Re: Pulse Transformer

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

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

Gentlemen since my comments have a part in this series I will add my fuel.
    A sine wave is defined by the trigimetric curve it follows. It is
symrtrical in both the positive and negitine directions it may cross a "0"
polerity refrance point. It has no band spread and no distortion by odd or
even harmonics altering the symetrical wave shape.
    The wave shape of a disruptive TC can in no way be defined as a sign
wave. It can be said to be resonant within a limited band spread and a range
of even and odd harmonics of a primary frequency, but not a sign wave.
    a square wave is resonant predictable and composed of inifinit odd
harmonics. A tryangle wave shape is resonant predictable and composed of an
infinite number of even harmonics.
   If you want to test this tune your radio reciever to the primary
frequency of your TC and test for a band spread. You will find it. Test for
odd and even harmonics. You will find them. examine your wave shape with a
scope. You will find it to be non -linier.
    I chalange all the members of this group with government suport to build
a perfect disruptive TC with perfect sine wave productive output and no
nolinerity ( streaners not required) and show me this devise. I will then
open me door and let the wee lepricon lad in to bring  a cask of Gold across
me door and a tankard of ale to quench my throat so I can halucinate with
the likes of you.
   Robert  H       Resonant they are, sine wave they ain't

> From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 21:15:19 -0600
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Pulse Transformer
> Resent-From: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Resent-Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 21:15:13 -0600
> 
> Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <davep-at-quik-dot-com>
> 
> Tesla list wrote:
> 
>> Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz
> 
>> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>
> 
>> Hi Dave,
> Hi Malcolm...
> 
> 
>> On 16 May 2002, at 16:32, Tesla list wrote:
> 
>>> 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 for '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 pulse transfromer or broadband transformer.
> 
>> I would hope that a high Q resonant circuit has a considerably
>> narrower frequency response than a transformer designed to faithfully
>> pass pulses and squarewaves.
> 
> 
> 'faithfully' is sort of....  8)>>
> 
> Here, perhaps, is the nub of the discussion.
> I was referring to a Tesla COIL, a Tesla Transformer.
> Two (or more) Windings.  Period.
> 
> IF one adds a a cap, making a resonant _system_, matters
> are different.  Commonly , the phrase 'Tesla Coil' is
> used to refer to 'two coils plus a cap'.  I was using
> it (perhaps unwisely) to refer to the _coil(s)_ as such.
> The _coils_ are relatively wide band.  I can see no
> difference between the coils of a Tesla system and
> a pulse transformer.
> 
> (The discussion gets REALLY interesting in the case
> of the Tesla Secondary, which lacks an explicit cap.
> I suspect this is analogous to the occasional
> discussion of secondary pre breakout (resonant)
> and post breakout (less resonant/different (higher)
> resonance.)
> 
> best
> dwp
> 
> 
>