PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2026-01-29, 10:10:51
News: The text input boxes (where you write your messages) are resizeable.  Just drag the bottom border of the text box to size it appropriately to your device.  The changes are persistent across your devices.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 31
Author Topic: partzmans board ATL  (Read 36307 times)
Topic Options img
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #150 on: 2020-05-27, 01:28:32 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi lost_bro,

I was not familiar with this particular Ide patent nor the other document.  Thanks for sharing those.  I will have to study both of them to understand the concept being used to see if there is some correlation.

Although I have not thoroughly investigated the delayed output voltage waveform of my current device, I have given it some consideration.  I have noticed that with more core area added to the secondary, the width of the secondary voltage waveform increases (like a lowering in frequency) with all other parameters remaining the same as if it is like a delay in the H field, A field, or S flow or ..........!  I am currently making new bobbins to allow higher ratios of secondary inductance to primary inductance as this appears to improve the performance.  There are other observations that I will discuss more about over the next few days after some more testing.

Regards,
Pm   
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #151 on: 2020-05-27, 20:50:05 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
This project I would like to dedicate to the memory Ernie C. (Ion) as I'm sure he would have loved to see these results.  I know that I sorely miss not being able to discuss these things with him!

These are the test results of an asymmetrical transformer that uses a 1/4"sq core assembly for the primary and one 3/4"sq core assembly for the secondary.  Although the core area ratio is the largest used to date, the secondary inductance of L2 at 19.5mH was disappointingly low IMO as compared to the multiple 1/4" cores used in the secondary.

The primary winding is 66t with no core gap and the secondary winding is 100t with the core gapped at .005".  The supply voltage is 30vdc and the constant current is ~200ma with L5 having an inductance of 144mH.

Again, in the following scope pix, CH1(yel) is generator input, CH2(blu) is supply voltage, CH3(pnk) is S5, CH4(grn) is the current probe, and the Math(red) is the average of the instantaneous products of voltage and current.

Pix1- Pin to the input of L1 is seen to be 4.445w over 8.308us for an energy of 36.93uJ.

Pix2- Pout is the power returned to the power supply from L1 and is 4.25w over 6.972us for an energy of 29.63uJ.  Therefore the net input energy consumed is 36.93uJ-29.63uJ = 7.3uJ.

Pix3,4-  The current inductor L5 has a starting current of 204.3ma and a finish current of 203.5ma for an energy loss of ((.2043^2)-(.2035^2))*.144/2 = 23.49uJ.

Pix5,6-  The secondary inductor L2 has a starting current of 204.1ma and a finish current of 225.3ma for an energy gain of ((225.3^2)-(204.1^2))*.0195/2 = 88.76uJ.

Therefore, the apparent COP = 88.76/(7.3+23.49) = 2.88 .

A pix of the xfmr assembly is also attached.

I'm sorry that I don't have any lamps to illuminate!

Regards,
Pm

Note:  Again, the measurement with the cursors is incorrect for the ending current in L5.  The measurement should be taken at the very end of the input cycle which will more than likely result in COP<1.  Pm 
« Last Edit: 2021-12-08, 20:04:10 by partzman »
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #152 on: 2020-05-28, 20:06:38 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
This is a test of the same transformer assembly used in my previous post with the exception that L5 (the constant current inductor) has been changed to 267mH.  This inductance as well as L2 is measured with a large signal test and not a low level inductance meter.

The logic for the L5 change was based on previous testing that indicated there was an interaction between L5 and the output voltage across L2 during the first half of the input cycle which enhanced the COP.  More on this later.

In the following scope pix, CH1(yel) is generator input, CH2(blu) is supply voltage, CH3(pnk) is S5, CH4(grn) is the current probe, and the Math(red) is the average of the instantaneous products of voltage and current.

Pix1- Pin to the input of L1 is seen to be 4.561w over 8.428us for an energy of 38.44uJ.

Pix2- Pout is the power returned to the power supply from L1 and is 4.301w over 6.972us for an energy of 29.99uJ.  Therefore the net input energy consumed is 38.44uJ-29.99uJ = 8.45uJ.

Pix3,4-  The current inductor L5 has a starting current of 202.9ma and a finish current of 202.7ma for an energy loss of ((.2029^2-.2027^2))*.267/2 = 10.83uJ.

Pix5,6-  The secondary inductor L2 has a starting current of 202.3ma and a finish current of 224.1ma for an energy gain of ((,2023^2)-(.2241^2) = 90.63uJ.

Therefore, the apparent COP = 90.63/(8.45+10.83) = 4.70.  A considerable improvement over L5 being 144mH.

