Pulsed Power Generation Techniques
D. J. Thrimawithana*, U. K. Madawala* and R. C. B. Woodheadt
*
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
t Tru-Test Limited, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract- This paper describes the evolution of High
Voltage Pulsed-Power (HVPP) technology from its inception
to the present state, particularly focusing on its applicability
and effectiveness for a variety of industrial applications.
HVPP techniques that have been reported are discussed,
highlighting advantages and disadvantages. A detailed
analysis of four modern techniques that are based on
capacitive energy compression elements, is presented in
relation to their limitations and suitability for live-stock
control. A novel HVPP technique, which is based on the
Marx generator principle and capable of producing output
waveforms of varying shapes/power/durations, is also
proposed to overcome the limitations of existing HVPP
techniques.
I. INTRODUCTION
A Pulsed Power Supply (PPS) generates high peak
power pulses by means of energy compression [1-2]. A
variety of high voltage pulsed power supply (HVPPS)
topologies have been reported in literature [1-2]. These
can be divided into two broad categories depending on the
type of energy compression elements used. The first
category uses reactive elements such as inductors and
capacitors for energy compression, whereas the second
category is based on pulse forming transmission line
segments to produce the same results. The difference
between the two categories is found in the pulse width.
Reactive element based topologies are capable of
producing pulses that last for hundreds of microseconds.
In contrast practical pulse width for transmission line
based topologies is limited to a few microseconds.
Applications of pulsed power systems are found in a
broad spectrum of disciplines. Industrial applications such
as food processing and electric fencing systems; medical
instruments such as X-ray machines and defibrillators;
military appliances such as radar systems and active
denial technology (ADT) and also scientific applications
such as particle accelerators and ion implantation systems
are just a few examples [3-5].
Livestock control is the most common use of pulsed
voltage electric fencing systems. The advantages of
pulsed voltage electric fencing over traditional physical
barrier fence systems include better livestock control,
lower construction costs, and flexible temporary fence
construction. A modem electric fence system consists of
a pulsed voltage type electric fence energizer that
periodically generates high voltage pulses, and a physical
insulated fence structure made of one or more strands of
conducting wires to transmit these pulses around the farm.
When an animal contacts the fence, an electric shock is
experienced when a high pulse current passes from the
point of fence contact, through the animal and into the
ground return path. This causes considerable discomfort
1-4244-0136-4/06/$20.00 (C2006 IEEE
and has a psychological effect on the animal such that it is
less likely to contact the fence again [4, 6].
A paper that investigates the effectiveness of modern
high voltage pulse power supply techniques for an electric
fence energizer has not been published to date. The aim
of this paper is to discuss the basic operation of modern
HVPPS topologies based on capacitive energy
compression elements and their advantages and
disadvantages in relation to the electric fence type
energizer.
Four basic HVPPS topologies based on capacitive
energy compression have been found in literature, and are
given below [2, 7]. This paper presents a brief review on
electric fencing history followed by a detailed discussion
on these HVPPS technologies.
1. Direct discharge
2. Pulse transformer
3. Marx generator
4. Vector inversion
II. HISTORY
Heavy Balance Wheel
Mechanical Switch
....,,,-%0
Si
---,CY . .
TI
Pulse Shaping
BTI Capacitor F7ence Output
Fig. 1. A second generation fence energizer based on inductive storage
The first generation of energizers that were devised in
the early 1930's used a current limited continuous DC/AC
supply to energize fences. Current limiting techniques
employed ensured that humans/animals were still able to
release the live wires if contacted. This limiting current
value is referred to as the "let go" current limit and
research has shown that it falls in the range 7-24 mA [4,
6]. The low current limit was the major shortcoming of
this type of energizer, since in wet conditions or at times
of high vegetation growth, leakage current from the fence
passing to ground was high, reducing the fence voltage to
the point that it was too low to break though the animal's
high resistance skin barrier to allow sufficient current to
flow in the body and provide an effective electric shock.
2014
 To overcome this problem, a new generation of
energizers was introduced in the late 1930's that produced
very short high voltage pulses. These energizers
employed reactive energy compression elements along
with mechanical switches and mechanical timing devices
to periodically output high power pulses, as depicted in
Fig. 1. The main drawback of this type was the gradual
degradation of the mechanical contact switches that led to
irregular pulse voltages at the output [4].
vacuum/discharge types. They provided longer
operational life, higher reliability and efficiency as well as
better temperature stability. Almost all of the currently
manufactured electric fence energizer designs are based
on SCR controlled capacitive discharge means, coupled
through a step-up pulse transformer. An example of this
is shown in Fig. 3 [3, 8-13]. Table I summarizes some of
the typical output parameters for a modem electric fence
energizer.

