Silicon Soup

Пікірлер

@witnesschirume333 2 күн бұрын

Thank you for a very informative video, I wanted to ask about the micro controller name and does it come programmed (like dedicated just for induction heating) or one has to program it inorder to use it for induction heating.

@SivaKumar-nl1vx 6 күн бұрын

Very very nice post. In a single shot even as a mathematic student I fully understand the concept of this product. Thank you sir. Very Great 👍

@HeiderSati 28 күн бұрын

Very nice video, I was looking for explanations like that, do you have any chip / IC numbers that can work with your design? thanks again

@SiliconSoup 18 күн бұрын

I used Azoteq IC to make the video. For single touch as an example, Azoteq offers IQS227. The theory I presented in the video works for all brands and implementations, whether it is the charge transfer or relaxation oscillation methods.

@HeiderSati 18 күн бұрын

@@SiliconSoup Thank you very much, very nice of you

@user-hj2ed5pe6j 29 күн бұрын

This is just a definition disparity and understanding KVL definition. Electroboom already explained in the video that the circuit misses a secondary of a transformer where the induced emf needs to be considered in KVL for correct measurement. KVL and Faraday's law is just 2 sides of a coin. In every circuit where there is a transformer would you not consider the induced voltage across the secondary and say KVL does not hold there?

@SiliconSoup 18 күн бұрын

Do you believe there there is a voltage distributed along the coil if the coil is made of perfect conductor? To me, ohms law applies and there is no voltage built-up along the coil, but yet there is a voltage across the coil terminals.

@prbmax Ай бұрын

The great Kirchhoff is for the birds debate. You may be interested in "The Mystery of the Lewin Clock" by Treavor Kearney here on You Tube. I think you you will find his high level analysis of this problem very interesting as he has just posted it a few days ago.

@SiliconSoup Ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing. Kearney is knowledgeable and rigorous. I read his explanation carefully and use it as reference to check my understanding of the topic. Copernico Felinis is another person I like to compare notes with.

@CelestiallyInclined Ай бұрын

This is a perfect example of how some people follow science like a religion instead of actually thinking about what they or other people have said. Great video

@jgtt1493 Ай бұрын

How to remove those little end caps carefully?

@rjbtv2025 2 ай бұрын

Thank you

@shabloomykazoo6225 2 ай бұрын

You seem to claim that their arguments are invalid because the voltage across a conductor has to be zero. The issue with that is that they’re arguing for that the conductors involved have become secondary coils in a transformer which no longer renders them as regular conductors. Also, the statement you made regarding KVL not holding in the case with the open loop in section 2, is unnecessary as the very definition of KVL is that the voltages around a *closed* loop all sum to zero. You essentially argued that KVL doesn’t hold for the scenario in which it is by definition not applicable, which doesn’t mean anything, in my opinion. This conclusion had also nothing to do with the fact that we had a changing magnetic field involved; the same result would have been achieved had we just had a regular voltage source. What this seems to boil down to in my experience is that Faraday’s law is geometry dependent while Kirchoff’s law is meant to be applied in circuit diagrams when all components and their geometries are accounted for. KVL only fails if you’ve failed to account for a component properly as with Dr. Lewin’s model/circuit diagram; a conductor exposed to a changing magnetic field is no longer a conductor and has to be treated as a transformer instead.