Regards,

Pm

Note:  Again, the measurement with the cursors is incorrect for the ending current in L5.  The measurement should be taken at the very end of the input cycle which will more than likely result in COP<1.  Pm 
 
« Last Edit: 2021-12-08, 20:06:00 by partzman »
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #153 on: 2020-05-28, 22:04:37 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
I have determined that the secondary voltage at L2 is produced by resonance between the Large L5 constant current inductor and the self capacitance of L2.  So, no magic here except that if the switch timing is appropriate on the L2 voltage waveform, the loss in L5 is minimized thus maximizing the COP.  Notice on my previous postings that the clamp timings are all nearly at the same position on the L2 voltage curve.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  Magluvin
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #154 on: 2020-05-28, 22:48:20 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Hey Partsman

What it looks like you are doing is multi core induction. 

Say you have 2 toroid cores and you wind a primary on 1 half of the first core, then wind the secondary through the first core and the second core.

What is suppose to occur is, if the primary is set up for resonance, loading the secondary should not hamper the primary resonance. Hear is an advanced one I made some years ago

Have it on my bench to do some more things with it now that i have more test equipment to examine it further.

Mags
   
img  Magluvin
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #155 on: 2020-05-28, 22:51:29 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Have more pics of it driving a decent watt 12v lt bulbe driven with one of my old school classA Sounstream amps on my other laptop at home.  Ill post it later. Surprising how much current the output had.

Mags
   
img  Magluvin
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #156 on: 2020-05-28, 23:27:33 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Here is another little ditty from about 10yrs ago.  Got these on the bench also.

it is a ferite bead with a secondary/pickup coil wound around the outer dia 3 layers and the driver coil wound as a toroid winding over top of the sec winding.
It is the first solid state orbo. Naudin came out with the S2gen (I think that was what he called it) about a month or 2 after I made this one was first shown.

The toriod winding when driven does not induce the pickup coil much, but it does a bit here. The toroid winding just saturates the ferite bead, allowing the magnets in the core to escape the inner bead and jump to the outer core thus letting the magnets field to 'cut' the secondary/pickup coil to induce current out, and the mags field cuts the sec again when the toroid input is released. So if done right, the sec gets a 2 fer 1 deal from just a pulse on the driver coil. Again, I need to do more advanced testing on all these, just incase I missed something back then.

First version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ljx1py-BUs

Later version with mags in the core

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5LFSsdUCTE



Mags
   
img  Magluvin
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #157 on: 2020-05-29, 01:52:42 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Here is the pics of the 5 core inductor. Still cant believe those thin wires powered up that halogen bulb.  So have to revisit this.


Below is a pdf that is also an interesting read on the subject. My 5 core is based on the last 2 diagrams in the pdf.

Mags
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #158 on: 2020-05-29, 14:55:00 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi Mags,

Sorry to be late in responding but we had an incident in the family which required some attendance.

Anyway, thanks for posting all the info on your Magnetic Field Transformer.  In the arrangements where cores are connected to a secondary, our devices are mostly identical.  What you have brought to my attention is whether or not an independent high inductance coil and core assembly can be coupled to the secondary instead of an integrated secondary core?  I somehow don't think that will be equivalent but I will run some tests to be sure.

You may have stated the answer to this but in your pdf, you mentioned wondering about where the extra energy increase came from.  So I'm curious if you measured any excess power or energy in your testing?

Regards,
Pm
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #159 on: 2020-05-29, 17:14:51 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
I ran tests using a separate inductor that was connected to the secondary or L2 of a 1:1 transformer.  The inductance of L2 was 24mh at low level but the L1/L2 input transformer was on the saturation curve so the actual operating inductance would have been much lower.  The inductance of the separate inductor was 52.5mh and was operated in it's linear current range.  The L5 current inductor was 267mH.  I won't post the test results because there is no need as the final test results under a 200ma constant current source from L5 yielded a COP ~.6 at best.

So the conclusion is, the secondary L2 must be a common winding to both the primary core (smaller permeability) and the added core (larger permeability) in order to meet the criteria of a current loaded asymmetrical transformer.

There are many ways to arrange the core topology to meet this requirement using E or U cores, toroids, or combinations of any of these.

Regards,
Pm   
   
img  lost_bro
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #160 on: 2020-05-29, 20:12:16 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 290
Good Day Pm.

I attached an analysis from Smudge which examines the O. Ide XFRMR interactions.
If you have already seen this paper, I can delete this post.

take care, peace
lost_bro
   
img  Magluvin
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #161 on: 2020-05-30, 03:24:05 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Worked a long day..  Will reply tomorrow.

