They are related to my error of using a 100 nF C6.

There is a correlation between the manual math and the values during the simulation.

The real life is another story. On your picture, you already noticed that the beam intensity was too high ... in the photo. It takes practice to get the beam intensity low when taking pictures.

I'll assume you adjusted the vertical zero references with the scope in the ground position, as you have indicated you were an experienced technician. If you hadn't, it appears the lower reference for Vc is about 5V ... but that's only interpolating the middle of the beam. That certainly would have changed delta Vc.

Are you sure the C6 in the diagram is the same value as the C6 in your real life circuit.

By the way, HHO projects are not normally discussed here. High voltage projects are also frowned upon for safety reasons.

 

Yes, do I am.... 0.22 uF.

The only way I have found for dealing with inductance in Spice simulator was setting to half the turns ratio of the inductor (square root of inductance Ratio) and also half the voltage of power supply to ensure that both the current values ​​as periods are equal to actual circuit.

My main and only goal here is to get rid of a impasse related to the Spice simulator so that I can effectively put into practice what is actually being simulated by this, regardless of which type of circuit is .... you can be sure that such matters will not be dealt with here …

 

Did you consider what the load is doing to the charge/discharge cycle of the capacitor C6?

How did you do that in real life?

When using standard components, I haven't had any major discrepancies (like yours) with simulators.

I would look carefully at whatevert you "constructed" and identify all the characteristics. On the inductor, it would be nice to know the value, the resistance, and the Q. I don't know what you have your simulator set for on the L1 inductor, especially in the Rser value.

The loading transformer ... L2 and L3 ... do they really have a k of 1? I find that as unrealistic for a hand wound coil. You will lose alot of the voltage you're expecting to get on that 20k "resistor".

If your simulator is producing irregular results, I would check to ensure the components I am simulating are as close to the real deal as possible.

 

ok... your problem is simulating your L1 inductor. Since you are using a ferrite core you need the specifications on it's effect.

Below I attached my schematic of your diagram and what I used for L1 ... and you can see from the graphs, it's only about 22 uS for charging C6.

 

That's great!!.... I'd say perfect but for current rate results... There must be something wrong yet...

If the equation for impedance is applied to the real circuit ([XL=178R-XC=46R (I could not get paste the formula here) you will find that the result obtained for IL1 is exactly as expected: about 92 mA RMS or 130 mA peak (12 Vdc Power Suply).

I guess this is proof that my inductor is checking both the equation and actual results.

The only editable parameters for inductors in Spice simulator are Parallel capacitance, Series and parallel Resistance... By the way, which software are you using.... I installed multisim 11.0 and the results were the same as Spice. But that would be expected because I think both platforms are the same.

I'll do an overall review...

 

The free version of the software I use is called TINA-TI. You can download it from texas instrumnents website.

 

..Only Japanese, Chinese and Russian version are available...

 

...I got it .... it's the 2° download...

 

Why do you think the current is incorrect? How did you measure the current in your circuit?

 

I did the measurement on a 0.1 ohm resistor in series with L1.

Since the oscilloscope was in the range of 50 mV and the reading was approximately 13mA, then 13/0,1 = 130 mA.

 

I replaced the inductor L1 by another with the same inductance of 1.8mH however now with a air-core configurationI but nothing has changed at all.

I guess this indicates that the type of core used in the inductor does not affect the charging time of C6, only the effective inductance of the inductor does it...

 

Since the oscilloscope was in the range of 50 mV and the reading was approximately 13mA, then 13/0,1 = 130 mA.

With the vertical set at 50 mV per cm, 13 mV would be between 0.1 and 0.2 cm on the vertical. Even with the finest of traces and the lights out, I don't think you would have "estimated" 13 mV. Did you actually connect the ground lead of your oscilloscope to one of the resistor leads while the probe side was connected to the other lead on the resistor?

What oscilloscope are you using?

 

I nearly hit....I've just set the scope now in 10mV and the reading is exactly 145mA....

It's a Hitach V-212 20MHz.

 

I nearly hit....I've just set the scope now in 10mV and the reading is exactly 145mA....

Normally at 50 mV/cm, the tweeners would be x5 or 15 mV in that case.

 

Believe it or not, it's true ...

A few months before looking herein by an answer to my question, I had done maintenance on my oscilloscope due to some problems in switches TIME / DIV - VOLTS / DIV and a mistake was committed in the replacement of the button TIME / DIV due to the haste or the excitement for evaluating the results and I would never imagine that could commit such a "feat" until I decided to "blame" the oscilloscope and after checking the service manual and some parameters such as frequency of the calibrator (I knew it was around 1KHz but I was not sure about that ...), I found that the scale indicator button was placed ahead of the scale on the panel so that when it is positioned at 20 uS for example, was actually on the scale of 50 uS and this is obviously the reason for all the differences in the results presented and asked for me here. It's a silly mistake that can take some valuable lessons .... Sincerely thanks to all for the interest in helping ...