Posts by Tibi.fusion

Robert Ellefson, I'm glad it's all sorted out!

To give you folks with electrical engineering background (and not only) a bit more insight to my thoughts, I want to highlight a very important characteristic on the waveforms, which is further argument that the interpretation of the observed phenomena is plausible and it's recreation in simulation is also plausible:

The inductor current's magnitude dictates the voltage rate of change on the spark cap parasitic capacitance, when there is no conductive plasma channel in the spark gap. Important to note, the higher the current, the faster the voltage rises on a constant-ish capacitance. If the current is constant into a constant capacitance, the voltage change is linear.

Let's see this in action on the measured waveforms...

On my setup if I have mid-value current (100-200mA), the spark gap capacitance voltage slew rate is higher, around ~3.5kV/us:

If my current is lower (~80mA), the spark gap capacitance voltage slew rate is lower, just 500V/us:

The LTspice simulation shows the same effect (observe on previous post).

Now the interesting part: if we analyze a waveform I took in a configuration made to give similar waveforms to Egely's ICCF osciiloscope capture (higher load resistor value, to create only unipolar spark-gap voltage, don't let the LC resonator to swing to negative current and voltage):

Note the current being low at beginning, it evolves to a maximum in the middle, then it dampens to low values at the end, in a similar way as previous waveform with lower dampening. The voltage slew rates change accordingly...

Now brace for the impact:

And I hope I'm wrong...

Quote from Tibi.fusion

My biggest fear is the oxide layer causing dielectric barrier discharge and and it's typical periodic filamentary arcs, meaning the burst of current spikes are not fusion events.

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.80433

Quote from Stevenson

Tibi.fusion, it takes some time and effort to study all the material you posted. Also, some information are missing from your more recent description and they are scattered all over the thread, so it is not so easy to reconstruct all the details. I would suggest you to make a recap or even a formal and comprehensive report doc: this adds value to your work and makes easier for other to understand and comment (you could ask a comment even from dr. Egely himself this way).

In the meantime, I will try to read and understand the material posted here, but it will takes some time...

Thanks! You are right, an analysis is not trivial and there is not exhaustive information in one post or document, and the casual reader needs to go back and search a few posts to put all together.

It crossed my mind to make a video reply to Dr. Egely, in hope of support.

(video in this early stage instead of some research format white-paper, just to ease the documenting side and also the understanding side - a picture is worth a 1000 words; a video is worth frames_per_second*duration_in_seconds pictures + motion dynamics + audio?)

It would anyhow chew up considerable time...

I was hoping the forum thread to serve as information source for now. Videos could accelerate things. Maybe once things mature, a publication is also worth it. For now, I just need to figure out where do I take if from here (i.e. insist here or explore the higher voltage parameter-space)

Quote from Robert Ellefson

What kind of joke is this?

I'm confused. I hope nobody mistakes a LTSpice circuit simulation to a plasma-physics simulation, especially if it is already stated what it is, what the intention is and the files are provided with a brief interpretation...

Quote from Robert Ellefson

You are explicitly modeling an oscillator with feedback through voltage sources B1 and B2 and the CMD node. The threshold triggers are all clearly spelled out in the conditional logic for those source definitions, and correspond directly to the circuit behavior shown in the output plot. You are not modeling any physical ;phenomenon here at all

This is a reiteration of what I already said and showed:

Quote from Tibi.fusion

I've added in a circuit simulator my basic understanding of what is going on in that plasma discharge.

Quote from Tibi.fusion

I did not model electron emission via fusion and consequent electrical interactions, catalyzed by condensed-plasmoids!

I underlined the "not" statement, in case it is missed...

Quote from Tibi.fusion

I just conditioned the spark gap impedance to behave somewhat like the observations on previous post. No additional energy is added or removed from the resonant tank.

The key content of previous post is:

Quote from Tibi.fusion

What is evident:

1. There is a low impedance-state of the plasma (i.e. the ionized conductive channel is present and having low resistance). This state can last through the entire time of capacitor discharge, showing no spikes, or it can extinguish sooner and last a shorter time.

2. There are moments when there is no conductive plasma in the gap, the inductor current is carried by parasitic capacitance of electrode-pair, and the current charges this capacitor until a new breakdown event occurs in the plasma, or it keeps resonating until energy is dissipated through Ohmic resistance.