Mags
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #162 on: 2020-05-30, 16:25:53 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
This is a test of the previous asymmetrical xfmr with a 100 ohm 1% precision film resistor load to show the device produces real excess power.

The schematic is shown first and the the load R1 is seen connected between the low side of L2 and ground therefore, it has current conducting through it for the whole cycle.  The L2 secondary has been changed to 90T and at 200ma has an inductance of 14.7mH.

Once again, in the following scope pix CH1(yel) is generator input, CH2(blu) is supply voltage, CH3(pnk) is S5, CH4(grn) is the current probe, and the Math(red) is the average of the instantaneous products of voltage and current.

Pix 1,2- The input power is 5.304w over 7.358us for Uin = 5.304*7.358e-6 = 39.03uJ.  The power returned to the power supply is 4.769w over 6.442us for Ups = 4.769*6.442e-6 = 30.72uJ.  The net input energy loss is Uinloss = 39.03uJ-30.72uJ = 8.31uJ.

Pix 3,4- The L5 start current is 202.2ma and the finish current is 201.7ma for a net energy loss of UL5loss = ((.2022^2-.2017^2))*.267/2 = 26.96uJ

Pix 5,6- The L2 start current is 203.3ma and the finish current is 216.3ma for a net energy gain of ((.2163^2-.2033^2))*.0147/2 = 40.09uJ.

Pix 7- The current through R1 is 206.1ma avg (the rms is nearly identical) for a power of R1pwr = .2061^2*100 = 4.25w over 14.04us for an energy of UR1 = 59.67uJ.

So, the net input energy consumed is 8.31uJ + 26.96uJ = 35.27uJ.  Please note that both the energies in R1 or L2 are greater than the input energy.  The overall COP = (40.09+59.67)/35.27 = 2.83.

However, if one considers the energy in L2 recycled back to the supply at 100%,  then the energy in R1 is totally free.

As a generator, L5 would not be recharged cycle-by-cycle but rather after a number of cycles to keep switching losses down.

Regards,
Pm

Note:  With this version, there may still be gain but it is difficult to say without re-running the test fixture.  Pm
 
« Last Edit: 2021-12-08, 20:09:08 by partzman »
   
img  lost_bro
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #163 on: 2020-05-30, 22:21:02 »
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 290
Quote from: partzman on 2020-05-30, 16:25:53
This is a test of the previous asymmetrical xfmr with a 100 ohm 1% precision film resistor load to show the device produces real excess power.

The schematic is shown first and the the load R1 is seen connected between the low side of L2 and ground therefore, it has current conducting through it for the whole cycle.  The L2 secondary has been changed to 90T and at 200ma has an inductance of 14.7mH.

Once again, in the following scope pix CH1(yel) is generator input, CH2(blu) is supply voltage, CH3(pnk) is S5, CH4(grn) is the current probe, and the Math(red) is the average of the instantaneous products of voltage and current.

Pix 1,2- The input power is 5.304w over 7.358us for Uin = 5.304*7.358e-6 = 39.03uJ.  The power returned to the power supply is 4.769w over 6.442us for Ups = 4.769*6.442e-6 = 30.72uJ.  The net input energy loss is Uinloss = 39.03uJ-30.72uJ = 8.31uJ.

Pix 3,4- The L5 start current is 202.2ma and the finish current is 201.7ma for a net energy loss of UL5loss = ((.2022^2-.2017^2))*.267/2 = 26.96uJ

Pix 5,6- The L2 start current is 203.3ma and the finish current is 216.3ma for a net energy gain of ((.2163^2-.2033^2))*.0147/2 = 40.09uJ.

Pix 7- The current through R1 is 206.1ma avg (the rms is nearly identical) for a power of R1pwr = .2061^2*100 = 4.25w over 14.04us for an energy of UR1 = 59.67uJ.

So, the net input energy consumed is 8.31uJ + 26.96uJ = 35.27uJ.  Please note that both the energies in R1 or L2 are greater than the input energy.  The overall COP = (40.09+59.67)/35.27 = 2.83.

However, if one considers the energy in L2 recycled back to the supply at 100%,  then the energy in R1 is totally free.

As a generator, L5 would not be recharged cycle-by-cycle but rather after a number of cycles to keep switching losses down.

