[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: This phase shift stuff...
Malcolm,
When I wrote that post, my focus was on the phase issue,
not system efficiency. My point was that the 90 degree phenomina was a
function of the EM feild -not a point to point gradual shift. To
answer your question-yes! the VI product at the top would be less
than that ofthe primary of course!
Am I missing your point?
Checking reality in NY, USA.
Jim McVey
>Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:02:29 -0700
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: This phase shift stuff...
>From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>
>Original Poster: "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
>
>There might be a reality check:
>
>> Original Poster: "becyn comunication" <becyn-at-hotmail-dot-com>
>
><snip>
>> My money is on your "Top load in sync with the standing wave"
>> statement. Since E and I are only in phase at resonance, no
>> difference should be detectable at any given point. If this were
>> the case ,microwave waveguides would have massive losses in their
>> centers do to reflections caused by gradual phase change. As we know
>> it facilitates the propagation of the standing wave with good
>> efficiency. I believe a similar facilitation occurs in the lumped
>> TC by feild placement creating the "standing wave". The current
>> flowing through the inductance does not change along it's length
>> unless your equipment creates a current loop at that point!
>> Futhermore, some false phase shift may be interpreted due to the
>> ratio of the base loading impedance to the location of the probe
>> (Xl)along the length.
>>
>> Does anyone share this view?
>>
>> Jim McVey
>
>Shouldn't the peak secondary V*I at the top be less than the initial
>peak primary V*I product?
>
>Malcolm
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail-dot-com