggering the
> > outside world for 1/4 second while its getting its shit in one sock.
> >
> > A crapload of such problems could be avoided if the 5i25 failed to a
> > logic zero, same as powered off, when its disabled.
>
> Now I'm not grokking the problem, Gene. The first component in a
> simple charge pump is a capacitor, so the DC state of an inactive
> input is quite irrelevant. Unless the input is hopping up and down,
> there's no charge pumping possible - that's what it's designed to
> detect, after all.
>
> Erik
Huh?  Have I not explained in enough detail?

I have a charge pump, running at servo-thread, so its square wave is 
nominally 500 Hz for a 1 kilohertz servo-thread.

From my .hal:
(word wrap off)

loadrt  timedelay   names=delay-soft,pwr-off-delay
loadrt  charge_pump
addf charge-pumpservo-thread
addf and.vacservo-thread
addf and.spndl-pwr  servo-thread
addf and.spndl-soft servo-thread
addf delay-soft servo-thread
addf pwr-off-delay  servo-thread
setp charge-pump.enable true  # just leave it running.
setppwr-off-delay.on-delay 1 # seconds, quick on 
setppwr-off-delay.off-delay 12 # seconds, slow off so resistor is in 
circuit by then
setpdelay-soft.on-delay 10 # seconds delay till the 51 ohm is SSR 
shorted
setpdelay-soft.off-delay 2.0 #  seconds in case I have it bass ackwards
setphm2_5i25.0.gpio.011.is_output true
net spndl-power motion.motion-enabled  pwr-off-delay.in delay-soft.in 
and.spndl-pwr.in1
setphm2_5i25.0.gpio.011.is_output true # pin J3-8
net start-spdnl-pwr and.spndl-pwr.out hm2_5i25.0.gpio.011.out #pin p3-8
net spndl-power-on <= delay-soft.out => and.spndl-soft.in1 # crowbar 
resistor
# set up this output on p3-09 for soft start bypassing
setphm2_5i25.0.gpio.012.is_output true   #is p3, bob pin 9
# that sets gpio.012 to output, and this crowbars the soft start resistor
net spndl-power-softand.spndl-soft.out hm2_5i25.0.gpio.012.out #P3 
pin 9

So when enabled by the time-delays, both pin 8 and pin 9 on the db25, p3
on the 5i25, are being pumped by the charge pump module.

In an outboard box, bonded to the main box, is a teeny power transformer
feeding a small bridge and filter capacitor to make about 34 volts out
of a 12-0-12 winding rated at 200 mils.

This feeds a buck switcher to knock it down to 12 volts, regulated.
I could adjust it as high as 30 volts, but 12 does the job.
This +12 volts is tied to the SSR's + control terminals.

Cobbled up on a radio shack project board in that box are 2 charge pump 
detectors.

When they have seen the pump signal long enough to charge up the output
capacitor, cF, the gate of a mosfet is driven high enough to turn the
mosfet on.

The schematic for the detectors is attached, drawn in geda, not eagle.

Those 2 pumping signals are sent to the 2 pump detectors, with the drain of the
mosfet output transistor of each connected to the SSR's - control 
terminals.

The net result is that the first hexfet to turn on, enables a 40 amp SSR
to connect the hot leg of the input power to the primary's of all 4
tordoid transformers THRU a 51 ohm 200 watt resistor to limit the inrush
surge that was tripping a 20 amp breaker in the service box.

The delay times are such that nominally 10 seconds later, after the filter
capacitors have charged well, the second signal starts pumping too, and
that pump detector then turns on the second SSR, putting a crowbar across
that 51 ohm resistor.

In the .hal setup shown above it should also turn off by first turning
off the second SSR so that the resistor is restored to be in series with
the transformer primaries, and about 3 seconds later, the first SSR is 
also turned off, disconnecting power from the toroids completely.

But, if my clicking on either of the 2 upper left axis buttons to disable
the machine,  also kills the 5i25's ability to output those pump signals,
which I now suspect to be the case simply because nothing else makes sense,
then the SSR's will be turned off quickly with zero regard for the off
timings set in the .hal pastes above.  If the main one goes down first, 
with the crowbar still enabled, I can see some odd goings on.

So when I have injected some starter fluid, aka coffee, and go to the 
garage to check, the first thing I'll do is see WHEN the pumps stop.
And I'm betting they stop, going high & staying there, the instant I 
click on either button.

Now, does this explain it?  Something is killing a 20 amp breaker when
I click on the axis disable buttons. NOT after the timeouts set in the
.hal.  A 30 amp breaker survives the surge with  all this stuff bypassed.
But a 30 amp, feeding a 4 plex, 

