Author Topic: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition  (Read 53018 times)

birrbert

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #60 on: March 16, 2013, 02:19:05 PM »
Yes, that look is exactly as you described it. Straight look, raised ears, wondering 'What the heck is that?' :)
"Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum." Descartes

RiccardoGiuliani

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • Hw2Sw
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #61 on: March 17, 2013, 03:37:50 PM »
Hi.
First of all, thanks to Martin and to all others for the beautiful solutions i've seen before mine, which i show in this video:
http://youtu.be/dOC2bNJqdJs

Due to unsuccessful modifications i prefered to adopt the basic astable configuration, with an add: the outlook to a portable version suggested me to put an under-voltage device, the mc33163.

After all, it works. :)
« Last Edit: March 17, 2013, 04:34:43 PM by RiccardoGiuliani »

dr_p

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #62 on: March 17, 2013, 08:06:30 PM »
At the start of this contest I thought "this is easy! Last time there were 30 people and there was no task. I have a real chance at this!".
Now I'm not so sure.... I've been trying for 2-3 weeks now to resume work on my Hush-Puppy project.

I started with a commercial product:


I took it apart, analized the board, realized the f*ckers scraped off the IC's markings. WHY?!?! Why would you bother? I assumed it's a timer, obvious choice was 555, but it was DIL14, so 556 maybe? I traced out the pins and I'm 95% sure it's a 556. The second timer chip was used for the flashing LEDs.

So I built a 555 circuit on a breadboard. It worked at flashing a LED, then added a transistor, then faster pace, then added the speaker. It sort of works, as in you can hear the sound, but it way too low. It actually is 12V, just like the "battery" voltage.
OK, I thought, I can up the battery voltage, but up to what point? I's not a viable solution. I have to do something on the output. What I need is a transformer. I tried adding a mains transformer to up the voltage, but that seemed to make little difference.

This is when things started to change: I accidentally connected the transformer while the piezo was still connected. A massive increase in volume. WOOOO!! where did that come from?! Inductive kick-back, probably, as the high peaks were negative. CH2 is the 555 output, CH1 is the onverted piezzo voltage.



All is well untill things start to go south - first a transistor goes up in smoke, then another one, then a 555. At this point I am thinking the transistor has to withstand that high voltage, so I get a MOSFET, being that none of my BJTs go up to 60-70V. I manage to find a 60V FET, that one runs for like 1 minute ultill it goes pop, zener too, 555 too.

I then tried different inductors only to reach the logical conclusion that more inductance yields a louder sound (more kick-back). I settled on a mains filter. Further breadboarding testing got me frustrated because wires kept coming off, contacts were not perfect, so I built a PCB for it.



Next run gets me an exploding elactrolytic (happened to be a low ESR one) and anothe 555. At this point I resorted in adding a socket for the IC and also adapted SMD 555s for DIL usage. I also placed an order for 20 555s, 50 high voltage transistors and lots of caps. Pictured here are only some victims of this carnage:



Now I realize this only happens when I run the circuit without the piezo speaker. Meaning all of the inductive kick-back goes back on the power rail, instead of in the speaker. I become extra carefull in not running the circuit without the piezzo. I also start wearing gogles, since the last capacitor blew right in my face (I mounted it in reverse polarity).

OK, so now I get to thinking why is the voltage settling on 60V? How much voltage does the commercial unit give?
At this point I have to say my yellow commercial unit unit was made deffective by my poor skill at unsoldering the transformer. I broke it, got mad and threw it away. My better half took out the garbage, so by the time I realized I overreacted, it was too late, the transformer was gone. By this time I borrowed a unit from a friend.

Measured the output, it was 240vpp, perfect sinewave. The board looks like this:





and as you can see there is a my-name-is-Martin-and-I-think-it's-for-calibration potentiometer. And by that very logic I assumed it was for frequency adjustment. I fiddled around with the settings until I realized it was for someting else, perhaps the duty cycle. Working the potentiometer did not really modify the frequency by much, but it made it look way off from a perfect sinewave (on the piezo side).