Mains Input
III. COMPARISON OF HIGH VOLTAGE PULSED POWER
SUPPLY TOPOLOGIES

A. Direct Discharge Type Pulse Generator

Among all the HVPPS studied, the direct discharge
type is the simplest topology, although a reliable
TI implementation can be difficult to achieve. As shown in
Vacume Tube Fig. 4, a high voltage storage capacitor bank is charged to
Dl the desired output voltage Vp(V) through a charging
system [2, 9, 14]. If the total effective capacitance of the
bank is Ceff (F), the maximum amount of energy E (J) that
Energy Comrpresion
Capacitor
Fence Output could be delivered to a load is given by 1.

_ - T E = Icv2
2 eff p~
(1)
The charging system consists of a low power converter
Fig. 2. A third generation fence energizer based on capacitive storage suitable for charging capacitors to a very high voltage
from a lower voltage supply. Typically a high frequency
step-up isolation transformer (T1) is used to isolate the low
Maiiis Iniput voltage part of the design [9]. The converter power
throughput PSMPS (W) required for a pulsed power system
lilg Vta!ige that delivers E(J) to a load in tp (s), at a pulse repetition
PowaiSup plXt DI rate of fpr (Hz), with an efficiency of rg, is given by
equation (2).
'Io
A .IJniT
Collhol
SCRI Efpr
Drira (I j;
(2)
ci
Fence Outpul
11(l- tpfpr )
fo Cotitroiitnit1

Fig. 3. A fourth generation fence energizer based on capacitive storage

TABLE I
TYPICAL OUTPUT PARAMETERS FOR AN ELECTRIC FENCE
TYPE ENERGIZER
Fence Otitput

Parameter Value Unit

Output Energy 0.05-50 J
contmol UTnit
Peak Output Voltage 5-15 kV
Peak Output Power 1-3000 kW Fig. 4. A typical direct discharge type HVPPS.
Peak Output Current 1-200 A
Pulse Width 10-500 us A high voltage, high power pulse is generated at the
output by closing the switch S1. The low-pass filter is
included to reduce the EMI produced by the pulse output.
A third generation of fence energizers, shown in Fig. 2, The on-time of S, may be controlled by the control unit to
used vacuum/discharge type switches with electronic set the output pulse width, which can limit the amount of
timing circuits instead of mechanical devices. Capacitor energy delivered to the load. According to the
based energy compression methods were preferred over specifications given in Table I the maximum voltage
inductors due to higher efficiency and better control over stress on Si is typically 15 kV. The maximum current
the output voltage. stress on the switching device is largely governed by the
The next major step in energizer development history output filter components, and could be less than 200 A for
was the use of solid-state power devices instead of a typical electric fence energizer of this type. Very early

2015
designs based on this topology employed discharge tube maximum capacitor bank voltage typically ranges from
type switches for Sl, which did not interrupt discharge 300 V to 900 V, to limit the voltage stress on the switch S,
once initiated. A modern design could use SCR, GTO, to below 1.2 kV. This condition allows the design to
IGBT or MOSFET devices. Solid-state devices are utilize a low cost, industrial grade standard semiconductor
preferred due to compact size, low cost, availability, switch for Sl, such as an SCR, GTO, IGBT or MOSFET.
higher efficiency and higher reliability. Currently the
maximum voltage rating for commercially available Main-s Input
IGBTs and MOSFETs is about 2 kV. As shown in Fig. 5
these devices could be stacked in series with appropriate
drive and balancing circuits to produce a very high voltage
solid-state switch [9, 14-15].
Si

High Voltage +
Fence OuLtput

RinN -IMN

_RqN N

Fig. 6. A typical pulse transformer type HVPPS.

