Re: Cascading Transfo

To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Cascading Transfo
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 01:24:04 -0500
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

Subject:  RE: Re: Cascading Transfo
  Date:   Sun, 4 May 1997 19:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
  From:  "Edward V. Phillips" <ed-at-alumni.caltech.edu>
    To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com


"                (1) - You are seriously confusing disparate issues.

                      NEMA is a civilian agency.  It has utterly
                      =nothing= whatsoever to do with the specs.
                      for military-contract electrical component
                      manufacturing.'

        No confusion at all.  I seriously doubt if there is any
power transformer around which won't saturate completelyh at 1.5 x
rated voltage, let alone more.  MIL_SPEC transformers aren't
overdesigned that way either.

"        | More to the point and purpose - my suggestion to overrun   |
        | mil. spec. transformers is =not theoretical=.  Try it your |
        | self and see.   As I've pointed out, the current in to the |
        | second transfomer is =much= less than the second trans-    |
        | would normall draw (1/8th in my example).  The NEMA spec.  |
        | pre-supposes that the current can rise freely with rising  |
        | voltage.  In my example, only a limited amount of current  |
        | is available from the first transformer - as it happens    |
        | approximately 1/8 the current the second transformer would |
        | normally draw.    "

        Not sure what this refers to, so can't comment.
Ed