RE: DRSSTC stablity/ closed loop response

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Adam Horden" <adamhorden@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hello,

Could you send me the MathCAD files? I would be interested to see them.

Adam Horden
http://www.acidtech.net

msn: adamhorden@xxxxxxxxxxxx

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 02 February 2005 23:41
> To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: DRSSTC stablity/ closed loop response
>
> Original poster: Esondrmn@xxxxxxx
>
> In a message dated 2/1/05 3:59:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Hi Terry,
>
> Do you still have MathCAD 2000? If you do I can send you a file/s that
> plots
> the frequency responses, input impedance etc. You can play with the
> parameters and perhaps get a feel for it. I also have a file some
where
> that
> shows how the frequency splitting occurs graphically again you can
play
> with
> the parameters to get a feel for what's going on. If you think anyone
else
> would be interested feel free to put them on your site. Most of them
have
> little or no comments but they may be self explanatory.
>
> I think the key to understanding the frequency splitting is to
understand
> that its the reciprocal impedance of the secondary is referred to the
> primary or visa versa.  I think I posted a hand waving version of it a
> while
> back.
>
> Robert
>
> As long as Terry started this, I also have questions about f1 & f2, or
> poles above and below the resonant frequency.  First, is this a
function
> of
> any resonator?  Does any specific combined L and C have this
> characteristic?  Or is it primarily a function of a two resonator
coupled
> system?  If the resonant frequency is say 100 khz, how far above and
below
> this will the poles be?  If the degree of coupling has an impact, what
is
> it?  If we looked at the amplitude of the three frequencies (F0, F1
and
> F2), does the amplitude of F1 and F2 go way down as coupling is
reduced,
> or
> does the distance in hertz away from F0 get larger?  The more I think
> about
> this, the more questions that come to mind.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Sonderman