[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MOT current limiting shunts



Original poster: John <fireba8104-at-yahoo-dot-com> 

Hello,
It appears that I will have to do that. I have a 11 Mots total. I could 
come up with general shunt inductance figures for 900 and 1000 watt Mots. 
It would take some time, since I am waiting for some new equipment. There 
are other methods for measuring inductance but, I just never get around to 
trying them. Maybe I'm Lazy : ).
Cheers,
John


Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
Original poster: "Dr. Resonance"


Measure the inductance of the MOT with the shunts in. Remove the shunts.
Measure the inductance of the MOT with the shunts removed. Subtract the two
values for find the equivalent value for the effect of the shunts.

Ohm's law does not apply to an AC device such as a transformer. It's called
reactance which is a combination of the DC resistance (Ohm's law) plus the
AC inductive reactance. It is designated by the letter Z to keep it
separated. In some transformer designs the AC capacitive reactance also
enters into the picture but this value is usually low and ignored in most
calculations.

Dr. Resonance

Resonance Research Corporation
E11870 Shadylane Rd.
Baraboo WI 53913
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list"
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 9:22 PM
Subject: MOT current limiting shunts


 > Original poster: John
 >
 >
 > Hello all,
 >
 > A question for the ages, at least in this hobby. Is there any formula for
 > finding L of current limiting shunts in Mots ,or any other transformer for
 > that matter? Now, to clear up a bit of confession, are the shunts
 > equivalent to a inductor in parallel with a winding, as the name shunt
 > implies, or are they equivalent to series inductance, as what would be
 > desirable for a neon xformer in order to limit voltage after an arc is
 > started? Finally, after I've killed your love for the written word, to
what
 > winding is ohm's law applied?
 >
 > Thanks for at least reading this somewhat long post,
 >
 > John
 >
 >