[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pulse Transformer
Original poster: "Dave Larkin by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <teslaman15-at-hotmail-dot-com>
Hi Robert, All,
While a disruptive Tesla coil (definitely!) does not produce a pure
monotonic sine wave, the fundamental mode of oscillation of any LC circuit
_will_. Sure in a TC a whole load of harmonics and sparkgap nonlinearities
distort the sine wave, but the fundamental _is_ a sine, and a TC is _not_ a
pulse transformer. Period.
>From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>Subject: Re: Pulse Transformer
>Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:16:11 -0600
>Original poster: "rheidlebaugh by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
>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
>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
>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
>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
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.