@trevorkearney3088 2 ай бұрын

The great American Electrical Engineer Dr. Joseph Slepian was (among his other roles) the Associate Director at Westinghouse Research Laboratories (1938 to 1956). He had an extraordinary knowledge of electrodynamics - such as in transformer design. He was awarded the Edison Medal in 1947 “for his practical and theoretical contributions to power systems through circuit analysis, arc control and circuit interruption” I recall a written dialogue between him and another British expert in electromagnetism, Professor E. G. Cullwick in the May 1950 issue of the AIEE’s Journal. They were debating the role of the resultant electric field along the unloaded secondary winding of an energised transformer. Both agreed that there was a negligible resultant electric field along the transformer unloaded seconding winding. In essence the question under consideration was that if there was negligible electric field along the winding how was it that an electromotive force could be measured across the winding terminals. Slepian wrote: “Now, for the electromotive force of an open-circuited complete transformer winding, I certainly will not integrate the electric field along the winding from one end to the other, and call it the electromotive force. As Professor Cullwick says, I'll only get zero. I define electromotive force only for closed paths of integration. However, if I close my path of integration through the coil by a path outside the case, where the field has a potential, then the integral obtained is independent of where I take my closing path in the external region. Thus, I give meaning to the engineer's electromotive force of an open winding when that winding can be closed by a path external to the machine, by defining it as the integral of the electric force around the path so closed. It will of course be the same as the potential difference between the coil terminals, this potential difference being defined over paths lying external.” He continues: “For a part of a coil which cannot be closed by such an external path (for example a half-turn), I give no interpretation of what an engineer might mean by the induced electromotive force. Actually, such an electromotive force never appears in any final design or calculation of the engineer.” So, neither Dr Slepian nor Professor Cullwick suggested that a transformer winding became anything other than a low resistance conductor along which there was negligible resultant electric field and thus negligible voltage gradient. This remains true even when the secondary is on load. The induced secondary emf appears almost in its entirety across the external terminals and nowhere else. It is for this reason that we may, for analytical purposes, model a transformer’s terminal conditions as a localised source of emf. We may then remain blissfully unaware of the electrical field conditions along the (often lengthy) secondary winding proper.

@shabloomykazoo6225 2 ай бұрын

@@trevorkearney3088 I’m a bit unsure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing. I’m also not sure if you can assert that neither of them imply that the voltage across the secondary becomes anything but negligible, so I’m fairly sure I’ve misunderstood your point.

@trevorkearney3088 2 ай бұрын

Apologies if I've caused confusion. In your original post you stated that “... a conductor exposed to a changing magnetic field is no longer a conductor and has to be treated as a transformer instead.” Does a conductor in the vicinity of a time varying magnetic field embody a localised source of emf? - what another KZfaqr called a “hidden battery”. Every other non-electromagnetic source of emf that I can think of has a localised region of discontinuity or a physical transition zone. Therein a non-conservative transfer of energy occurs which establishes a potential difference at the source terminals. This includes phenomena such as an electrochemical effect (battery), thermoelectric (Seebeck) effect (thermocouple , Peltier device), photovoltaic effect (solar cell) and electromechanical effect (piezoelectric device, Van de Graaff machine). No such localised region of discontinuity occurs in an energised transformer winding or AC generator winding and yet a potential difference arises at the device terminals. How do we account for the emf that arises in a closed circuit loop linking a time-varying magnetic field? The most common explanation found in advanced texts on electromagnetic theory is that an induced electric field appears together with the time varying magnetic field. The closed line integral of this electric field equates to the emf. It's often stated that the time varying magnetic field causes the induced electric field. But such causality is questionable. An induced electric field can appear at a point in space where there is a confined time varying magnetic field in the surrounding region, but there is negligible magnetic field at that point and other similar points. Consider (by way of example) an energised primary winding formed over a highly permeable toroidal magnetic core. A single turn secondary loop passing through through the core window manifests an induced emf across its end points. Actually what is observed on a voltmeter is a charge based scalar potential difference - as Silicon Soup points out. I can take a small magnetic field probe and insert it into the toroidal core window near the aforementioned secondary wire. I might wonder at the apparent lack of any magnetic flux adjacent to the wire and yet there must be a substantial magnetic field within the permeable core. I've actually verified this experimentally. So if there is negligible magnetic field adjacent to the wire as it transits the core window, what is causing the emf observed across the wire end points - other than the total electric field encountered everywhere along the wire path AND including the E field in the space between the wire ends? Richard Feynman’s Lecture 22 on AC Circuits includes a discussion of the source of the terminal voltage of an inductor. Feynman notes there is negligible electric field strength along the wire path forming the inductor. Since voltage is defined as the path integral of the electric field strength, there cannot be a significant voltage gradient along the wire path. Of course, Feynman also notes that, so long as we consider only the voltages from conservative fields at component terminals around a closed circuit, then KVL holds. The problem with the single loop case in question is we have no option but to traverse the loop conductor, where the meaning of KVL is ambiguous owing to the non-conservative induced electric field.