So, B1 and B2 arbitrary behavioral voltage sources are providing a command through "CMD" node to a voltage controlled switch which mimics the plasma's resistance and observed behavior in a simplistic way. It controls the plasma channel's resistance from 2 values: 500Ohms and 1TerraOhms! Meaning the plasma is not acting as a source, it is acting just as a sink! And while only consuming energy (sink) it is able to recreate the measured effect!

Spark gap voltage and current is used to give the necessary command to recreate the measured waveform, based on understanding via points 1. and 2. above. To expand on point 1: it seems the first discharge event from a voltage of 1.25kV on the parasitic capacitance of electrode pair provides sufficient energy to ionize the gas and provide a low resistance plasma channel, which remains present if the current it carries is above a threshold value (the current keeps the gas in an ionized state). When the current goes below this threshold, the power lowers and the ions in the plasma manage to recapture electrons, thus the plasma resistance goes up (the channel enters in the non conductive state described in point 2). The current of inductor now will be carried by the parasitic capacitance of electrode pair. This current, if high enough, will charge back up the capacitance until it creates another ionization and discharge event. This effect occurs in both voltage polarities. This oscillation or a steady state plasma conduction repeats until the LC resonant tank dissipates enough energy through external resistor and plasma, so that the ignition/ionization voltage is no longer reached. Once the energy remaining is insufficient to ionize the gas, the LC oscillator (now dominated by parasitic capacitance) maintains a damped oscillation of a higher frequency for some time.

Quote from Robert Ellefson

What is your motivation here?

The motivation for this circuit simulation is to show the alleged "wolf-teeth" or "micro-explosions" that should provide an energy gain, that are apparently replicated in the lab, can be recreated in a simple simulation where a state machine (based on empirical observations) provides 2 resistances on a plasma switch, and to tell of a possibility to miss-interpret simple electrical oscillations involved plasma in a spark gap. Being able to recreate the waveforms through a simple circuit simulation, using conventional electrical principles and not adding energy to the system is the whole point. This fact demonstrates some level of understanding and interpreting the measured waveforms that is put to review and intends to initiate a pragmatic debate. The outcome of a debate I'd wish to be in the direction of proposing hypotheses that can be put to test and move from this stage towards a stage where we can attempt validation of COP > 1 claims.

The silence is baffling... (considering this "independent third-party replication evidence" is available of a claimed direct electrical energy fusion device.)

LDM, Stevenson, you folks had sharp critical eyes on previous waveforms. Can I ask what would be your take on these results, please?

Meanwhile, I've added in a circuit simulator my basic understanding of what is going on in that plasma discharge.

First the measured waveform, Ch3=discharge tube current using 1R shunt resistor, Ch4=Anode-cathode voltage of discharge tube:

Second, the simulation results, where I tuned the parasitic elements and discharge tube characteristics to sort-of-match reality:

Virtually the same?! Surely I did not model electron emission via fusion and consequent electrical interactions, catalyzed by condensed-plasmoids! (You can check, sim files attached). I just conditioned the spark gap impedance to behave somewhat like the observations on previous post. No additional energy is added or removed from the resonant tank.

I bet if discharge related EMI interference, ringing, coupling would applied to accurate model of oscilloscope probe, even the probe-noise would show high resemblance.

So can anybody spot any indication of energy being added to the system through these waveforms?

Surely the parameter-space is barely touched, and COP is not measured, however the replication waveforms and effects are matching George Egely's, right? Shouldn't we be able to see a modified current or added power through alleged fusion induced micro-explosions (spikes)?

Thank you.

I've made some dedicated captures for easy comparison:

1.Relaxation oscillator period, "saw-tooth"-like waveform, capacitor voltage:

1.a. From Egely's ICCF24 presentation, AKA "Cathode-voltage":

1.b. Tibi's replication attempt:

2. "Wolf-teeth"-like burst of "micro-explosions", allegedly due to fusion, voltage across load resistor:

2.a. From Egely's ICCF24 presentation, AKA "Anode-voltage":

2.b. Tibi's replication attempt:

3. "Leopard-skin"-like deposition on electrodes

3.a.From Egely's ICCF24 presentation:

3.b.Tibi's replication attempt:

The point I'm trying to make is: I think I replicated the macro-effects.