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 03 February 2016 09:27:58 Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Wednesday 03 February 2016 04:26:07 Erik Christiansen wrote:
> > On 03.02.16 03:11, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > So the only way to do this relatively non-timing critical psu
> > > switching is to use the carge pump, and a charge pump detector to
> > > do that control, it can absorb the noises without triggering the
> > > outside world for 1/4 second while its getting its shit in one
> > > sock.
> > >
> > > A crapload of such problems could be avoided if the 5i25 failed to
> > > a logic zero, same as powered off, when its disabled.
> >
> > Now I'm not grokking the problem, Gene. The first component in a
> > simple charge pump is a capacitor, so the DC state of an inactive
> > input is quite irrelevant. Unless the input is hopping up and down,
> > there's no charge pumping possible - that's what it's designed to
> > detect, after all.
> >
> > Erik
>
> Huh?  Have I not explained in enough detail?
>
> I have a charge pump, running at servo-thread, so its square wave is
> nominally 500 Hz for a 1 kilohertz servo-thread.
>
> From my .hal:
> (word wrap off)
>
> loadrt  timedelay   names=delay-soft,pwr-off-delay
> loadrt  charge_pump
Sorry, I missed this in my hal file snips:
loadrt  and2  names=and.vac,and.lube,and.spndl-pwr,and.spndl-soft
> addf charge-pumpservo-thread
> addf and.vacservo-thread
> addf and.spndl-pwr  servo-thread
> addf and.spndl-soft servo-thread
> addf delay-soft servo-thread
> addf pwr-off-delay  servo-thread
> setp charge-pump.enable true  # just leave it running.
> setppwr-off-delay.on-delay 1 # seconds, quick on
> setppwr-off-delay.off-delay 12 # seconds, slow off so resistor is
> in circuit by then setpdelay-soft.on-delay 10 # seconds delay
> till the 51 ohm is SSR shorted setpdelay-soft.off-delay 2.0 # 
> seconds in case I have it bass ackwards setp   
> hm2_5i25.0.gpio.011.is_output true
> net spndl-power motion.motion-enabled  pwr-off-delay.in
> delay-soft.in and.spndl-pwr.in1 setphm2_5i25.0.gpio.011.is_output
> true # pin J3-8
> net start-spdnl-pwr and.spndl-pwr.out hm2_5i25.0.gpio.011.out #pin
> p3-8 net spndl-power-on <= delay-soft.out => and.spndl-soft.in1 #
> crowbar resistor # set up this output on p3-09 for soft start
> bypassing
> setphm2_5i25.0.gpio.012.is_output true   #is p3, bob pin 9
> # that sets gpio.012 to output, and this crowbars the soft start
> resistor net spndl-power-softand.spndl-soft.out
> hm2_5i25.0.gpio.012.out #P3 pin 9
>
> So when enabled by the time-delays, both pin 8 and pin 9 on the db25,
> p3 on the 5i25, are being pumped by the charge pump module.
>
> In an outboard box, bonded to the main box, is a teeny power
> transformer feeding a small bridge and filter capacitor to make about
> 34 volts out of a 12-0-12 winding rated at 200 mils.
>
> This feeds a buck switcher to knock it down to 12 volts, regulated.
> I could adjust it as high as 30 volts, but 12 does the job.
> This +12 volts is tied to the SSR's + control terminals.
>
> Cobbled up on a radio shack project board in that box are 2 charge
> pump detectors.
>
> When they have seen the pump signal long enough to charge up the
> output capacitor, cF, the gate of a mosfet is driven high enough to
> turn the mosfet on.
>
> The schematic for the detectors is attached, drawn in geda, not eagle.
>
> Those 2 pumping signals are sent to the 2 pump detectors, with the
> drain of the mosfet output transistor of each connected to the SSR's -
> control terminals.
>
> The net result is that the first hexfet to turn on, enables a 40 amp
> SSR to connect the hot leg of the input power to the primary's of all
> 4 tordoid transformers THRU a 51 ohm 200 watt resistor to limit the
> inrush surge that was tripping a 20 amp breaker in the service box.
>
> The delay times are such that nominally 10 seconds later, after the
> filter capacitors have charged well, the second signal starts pumping
> too, and that pump detector then turns on the second SSR, putting a
> crowbar across that 51 ohm resistor.
>
> In the .hal setup shown above it should also turn off by first turning
> off the second SSR so that the resistor is restored to be in series
> with the transformer primaries, and about 3 seconds later, the first
> SSR is also turned off, disconnecting power from the toroids
> completely.
>
> But, if my clicking on either of the 2 upper left axis buttons to
> disable the machine,  also kills the 5i25's ability to output those
> pump signals, which I now suspect to be the case simply because
> nothing else makes sense, then the SSR's will be turned off quickly
> with zero regard for the off timings set in the .hal pastes above.  If
> the main one goes down first, with the crowbar still enabled, I can
> see some odd goings on.
>
> So when I have injected some starter fluid, aka coffee, and go to the
> garage to check, the first thing I'll do is see 

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Jon Elson]

On 02/03/2016 02:09 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Now I have spent 20 minutes doing a slow dance on those 2 
> buttons, and haven't tripped the breaker yet, probably 
> more than 50 full cycles.
Well, still don't exactly know why it wasn't working 
before.  Did these charge pumps DIRECTLY drive the SSRs?  I 
can easily see how marginal or decaying analog outputs from 
a charge pump could do unwanted things to an SSR, like make 
it conduct ONLY on one polarity for a couple cycles as the 
charge pump cap was draining.  In fact, if you give typical 
SSRs marginal input voltages, I'll bet most of them will do 
this.

Jon

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 03 February 2016 21:38:27 Jon Elson wrote:

> On 02/03/2016 02:09 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Now I have spent 20 minutes doing a slow dance on those 2
> > buttons, and haven't tripped the breaker yet, probably
> > more than 50 full cycles.
>
> Well, still don't exactly know why it wasn't working
> before.  Did these charge pumps DIRECTLY drive the SSRs?  I
> can easily see how marginal or decaying analog outputs from
> a charge pump could do unwanted things to an SSR, like make
> it conduct ONLY on one polarity for a couple cycles as the
> charge pump cap was draining.  In fact, if you give typical
> SSRs marginal input voltages, I'll bet most of them will do
> this.
>
> Jon
>
You could have hit it squarely there, Jon.  Perhaps the mosfet/hexfet 
output might have been replaced with a comparator with a bit of a 
schmidt trigger hysteresis so that the output wasn't ever in that grey 
area. I'd be a bit spooked about running it all on a normal logic 
voltage supply though.  I did note that I had quoted the wrong voltage 
yesterday, coming out of the buck switcher, its display says 25.6 volts, 
not 12. But since the original 4000 family of cmos logic can and has 
survived on 28 volts on my watch with only nominal heating while being 
switched at 1/4 microseconds speed, I'm sure it could survive a nearly 
dc mode.  RCA only rated it for 15 volts in their propaganda.

There is such a circuit I've seen someplace that used 1 gate of a 4050 
inverting buffer, with it driving the other 5 gates in the package so 
the end result is non-inverting, and that can easily supply 50 mills of 
output, and ack the SSR data we need 4 mills.

One could adjust the trip point, since it would be at nominally 50% of 
VCC, simply by adjusting the supply VCC, so if the bucker was turned 
down to about 7.5 volts, the on/off response would essentially duplicate 
the nominally 3.75 volts on point of the hexfet.

Hind sight, 20-05, I never thought of that when I laid it out in pcb. :(
Perhaps I should?  That would make the board wider, or longer, but its 
nominally .9 by 1.75" now. Where I have them mounted, width could go up 
an inch w/o impinging on the rest of the stuff in that box.

With that amount of gain in the buffering, I doubt if any schmidt 
triggering hysteresis would be needed to get a clean switch. About a .05 
u-f feedback capacitor from the output back to cF to speed it up would 
be a great plenty I'd think.

Food for thought and experimentaton when I am next bored.  But its 
working with the big current limiting resistor now, and its only heating 
2 or 3 degrees per on/off cycle to do it, so my natural tendency toward 
lazyness and to not fix what isn't broken will likely detour that 
effort.  Sad, but as a former Bro-in-Law used to say, its good enough 
for the girls I go with. :)

But I'd like to get this furniture project done & delivered while I take 
a grand tour to Nebraska & Kansas to deliver 3 of them to my son's 
sometime this summer before I fall over.  And get a couple small 45 
degree dovetail mills ordered so I can hack out a teeny QC mount for 
this endoscope camera. Then I can do double sided PCB's without all the 
foolishness changing the tool out for a sensing contact to locate a hole 
in piece of brass tubing set into the corner of the pallet & calculate 
all the offsets needed to do the back side of a board.  That got quite 
tedious on the toy mill too.

