Re: Pulse Transformer

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Hi Dave,

On 16 May 2002, at 16:32, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<davep-at-quik-dot-com>
> 
> > Just reading all the things said in this series of posts makes me 
> > wonder whether anyone, apart from myself, has trouble agreeing with a 
> > lot of the concepts expressed here? ?
> 
> > For example, since when has a TC been a wideband transformer?
> 
> 
> 	Since the usual TC has no core.
> 	Frequency response is limited, in large measure, by the
> 	core and associated inductance.  removal of the core
> 	makes a TC broadband.  Also, details of winding.
> 	The usual TC is not PLANNED to be broadband, and has
> 	a particular frequency or frequencies where performance
> 	will be optimal.  However, if compared, in an engineering
> 	sense, to a broadband transformer (RF or pulse), the
> 	similarliries are obvious.
> 
> 	Meta:
> 	There was a recent concern fo r'basic research' on TC.
> 	I suggest that much relavant research exists, in related
> 	fields, and could be usefully, if not casually, applied
> 	to TC work.
> 
> 
> > Since a when did a disruptive TC not ring up with some sinusoidal
> 
> > waveform while its primary rang down?
> 
> 
> 	Indeed.
> 	So will a opulse transfromer or broadband transformer.

I would hope that a high Q resonant circuit has a considerably 
narrower frequency response than a transformer designed to faithfully 
pass pulses and squarewaves.

Regards,
malcolm