Have I seen any sign of excess energy? Unfortunately not, at least not yet.

In trying to understand what is going on with the plasma, I've added a larger inductor to promote more spikes and increase the impedance for high-frequency current through the discharge gap, and monitored the voltage across electrodes and the current going through the gap:

-example with 2 micro-discharge events:

-example with many micro-discharge events:

-trying to optimize for more micro-discharge events:

-zoom in for analysis:

What is evident:

1. There is a low impedance-state of the plasma (i.e. the ionized conductive channel is present and having low resistance). This state can last through the entire time of capacitor discharge, showing no spikes, or it can extinguish sooner and last a shorter time.

2. There are moments when there is no conductive plasma in the gap, the inductor current is carried by parasitic capacitance of electrode-pair, and the current charges this capacitor until a new breakdown event occurs in the plasma, or it keeps resonating until energy is dissipated through Ohmic resistance.

Do CPs cause the plasma to extinguish? Difficult to tell... I can imagine the current being low enough to cause the plasma filament to loose its ions. Waveforms show when the instantaneous value of current is higher, the extinguishing is not so frequent.

Is there evidence through these waveforms of energy being added to this replication-attempt system? No, in my oppinion. There seem to be only repetitive micro-discharges of parasitic capacitance formed by the 2 electrodes. The current amplitude and di/dt can be high, and the thing is acting like a RF antenna, the oscilloscope probes pick up these noisy events even with no connection (though air) and shorted tips. Geiger counters show nothing.

All effects are easy to reproduce and are similar in air or hydrogen, and with anodized or plain electrodes.

For COP assessment I have an idea to measure the input energy in high voltage DC domain going in an intermediary bypass capacitor (integral of voltage*current through data acquisition and logging), then measure via 1 calibrated calorimeter the dissipated heat though all resistors, inductors (ferrites), capacitors (and maybe include the glass vile as well?).

Thoughts?

Quote from Alan Smith

Bring to the boil and just dip a piece of Al in (Briefly) it will turn a dirty grey colour. That is a coating of Al203 stuck very firmly in place. The longer you leave it in the more complete the coating, brief exposure gives a porous coat.

I keep wondering:

1. water being in the presence of porous oxide structure while developing the layer as per Alan's hint of mild KOH boiling solution dip or

2. boiling water being used to seal the pores of anodization layer via electrolysis in acid

source ex: https://finishingandcoating.co…tep-in-aluminum-anodizing

What if water is trapped in the layer and what if CPs are interacting with water molecules, especially hydrogen, rather then aluminium or oxygen, thus increasing the catalyzing effect for a chain of possible fusion and fission events starting with hydrogen?

Matsumoto: did he use potassium based electrolyte? KOH/K₂CO₃? Does potassium or carbon play a role? I recall Bob Greenyer mentioning potassium, need to dig in.

Shoulders: no hydrogen here: silicon carbide over aluminium oxide over aluminium? Silicon, carbon? https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…tion-ken-shoulders-1-pdf/

Edit: Andrija Puharich allegedly ran his car "on water" not knowing the energy source was CP-catalyzed fusion? Later Stanley Meyer did the same?

Puharich underlines the porous ceramic coating being key:

source:

source: http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm

I recall Meyer replicators talking about electrode conditioning being key, where they build up a semi-insulating coating on the cathode I guess from materials within electrodes and the local tap water.

Quote from Frogfall

Have you got an overall photograph of the layout

Sure! I've grabbed some pics today:

-the bench overall:

-bench-top:

-electrolysis close-up:

-cell:

- schematic:

- ze sparkz:

Update:

Just a quick test!

As I only needed to connect everything up, since my not so busy workday allowed me, I said what the heck, let's do some preliminary run to extract some lessons-learned.

I pulled together all my knowledge through reading and said let me test a bunch of hypothesis all at once, hit the "I feel lucky" button and this popped out:

If anyone interested in more, I named the oscilloscope captures I took and attached the zip. Sorry but no exhaustive interpretation now, technical guys should understand the pics as is, and summary for non tech readers: Egely's approach might be on to something interesting!

Thanks for the tip. Sounds like an outdoor adventure that I shall add to my wish-list. Having on-face experience with 35 times more concentrated KOH solution, I'll consider my risks.