Snooping around on fleabay last night I found this:



Which looks like a decent price, but the pix doesn't match the 
description, so which is correct?  If its as small as it claims, it 
would be ideal. I thought of hitting the buy it now for 4 of them since 
they are HSS and would need to be drowning in cutting oil.  Should I?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Dave Cole]

I've seen some really wierd issues with some SSRs.  I think that some 
are not setup internally as they depict.

Because of that I tend to avoid them when I can.   However in some 
applications they are the only way to go.
You might want to consider using relays for this application instead.   
Drive the relays with the SSRs if you need to.

Automation Direct has cheap 15 amp relays.   Use two contacts in 
parallel if you need more capacity and they will likely last a very long 
time.

Dave

On 2/2/2016 10:05 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 February 2016 21:46:34 Jon Elson wrote:
>
>> On 02/02/2016 06:14 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> It basically consists of two SSR's in series, the first one being
>>> the main switch that enables AC power to reach the transformer by
>>> way of a 51 Ohm 200 watt inrush limiting resistor.  And that after
>>> the filters are charged, nominally 10 seconds, a second SSR is
>>> fired to short that resistor, allowing the supply to make full
>>> output. Controlled by a couple timers driven by the
>>> motion.machine_is_on signal.
>> Hmmm, maybe this is the problem.  Maybe, due to the way the
>> zero-crossing circuits work, putting two SSRs in series
>> totally fouls up the internal logic.  it seems you could put
>> the two relays in parallel, one with the resistor in series
>> with that relay.  So, you turn on the relays exactly as
>> before.  the one with the series resistor first, then the
>> one with no resistor.  My GUESS, and it IS a guess, is that
>> somehow, with the two relays in series, and that they have
>> zero voltage switching logic in them, that they fool each
>> other and end up passing only half-wave power to the
>> transformer. Does the transformer clunk right when this
>> breaker-tripping event occurs?
> I don't hear it, but since they are toroids on ferrite cores, would I
> hear that?  They are very quiet otherwise.
>
>> If the transformer is fed
>> half-wave power, the core will saturate in barely more than
>> one line cycle, and a tripped breaker seems quite likely.
>> Zero-crossing SSRs are really NOT good for transformers,
>> anyway, as they just about guarantee a saturated start for
>> the transformer, anyway.  What you REALLY want is a relay
>> that always closes on the voltage peak, but they don't make
>> those.
> Noted previously.  And it hurts. I think that may be some fraction of the
> why I had to put a 30 amp breaker on that circuit in the first place.
>
> Bears investigating for sure, thanks Jon.
>
>> Anyway, it seems my idea would require only moving a couple
>> wires, so you might try it.
>>
>> Jon
>>
> I think that is what I have, but possibly not, Jon.  It wouldn't be at
> all hard to fix in the event its not that way.  But again, it runs all
> day, then trips the breaker coincident with ther button click, seconds
> BEFORE either SSR is turned off.  Thats what doesn't grok.  Weirdsville.
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 03 February 2016 13:52:16 Dave Cole wrote:

> I've seen some really wierd issues with some SSRs.  I think that some
> are not setup internally as they depict.
>
> Because of that I tend to avoid them when I can.   However in some
> applications they are the only way to go.
> You might want to consider using relays for this application instead.
> Drive the relays with the SSRs if you need to.
>
> Automation Direct has cheap 15 amp relays.   Use two contacts in
> parallel if you need more capacity and they will likely last a very
> long time.
>
> Dave
>
Well, I appear to have it solved.  When I did check, somehow the main SSR 
was being turned off quite quickly regardless of the delay I put in the 
timer.  THe soft start was working as expected. I apparently wrote a 
buggy hal file.

But I hadn't named stuff quite right, and the code 535 lines down in the 
hal file was difficult to trace, so I renamed some stuff with more 
descriptive names, then went 530 lines down in the file and nuked 
everything in that section except the 5i25's gpio setup for pins 8 and 9 
on J3, which of course are also 8 & 9 on the BoB.

Then I reconstructed the charge pump chain and the time delays, checking 
those as I went along, but before I had rewired the box more in line 
with Jon's suggestion, I also ripped out my original pump detectors and 
installed two of the newer design with schottky diodes, which gave a 
little more gate drive for the hexfets that controlled the SSR's.

Watching both the scope and the leds on the SSR's I made sure it was 
doing what I wanted with perhaps a bit more delay in the off because the 
gate voltage was about .8 volts higher with the schottky diodes doing 
the pumping.

Then I did as Jon suggested and paralleled the hot terminals of the 
SSR's, then took what I now called *-hard signals SSR output to the end 
of the resistor, tested that, worked.  Then connected the load side of 
the *soft SSR to hit the load end of the resistor, where the high side 
of all the toroids were also connected.

So now the on sequence is
turn on the *-hard, 1 second after I have enabled the machine which feeds 
the resistor, the other end of which feeds the toroids.  This allows the 
caps to start charging up.

10 seconds later, when the caps are only 5 volts or so below fully 
charged, the soft timer finally goes true, enabling the pump signal to 
reach the second SSR and turn it on.  That effectively ties both ends of 
the resistor together and feeds unrestricted power to the toroids.

Then when I unclick either of the machine buttons, the *hard pump is 
stopped in about 3/4 second (software time is .1 secs, discharge time of 
the detector is nominally 1/2 sec) and the hard SSR is turned off, 
effectively switching the resistor back into the circuit.

And about 3 secs later, the soft SSR is turned off, completely 
disconnecting the toroids and the bleeders will discharge the caps in 
another 10 minutes or so.

I can likely speed that up to do it all in 1 second, but this way I can 
see the SSR'd leds confirming it if the lid is off that box.

Now I have spent 20 minutes doing a slow dance on those 2 buttons, and 
haven't tripped the breaker yet, probably more than 50 full cycles.

So I believe I have it whupped.  Bout time, thats for sure.  Now I can go 
back to slowly assembling mahogany pieces, and while glue is setting in 
clamps, I can work on a mount for the endoscope camera.  But I haven't 
conjured up a design that will allow it to be quickly removed to get it 
out of the way of wandering clamp bolts and such, yet allow it to be 
remounted, still in the established calibration, when I need it.  That 
is a lesson I learned from the smaller mill, I wiped the whole mount 
right off the side of the head casting  with a tall clamp bolt. Perhaps 
I can borrow the design of a QC toolpost?  But horizontally mounted, in 
miniature, on the bottom of the spindle lock ring.

