Saturation/the real meaning?

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

Original poster: "harvey norris by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <harvich-at-yahoo-dot-com>

I see numerous posts where it is mandated that when a
ballast method is being used to control the amperage
input to a tesla coil, that if the inductor is
saturated this will cause its amperage consumption to
go way up. I can accept that fact. But I cannot accept
the numerous quotes I have seen where it is
additionally stated that at saturation the inductance
or impedance goes to zero, which is the cause for the
large amperages. Perhaps I have misread the context or
meaning of that statement.

Here is the way I learned it, can someone comment
whether I am wrong or right? Before saturation the
amount of voltage applied versus the amount of
conduction achieved is rather linear. Twice the
voltage will give approximately twice the amperage and
on so on. But near saturation the linear relationship
vanishes. In that situation if one is under the knee
of the V/I curve right before saturation, and then one
increases the voltage to where saturation can occur,
all of a sudden the amount of amperage drawn is much
greater the the linear V/I relationship will allow. It
is the inductor that holds the magnetic lines of
force, and is also what causes the impedance, or
current limiting ability. That inductor however can
hold only so many lines before it becomes saturated.
When this occurs, like a sponge only being able to
hold so much water, it will leak out of the sponge.
Likewise the inductor holding the magnetic field lines
cannot hold them any more, so they begin to exist as
flux leakage, or magnetic lines going out into space
beyond the core. But how can people equate this with
the entire vanishing of that inductance or impedance?

If this were so, and again I have seen this stated
many times, that would mean that the current
conduction being established should be established
merely on the resistance of the inductor,and the
current conduction calculated by OHMS law, and NONE of
the existing impedance should go into that calculation
consideration, because it has vanished. It that were
true the ballast would immediately cook itself for an
insulation meltdown after the saturation level was
made.

I rather think that after saturation is achieved the
impedance then goes down from its previous ohmic
levels as made by the calculations made by the V vs I
considerations past saturation. If we were to entirely
remove that iron core, the impedance would then be
what the windings themselves give as an air core, a
value thousands of times lower than what the closed
loop iron core gives. So here in this situation
because at saturation, more and more field lines are
travelling through air as flux leakage, that core is
simply beginning to act more as the reduced impedance
inherent in a hybrid/air/iron core inductor would
give. Yes the acting impedance will definitely go
down, but where is the rationale made to be stating
that it has vanished?

Perhaps the more educated among list members can make
an opinion here. I have been wrong before and am very
glad the list can serve as a forum to set things
right. Thats what they call a learning process!

Sincerely Harvey D Norris



=====
Binary Resonant System  http://members3.boardhost-dot-com/teslafy/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo-dot-com/