[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Ferrite chokes & saturation - why toroids?
From: Adam[SMTP:absmith-at-tiac-dot-net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 10:02 AM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Ferrite chokes & saturation - why toroids?
>> The "U" core shape definitely seems easier to wind- is iron power
>> available in shapes other than toroid?
>
>Rods and slugs AFAIK.
>
>> Is there a good reason for using the toroid?
>
>Not for this application to my knowledge (other than to minimize
>radiation). But I've used ferrite rods in chokes with no real
>problems. Perhaps someone who chose that core shape could answer this.
>
>Malcolm
I guess the toroid is so popular then because it is a common type of
closed-core form (flux contained) that is readily available. Rods and
slugs are great for making chokes for many applications, but I suspect
that if these open ended core forms get too close to the Tesla primary,
you could be in for some seriously unwanted induction- esp. if the cores
are lined up axially with the tesla coil! For those of use whose power
supplies are housed just below the coil itself, closed core chokes are a
must. This is what led me to the double "U" cores from my flyback
xfrmrs, though I suspect mine saturate at my current power levels.
That leads me to another question- If I cannot find larger "U" core forms
than the flyback material (which I have in abundance) to build higher
current chokes, can I simply wind four (or more) identical chokes and put
them in series-parallel to increase power handling while maintaining the
value (10 mH)? This seems like a valid approach, and should also better
distribute the voltage across the chokes in series.
-Adam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Smith
absmith-at-tiac-dot-net
Epoch, Inc. Digital Music Project
www.tiac-dot-net/users/absmith/ MP3 Demo Tracks Now Available!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------