@shabloomykazoo6225 2 ай бұрын

@@trevorkearney3088 I’m afraid I still don’t understand your argument. Voltage is, as you said, defined as the line integral of the electric field across a component. I don’t understand what could be incorrect about just modelling the entire loop as consisting of the resistors in question and any number of secondary coils. It doesn’t really matter in my opinion, that the voltage gradient across a coil is very low as a coil can certainly express a voltage difference between it’s terminals. That is all that’s necessary for KVL in circuit analysis. Also, the voltage you measure across the single wire through the toroidal window is caused by the magnetic vector potential which is not enclosed by the toroid and is not measured by the field probe (hall effect, i’m assuming) as the total b-field outside the coil is still zero. My point is that with the single circular loop in Lewin’s experiment, with two resistors connected opposite one another and by two half-circle conductors, KVL will hold due to the two conductor portions forming coils with an induced emf, and their total voltage exactly matching that of the resistors. This has to be the case, how could it possibly be anything different? What Dr. Lewin’s conclusion hinges upon is the difference in the measurements across the probes involved. But that difference is also explained by the probe wires acting as secondary coils; there are multiple people who have confirmed this experimentally by slowly moving the coil wires to not intersect the b-field in a way that generates emf, and the entire difference in measurement disappears and KVL holds. So if the discrepancy is entirely caused by the probe wire placement, isn’t it far more reasonable to assume everything is due to faulty modeling of the system? Instead of concluding that the system breaks a very robust generalization that is derived from Maxwell’s equations?

@trevorkearney3088 2 ай бұрын

I would agree that KVL holds around the loop if we consider only the scalar potential differences as we traverse the loop. The experiments you mentioned using (for example) fromjesse's "Lewin Clock" are intended for that purpose. As far as I understand the matter there is no standing voltage across the wire segments in the Lewin experiment - Ohm's law must be satisfied if we consider the resultant E field along the wire segments. The line integral of the resultant electric field encountered in a complete traversal of the loop will not be zero. The line integral of the electrostatic field only taken around the loop will be zero.

@BaneWilliams 2 ай бұрын

I always get frustrated that induction cooker have very big gaps between their settings. But the only good cooker that doesn't is $1,300!!! So expensive! I wondered why they don't just use a potentiometer, and this video helped explained why in most ones this is not the case.

@JA-vu1qt 2 ай бұрын

Great video! Recognise that SG accent immediately! ;) Thank you for the wonderful explanation.

@SiliconSoup 2 ай бұрын

Hahaha, you are right.

@jacobpetersen5662 2 ай бұрын

GREAT video! Thank you.... 99% of reviews and regular folks thing the advertised coils of burners are a lie. They do the water boil test and see a smaller coil where the boiling appears more aggressive. So they conclude it's a smaller coil than advertised. They simply do not know it's supposed to work this way. Thanks for explaining.

@jozefnovak7750 2 ай бұрын

Super! Thank you very much!

@shidongxu3410 3 ай бұрын

What is the maximum temperature of induction coil body ? Are the coils able to work at temperatures up to 200°C

@SiliconSoup 18 күн бұрын

I am not sure about the maximum temperature the coil can tolerate, but as soon as the thermistor there senses 175C, we shut off the induction.

@kahgyt9491 3 ай бұрын

What is the purpose of commercial PIC's that have two or more IGBTs?

@SiliconSoup 18 күн бұрын

The half-bridge topology uses 2 IGBT. It is form commercial induction cooker which can deliver higher power (3.5kW)

@kahgyt9491 18 күн бұрын

@@SiliconSoup I have posted a circuit diagram for a Hatco IRNG-PC1-14 on r/inductioncooking, in case you'd like to take a look. It came with the unit. It's a $1000 single burner unit with 100 power levels spanning 1400w, a minimum constant power of 191w, and single degree temperature adjustments; and 2 IGBT's.

