# Re: PFC Question

• To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
• Subject: Re: PFC Question
• From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:42:27 -0700
• Delivered-to: testla@pupman.com
• Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
• Old-return-path: <vardin@twfpowerelectronics.com>
• Resent-date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:43:22 -0700 (MST)
• Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
• Resent-message-id: <H4TkeC.A.KpE.3gNdDB@poodle>
• Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx

`Original poster: "Dmitry (father dest)" <dest@xxxxxxxxxxx>`

`> Original poster: "Gerry  Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>`

`> Hi Dmitry,`

```> What is needed here is to measure the phase
> of the variac output wrt the phase of the input of the variac to put
> things into perspective.```

```i guess it`s bad idea - phase shift would depend from the load size
and its character - at the same  variac.```

```>   Your estimate of 1mh of leakage inductance
> is based on a coupling of 0.99.  This coupling seems high to me.  If
> the coupling is say 0.95, the leakage inductance may be significant
> enough to cause the output phase shift.```

```and it`s a good thought - we have to measure the coupling coefficient.
unfortunately i have got only one variac, so i can`t do it now.```

```> Another theory that may explain the phase shift vs variac setting is
> the non linarity of the NST (my experience is with NST's).```

```but it`s already nst (mot, etc) problems, so it`s not so interesting
here :-)```

```-----
The solution to no primary hits lay in getting rid of the primary!
This is no joke either.
20-06-96 (c) Richard Hull, TCBOR```