[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Current Limiting and Impedence
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Current Limiting and Impedence
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 08:41:13 -0600
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Old-return-path: <email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Sun, 8 May 2005 08:43:49 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <8SGnYD.A.gND.jWifCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Paul B. Brodie" <pbbrodie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <<mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: Current Limiting and Impedence
> Original poster: "Gerald Reynolds"
> 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"
>>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.