LD2 Rm2 ,M2 ROa

Q|,
n The voltage pulse produced by switching S, is filtered
by the low-pass filter network and amplified by the pulse
Turn On Driver transformer T1. The simplified equivalent circuit of a
Rmlr Ml RC,I typical pulse forming section that employs a 3rd order low
A DI Netw pass filter is shown in Fig. 7.
TurnOff iver X t
Qi "
LI Llk
l3igh Voltage - SI

iA i _ jLm
Fig. 5. A multi stage solid-state switch with N stages of IGBTs [9] Cstorage DI C1 Rfence

Table II summarizes the properties of an electric fence * = 0

energizer based on a direct discharge type of HVPPS with Fig. 7. The output circuit model for a typical pulse transformer based
solid state switches. fence energizer.
TABLE II
PROPERTIES OF A DIRECT DISCHARGE TYPE ENERGIZER
The filter components are formed by the inductor L1,
Advantages Disadvantages capacitor C1, and the total leakage inductance Llk, referred
to the primary winding of the pulse transformer T1. The
Abilit to control pulse width High complexity in drive and magnetizing inductance Lm is assumed to be very large, so
Ability to control pulse width blnigcrut
balancing circuits its effect on the filter is negligible. The transfer function
of the filter for an electric fence load of Rf is given by (3).
Wide range of duty cycles Expensive filter components Rfence is the value of Rf referred to the primary of the pulse
Low current stress on High voltage stress on transformer. The -3dB cut-off frequency for a typical
components components filter of this type is around 4 kHz and the output pulse
width of the circuit is determined by this filter.
High efficiency Higher component cost
RfencI
Compact design Corona and safety issues CIAL,L (3)
±s3 fene ±s RCL + 1CRLfen7e CfLfLt
B. Pulse Transformer Type Pulse Generator The maximum switch current occurs when the output of
The pulse transformer type HVPPS is the most widely the circuit is shorted, and the peak value of this current is
used topology in modern electric fence energizers. The approximated by (4). The peak current (A) for a typical
operation of this topology is similar to the direct discharge large electric fence energizer (<50 J stored) is in the range
type, with the main difference been the inclusion of a step- of 500-2000 A.
up pulse transformer at the output of the pulse generator.
A typical pulse transformer type HVPPS is illustrated in
Fig. 6 [2, 9]. I max - ' Vc
c- storage L
s torage
+LLIk (4)
1
A low power charging system, as specified by (2),
charges the storage capacitor bank to a moderate voltage Under heavy loading conditions losses in the inductor
level to produce the desired output voltage pulse. The and the transformer would have a great impact on the

