Re: Current Limiting and Impedence

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Paul B. Brodie" <pbbrodie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Gerry,
I'm really interested in what you guys have had to say on this thread. 
Please let us know the results of your investigations into gapless toroids. 
I do have one little question: are there gapped toroids? I've never seen 
one and it seems that would defeat the purpose of using the toroid shape in 
the first place. Regards.
Paul
Think Positive


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <<mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <<mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: Current Limiting and Impedence

> Original poster: "Gerald  Reynolds" 
<<mailto:gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I'll reply to my own reply.
>
> Maybe what I'm missing is:   if I increase the area to prevent saturation,
> the inductance goes back up so maybe this is self defeating.  I think it is
> time to play with some real numbers with gapless toroids and see what the
> inductance and saturatiion levels are.
>
> Gerry R
>
>
>>Original poster: "Gerald  Reynolds" 
<<mailto:gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>I wonder if the real issue is physical size between the two designs.  If I
>>take a gapped ballast and remove the gap, the inductance goes up.  I will
>>need to reduce the number of turns to get back to the original inductance.
>>This will increase the volts per turn that will push the ballast closer to
>>saturation unless I increase the cross sectional area.
>
>
>
>