@kahgyt9491 17 күн бұрын

Further yet, the Mirage Pro claims to use 4 IGBT's on a 1400 or 1800 unit. The Hatco units are all 2 IGBT's until 2.4kw, when they hit 4.

@kylethompson1379 3 ай бұрын

thanks for this and agreed. It saddens me that electroboom has come out well just because of his interpersonal skills and by having a big following of people who want to believe he's the electricity messiah. It is very clear that Mehdi is wrong under any reasonable and consistent definitions. And people say he's humble, but did he concede this when it became clear (I think even to him) that he was full of it - no. Dr. Lewin did get annoyed, but I understand why.

@MTECHINDUSTRIES2022 3 ай бұрын

Eric Dollard is right

@SiliconSoup 3 ай бұрын

I'm interested to read it. Can you give a pointer?

@MTECHINDUSTRIES2022 3 ай бұрын

@@SiliconSoup sure & here you are :) www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=becomingborealis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/dollardEm-v3-1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiBw4SIpIiGAxW5JzQIHXB4DdMQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0jEvR4tv54KaFT4sHdeUit

@richardhayman4868 3 ай бұрын

So, it is an electrical interaction with the cookware (i.e., current resulting from a moving magnetic field), rather than the oscillating magnetic field itself interacting with the cookware. If that's the case, then it seems that the only requirement for my cookware would be that it resists electrical current, not that it is magnetic. What am I missing?

@SiliconSoup 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for this good question.The magnetic field above the glass top attenuates quickly because of free-space permeability. The flux going into the cookware is weak and it cannot induce much current. If the cookware is made of magnetic material with high relative permeability, the flux gets multiplied and there induces more current for heating. In other words, the magnetic cookware enhances the coupling and increases the mutual inductance.

@Jumbernaut 24 күн бұрын

@@SiliconSoup. Hello, thank you for the video. You said the wrong cookware could damage the IGBT by messing with the oscillation too much. For those of us who just want to know how to use and take care of our induction stove and cookware, what do you mean by wrong cookware? Are you talking about the cookware material, it's shape, or both? What is the type of cookware we should and should not use on induction? Is it ok to use a heavy Cast Iron skillet on it? I have two other questions. I hear cheap induction hobs that only work by going 100% power "all the time" and keep switching on and off can damage/warp even Carbon Steel skillets. I have one and I'm afraid of benting mine. How do I know if I have a good induction cooktop or one of these cheap ones? I know I should use a cookware of a size smaller than the coil I'm using, but other than that, what can I do to make sure my cookware won't warp? Also, I like using a stovetop moka "espresso" maker on induction, but I want to use a smaller one and the coil won't detect it. I've tried placing some coins or other "magnetic" steel inside it, but it wasn't enough to make the detection work. How does this work? Does placing several metal objects on top of the coil messes with the magnetic field? Does it have to be just one "big enough" metal piece for it to work? Is there any other way I can "hack" to coil detection in order to get it to detect and head the small stainless steel moka that won't be detected by itself? Magnets do work on the small moka's bottom, but it's just too small. Thank you for your time.

@SiliconSoup 18 күн бұрын

@@Jumbernaut For the coil to detect the cookware, the cookware must be magnetic and resistive, and alloy of iron and chromium is an example. Moreover, you must place the alloy/load just on top of the glass top, not any further away. If it is a bit further, the circuit cannot detect it. The magnetic steel should come as a big chuck (rather than several objects), so that current can flow easily inside, to absorb energy. The transfer of energy to the load damps the oscillation, and the MCU detect to damping to determine whether there is a load. If the material of moka maker can't be detected, then the induction can't heat up the same material either, so there is no point trying to fool the coil to turn on the induction. But I guess if you can submerge a big alloy in water inside the maker, the the cooker can detect the alloy, it will turn on the induction, heat up the alloy and transfer the heat to the water.

@Jumbernaut 16 күн бұрын

@@SiliconSoup. Thank you for your response. Do you think those heavy Cast Iron Skillets, like 95% iron, are good for induction, or to they have too much "magnetic, resistance"? I want my induction cooktop to last as long as possible.