So I took that as a challange and thought "why 240Vpp?!? The chinese surely got it wrong, I can go higher."  I back-traced the circuit and figured the 555 was powerd from a 6V zener (can't remember exactly). I replaced it with a 7V zener and all hell broke loose - the waveform was way off, maxed at some 50Vpp. Replaced the original zener, realized it's sole pupose was to stabilize the 555s frequency, since the piezo was run off the transistor. I never managed to achieve those 240Vpp again, only 220Vpp. I returned the unit to my friend, he stated it "works" just as fine (on shy dogs, if you ask me...)

All of this time I have been using this piezo:



but after a brief shopping spree I got a hold of these



After a few weeks of break, I returned to my project. I started with another aproach - an LCD inverter. I tweaked the components to give me the right frequency (15-30kHz) and all went well, untill I connected the piezo. The output went way low, just like the transformer was shorted. It now comes to mind that maybe a series resistor would have changed thing...



I then reverted back to the 555 circuit and tried a higher supply voltage - 30V from a printer SMPS. The voltage would not go higher that 60V, no matter what.

Unfortunatly, somewhere in here my car broke down. I took it to a specialist that told me X is broken, he can fix it for ~800$. That made me angry, since I knew X was ok. Decided to be my own mechanic, so I started learning shi... stuff. I am still learning and fixing and this is taking most of my spare time. It's not that difficlt, but since I never did it before... 

That is why I cannot properly complete my project. I never got to the point where I try Steve Gibson's single FET circuit. I would have liked to do that.

Wohooo, this took some time to post.

MJLorton

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 817
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #63 on: March 18, 2013, 04:20:59 AM »
Thanks very much for your post and efforts dr_p!

Please keep us up to date with your progress even though the competition has ended.

You are still a valid entry.

Cheers,
Martin.
Play, discover, learn and enjoy! (and don't be scared to make mistakes along the way!)

birrbert

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #64 on: March 18, 2013, 01:19:42 PM »
Riccardo, your device is very strong. I can tell that just by hearing it through the video. All the dogs avoided you, except the first which is understandable because it was quite far. Didn't you get a head ache or ear pain? :)

But seriously, how did you make it this loud? I'm asking because I can't decide why mine is so weak... because of the capacitors or the tweeter...
"Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum." Descartes

RiccardoGiuliani

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • Hw2Sw
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #65 on: March 19, 2013, 01:57:44 PM »
birrbert

ahahahahah, maybe the only remarkable feature on my device.
And a true luck!
The very first transducer didn't work, i think due to my bad knowledge of it: i found nothing clear on the net, and got nothing by trials and errors... i'll retry in future.
For an amount of coincidences i got the working speaker only at the last minute, with no time to expand the circuit in power... but we're agree it doesn't need it more. ;D (i made everything on sunday)
The already attached cap is a 3.3uF 50V; don't know anything about the speaker, sorry; just a series number in blue: 30194.

This apart... i was surprised to hear so clearly, especially the first time when i put the ear close to the speaker; very stupid!
So as suggested in a previous post the ears' protections are (were) welcome.

A nice day to everybody!

MJLorton

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 817
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #66 on: March 20, 2013, 02:42:55 AM »
Gents, please note and this is important.

Votes should come from viewers who have viewed the entries and made their own decision on who to vote for.

Please do not encourage friends / strangers  to post your name.
Play, discover, learn and enjoy! (and don't be scared to make mistakes along the way!)

blankfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #67 on: March 20, 2013, 04:21:54 AM »
Hi Martin, it will be really hard to count valid votes, for now almost all votes become from same countries like participant. Maybe a kind of eurovision vote system should be applied;).
I think best would be jury of forum members even registered before competition. As for me, the most valuable is the opinion of hobbyists, enthusiasts and those involved in electronics, and these opinions are only a few unfortunately. It would be great to read a constructive comments what is done well and what could be improved :). For now contest become "vote for beer" for friends, family etc.

Regards,
blankfield.
From 0 to 1, from VEE to VCC.

dr_p

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #68 on: March 20, 2013, 06:33:24 AM »
I suppose everyone is talking about my votes. I now see how this can look unfair or even suspicious.

People that voted are indeed acquaintances of mine, true. It's obvious since the giveaway didn't get any publicity outside the forum/youtube , and they're all from Romania.