Still cogitating on that. I'll have to obtain a 45 degree dovetail cutter 
for that as I don't hardly have some more of that item on the tool rack 
I should build. :)

3pm, I think there is a cold pork chop calling itself breakfast in the 
fridge.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 01 February 2016 19:09:51 Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Monday 01 February 2016 17:49:01 John Kasunich wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016, at 05:31 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Greetings;
> > >
> > > Those of you reading the mail know I made a soft start circuit for
> > > the spindle PSU.
> > >
> > > It basically consists of two SSR's in series, the first one being
> > > the main switch that enables AC power to reach the transformer by
> > > way of a 51 Ohm 200 watt inrush limiting resistor.  And that after
> > > the filters are charged, nominally 10 seconds, a second SSR is
> > > fired to short that resistor, allowing the supply to make full
> > > output. Controlled by a couple timers driven by the
> > > motion.machine_is_on signal.
> > >
> > > I had set the timers for a fairly speedy off, with the SSR across
> > > te resistor being the first one turned off if I unclicked the 2nd
> > > button, followed 5 seconds later by the first SSR being shut down.
> > > Sort of a soft stop I guess.
> > >
> > > But today in playing with the pyvcp-pannel, I turned it off with
> > > the 2nd button, and the 20 amp breaker I had put back in the
> > > service to replace the ill eagle 30 amp dropped instantly.  And
> > > repeated everytime I stopped it with that button, 100% of the
> > > time.
> > >
> > > I cannot imagine where a momentary short might be.  So I piddled
> > > with the setp's in the hal file so the softstart SSR was left on
> > > for about 5 seconds, but the main SSR was disabled in about .5
> > > seconds, so that main power was disabled before the soft-start SSR
> > > was disabled.
> > >
> > > Now its not tripping the breaker, which is cool.  But the question
> > > is, why did it trip 100% of the time before I did that?
> > >
> > > Other than an SSR surge internal breakdown to the case & sink, I
> > > cannot come up with a valid reason for that behaviour.
> >
> > These have metal baseplates?
>
> Yes, bolted to the case, more for solid mounting than any need for a
> heat sink.  No detectable heat.
>
> > Connected to grounded sinks?  You
> > could rule out a breakdown to sink if you temporarily insulated the
> > sinks from ground and went back to the old configuration.  A single
> > breaker trip with the sinks floating would tend to rule out that
> > possibility.
> >
> > Is there ANY path from incoming line to neutral (or the other phase,
> > if this is a 240V circuit)
>
> Upstream of the first SSR is where the switcher supplies for the axis
> motors are fed.  They come on with the strip switch.  Nothing beyond
> the SSR's except the transformers, which are identical, 4 of them with
> primaries paralleled, and each secondary has its own rectifier and
> filter bank, which are then connected in 2 in series and 2 sets of
> that paralleled to double the available voltage and double the
> available current.  Available DC is in the 126 volt range, available
> current on a 50% duty cycle is about 20-25 amps.  Jon's PWM servo is
> the driver, set for about a 15 amp current limit.  The servo amp is
> the only load and it would normally be disabled, drawing essentially
> zero current when the spindle is stopped.
>
> > that doesn't go through the transformer?
> > If the answer is no (it seems that way from your description), and
> > the fault current isn't flowing thru the case of the SSR, then it
> > must be flowing thru the transformer.  The only way the transformer
> > should draw that kind of current is for a cycle or two at startup,
> > or if the core saturates due to a large DC component.  Is it
> > possible that one or both SSRs is only conducting on one half of the
> > AC waveform?
>
> Both tally leds on the SSR's are nice & bright, and the same
> brightness as its twin when both are enegized.  I haven't looked at it
> with a scope in about a month & then I could just barely discern the
> cross-over zero but had to really look close.
>
> It appears I have solved the breaker tripping, but I'd sure like to
> know why.  I have that "waiting for the other shoe to drop" feeling.
> :(
>
No, not fixed. The other first shoe is dropping, repeatedly.

And now I am bumfuzzled.  I moved the monitors power cord to a socket 
that doesn't die when that breaker trips.  So I can now watch things 
with a halmeter while I turn it off.

Then I stretched the off times of the SSR driver timers,  to 2.5 seconds 
and 5 seconds after I click on the 2nd from the left axis top row icon.

The breaker trips milliseconds after I click on the icon, regardless of 
the off times set in the two timers. I can see the breaker is tripped, 
turn my head back to the monitor and the halmeters, and watch the signal 
to both ssr's stop a from a second to 3 later.

I am NOT controlling power to the steppers, they come on and go off with 
a switch on a power strip that controls this whole box full of stuff.

I do not see the spindle motor jump, primarily because when the spindle 
is stopped, its completely stopped, disabled and has to have the initial 

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Jon Elson]

On 02/02/2016 10:03 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> I believe they are. Would you like to see the .hal file?
Hmm, not sure I could tell much from it.  Is this using a 
Pico Systems PWM controller, or a Mesa board?  (I've lost 
track.) Following info assumes my PWM controller.  When you 
hit F2 to go from "machine on" to "machine off", then the 
PWM outputs are disabled, and so the PWM output goes to a 
low (zero Volts) state. That should turn off the transistors 
of the PWM servo amp, assuming the PWM output goes to the 
servo amp's PWM+ input, and the PWM- input is grounded.
When you hit F1 to go to the E-STOP state, then the PWM is 
forced to zero, all SSR drive signals are forced to the Hi-Z 
state.  The SSRs have the + terminal connected to +3.3 V, 
and the - terminal is grounded to turn the SSR on.
>
>> But, maybe there is a momentary bobble on the commands to
>> the SSRs when you click the button.
>> I'm guessing that means the E-stop button here.
>>
> Thats the second button in axis?  Just for grins I also tried the first
> button, identical results,
>
> The charge pump itself is on full time, at 500 Hz. I am gating it with
> and gates driven by timers.  That 500Hz is detected by charge pump
> detectors that have about 200 milliseconds of storage before they turn
> the SSR's off. So a wibble in the pump signal would have to be pretty
> drastic to effect them I think.  Those I can look at with halscope.
>
>
Charge pump?  You are sending this out on one of the digital 
outputs to an SSR?

Jon

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 02 February 2016 21:55:10 Jon Elson wrote:

> Gene,
>
> One detail.  Is the breaker only tripping when you turn OFF
> the SSR?

No Jon, I stretched the off delays, and the breaker is falling as soon as 
I click the off button. Thats 3 to 5 seconds BEFORE either SSR is turned 
off.  And that puts the puzzle in a brand new category.  I could easily 
believe the surge failure IF the breaker was falling coincident with  
turning off the SSR.  But this doesn't calculate at all.