@Nemanjaftn 3 ай бұрын

I applaud your knowledge and explanation, you are a great teacher!

@willydarmawan1978 4 ай бұрын

This is awesome. I have one question, can we skip altogether the AC input and use DC instead? If we can, is it posible to modify off the shelf board to do it?

@SiliconSoup 4 ай бұрын

If the DC is 325V, then yes, you can skip the AC altogether. But if the DC is 12V, then the coil inductance and resistance must be much smaller to achieve the same current by the lower switching voltage. Many component values must change.

@hoyw25 4 ай бұрын

The Resonance cirucit can drive the 300V DC up to 700V?

@SiliconSoup 4 ай бұрын

At 8:00, the waveform shoots up above 1000V. The rating of the IGBT is above 1kV too.

@hoyw25 4 ай бұрын

Is the 300V DC rectified from the the diode bridge directly apply to the coil?

@SiliconSoup 4 ай бұрын

At 5:00 is the schematic. There is a LC filter between the rectified voltage and the coil.

@mikemajoz4886 4 ай бұрын

Hello nice information , someone please explain at which point does the rectified AC input voltage gets inverted to AC back before been supplied to the Coil, I understand the coil uses AC

@SiliconSoup 4 ай бұрын

The switching of IGBT invert the DC to AC. When the IGBT is on, current flows through the coil to the ground. When the IGBT is off, the current continue to flow and charge up the capacitor. Some point later the charged capacitor will discharge and the current reverse direction. So there is an alternating current in the coil.

@mikemajoz4886 3 ай бұрын

@@SiliconSoup lemmi get to learn about IGBT switching and its inversion ability maybe i will understand better

@dogberto42 4 ай бұрын

My Bose 700's touch control area have stopped working. What component's should I attempt to replace first? How easy would it be to do? Perhaps the better question is how robust is the touch sensing components? is it more likely that the capacitive mesh and/or IC's failed or perhaps the connection worked its way loose?

@trevorkearney3088 4 ай бұрын

Some time back we discussed the field distribution along a path which includes the core window. This paper is an excellent source. N. J. Carron; On the fields of a torus and the role of the vector potential. Am. J. Phys. 1 August 1995; 63 (8): 717-729. It can be viewed on a couple of websites if you search for the title.

@TradingConceptsInUrdu 5 ай бұрын

Great video!! I am doing EE and I want to do low cost low energy consumption or higher efficient induction stove for my fyp, I just have started to look for the resoources, would you suggest me a good start??

@SiliconSoup 5 ай бұрын

You can get information from www.holtek.com/page/applications/detail/WAS-21A1. I think this project is a bit too hard for FYP, because it involves high voltage, high current, embedded coding. Moreover, induction cooker is a non-isolated device, so it can't be connected to your PC directly for emulation, unless you modify the circuit and add a isolation transformer.

@TradingConceptsInUrdu 5 ай бұрын

@SiliconSoup Thanks for the feedback, I am not doing it just for grades but its a need of an hr in 3rd world countries, we have seen gas loadshading first time in our lives, its time ppl get better alternates to those expensive and high energy consumption stoves, if you could provide anymore help it would be appreciated

@user-oj5tw8tn9k 5 ай бұрын

I'm very impressed by the finite element model. Congratulations! I'm hoping to write a paper identifying issues that are currently unclear in how a current is established in a simple dc circuit. your video is a huge step forward. Could we discuss some questions by email?

@SiliconSoup 5 ай бұрын

I send an email to you at [email protected]. Trying my luck.

@user-oj5tw8tn9k 5 ай бұрын

Right email supplier wrong username try palmerballiol. I'm a lecturer at Balliol College university of Oxford look forward to hearing from you

@francoisgervais1 5 ай бұрын

Is the schematic suitable for using « low power continuous heating » as seen in Holtek AN0591EN?