Regards,
Pm

Good day Pm

Incredible work!
What considerations were used to determine the operating frequency of the H-bridge?
With this new configuration, is the COP still positively affected by operating at the onset of saturation of L1?
If so, it would be interesting to test different ferrite compositions, maybe something with a 'squarer' hysteresis curve.
Does pulse width or a fast leading edge dV/dt make any difference for COP?
Now I'm going to have to build a 3d printer to start making bobbins......LOL.

take care, peace
lost_bro

 
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #164 on: 2020-05-30, 22:54:43 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: lost_bro on 2020-05-30, 22:21:02
Good day Pm

Incredible work!

Thank you!

Quote
What considerations were used to determine the operating frequency of the H-bridge?

Good question.  The frequency or rather shall we say period, is determined by the voltage wave shape on the secondary L2.  If you notice in all the tests the charge time for L1 ends at the same point on the L2 voltage waveform.  This is not by happenstance.  If one looks at and measures carefully the current in L5,  you will see a rise in that current just prior to the reverse of drive by the H bridge on L1.  This is the current level in L5 that is frozen or clamped so it is used in for the ending current in L5.

Quote
With this new configuration, is the COP still positively affected by operating at the onset of saturation of L1?
If so, it would be interesting to test different ferrite compositions, maybe something with a 'squarer' hysteresis curve.

Well, the effect of the L1 saturation on COP is still a work in progress.  I can say that it seems that if the primary core is gapped to prevent saturation, the COP decreases.

Yes, trying different ferromagnetic materials might prove interesting.  I have mixed a ferrite core with metglas and will post the results at some time later although it was somewhat disappointing.  The metglas used is the type 6502A (I think that is correct) which is not a square loop material.

Quote
Does pulse width or a fast leading edge dV/dt make any difference for COP?

My H bridge uses discrete mosfets and the top device is a p-channel which is not as fast as the n-channels so, one might notice that I take the Pin measurements with the cursor following after the fall of the gate pulse by an amount to compensate for the delay.  This is probably resulting in rather conservative input energy measurements.  I have some sic Jfets coming that I hope will allow for a faster switching arrangement. 

In a final working generator, it will be important for the switching devices to be low loss and fast!

Quote
Now I'm going to have to build a 3d printer to start making bobbins......LOL.

Before I had the printer, I would slice and dice existing bobbins into all kinds of different shapes and sizes with glue, tape of whatever.  But, the 3D printer makes things really easy if one becomes familiar with some 3D drafting software.  I use AutoCad's Fusion 360 which is free if you tell them them you use it for personal use.

Regards,
Pm

Quote
take care, peace
lost_bro

 
   
img  Magluvin
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #165 on: 2020-05-31, 01:07:14 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Hey Pm

Much of the stuff I did back then were things that needed more advanced measures and just hadnt gotten back to them yet.  But Im now revisiting. Lets see what we can come up with.

The pdf says that in my configuration, the more primary turns, for each total primary winding in series, the sec voltage goes up. As it says which is unusual for a transformer.  I have to read it again as its been some years and just from what I remember.

Your doing good stuff and would like to join in here soon. Working on a big boat for a few days before it goes up north of Fl for the summer.

Mags
   
img  Magluvin
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #166 on: 2020-05-31, 04:43:44 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Here is another pdf that I think should go hand in hand with the previous pdf.

This one describes what I believe is how pri windings induce the sec winding in a closed core transformer, and I think it is correct vs E field theory of mutual induction. Like in a toroid transformer, or even just mutual inductance of a one winding inductor, and how it is said that the fields of the windings are maintained within the core, I dont believe that and I say that there are fields within the hole of the toroid as the pdf says. This one like the other one should be read more than once. Even though they are fairly short reads, things come together the more you go over it all.

Mags
   
img  Magluvin
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #167 on: 2020-05-31, 14:12:38 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
Considering the said characteristics of multi core inducton, would be cool to come up with a mechanical related setup to model the functions
. Like an LC can be a weight ans a spring for example. The spring and weight is a great way to decribe the actions and results to others that dont understand it.  But if it coild work electrically, then it should also 'work' mechanically   ;) ;) ;) ok  off to work.

Mags
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #168 on: 2020-05-31, 15:05:56 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: Magluvin on 2020-05-31, 04:43:44
Here is another pdf that I think should go hand in hand with the previous pdf.

This one describes what I believe is how pri windings induce the sec winding in a closed core transformer, and I think it is correct vs E field theory of mutual induction. Like in a toroid transformer, or even just mutual inductance of a one winding inductor, and how it is said that the fields of the windings are maintained within the core, I dont believe that and I say that there are fields within the hole of the toroid as the pdf says. This one like the other one should be read more than once. Even though they are fairly short reads, things come together the more you go over it all.

Mags

Mags,

I really like Distinti's work!  I had not seen this particular paper before so thanks for posting it.