> If so, this actually makes a lot of sense.  Some 
> SSRs have a self-protective function that turns the SSR on
> for a half-cycle if an overvoltage is experienced.  (This is
> usually an avalanche section built into the SCR or Triac
> component.)  If this gets triggered on shutoff of the
> transformer due to leakage inductance in the primary
> winding, it could get stuck in this mode until the breaker
> pops.  You might be able to fix it by putting a big snubber
> across the SSR.  Since the direct-feed SSR has a beefy
> resistor across it, it seems like it might be the SSR that
> is turned on first that would be susceptible to this mode.
> But, you might try it on both - or put it spanning BOTH
> SSRs.  Something like .01 uF and 10 Ohms in series might be
> where to start.
>
My hell-box doesn't have either of those in suitable voltage ratings.
I do have some 8 ohm 20 watters, probably inductive as they were sold as 
audio dummy loads by the Shack when we had one.  The caps would probably 
need to be kilovolt rated I'd imagine.

I'l check, and rewire if needed tomorrow on the other suggestion. I did 
have it timed so the one across the resistor was turned off first, 
leaving power on thru the resistor until that one shut down 1 second 
later, giving a "soft shutdown" as it were.

Thanks for the ideas Jon.  Appreciated.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Jon Elson]

On 02/02/2016 09:05 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> I don't hear it, but since they are toroids on ferrite cores, would I
> hear that?  They are very quiet otherwise.
Your power transformers are Ferrite?  Are you sure?  If 
these are Hammond toroids, they are wound up with a steel 
strip.  I can't imagine running a power supply at 60 Hz with 
a ferrite transformer.
>> If the transformer is fed
>> half-wave power, the core will saturate in barely more than
>> one line cycle, and a tripped breaker seems quite likely.
>> Zero-crossing SSRs are really NOT good for transformers,
>> anyway, as they just about guarantee a saturated start for
>> the transformer, anyway.  What you REALLY want is a relay
>> that always closes on the voltage peak, but they don't make
>> those.
> Noted previously.  And it hurts. I think that may be some fraction of the
> why I had to put a 30 amp breaker on that circuit in the first place.
>
> Bears investigating for sure, thanks Jon.
>
>> Anyway, it seems my idea would require only moving a couple
>> wires, so you might try it.
>>
>> Jon
>>
> I think that is what I have, but possibly not, Jon.  It wouldn't be at
> all hard to fix in the event its not that way.  But again, it runs all
> day, then trips the breaker coincident with ther button click, seconds
> BEFORE either SSR is turned off.  Thats what doesn't grok.  Weirdsville.
>
>
Ahh, BEFORE the SSR is turned off.  Now, THAT is 
interesting!  I wonder if there is something that is fouling 
up the load side of the supply, like turning on BOTH the 
forward and reverse relays at the same time, or something 
crazy like that.  Maybe the way the logic is set up the 
E-stop condition is different from the "turn it off" 
condition.  Whatever the outputs do for E-stop should be the 
same as Off.
But, maybe there is a momentary bobble on the commands to 
the SSRs when you click the button.
I'm guessing that means the E-stop button here.

Jon

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[John Kasunich]

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016, at 10:22 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 February 2016 21:55:10 Jon Elson wrote:
> 
> > Gene,
> >
> > One detail.  Is the breaker only tripping when you turn OFF
> > the SSR?
> 
> No Jon, I stretched the off delays, and the breaker is falling as soon as 
> I click the off button. Thats 3 to 5 seconds BEFORE either SSR is turned 
> off.  And that puts the puzzle in a brand new category. 

The breaker trips the instant you click a button on the screen.

You think the SSRs are being commanded to turn off several
seconds after you click the screen button.

There must be some faster path between the button click and
the breaker.  Your problem is to find it.  Assume nothing, trust
nothing.

Identify EVERY single output from the PC, no matter where you think
it goes and when you think it is supposed to change state.  Put a
meter (real, not HAL) on each output, one at a time (or better yet,
a scope).  Find the one that changes state (even if only for a few
micro-seconds) when you click your on-screen button.

Once you know what PC pin(s) change state at that instant,
we can start to figure out how that state change trips the breaker.
(Or it might become obvious)

When this was an intermittent problem it could have been a
nightmare to find.   Now that it is happening repeatably on 
command (when you click the on-screen button), it shouldn't
be terribly hard to track down.


John Kasunich
  John Kasunich
  jmkasun...@fastmail.fm

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 02 February 2016 22:31:51 Jon Elson wrote:

> On 02/02/2016 09:05 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I don't hear it, but since they are toroids on ferrite cores, would
> > I hear that?  They are very quiet otherwise.
>
> Your power transformers are Ferrite?  Are you sure?  If
> these are Hammond toroids, they are wound up with a steel
> strip.  I can't imagine running a power supply at 60 Hz with
> a ferrite transformer.

I haven't uncovered the core, so you are likely correct and its a grain 
oriented silicon steel strip core.
>
> >> If the transformer is fed
> >> half-wave power, the core will saturate in barely more than
> >> one line cycle, and a tripped breaker seems quite likely.
> >> Zero-crossing SSRs are really NOT good for transformers,
> >> anyway, as they just about guarantee a saturated start for
> >> the transformer, anyway.  What you REALLY want is a relay
> >> that always closes on the voltage peak, but they don't make
> >> those.
> >
> > Noted previously.  And it hurts. I think that may be some fraction
> > of the why I had to put a 30 amp breaker on that circuit in the
> > first place.
> >
> > Bears investigating for sure, thanks Jon.
> >
> >> Anyway, it seems my idea would require only moving a couple
> >> wires, so you might try it.
> >>
> >> Jon
> >
> > I think that is what I have, but possibly not, Jon.  It wouldn't be
> > at all hard to fix in the event its not that way.  But again, it
> > runs all day, then trips the breaker coincident with ther button
> > click, seconds BEFORE either SSR is turned off.  Thats what doesn't
> > grok.  Weirdsville.
>
> Ahh, BEFORE the SSR is turned off.  Now, THAT is
> interesting!  I wonder if there is something that is fouling
> up the load side of the supply, like turning on BOTH the
> forward and reverse relays at the same time, or something
> crazy like that.

No relays, reverse goes straight to your pwm servo driver.   But its 
disabled for lack of drive long enough it needs rebooted. My hal file 
sequencing handles that.  Stopped kills the enable to your driver.

> Maybe the way the logic is set up the 
> E-stop condition is different from the "turn it off"
> condition.  Whatever the outputs do for E-stop should be the
> same as Off.

I believe they are. Would you like to see the .hal file?

> But, maybe there is a momentary bobble on the commands to
> the SSRs when you click the button.
> I'm guessing that means the E-stop button here.
>
Thats the second button in axis?  Just for grins I also tried the first 
button, identical results,

The charge pump itself is on full time, at 500 Hz. I am gating it with 
and gates driven by timers.  That 500Hz is detected by charge pump 
detectors that have about 200 milliseconds of storage before they turn 
the SSR's off. So a wibble in the pump signal would have to be pretty 
drastic to effect them I think.  Those I can look at with halscope.