@SiliconSoup 5 ай бұрын

No, the schematics are not the same. The version I presented uses HT45F0057 whereas the the low power continuous cooking uses HT45F0059. HT45F0059 has the low-power continuous cooking related registers. The external circuit to monitor temperature, voltage, current, surge for HT45F0057 and HT45F0059 are roughly the same though.

@sundararajann6007 5 ай бұрын

Why the power variation is in steps? Is it not possible to vary the power smoothly and continuously?

@SiliconSoup 5 ай бұрын

Technically it is possible to vary the power smoothly. Maybe a smaller step of 50W is ok, but smaller than will become impractical to the user; to many presses are needed to reach the target power.

@TrinitronX 5 ай бұрын

This circuit experiment is an excellent case study on how complex multidimensional systems often defy a common human language vernacular and even the models describing them. It seems that Mehdi and Dr. Lewin's description of the problem in language modalities (words, diagrams, & equations) differed _just_ enough to cause massive misunderstanding given that some of their words held different meanings within each person's mind. In the end, they both agreed... they just explained the physical phenomenon in different ways. An analogy for this particular experiment would be that it's similar to the quantum realm's Heisenberg uncertainty principle or the double slit experiment... That is to say: The act of measuring or _observing the system_ in this particular way changed the system so as to create some unexpected observations. In reality, we see that the physical orientation of the measurement probe wires is significant due to the magnetic field affecting the measurement. In other words, the act of measurement in this particular way affected the observation due to somewhat hidden and non-intuitive effects. Meanwhile, the lumped-element model for circuit analysis attempts to reduce and simplify the circuit problem into a more manageable set of often "ideal" components. This kind of model is useful most of the time where it applies to circumstances where the ignored facets and aspects are negligible, as in what the "ideal" assumptions ignore. Yet, in certain circumstances these assumptions in the model fall apart. For example: A truly "ideal" element does not exist. One instance is that most wires are not superconductors, have some inductance and capacitance with themselves and nearby objects. Another instance is that magnetic field coupling in such wires does have an effect on the measurements. A final instance is that in Mehdi's "ground loop" example, the circuit diagram most engineers would draw ignores the wire loop connecting all common ground reference symbols and the magnetic coupling in such a loop. Therefore, the typical model's assumptions aren't exactly the case in the real world 100% of the time. Once the hidden elements are exposed, and accounted for in the model... then the system can be fully described, explained, and understood. The question is: Are we fully speaking and understanding the same language when describing it?

@trevorkearney3088 4 ай бұрын

You bring an interesting perspective to the discussion. I'm not sure it's simply a matter of semantics or differences in understanding or interpretation of terminology. There are clear definitions laid down concerning the laws of classical electromagnetism. I doubt however that many of us have taken the time to carefully digest the background material. It's a mentally demanding subject requiring a reasonable grasp of the associated mathematics. Electromagnetic induction is a topic which has given rise to considerable confusion over decades among physics and engineering undergraduates. The typical approach in undergraduate courses isn't always helpful. For example, there are key links between electrostatics and electrodynamics which have clear bearing on the matter at hand. One may be forgiven as a student for thinking the two are unrelated. Silicon Soup clearly understands this link - as evidenced in his analysis. But making the connection isn't obvious and the failure to do so is the source of certain false conclusions. Both Dr Lewin and ElectroBoom (EB) have apparent anomalies in their arguments, although it seems to me that Dr Lewin is far better acquainted with the matter. ElectroBoom apparently felt obliged (apparently at Lewin's recommendation & facilitation) to consult one of Lewin's former MIT Physics department colleagues, Prof John Belcher. Somewhat curiously, EB then clearly ignored a significant part of Dr Belcher's discussion paper (referenced by EB in a follow-up video) and persisted with his rebuttal of Lewin's claims. One can't afford to lose credibility on KZfaq. Your belief that Lewin & ElectroBoom have reached some sort of agreement seems unrealistic to me. In any of his presentations that I've seen, Dr Lewin has never conceded EB is correct.

@ianuragaggarwal 6 ай бұрын

Great video!

