Re: Pulse Transformer

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

Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <davep-at-quik-dot-com>

> Just reading all the things said in this series of posts makes me 
> wonder whether anyone, apart from myself, has trouble agreeing with a 
> lot of the concepts expressed here? ?

> For example, since when has a TC been a wideband transformer?


	Since the usual TC has no core.
	Frequency response is limited, in large measure, by the
	core and associated inductance.  removal of the core
	makes a TC broadband.  Also, details of winding.
	The usual TC is not PLANNED to be broadband, and has
	a particular frequency or frequencies where performance
	will be optimal.  However, if compared, in an engineering
	sense, to a broadband transformer (RF or pulse), the
	similarliries are obvious.

	Meta:
	There was a recent concern fo r'basic research' on TC.
	I suggest that much relavant research exists, in related
	fields, and could be usefully, if not casually, applied
	to TC work.


> Since a when did a disruptive TC not ring up with some sinusoidal

> waveform while its primary rang down?


	Indeed.
	So will a opulse transfromer or broadband transformer.

	best
	dwp