Quote from Tibi.fusion

The reason to opt for higher load resistor in my opinion is to limit the current density on the electrode surface

Apologies, before 70kOhm load resistor was used, lately it has been reduced to 1.6kOhm.

source:

Higher current peak promotes CP formation, right? High peak currents can be obtained using higher voltages or lower resistances. Current pulse duration I suspect is also a factor. Need to balace this against electrode surface erosion?

source: https://condensed-plasmoids.com/cps_the_nae_of_lenr_2019.pdf

Quote from Alan Smith

This is an Egely device - picture I took in his lab around a year ago. Does this help?

Given the frequently mentioned 2kV nominal voltages involved, I'd expect that capacitor visible under the hand to be 3kV+ rated; and given the small size of it, even if it is ~1nF or 100pF, I suspect the dielectric is the more common class 2 X7R. On other pictures, videos perhaps the bigger blue caps, if 100pF value, could be C0G. I certainly plan to use C0G.

Quote from Frogfall

The devices that were distributed to various labs last year had vastly different values for R1 & R2.

In these versions (see below) R1 was 1.1 Megohm, and R2 was 1.6 Kilohm - a ratio of 688:1

Resistor value has no impact on calorimeter, the only thing what matters is the heat capacity given by the physical size, material and mass involved.

starting timestamp 9:20, underline at 9:40 of sam video:

The reason to opt for higher load resistor in my opinion is to limit the current density on the electrode surface, which can damage the oxide or whatever the deposited layer is, which is apparently key and difficult to control the quality of.

timestamp 22:20 - 25:00

So I have my 2 cells, one has the anodized electrode pair, the other one (the control) is plain aluminium (but this also surely created it's thin oxide layer, it certainly had time).

I have the liberty to use hydrogen, helium (or whatever is left in that kid's balloon), and air.

I have the liberty to use up to maybe 6kV.

I can use 1.6K load resistor, or any ohmic value I desire to explore.

I plan to use C0G caps for low current test, and I of course cheaped out to use X7R for high capacity, high energy, kA range discharge that I want to try, but not necessarily with these electrodes, better in open air and some water mist first.

I wouldn't consider to do anything related to energy balance assessment unless the wolf-teeth is there, stable, reproducible and has higher amplitudes in hydrogen gas. Otherwise it could just be filamentary dielectric barrier discharge promoted also by oscillations due to parasitics in the circuit, plus possible erroneous COP assessment.

Update on replication: Today I assembled the cute little electrolysis unit, pressure tested it to 3bar over atmospheric pressure. It's good, the gas or liquid is not coming out. Added electrolyte and it works wll: 2.5V @ 0.4A, no need to go faster. Bucket, blast shield, safety glasses are in place, and I'm thinking of improving the safety, to contain the splash of liquid if it were to happen. Plus it needs a timer on the DC power supply, thermal protection on the vessel, a lower pressure release valve and pressure switch.

Also, while the hoses were brought out, I connected my control cell to the 2 stage pump and pulled the first ever vacuum, just to see. The seals are good, the vacuum didn't came out. <smirk emoji>

Still need to work on designing a clean and safe setup, rather than everything scattered all over the table. It is dangerous: HV, H2+O2, high pressures, vacuum. One could loose hearing, vision, life! I believe it will be weeks/months until I'll start to get up to speed, to test a bit the parameter space...

Quote from Frogfall

The temperatures are not directly proportional to the power flow at each stage. Each thermometer temperature has to be compared against its individual resistor calibration curve to obtain a power.

Very true, if there is a non-linear characteristic (I'd expect some due to radiation, convection) curve or the heat capacities are different (i.e. different size resistors, thermometers, etc).

In the same video (LENR Tutorial 2 - Dr George Egely), timestamp 9:20, Egely points out the same resistor physical properties (milligram difference), this is perhaps generally used, perhaps not.

Quote from Frogfall

but it does mean that the two temperatures can't be used as if it were some kind of direct calorimeter. The two calibration curves must always be used to translate temperatures into powers.

In my view if same resistor physical size, same thermometer, same construction, etc. is used (might be), and the T/Q characteristic is linear (might be on the scope of observed temperature range), and 5Tau charge time (unlikely) and discharge to 0V criteria is met (unlikely), then the higher output resistor temperature is simply indicative of excess. Any deviation to the list of criteria will need corrective action to be able to assess energy balance.