Thanks Jon

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Todd Zuercher]

These are guesses from the ignorant here; bad breaker (I've bought new duds 
before) or something back feeding into it???

- Original Message -
From: "Gene Heskett" <ghesk...@wdtv.com>
To: emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 7:14:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

On Monday 01 February 2016 19:09:51 Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Monday 01 February 2016 17:49:01 John Kasunich wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016, at 05:31 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Greetings;
> > >
> > > Those of you reading the mail know I made a soft start circuit for
> > > the spindle PSU.
> > >
> > > It basically consists of two SSR's in series, the first one being
> > > the main switch that enables AC power to reach the transformer by
> > > way of a 51 Ohm 200 watt inrush limiting resistor.  And that after
> > > the filters are charged, nominally 10 seconds, a second SSR is
> > > fired to short that resistor, allowing the supply to make full
> > > output. Controlled by a couple timers driven by the
> > > motion.machine_is_on signal.
> > >
> > > I had set the timers for a fairly speedy off, with the SSR across
> > > te resistor being the first one turned off if I unclicked the 2nd
> > > button, followed 5 seconds later by the first SSR being shut down.
> > > Sort of a soft stop I guess.
> > >
> > > But today in playing with the pyvcp-pannel, I turned it off with
> > > the 2nd button, and the 20 amp breaker I had put back in the
> > > service to replace the ill eagle 30 amp dropped instantly.  And
> > > repeated everytime I stopped it with that button, 100% of the
> > > time.
> > >
> > > I cannot imagine where a momentary short might be.  So I piddled
> > > with the setp's in the hal file so the softstart SSR was left on
> > > for about 5 seconds, but the main SSR was disabled in about .5
> > > seconds, so that main power was disabled before the soft-start SSR
> > > was disabled.
> > >
> > > Now its not tripping the breaker, which is cool.  But the question
> > > is, why did it trip 100% of the time before I did that?
> > >
> > > Other than an SSR surge internal breakdown to the case & sink, I
> > > cannot come up with a valid reason for that behaviour.
> >
> > These have metal baseplates?
>
> Yes, bolted to the case, more for solid mounting than any need for a
> heat sink.  No detectable heat.
>
> > Connected to grounded sinks?  You
> > could rule out a breakdown to sink if you temporarily insulated the
> > sinks from ground and went back to the old configuration.  A single
> > breaker trip with the sinks floating would tend to rule out that
> > possibility.
> >
> > Is there ANY path from incoming line to neutral (or the other phase,
> > if this is a 240V circuit)
>
> Upstream of the first SSR is where the switcher supplies for the axis
> motors are fed.  They come on with the strip switch.  Nothing beyond
> the SSR's except the transformers, which are identical, 4 of them with
> primaries paralleled, and each secondary has its own rectifier and
> filter bank, which are then connected in 2 in series and 2 sets of
> that paralleled to double the available voltage and double the
> available current.  Available DC is in the 126 volt range, available
> current on a 50% duty cycle is about 20-25 amps.  Jon's PWM servo is
> the driver, set for about a 15 amp current limit.  The servo amp is
> the only load and it would normally be disabled, drawing essentially
> zero current when the spindle is stopped.
>
> > that doesn't go through the transformer?
> > If the answer is no (it seems that way from your description), and
> > the fault current isn't flowing thru the case of the SSR, then it
> > must be flowing thru the transformer.  The only way the transformer
> > should draw that kind of current is for a cycle or two at startup,
> > or if the core saturates due to a large DC component.  Is it
> > possible that one or both SSRs is only conducting on one half of the
> > AC waveform?
>
> Both tally leds on the SSR's are nice & bright, and the same
> brightness as its twin when both are enegized.  I haven't looked at it
> with a scope in about a month & then I could just barely discern the
> cross-over zero but had to really look close.
>
> It appears I have solved the breaker tripping, but I'd sure like to
> know why.  I have that "waiting for the other shoe to drop" feeling.
> :(
>
No, not fixed. The other first shoe is dropping, repeatedly.

And now I am

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 02 February 2016 21:29:20 Todd Zuercher wrote:

> These are guesses from the ignorant here; bad breaker (I've bought new
> duds before) or something back feeding into it???
>
I do have a couple more breakers, those skinny duals in a single place 
package.  15's IIRC but both on the same phase.  I'll put one of those 
in tomorrow as a check. But my point is, that at the time the breaker 
trips, no power controlling has actually been done, the SSR's are still 
fired.

I'll scout around and see if I can find another handybox and put that 
power cord on its own breaker while leaving the rest of that controlbox 
on the other 15 amp breaker in that dual package.  That way everything 
will stay on the same leg of the 240 feed from the pole.  Then we'll see 
which breaker trips.  That would be educational in itself.

> - Original Message -
> From: "Gene Heskett" <ghesk...@wdtv.com>
> To: emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 7:14:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?
>
> On Monday 01 February 2016 19:09:51 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 01 February 2016 17:49:01 John Kasunich wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016, at 05:31 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Greetings;
> > > >
> > > > Those of you reading the mail know I made a soft start circuit
> > > > for the spindle PSU.
> > > >
> > > > It basically consists of two SSR's in series, the first one
> > > > being the main switch that enables AC power to reach the
> > > > transformer by way of a 51 Ohm 200 watt inrush limiting
> > > > resistor.  And that after the filters are charged, nominally 10
> > > > seconds, a second SSR is fired to short that resistor, allowing
> > > > the supply to make full output. Controlled by a couple timers
> > > > driven by the
> > > > motion.machine_is_on signal.
> > > >
> > > > I had set the timers for a fairly speedy off, with the SSR
> > > > across te resistor being the first one turned off if I unclicked
> > > > the 2nd button, followed 5 seconds later by the first SSR being
> > > > shut down. Sort of a soft stop I guess.
> > > >
> > > > But today in playing with the pyvcp-pannel, I turned it off with
> > > > the 2nd button, and the 20 amp breaker I had put back in the
> > > > service to replace the ill eagle 30 amp dropped instantly.  And
> > > > repeated everytime I stopped it with that button, 100% of the
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > I cannot imagine where a momentary short might be.  So I piddled
> > > > with the setp's in the hal file so the softstart SSR was left on
> > > > for about 5 seconds, but the main SSR was disabled in about .5
> > > > seconds, so that main power was disabled before the soft-start
> > > > SSR was disabled.
> > > >
> > > > Now its not tripping the breaker, which is cool.  But the
> > > > question is, why did it trip 100% of the time before I did that?
> > > >
> > > > Other than an SSR surge internal breakdown to the case & sink, I
> > > > cannot come up with a valid reason for that behaviour.
> > >
> > > These have metal baseplates?
> >
> > Yes, bolted to the case, more for solid mounting than any need for a
> > heat sink.  No detectable heat.
> >
> > > Connected to grounded sinks?  You
> > > could rule out a breakdown to sink if you temporarily insulated
> > > the sinks from ground and went back to the old configuration.  A
> > > single breaker trip with the sinks floating would tend to rule out
> > > that possibility.
> > >
> > > Is there ANY path from incoming line to neutral (or the other
> > > phase, if this is a 240V circuit)
> >
> > Upstream of the first SSR is where the switcher supplies for the
> > axis motors are fed.  They come on with the strip switch.  Nothing
> > beyond the SSR's except the transformers, which are identical, 4 of
> > them with primaries paralleled, and each secondary has its own
> > rectifier and filter bank, which are then connected in 2 in series
> > and 2 sets of that paralleled to double the available voltage and
> > double the available current.  Available DC is in the 126 volt
> > range, available current on a 50% duty cycle is about 20-25 amps. 
> > Jon's PWM servo is the driver, set for about a 15 amp current limit.
> >  The servo amp is the only load and it would normally be disabled,
> > drawing essentially zero current when the s