Yes I agree on the fields within the core of a toroid.  The H field is definitely present as some of my previous experiments have shown.  There is also concentrated E and A fields present also.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  gyula
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #169 on: 2020-05-31, 16:24:00 »
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1316
Hi Pm,


Excellent job with this circuit, thanks for showing it.

Would like to ask how you produce the 200 mA or so current in L5 in the circuit on the bench?  May it come from a tapped L2 ?
(in the simulation it is I1 current source which pre-biases L5) 
And how do you consider this 200 mA in the evaluation of the COP?  (perhaps I miss something obvious, sorry if this is the case)

Greetings,
Gyula
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #170 on: 2020-05-31, 16:34:45 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
I have found that a "U" core with a shunt between the primary and secondary windings produces comparable results to the more difficult arrangement of small core/large core.  See pix below.

This particular example is a modified "E" core with equal core area on all legs and a center gap.  See pix below.  This is a far better core area and volume utilization than the previous core arrangements which should provide much higher power densities.  Primary and secondary core gaps can also be independent from each other as in the original device.

I conclude from this that in the first iteration of this device, the arrangement with the small primary core and larger common secondary core, simply produced a transformer with a low K factor and thus a large leakage inductance.  This is what my initial tests and calculations appeared to show but I refused to see it.  This being the case, this device operates within classical electrodynamics and violates no known laws of conservation.  I will at a later date post the complete theory of operation as it is now understood.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #171 on: 2020-05-31, 17:07:27 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: gyula on 2020-05-31, 16:24:00
Hi Pm,

Excellent job with this circuit, thanks for showing it.

Thank you Gyula.
 
Quote
Would like to ask how you produce the 200 mA or so current in L5 in the circuit on the bench?  May it come from a tapped L2 ?
(in the simulation it is I1 current source which pre-biases L5)

The bias current for both L5 and series connected L2 comes a power supply with a 50 ohm resistor in series.  The voltage is simply adjusted to arrive at the current required in a static state.  The circuit is then single cycled at a rate of 10 cycles per second.  During the interval between cycles, the constant current settles to the desired value.

At the beginning of each cycle, switch S6 closes thus clamping the non-dotted end of L5 to ground.  This removes the current from the power supply from having any influence on the circuit operation.  IOW, only L5 and the input primary are sources for energy for the complete cycle.

Quote
 
And how do you consider this 200 mA in the evaluation of the COP?  (perhaps I miss something obvious, sorry if this is the case)

No, you're not missing anything and this is a good question.  If one was to run this device without any bias current in the secondary, you would see an increase in the secondary current from zero and if all the energies were accounted for, it would be conservative.  If a bias current is now added to the secondary, there will an increase in the output energy simply because the delta I is between two larger current magnitudes.  This in itself produces a gain.  The method chosen here to produce this secondary bias current is a constant current inductor which is basically not "seen" by the primary because there is very little delta I in the secondary during the ramp up of the L1 primary.  Thus little to no Lenz reflected back to the primary.

Regards,
Pm

Quote
Greetings,
Gyula
   
img  Magluvin
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #172 on: 2020-06-01, 00:01:17 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
I get frustrated with ecores.  Unless you have them bonded together solid, they vary as they move. like with a tiewrap for temp testing etc, could be this inductance today and tomorrow its diff.

Mags
   
img  Magluvin
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #173 on: 2020-06-01, 00:26:50 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #174 on: 2020-06-02, 15:43:16 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: partzman on 2020-05-31, 16:34:45
I have found that a "U" core with a shunt between the primary and secondary windings produces comparable results to the more difficult arrangement of small core/large core.  See pix below.

This particular example is a modified "E" core with equal core area on all legs and a center gap.  See pix below.  This is a far better core area and volume utilization than the previous core arrangements which should provide much higher power densities.  Primary and secondary core gaps can also be independent from each other as in the original device.

I conclude from this that in the first iteration of this device, the arrangement with the small primary core and larger common secondary core, simply produced a transformer with a low K factor and thus a large leakage inductance.  This is what my initial tests and calculations appeared to show but I refused to see it.  This being the case, this device operates within classical electrodynamics and violates no known laws of conservation.  I will at a later date post the complete theory of operation as it is now understood.

Regards,
Pm

I have to somewhat disagree with my simple comparison between the original two core transformer design and the single E core version.  They do not operate in an identical fashion as the test results seem to indicate.  Although the E core will produce OU (even in an accurate simulation with the proper modeling) but the COPs are considerably reduced.

Regards,
Pm
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ... 31
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2026-01-29, 10:10:51