Timestamp 13:36 shows in more detail the dry calorimeter construction.

The proposed calorimeter approach is simple and robust, no question about it. The correction that needs to be applied based on voltage waveform characteristics is difficult, since the voltage levels are not constant and accurate data monitoring is not deployed, thus subjectivity can be introduced in interpreting the energy balance.

Moreover, I hope the capacitor used is stable both with voltage and temperature.

Capacitance of Various dielectric class behave differently in function of temperature:

And temperature can evolve differently because of different dissipation factor of dielectric:

And capacitance varies greatly also as function of applied DC voltage on various dielectrics:

A varying capacitance I think could mess up those energy balance equations. Based on the videos and waveforms within, I have a feeling ceramic is used, but not the class 1 (C0G/U2J). Anybody have more info on this?

Quote from Frogfall

The tube is probably going to light from the noisy RF of the powered circuit, regardless of whether the "cell" is generating any excess energy or not.

On that note, in the following source material:

timestamp 42:03

It is allegedly a successful setting, generating excess energy.

My concern is there might be no excess at all, despite we can see higher output resistor temperature, than of input resistor's, plus there is a glowing neon tube:

Temp Rout ~62°C:

Temp Rin ~53°C:

Glowing (dim) fluorescent tube:

The oscilloscope waveform analysis on 1 frame of many:

Note: I tried to get a frame closest to what might be the average operating condition (which is all over the place).

Mimicking this waveform in a circuit simulation (LTSpice file attached) shows how easy it is to erroneously assume a COP of ~3 by looking at resistor temperatures as is, and not complying to >5Tau criteria. Of course the real COP is 1:

Egely is aware of this drawback of this calorimetric method, this is obvious on the last slides/frames of video:

Dealing with non-zero voltages:

Example of applying a correction factor to COP considering non-zero initial voltage:

The example uses a quite high temperature ratio: 20°C / 8°C = 2.5, while in the experiment we rather se 62°C / 53°C =~ 1.17. If you apply some correction factor to 1.17, you can easily get a COP of maybe 0.5 which would be honorable/plausible for a spark discharge.

So there can be plenty of energy from input to heat up both resistors in this fashion and light up a fluorescent tube, and also be wasteful overall, thus achieve an electrical in, thermal+visible light spectrum out COP of <1.

This argument proves of course nothing of what Egely's best results can be, just underlines the calorimeter's complexity.

Quote from Drgenek

So, you want a better device consistence with spark plugs in water. Try discharging capacitors through wet celite. Wet celite provides region of gas for ionization and regions of water for electrolysis. So, the electrolysis produces hydrogen. When there is enough hydrogen ionization or combustion you get a great explosion.

Skip the energy required to perform H20 dissociation and perform hydrogen ionization directly in a more controllable fashion?

Edit: I mean if one's desire is to form boson condensates/CPs for the scope of fusion in the simplest and most controllable way, then discharge in (preferrably high pressure) hydrogen gas would be a better or worse idea? In other words why bother with water and other uncertainties related to it? Or is there more to use of water, i.e. it is a liquid/dense fuel source, meaning a microscopic condensed structure has higher probability to interact with it? Or the dense material will interact with the radiation released by fusion events in a different way then with hydrogen gas?

Quote from Frogfall

The evidence is there - but it might not be chemical, as they suggested (see below), and it might not be nuclear.

Since stuff tends to go to lowest energy state, I'm wondering why don't we encounter this "exotic" low energy-state fog more often? Only plasma discharge can yield it? Like that stubborn neon gas trapped in the metal?

Quote from Frogfall

This classic from JJ Thomson is one of my favourites: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1636856.pdf

Thinking about the characteristics of this special water fog.. could it be used to make that fast beer cooler that troubled mankind for so long? This fog would like to absorb heat like crazy, right? What if you deny him that heat? It would absorb it anyway and turn into iced up micro droplets / snow? Could it provide an approach to a novel, energy efficient refrigerant cycle?

What about similar experiments leaning towards condensed plasmoids?