@mesiroy1234 6 ай бұрын

Tbh i didnt undsr all thr elctrix terma. But i challmge to you Add in thermostat so can control by in a few degrees °

@SiliconSoup 6 ай бұрын

The design has thermistors to monitor the IGBT and cookware temperatures. I may have missed your point, please elaborate.

@RicardoGarcia-sd1xb 6 ай бұрын

Feynman, however, stands by Electroboom’s side...

@SiliconSoup 6 ай бұрын

I hope you can differentiate between "Electroboom claimed that Feynman stood by his side" and "Feynman actually stood by his side". One day, when you finally understand electromagnetism, don't forget to come back here to leave a message.

@dbrophy 6 ай бұрын

I'd like to commission someone to design and build a small batch of portable induction cooktops that are powered by 48V DC, in the 3kw - 5kw power range. It seems this might not be too difficult since the incoming AC source is first rectified to DC... Do you know anyone who might be able to take on this project?

@SiliconSoup 6 ай бұрын

The solution I presented is 2000W. The AC source 230V supplies 8.7A, and the induction coil withstand a current in that order. For 48V to deliver 3kW, the coil the IGBT would have to withstand some 63A. Induction cooker design is a quite challenging because of high voltage, high current, EMI and firmware development. Sorry that I don't know anyone who might be able to take up this project. Thank you for watching the video.

@Egzoset 6 ай бұрын

Well, i was hoping to find a video about some « drop-wave control method » that reminds me of the former NTSC video signal: Holtek (Republic of China) "Low power continuous heating single IGBT induction cooker" 2023-Feb-1 Too bad it's got to go through such long path only to come back and get treated as hacker stuff. But this is actually a comforting read giving me hope for my specific kind of mission, in any case, so now that i found mention of a paper titled 'Holtek Application Note AN0591' it's clear to me what i want to search next!

@user-ce5kd1bs9o 6 ай бұрын

Thanks prof iam indonesian people very respect foru

@SiliconSoup 6 ай бұрын

Thank you.

@ramchillarege1658 7 ай бұрын

Excellent rendition. Thank you. I am a EE from way back and now into CS.. but follow this stuff completely. Built many circuits in my time.. I like the comment about running at 75% power. Did not know that. Just got a Duxtop to play around with and was quite impressed by its performance today.

@SiliconSoup 18 күн бұрын

Cool, thanks!

@Appregator 7 ай бұрын

Thanks. I was wondering if I could modify the detection circuit a bit. My induction cooker works fine until the smallest diameter pot (which is made for induction cooking) but it produces the E0 error, that means it is detecting no metal on the secondary side. I wondered where one would adjust the sensitivity as I think it only needs a slight sensitivity adjustment to be able to detect the smallest pot. Kind regards.

@SiliconSoup 6 ай бұрын

I wouldn't recommend you to modify the detection circuit to fool the MCU. The smaller pot doesn't have enough load resistance, so if you manage to fool the MCU to do the induction, the feedback loop of power control may cause the back-emf to exceed the design value, and that may damage the IGBT (unless the protection is very robust).

@smferreiro2610 7 ай бұрын

Great video! I may need help designing one for a special project. Do you design for a cost?

@SiliconSoup 6 ай бұрын

Yes I do, but only to those who are already in the appliance business.

@Uurple 8 ай бұрын

Very good video

@SiliconSoup 6 ай бұрын

thank you for watching and liking it.

@IMPPump 8 ай бұрын

Could you please tell me Coil top white paper name and details please.. very nice and important video thanks

@SiliconSoup 6 ай бұрын

Sorry I use the induction coil as a component and don't know the details of the material.

@IMPPump 8 ай бұрын

Could you pytell me Coil top white paper name and details please.. very nice and important video thanks

@memelytics4666 8 ай бұрын

Reading all yours responses clearly says that you have sited the professor and just as arrogant as he was.

@SiliconSoup 6 ай бұрын

Please continue to pursue your understanding in science and engineering. I hope one day you will be able to understand deeper and realize that what I said is true, and you will be equally compelled to drop a comment to admit that you were wrong.

@danek_hren Ай бұрын

@@SiliconSoup he's right lmao @ you