2016
output voltage, since the reflected load resistance on the
primary is very small. For example, a 50 Q fence load is
seen as 0.5 Q on the primary side of the pulse transformer
with a turn's ratio of 1:10. If the combined winding
resistance referred to the primary is also 0.5 Q, the output
voltage is halved. The leakage inductance of the output
transformer increases the voltage attenuation further,
under these conditions. The efficiency of the pulse
forming section of a pulse transformer based design is
thus typically less than 80% at optimum load.
Disadvantages of this topology are high core and
copper losses in the pulse transformer, due to large
circulating currents under lightly loaded conditions.
Under these conditions, the energy stored in Lm and Llk
during pulse period is re-circulated through the clamping
diodes, until it is dissipated as losses.
Losses in the output pulse transformer are reduced by
using large gauge wires and increasing the magnetizing
inductance to reduce magnetizing current. The result of
this action is usually a bulky output transformer that is
often expensive to produce. A typical output transformer
in a large energizer weighs around 5 kg.
Phase control SCRs are the most popular switching
device used in this type of design. The main reason
behind this choice is cost and the ability that SCRs have to
repetitively withstand the high current stresses. Since this
is a latching switch, it imposes a limitation on the control
of output pulse shape. Alternatively, parallel stacks of
IGBTs or MOSFETs could be used to achieve better
control over the pulse shape, but cost would be an issue.
Table III summarizes the advantages and the
disadvantages of a pulse transformer based high-end
electric fence energizer.
TABLE III
PROPERTIES OF A PULSE TRANSFORMER TYPE ENERGIZER
Advantages Disadvantages
Restricted control of pulse
Simple and inexpensive design width
Low voltage stress on High current stress on
components components
Economical output filter design Low efficiency
Safe and reliable design Bulky output transformer
C. Marx Generator Type Pulse Generator
Si SI Si
XHigh Voltalge StLI)pIY ,,Wo;C
S2 2;;
C ;
Si Si Si
i
Fencel.oad
Fig. 8. The conceptual circuit diagram of a Marx generator
The Marx generator concept, originated by E. Marx in
1924, overcomes some of the deficiencies presented in the
two preceding topologies. In this technique, a number of
energy compression capacitors are charged in parallel and
2017
then discharged in series. This scheme can reduce both
the voltage and current stresses on the components. A
conceptual circuit diagram of a Marx generator is shown
in Fig. 8 [2, 16-18].
The energy compression capacitors Cl-CN are charged
through a high voltage charging system by closing the Si
switches, while the S2 switches remain open. During the
charging time period, all the capacitors are charged in
parallel with each other. After the voltage on all the
capacitors has reached the required level, charging is
terminated by opening the S, switches. Until the control
circuit commands the unit to generate an output pulse, the
capacitors are left floating with reference to the circuit
ground. To form a high voltage pulse at the output, S2
switches are closed while Si switches are left open.
During the firing period, the capacitors are arranged in
series with each other, causing the peak output voltage to
be N times greater than the charged voltage of one
capacitor. This system of operation reduces both the
current and voltage stress on the switches, hence allowing
the design to utilize standard MOSFET or IGBT switching
devices.
S3
Ptlise Out +
00000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 '~8 >Isolationt Elm wntn 6
eEl
=('2 tIsolation Element 5
Isolation Element Dt r- 2
Fig. 9. A generalized 3-stage Marx generator circuit diagram.
The Marx generator concept can be implemented in a
variety of ways, depending on the design requirements.
Fig. 9 shows a generalized circuit diagram of a 3-stage
Marx generator. The isolation elements shown in Fig. 9
can be either passive or active elements. These elements
act as a low impedance path for the charge current,
enabling all three capacitors to be charged in parallel
configuration from the charging bus. Generally passive
isolation components are used for applications that need to
generate sub-microsecond pulses, whereas active elements
can be used to generate much longer pulses. If the design
employs active isolation elements, their states should be
controlled to present a low impedance to the charge
current and high impedance to the pulse current. A high
voltage pulse, which is three times the charging bus
voltage, is produced at the output by closing the power
switches S1-S3, which configures the capacitors C1-C3 in
series with the output.
 With the proper use of isolation elements, switches Sl- by closing the switch S 1, during the firing mode, is
S3 could be switched at different time intervals to produce equivalent to shorting nodes V3-V4. The LC network
different pulse shapes at the output. The voltage stress on formed by C2 and the combined leakage inductances
the switches (S1-S3), capacitors (C1-C3), and isolation begins to resonate causing the voltage across C2 to
elements of this design are low compared to the direct reverse. This effect propagates up through the
discharge type pulse generator. The maximum voltage transformers, reversing the polarity of even-numbered
stress on these components is equal to the charging bus capacitors. At the end of this process all the capacitors
voltage. The current stresses in the circuit are mainly have the same polarity, and the output voltage is greatly
dictated by the output filter and the load, and could be increased. The large magnetizing inductance of the
limited by proper design parameter selection. Table IV transformers maintains a reasonably constant voltage
summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of a Marx across C1 and C3.
generator topology used in an electric fence energizer. vl1 N73 I.Ikpl vs V7 I,Ikp2 v'

Charging Bus+
TABLE IV TIT
Clharging Bls - Llks Ilks2 P eu
PROPERTIES OF A MARX GENERATOR TYPE ENERGIZER 7_ N74 V6 V8RLoad
Advantages Disadvantages ( + +. +
CF C2 C3 C4
Flexibility in waveform Complex design Fig. I11. A four stage vector inversion type HVPPS
generation
Low voltage and current stress Requires a large number of The model shown in Fig. 11 could be further simplified,
on components discrete parts assuming equal leakage inductances to analyze the
High efficiency Expensive filter components characteristics of the converter as shown in Fig. 12. The
time taken to reach the maximum voltage could be
Safe and reliable design Higher component cost calculated by considering the LC resonant circuits formed
No bulky output transformer with the total leakage inductances (Llkl and L1k2) of the
transformers and the storage capacitors. The output
voltage (V) of the generator and the switch current (A)
could be approximated by (5) and (6) under lightly loaded
D. Transformer coupled vector inversion Type Pulse conditions [20].
Generator