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Jon Elson]

Gene,

One detail.  Is the breaker only tripping when you turn OFF 
the SSR?  If so, this actually makes a lot of sense.  Some 
SSRs have a self-protective function that turns the SSR on 
for a half-cycle if an overvoltage is experienced.  (This is 
usually an avalanche section built into the SCR or Triac 
component.)  If this gets triggered on shutoff of the 
transformer due to leakage inductance in the primary 
winding, it could get stuck in this mode until the breaker 
pops.  You might be able to fix it by putting a big snubber 
across the SSR.  Since the direct-feed SSR has a beefy 
resistor across it, it seems like it might be the SSR that 
is turned on first that would be susceptible to this mode.  
But, you might try it on both - or put it spanning BOTH 
SSRs.  Something like .01 uF and 10 Ohms in series might be 
where to start.

Jon

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 02 February 2016 21:46:34 Jon Elson wrote:

> On 02/02/2016 06:14 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > It basically consists of two SSR's in series, the first one being
> > the main switch that enables AC power to reach the transformer by
> > way of a 51 Ohm 200 watt inrush limiting resistor.  And that after
> > the filters are charged, nominally 10 seconds, a second SSR is
> > fired to short that resistor, allowing the supply to make full
> > output. Controlled by a couple timers driven by the
> > motion.machine_is_on signal.
>
> Hmmm, maybe this is the problem.  Maybe, due to the way the
> zero-crossing circuits work, putting two SSRs in series
> totally fouls up the internal logic.  it seems you could put
> the two relays in parallel, one with the resistor in series
> with that relay.  So, you turn on the relays exactly as
> before.  the one with the series resistor first, then the
> one with no resistor.  My GUESS, and it IS a guess, is that
> somehow, with the two relays in series, and that they have
> zero voltage switching logic in them, that they fool each
> other and end up passing only half-wave power to the
> transformer. Does the transformer clunk right when this
> breaker-tripping event occurs?

I don't hear it, but since they are toroids on ferrite cores, would I 
hear that?  They are very quiet otherwise.

> If the transformer is fed 
> half-wave power, the core will saturate in barely more than
> one line cycle, and a tripped breaker seems quite likely.
> Zero-crossing SSRs are really NOT good for transformers,
> anyway, as they just about guarantee a saturated start for
> the transformer, anyway.  What you REALLY want is a relay
> that always closes on the voltage peak, but they don't make
> those.

Noted previously.  And it hurts. I think that may be some fraction of the 
why I had to put a 30 amp breaker on that circuit in the first place.

Bears investigating for sure, thanks Jon.

> Anyway, it seems my idea would require only moving a couple
> wires, so you might try it.
>
> Jon
>
I think that is what I have, but possibly not, Jon.  It wouldn't be at 
all hard to fix in the event its not that way.  But again, it runs all 
day, then trips the breaker coincident with ther button click, seconds 
BEFORE either SSR is turned off.  Thats what doesn't grok.  Weirdsville.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Jon Elson]

On 02/02/2016 06:14 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> It basically consists of two SSR's in series, the first one being
> the main switch that enables AC power to reach the transformer by
> way of a 51 Ohm 200 watt inrush limiting resistor.  And that after
> the filters are charged, nominally 10 seconds, a second SSR is
> fired to short that resistor, allowing the supply to make full
> output. Controlled by a couple timers driven by the
> motion.machine_is_on signal.
>
>
Hmmm, maybe this is the problem.  Maybe, due to the way the 
zero-crossing circuits work, putting two SSRs in series 
totally fouls up the internal logic.  it seems you could put 
the two relays in parallel, one with the resistor in series 
with that relay.  So, you turn on the relays exactly as 
before.  the one with the series resistor first, then the 
one with no resistor.  My GUESS, and it IS a guess, is that 
somehow, with the two relays in series, and that they have 
zero voltage switching logic in them, that they fool each 
other and end up passing only half-wave power to the 
transformer. Does the transformer clunk right when this 
breaker-tripping event occurs?  If the transformer is fed 
half-wave power, the core will saturate in barely more than 
one line cycle, and a tripped breaker seems quite likely.  
Zero-crossing SSRs are really NOT good for transformers, 
anyway, as they just about guarantee a saturated start for 
the transformer, anyway.  What you REALLY want is a relay 
that always closes on the voltage peak, but they don't make 
those.

Anyway, it seems my idea would require only moving a couple 
wires, so you might try it.

Jon

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

[Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

Greetings;

Those of you reading the mail know I made a soft start circuit for the 
spindle PSU.

It basically consists of two SSR's in series, the first one being the 
main switch that enables AC power to reach the transformer by way of a 
51 Ohm 200 watt inrush limiting resistor.  And that after the filters 
are charged, nominally 10 seconds, a second SSR is fired to short that 
resistor, allowing the supply to make full output.  Controlled by a 
couple timers driven by the motion.machine_is_on signal.

I had set the timers for a fairly speedy off, with the SSR across te 
resistor being the first one turned off if I unclicked the 2nd button, 
followed 5 seconds later by the first SSR being shut down.  Sort of a 
soft stop I guess.

But today in playing with the pyvcp-pannel, I turned it off with the 2nd 
button, and the 20 amp breaker I had put back in the service to replace 
the ill eagle 30 amp dropped instantly.  And repeated everytime I 
stopped it with that button, 100% of the time.

I cannot imagine where a momentary short might be.  So I piddled with the 
setp's in the hal file so the softstart SSR was left on for about 5 
seconds, but the main SSR was disabled in about .5 seconds, so that main 
power was disabled before the soft-start SSR was disabled.

Now its not tripping the breaker, which is cool.  But the question is, 
why did it trip 100% of the time before I did that?

