[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: High frequency impedance of a neon sign transformer
-
To: tesla <tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com>
-
Subject: Re: High frequency impedance of a neon sign transformer
-
From: Richard Hull <whitlock-dot-com!RICHARDH-at-uucp-1.csn-dot-net>
-
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 18:40:00 PST
-
>Received: from valriva.whitlock-dot-com (valriva.whitlock-dot-com [198.69.64.3]) by uucp-1.csn-dot-net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA10561 for <grendel!grendel.objinc-dot-com!tesla-at-uucp-1.csn-dot-net>; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:12:09 -0700
-
Encoding: 67 TEXT
Ed,
I will have to yield to measurment. I did the drill and came up with
similar results. This is another case in point of counter-intuitive
occurances. Science is based on experiment and not logic. Logic is
soething you can apply to help explain stuff after the lab work is done. I
took a bare secondary (removed) and the impedance was still rather low and
in line with what you reported. Then it hit me!! The sheet capacitance and
turn to turn capacitance is horrendous in one of these multilayer coils!
The inductance is of little impedance value if it is shunted with a large
capacitance which, of course, has its reactance plunge with frequency.
I would suggest an inductive reactance of about 2 times the net secondary
reactance for protecting the transformer. Therein comes the rub. Any
effective shunting capacitance we might try to add effectively adds to the
resonant tank.
A real conundrum! Like I say, these transformers are doomed ultimately in
tesla service.
Richard Hull, TCBOR
----------
From: tesla
To: 73041.2215; 73663.1536; BrittB7556; JHERRON; JOHNBATES3; abourass;
atech; davide; funkadelic; jbiehler; jfalcon; jmonty; kg7bz; koppemha;
logue; mackte; osburnw; pinsky; richardh; rmessick; rnicker; rwstephens;
shu95mmc; stevej; twill19; yiorgos
Subject: Re: High frequency impedance of a neon sign transformer
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 1996 9:04AM