S2 I,lk= lks2+ ,lklE2

TN
Charging Bus +
Si
Charging Bus - C C2 C3 C4 C'(2N-1) C2N
Llk=Llks l+LlkP1 C=C2 C4
::00700:; + s , + + i+ 1-
Pulse Output<
TI
-
*
"I11r r

RLoad

Fig. 12. A simplified model of Fig. 11 for transient analysis

Fig. 10. A vector inversion type HVPPS
Vout = 2Vbu, + (Dcos(t) +WcoS((o2t) (5)
A schematic diagram of a vector inversion type HVPPS
is shown in Fig. 10. This technique utilizes a number of ISwitch A sin(" t) + B sin((u2t) (6)
transformers (Ti-TN) with a single switch Si to generate an
output voltage that is 2N times higher than the charging
bus voltage. The charging bus charges the energy Where (I =
Vbus X5 = V us+
compression capacitors (Cl-C2N) in parallel, when S2 is
closed and S, is open. The transformer-capacitor I I
configuration ensures that the odd-numbered capacitors A = bs 1- I , B b I - k
are charged with opposite polarity to the even-numbered V5Llkik ~lo k2) LlrkC
capacitors. Hence the net voltage appearing at the output
terminal of the converter is zero. The charging switch, S2 I
2k
= 3+V.
2
is turned-off after the capacitors reach the required jlkC2
voltage. When S, is closed it reverses the polarity of the
even-numbered capacitors causing the unit to produce a
high voltage pulse at the output [7, 19]. The maximum switch current, which is mainly
determined by the leakage inductance, occurs at no load.
A simplified equivalent model of a two-transformer The peak switch current of the topology could be a few
vector inversion generator is shown in Fig. 11. The thousand amperes, depending on the amount of stored
transformers are replaced with ideal transformers (T1-T2) energy. The maximum voltage stress on the switches is
and their leakage inductances (LIk). Shorting nodes V1-V2, equal to the charging bus voltage. SCRs would likely be