Truth be told, I made it known I'm participating in a contest. Almost all said "Finish the project, make it work, because I DEFINETLY WANT ONE TOO" (the device). Some inquired about voting, and I guess adding the country "camaraderie" and the fact that you know the person, decided to vote. The reason was not skill or successfullness, it was potential usefulness and subjectivity. At the time it didn't raise any questions, cause I felt it was in the spirit of the giveaway while also not braking any rules. I still feel that way, but I do realize it has gone into strange territory.

I'm not trying to jerk anyone here, but if it's deemed to be inappropriate, feel free to take whatever measures are necessary.

May I also suggest that future contests be organised differently?
The latest eevblog rules are interesting. With modifications:
  - Martin makes the rules, Martin breaks the rules, deal with it.
  - only existing members at the contest start date
  - if it's a straight giveaway - at least 5 useful posts or 1 very good one (will be checked for)
  - if it's a contest (you have to earn it) - random extraction or forum based poll with above user limitations
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 06:35:00 AM by dr_p »

Mr Eastwood

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #69 on: March 20, 2013, 07:50:28 PM »
To be honest for me it's really hard to pick an overall winner - there's bit I like from all of these ;-)  couldn't you put the names into a hat and pull the winner?     Maybe for next time you could design and build a novelty electronic name chooser machine? ;-)
Hey! Frisbee! Far out!

circuitous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • Corgi-Tronics
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #70 on: March 20, 2013, 08:55:12 PM »
I like the work blankfield has done.  I agree it's a complicated approach, but certainly interesting.

MJLorton

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 817
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #71 on: March 21, 2013, 02:11:30 AM »
Thanks for the input Blankfield and dr_p.

My fault really...let the voting continue and we'll make a call at the end.

I'll learn from this one and have better voting guidelines for the next one.

Cheers,
Martin.
Play, discover, learn and enjoy! (and don't be scared to make mistakes along the way!)

Mr Eastwood

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #72 on: March 21, 2013, 04:32:20 AM »
In that case, I went through all the posts again this morning and I finally decided to vote for blankfield


(Edit)
The reasons why my vote is with blankfield is simply because I feel he has done a really good job at documenting his great project.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 06:09:01 AM by jucole »
Hey! Frisbee! Far out!

blankfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #73 on: March 27, 2013, 03:19:40 PM »

Hi All,
At first thanks for voting my project.

Finally my portable bark killer works since today! And I'm very happy about this.

I spent today's evening to disassemble step up transformer that I've made some time ago.
It was a very productive time, I found some mistakes in alignment of 2 part ferrite core
that caused a high power loss. Next I have tried a brand transformer exactly
Colilcraft FA2443-AL (6:1 ratio) and results just shocked me! Huge different in power.
This inspired me to make another attempt to rewind my new transformer, I used
thicker 0.5mm enamelled wire 5 turns in primary side and 70 turns on secondary side.
PBK became so loud so I had to increase frequency from 16kHz to 20kHz. Output power
become even more stable than before. I thought for some while that I damaged
the MSP430 MCU but only 5A fuse just blown. For now power consumption in mode of 100%
output power rises above 33W (7,9A @ 4,2V) (power from battery pack).
Mosfet become quite hot (about 60 'C after 30s) but there is no need for heat sink.

My future steps will be:
* find 'of the shelf' transformer that will be have decent windings and 20:1 ratio and capable to transfer 50W
* design proper PCB
* develop code that can be easily modifiable
* release all files as OS

Neighbour’s dogs are not so happy like I :)

Take care,
blankfield.


Some additional photos:

Colilcraft FA2443-AL:



'Naked' core:





And some ugly windings (it's hard to rewind transformer without core casing):




Test jig:





And a evening mystery - blown 5A fuse:


From 0 to 1, from VEE to VCC.

dr_p

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 64
Re: The Portable Dog Killer / Quiet Canine Competition
« Reply #74 on: March 27, 2013, 04:04:59 PM »
do you have a scope? or maybe at least a DMM set to %? I think most of the power is lost because you're not feeding a symmetrical signal to the transformer. When I played around with the trimpots, having the output "idle" high made the transformer heat up considerably. 30W of audio is a lot IMHO. Does the transistor heat up?