On the pragmatic side: a high current discharge device + spraying water mist I'm telling you is not complicated or expensive to build. I've build the diode chain based circuit way way back, when it was trendy on Youtube (of course I new nothing about CPs back then), fooled around with it, it was loud. I wanted to apply it on a petrol car to see if it helps with fuel ignition and mileage. I quickly realized though, electrode wear would render the spark plugs unusable, requiring frequent servicing, so the circuit was tossed in the basement. Microscopic study of electrodes and various witness plates for CP impact/trace marks would be of considerable value and I'd like to do it. Long term it's either a CP based energy device or the beer cooler.

Quote from Frogfall

Where the extra energy comes from is the $64,000 question

Hold on, do you suspect extra energy release in contrast of just converting the energy stored in a capacitor in some form detonation (heat, gas expansion, light and maybe other spectra of electromagnetic waves)?

And why only 64k$?

If there is an energy gain by CP-catalyzed nuclear reactions, doesn't Lutz Jaitner has the answer?

Quote from Cydonia

Why an RLC circuit if a simple LC is enough.. LC circuit which is the magnetron principle.

My thoughts on using a resistor is:

- for Ken Shoulder's EV launcher, I suspect he was looking into what is the minimum input energy required to create one EV/EVO/CP that he could carefully examine (instead of a bunch that exhibit other properties?). Using a resistor is a simple means of controlling the instantaneous power of the plasma discharge.

- for Egely, I suspect using a current limiting resistor has to do with damaging the electrode surface and whatever is deposited there, which I suspect is consedered to be a key for a prolonged operation with excess output.

On the topic of high current density plasma discharges, do you think any of the following has anything to do with CPs?

1.

My take: high chance of CP interacting with water. Argument: with no water the enegy out from one discharge seems to be way lower (i.e. doesn't pop off the plastic cap). For your argument of plasma disassociating H2O then igniting it, my counter argument is this: from an energetic standpoint a plasma delivering it's energy to the surrounding air, or the plasma delivering it's energy to break the covalent bond of water, then recombine that H2 and O2 gas to remake the bond and release back that energy, it should be the same, with similar results (i.e. similar pressure levels, similar light radiation).

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

There was another video in which a fairly big aluminium cap was shot horizontally into a cardboard box from a cylinder, the energy source was a spark discharge in air at bottom of cylinder. Can't find it now...

7.

Frogfall, what sense do you make of these from an energy balance standpoint?

Note: from https://condensed-plasmoids.com/history.html

Egely mentioned in his devices hydrogen gas and water vapor...

Quote from LeckerenSirupwaffeln

What is the point of the C1 and C2 being in series?

Simply to make a 5kVdc rated capacitor bank (this enabled a wider spark gap, that does not have to be tweaked so delicately to achieve a stable, low discharge voltage).

Quote from LeckerenSirupwaffeln

Those look like transmission-line reflections.

Yes! I also added series inductors deliberately to have more oscillations. Argument: no one ever suggested the discharge in Egely's approach needs to be from a capacitor, through a carefully curated transmission line that is matched to whatever the impedance of flasma and load resistor might be. In fact, if you look at Egely's way of connecting up everything with long wires and occasionally crocodile clips, you can say there is no intent of delivering a controlled current shape through a transmission line and to avoid reflections. Rather the opposite could be told: those big wire loops can act like an inductor, the discharge electrodes can act like a capacitor, the series resistor is the oscillation dampener. It is rather a series RLC oscillator than anything else. I also suspect the aluminium oxide on electrode surface acts like a dielectric barrier, and in relatively high gas pressures, multiple filaments of discharge leave the cathode (DBD). Some of those filaments could condense into plasmoids. There might be interactions between individual CPs, which would enable growth to the extent of interacting with the hydrogen and produce fusion products. Thus having reflections and plasma oscillations at high frequency could be beneficial in promoting the effect. This is one the hypothesis I'd like to spend time on testing. Others involve >100A peak currents, where careful geometries and impedance matching are critical.

Quote from LeckerenSirupwaffeln

Not sure what you mean by it.

Never mind, the riddle of the capacitor failure is solved: the current exceeds the maximum capability of capacitor construction. The thin metallization layer over the dielectric film gradually melts away due to exceeded current density, this can also form local short circuits that further melt away larger sections. On a macro level a gradual decrease of capacitance value is observed. If I keep the current under the spec. then it doesn't get damaged.

Quote from Stevenson

BTW, the current interruption is very fast,

It happens at zero cross of current...