2018
the preferred switch technology for this type. Parallel
stacks of IGBTs or MOSFETs could also be used. The
lack of control over the output pulse is a disadvantage of
this topology. Under light load conditions the output
pulse duration is dependent on the load and could be well
above the limit allowed in applicable safety standards.
Table V summarizes the advantages and disadvantages
of this topology if used in an electric fence energizer.
TABLE V
PROPERTIES OF A VECTOR INVERSION TYPE ENERGIZER
Advantages Disadvantages
Low voltage stress on High current stress on
components components
Doesn't require an output filter Inability to control pulse width
Simple design Several transformers required
Safety issues
IV. A NOVEL CONCEPT FOR AN ELECTRIC FENCE TYPE
ENERGIZER
According to the above discussion on high voltage
pulse power supply topologies, the Marx generator type
has some attractive properties suited to electric fence type
energizers compared with the other techniques. The main
advantages are the ability to employ standard
semiconductor switching devices and the ability to
generate variable output wave shapes and durations.
A novel electric fence energizer based on the Marx
generator technique has been developed [21]. The design
incorporates a novel method to control the output wave
shape by timely switching the Marx stages. This property
can be used to generate optimized output waveforms to
suit different fence conditions. For example, to produce a
pulse that travels furthest with lowest pulse attenuation. It
also has the potential to optimize the pulse shape to have
the greatest psychological effect on the animals.
Currently authors are investigating the behaviour of
typical electric fences and the psychological and
physiological effect of different pulse shapes on farm
animals.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Four pulse power techniques that could be used in
electric fence type energizers, have been reviewed.
Among these, the most economical and simplest to use in
an electric fence type energizer is the pulse transformer
type. The drawbacks are the high primary currents and
the inability to control the output pulse width. This
topology is suitable for most sizes of electric fence
energizer.
The properties of the Marx generator and direct
discharge techniques are quite similar. They have higher
efficiencies, utilize standard semiconductor switches,
exclude bulky transformers and allow generation of
variable pulse shapes compared to the other two
topologies. Large electric fence energizers could employ
these topologies to deliver a higher power into high fence
loads with reduced losses. With the continued
development of semiconductor power switches such as
SiC-based IGBTs, it may become commercially viable to
2019
replace the pulse transformer based design by either of
these two types.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Pieter Lunenburg, Tim
Otley and Nick Fenwick from Tru-Test Limited for their
technical support, and Technology NZ for financial
support.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Shmilovitz, and S. Singer, "Pulsed power generation by means
of transmission lines," IEEE Trans. Power Electronics, vol. 18,
Jan. 2003, pp. 221-230.
[2] S.T. Pai, and Q. Zhang, "Introduction to high power pulse
technology," World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore,
1995.
[3] A Kempkes, J.A. Casey, M.P.J. Gaudreau, T.A. Hawkey, and I.S.
Roth, "Solid-state modulators for commercial pulsed power
systems," in 25th Int. IEEE Conf., 2002, pp. 689-693.
[4] J. C. McCutchan, "Electric Fence Design Principles,"
Department o Electrical Engineering, University of Australia,
Australia, 1980.
[5] K. Yatsui, "Progress of pulsed power commercial applications in
Japan," in 1Ith Int. IEEE Conf., vol. 1, June 1997, pp. 13-24.
[6] B. W. Barnes, "The electrified fence as a component of a physical
protection system," Proc. Of the 1989 International Carnahan
Conference on Security Technology, pp. 237-241, 1989.
[7] T.G. Engel and M. Kristiansen, "A compact high voltage vector
inversion generator," in 10th IEEE Int. Pulsed Power Conf., Vol. 2,
pp. 1389-1393, July 1995.
[8] M. Kanter, S. Singer, R. Cerny, and Z. Kaplan, "Multikilojoule
inductive modulator with solid-state opening switches," IEEE
Trans. Power Electronics, vol. 7, pp. 420-424, April 1992.
[9] J.H. Kim, M.H. Ryu, S. Shenderey, J.S. Kim, and G.H. Rim,
"High voltage-pulse power supply using IGBT stacks," in 30th
Annual Conf. of IEEE, Industrial Electronics Society, vol. 3, pp.
2843-2847, Nov. 2004.
[10] M. Buttram, "Some future directions for repetitive pulsed power,"
IEEE Trans. Plasma Science, vol. 30, pp. 262-266, Feb. 2002.
[11] M.V. Fazio, and H.C. Kirbie, "Ultracompact pulsed power," Proc.
of the IEEE, vol. 92, pp. 1197-1204, July 2004.
[12] F.J. Wakeman, and B.K.Green, "Improved semiconductor
switches, for pulse power applications," in 23d Int. IEEE Conf.,
1998, pp. 135-138.
[13] E.B. Vossenberg, "Power semiconductor devices in pulsed power
applications," IEE Colloquium, 1997, pp. 39/1-39/5.
[14] M.P. Gaudreau, J.A. Casey, I. Roth, T. Hawkey, M. Mulvaney,
and M.A. Kempkes, "Solid-state pulsed power systems for the
Next Linear Collider," in IEEE Conf. Pulsed Power Plasma
Science, vol. 1, pp. 298-301, June 2001.
[15] R. Richardson, R.J. Rush, S.M. Iskander, and P. Gooch, "Compact
12.5 MW, 55 kV solid state modulator," in 13th Int. Pulsed Power
Conf., 2001, pp. 636-639.
[16] G.E. Lehy, "Prototype development progress toward a 500 kV
solid state Marx modulator," in 35th Annual IEEE Conf., vol. 1,
pp.831-834, June 2004.
[17] R.J. Richter-Sand, R.J. Adler, R. Finch, and B. Ashcraft, "Marx-
stacked IGBT modulators for high voltage, high power
applications," in 25th Int. IEEE Conf., 2002, pp. 390-393.
[18] A. Krasnykh, R. Akre, S. Gold, and R. Koontz, "A solid state
Marx type modulator for driving a TWT power modulator
symposium, " in 24th Int. Conf., 2000, pp. 209 - 211.
[19] B. Meyer, A. Watson, T.G. Engel, and M. Kristiansen, "A single
gap transformer coupled L-C generator with resonant frequency
compensation," in Proc. 7th Pulsed Power Conf., 1989, pp. 749-
752.
[20] D.J. Thrimawithana & U. Madawala; "An analysis of the vector
inversion generator", Report, Tru-Test Ltd, New Zealand, 2005.
[21] Tru-Test Ltd., "An Electric Fence Energizer," New Zealand Patent
535719 and foreign equivalents.