Other than an SSR surge internal breakdown to the case & sink, I cannot 
come up with a valid reason for that behaviour.

Is this the sort of behaviour anyone else has encountered while using 
SSR's to control about 1.5 kw of AC power?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[John Kasunich]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016, at 05:31 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings;
> 
> Those of you reading the mail know I made a soft start circuit for the 
> spindle PSU.
> 
> It basically consists of two SSR's in series, the first one being the 
> main switch that enables AC power to reach the transformer by way of a 
> 51 Ohm 200 watt inrush limiting resistor.  And that after the filters 
> are charged, nominally 10 seconds, a second SSR is fired to short that 
> resistor, allowing the supply to make full output.  Controlled by a 
> couple timers driven by the motion.machine_is_on signal.
> 
> I had set the timers for a fairly speedy off, with the SSR across te 
> resistor being the first one turned off if I unclicked the 2nd button, 
> followed 5 seconds later by the first SSR being shut down.  Sort of a 
> soft stop I guess.
> 
> But today in playing with the pyvcp-pannel, I turned it off with the 2nd 
> button, and the 20 amp breaker I had put back in the service to replace 
> the ill eagle 30 amp dropped instantly.  And repeated everytime I 
> stopped it with that button, 100% of the time.
> 
> I cannot imagine where a momentary short might be.  So I piddled with the 
> setp's in the hal file so the softstart SSR was left on for about 5 
> seconds, but the main SSR was disabled in about .5 seconds, so that main 
> power was disabled before the soft-start SSR was disabled.
> 
> Now its not tripping the breaker, which is cool.  But the question is, 
> why did it trip 100% of the time before I did that?
> 
> Other than an SSR surge internal breakdown to the case & sink, I cannot 
> come up with a valid reason for that behaviour.

These have metal baseplates?  Connected to grounded sinks?  You
could rule out a breakdown to sink if you temporarily insulated the sinks
from ground and went back to the old configuration.  A single breaker
trip with the sinks floating would tend to rule out that possibility.

Is there ANY path from incoming line to neutral (or the other phase, if
this is a 240V circuit) that doesn't go through the transformer?  If the
answer is no (it seems that way from your description), and the fault
current isn't flowing thru the case of the SSR, then it must be flowing
thru the transformer.  The only way the transformer should draw that
kind of current is for a cycle or two at startup, or if the core saturates
due to a large DC component.  Is it possible that one or both SSRs is
only conducting on one half of the AC waveform?

> 
> Is this the sort of behaviour anyone else has encountered while using 
> SSR's to control about 1.5 kw of AC power?
> 
> Cheers, Gene Heskett
> -- 
> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
>  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
> Genes Web page 
> 
> --
> Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
> APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
> Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
> Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
> ___
> Emc-users mailing list
> Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users


-- 
  John Kasunich
  jmkasun...@fastmail.fm

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
___
Emc-users mailing list
Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Re: [Emc-users] Odd SSR behaviour?

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 01 February 2016 17:49:01 John Kasunich wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016, at 05:31 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings;
> >
> > Those of you reading the mail know I made a soft start circuit for
> > the spindle PSU.
> >
> > It basically consists of two SSR's in series, the first one being
> > the main switch that enables AC power to reach the transformer by
> > way of a 51 Ohm 200 watt inrush limiting resistor.  And that after
> > the filters are charged, nominally 10 seconds, a second SSR is fired
> > to short that resistor, allowing the supply to make full output. 
> > Controlled by a couple timers driven by the motion.machine_is_on
> > signal.
> >
> > I had set the timers for a fairly speedy off, with the SSR across te
> > resistor being the first one turned off if I unclicked the 2nd
> > button, followed 5 seconds later by the first SSR being shut down. 
> > Sort of a soft stop I guess.
> >
> > But today in playing with the pyvcp-pannel, I turned it off with the
> > 2nd button, and the 20 amp breaker I had put back in the service to
> > replace the ill eagle 30 amp dropped instantly.  And repeated
> > everytime I stopped it with that button, 100% of the time.
> >
> > I cannot imagine where a momentary short might be.  So I piddled
> > with the setp's in the hal file so the softstart SSR was left on for
> > about 5 seconds, but the main SSR was disabled in about .5 seconds,
> > so that main power was disabled before the soft-start SSR was
> > disabled.
> >
> > Now its not tripping the breaker, which is cool.  But the question
> > is, why did it trip 100% of the time before I did that?
> >
> > Other than an SSR surge internal breakdown to the case & sink, I
> > cannot come up with a valid reason for that behaviour.
>
> These have metal baseplates?

Yes, bolted to the case, more for solid mounting than any need for a heat 
sink.  No detectable heat.
> Connected to grounded sinks?  You 
> could rule out a breakdown to sink if you temporarily insulated the
> sinks from ground and went back to the old configuration.  A single
> breaker trip with the sinks floating would tend to rule out that
> possibility.
>
> Is there ANY path from incoming line to neutral (or the other phase,
> if this is a 240V circuit)

Upstream of the first SSR is where the switcher supplies for the axis 
motors are fed.  They come on with the strip switch.  Nothing beyond the 
SSR's except the transformers, which are identical, 4 of them with 
primaries paralleled, and each secondary has its own rectifier and 
filter bank, which are then connected in 2 in series and 2 sets of that 
paralleled to double the available voltage and double the available 
current.  Available DC is in the 126 volt range, available current on a 
50% duty cycle is about 20-25 amps.  Jon's PWM servo is the driver, set 
for about a 15 amp current limit.  The servo amp is the only load and it 
would normally be disabled, drawing essentially zero current when the 
spindle is stopped.

> that doesn't go through the transformer?  
> If the answer is no (it seems that way from your description), and the
> fault current isn't flowing thru the case of the SSR, then it must be
> flowing thru the transformer.  The only way the transformer should
> draw that kind of current is for a cycle or two at startup, or if the
> core saturates due to a large DC component.  Is it possible that one
> or both SSRs is only conducting on one half of the AC waveform?

Both tally leds on the SSR's are nice & bright, and the same brightness 
as its twin when both are enegized.  I haven't looked at it with a scope 
in about a month & then I could just barely discern the cross-over zero 
but had to really look close.

It appears I have solved the breaker tripping, but I'd sure like to know 
why.  I have that "waiting for the other shoe to drop" feeling. :(

Dinner is ready, I have a cook again, she can see now. ;-)

> > Is this the sort of behaviour anyone else has encountered while
> > using SSR's to control about 1.5 kw of AC power?
> >
> > Cheers, Gene Heskett
> > --
> > "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
> >  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> > -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
> > Genes Web page 
> >
> > 
> >-- Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application
> > Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just
> > $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective
> > actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience.
> > Signup Now!
> > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311=/4140
> > ___
> > Emc-users mailing list
> > Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury,