On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 03:00:48 -0700 (PDT), "
funkma...@hotmail.com"
<
funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 3:28:53?AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 21:43:02 -0700 (PDT), "
funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <
funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Not to mention for the past 20 years or so high-frequency technology is more standard for most electronics mfg facilities. We use these
>> >
https://store.metcal.com/en-us/shop/soldering-desoldering/soldering-desoldering-systems/mx-series/MX-500AV
>> >But they've been around since the early 2000s. I have an old one that I retrieved from the trash at work many years ago and repaired.
>> I didn't know such things existed. Up to 70 watts of 13.56 MHz RF
>> should do nicely for jamming low frequency RFID/NFC tag readers:
>That 70 watts is the overall consumption of the product, not the RF power generated at the tip.
Look at the data sheet:
<
https://store.metcal.com/en-us/shop/soldering-desoldering/soldering-desoldering-systems/mx-series/MX-500AV>
"Output Power: Variable, 40 W max.*"
However, I did pick the wrong number (at 1am).
This video proclaims 45 watts:
<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS2NqyVDoqk>
>These things are approved by FCC, ISED, and CE EMC compliance requirements. 70 watts of unintentional RF wouldn't pass unintentional radiator requirements. They're obviously suppression the radiation such that it doesn't register on the spectrum analyzer.
This repair video shows the guts and case. Not much of a repair
because the MX-500AV fixed itself:
<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAipMcwfuqI>
I would say it's very well shielded. This is the first time I've paid
any attention to such soldering irons. Offhand, I would guess(tm)
that it's an induction heater. At 3.58 MHz, the small antenna is
horribly inefficient. Any testing would be within the near field
radius, where the signal decreases with the inverse cube of the
distance instead of inverse square. Ok, I'll stop worrying about RF
leakage.
My guess(tm) is that it's a small induction heater. All that's needed
is a high loss ferrite rod and a tinned iron tip. The DC resistance
of the core will vary from very low (powdered iron) to fairly high
(iron oxide). I'll need to read the patent descriptions before I make
any more bad guesses.
>"the resulting power starts dissipating on the active resistance
>of the inductor coil, which is much higher than an ordinary
>multimeter can register."
What is "active resistance"? I guess he's confusing DC resistance
with skin effect, where RF conduction occurs near the surface. One
cannot measure RF conductivity with a DC ohmmeter.
>would be true, because most DVMs use DC to make resistance
>measurements and and an inductors impedance only really become
>obvious in the presence of AC. However I would have used
>'reactance' in place of 'reactive resistance' (more appropriately
>'inductive reactance'), or at the very least 'impedance'....so
>"[inductive reactance] due to skin effect is much higher than
>an ordinary multimeter can register." would be true.
Agreed. If they coated a solenoid wound coil in an induction heater
with lossy ferrite material, which heats by hysterisis loss, the coil
would get quite hot. No need for a rod down the center of the coil.
However, the various photos seem to show a long rod, which I assume
conducts the heat to the tip, so I think they used a rod, not a coated
coil. Again, this is a guess(tm).
>""the resulting power starts dissipating on the active resistance
>of the inductor coil due to the skin effect."
Again, what is "active resistance"? I've never heard of the term. RF
impedance seems like a more likely term.
>would also have been true, since skin effect becomes the dominant
>form of conduction in inductors at higher frequencies, hence wave
>guides (as an RF guy you were aware of that).
Agreed. If I knew the permeability and resistivity of the rod or
coating, I could calculate the skin depth.
>I think however that
>the sentence as worded gives the implication that an "ordinary multimeter"
>can't read high resistance due to skin effect. Maybe it's just me.....
Almost correct. An ordinary ohmmeter will read DC resistance
(resistivity) and nothing else. For RF frequencies, skin effect needs
to be considered. A low frequencies, I like to use an RF ammeter:
<
https://www.google.com/search?q=rf+ammeter&tbm=isch>
For resistance, it's just the RF voltage across the transmission line,
divided by RF current. Except at very low RF frequencies, the RF
resistance will be very different from the DC resistance.
Thanks. Looks like I was close. I'm too lazy to go back fix my
guesses. It's definitely an induction heater. However, my ferrite
rod should have been a copper rod coated with ferrite material. I
didn't mention the Curie effect temperature control, but it's similar
to the system used in ancient old Weller soldering stations.
"Self-regulating heater utilizing ferrite-type body"
<
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5182427>
>It actually reminds me of the "technology" used on old-school fluid
>level detection sensors using NTC thermistors. The application is
>to drive the thermistor with a constant current such that the power
>dissipated as heat affects the resistance of the device. It the
>voltage across the device is monitored, when it drops below a
>certain level a comparator circuit can be used to switch the
>current down (lower or off) which results in a oscillation.
>As long as the device is held in free air within a certain ambient
>range, this 'self heating' will keep the oscillation alive. However
>when the device is immersed in a liquid, the increased thermal density
>(conductivity, K) of the liguid allows the conduction of the heat
>away from the device to the point that the temperature of the device
>stabilizes and the oscillation stops, or at least does cross the
>comparator reference. When the oscillation stops, you know the
>sensor has detected a liquid or the sensor has failed (a great
>version of a self-diagnostic).
>
>There are obvious drawback to this, one being that it doesn't work
>very well in extreme cold or hot air temperatures, the other being
>that thermistors are inherently fragile (those transients over time
>don't help).
I've never heard of this device. I thought this might be the patent,
but maybe not since there's no mention of oscillation. It does what
you describe, but with DC:
"Thermistor liquid level sensor and method for making same"
<
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3479875A/en>