Transformer Induction

[Centraflow]

My take on what is happening.

When C1 is inside the toroid the charging electric field between the plates is equal to a wire, a single turn, and a magnetic field is created.

[Smudge]

Smudge,

OK, here are the test results of your modified circuit shown below with C1 placed outside the core and replaced with a wire in the core.

Yes, as you say, the first and second scope pix appear to look identical to the equivalent pix with C1 in the core.  We see a change in C1 of 1.48v which is commensurate with 130ma over 12us, plus we see a change in start to finish of -1.40v in C1 as previous.

In the third scope pix Ch3(pnk) is across C1 and CH4(grn) is the current thru C1.  Here we see C1 being charged to a negative potential by the negative current.

It is the same current flowing around the closed circuit that you show as positive in the first and second scope pics.

I agree with all this for this circuit.  What I don't agree with is that these results are equal to what is happening with C1 in the core! 

Why?  Because in this case it is quite obvious that the current thru R2/D2 will charge C1 from an initial 0v state.  However, how do we logically justify the fact that with C1 in the core while being charge separated to ~4.00v, we see a positive current in R2/D2 that is drawn from C1 which will logically discharge C1, not charge it?  Do you not agree?

No.  That current logically charges C1 from 0V.  I don't see C1 as being charge separated to ~4V, I see C1 showing charge separation identical to a piece of wire so you are seeing an induced voltage, not a charged voltage.  I tried to demonstrate this with your image of the capacitor plates where I put + and - symbols against the conductive vertical plates.  I try again here where I put colours on those plates to demonstrate you are seeing charge separation along a conductor, not charge separation across the dielectric.  C1 is at 0V charge while showing 4V induction and then gains charge.  The two scope pics (C1 in the core and out of the core) show identical situations.

Smudge

[partzman]

It is the same current flowing around the closed circuit that you show as positive in the first and second scope pics.
No.  That current logically charges C1 from 0V.  I don't see C1 as being charge separated to ~4V, I see C1 showing charge separation identical to a piece of wire so you are seeing an induced voltage, not a charged voltage.  I tried to demonstrate this with your image of the capacitor plates where I put + and - symbols against the conductive vertical plates.  I try again here where I put colours on those plates to demonstrate you are seeing charge separation along a conductor, not charge separation across the dielectric.  C1 is at 0V charge while showing 4V induction and then gains charge.  The two scope pics (C1 in the core and out of the core) show identical situations.

Smudge

I of course disagree, so could you show the current flow along with potentials in the charge separated schematic that supports your claim that C1 is charging.  I'm sorry but I just don't get it!

Regards,
Pm

[Frederik2k1]

Hello Partzman,
Could you briefly explain again what type of capacitor is used inside the toroid? Perhaps you could provide another detailed image showing the capacitor in the setup where it is actually used in the toroid.

I think I've lost track of what type of capacitor is used. Am I correct in assuming that it is not spiral wound?

[partzman]

Hello Partzman,
Could you briefly explain again what type of capacitor is used inside the toroid? Perhaps you could provide another detailed image showing the capacitor in the setup where it is actually used in the toroid.

I think I've lost track of what type of capacitor is used. Am I correct in assuming that it is not spiral wound?

Yes, it is a polyester film capacitor that is wound in an oval shape as is seen in the pix below.  I assume that this is spiral wound.  In any case, the plates are vertical in a horizontally placed core.

Pm

[partzman]

I of course disagree, so could you show the current flow along with potentials in the charge separated schematic that supports your claim that C1 is charging.  I'm sorry but I just don't get it!

Regards,
Pm

Smudge,

No reason to detail any more on what I requested above.  I see what you are saying and I would agree at this point!  Thank you for your patience!

Pm

[Smudge]

Smudge,

No reason to detail any more on what I requested above.  I see what you are saying and I would agree at this point!  Thank you for your patience!

Pm

I started to compose a reply but it quickly developed into a deeper concern involving the difference between two types of E field, that from quasi static charge distrbutions (on conductors) and that from time changing magnetic fields.   In particular I show that the virtual particles or virtual photons that carry these E fields do not annihalate when the two E field sum to zero at a region of empty space, only the effect annihalates.  The virtual particles pass through that space unhindered.  But if that region of space is not empty (like it is part of a conducting wire) then that region (and the rest of the wire) will contain its own sources of both types of virtual particle, sources that respond to the arriving virtual particles.  I will eventually produce a document on this deeper issue but it will take some time.

Smudge

Smudge

[lfarrand]

I started to compose a reply but it quickly developed into a deeper concern involving the difference between two types of E field, that from quasi static charge distrbutions (on conductors) and that from time changing magnetic fields.   In particular I show that the virtual particles or virtual photons that carry these E fields do not annihalate when the two E field sum to zero at a region of empty space, only the effect annihalates.  The virtual particles pass through that space unhindered.  But if that region of space is not empty (like it is part of a conducting wire) then that region (and the rest of the wire) will contain its own sources of both types of virtual particle, sources that respond to the arriving virtual particles.  I will eventually produce a document on this deeper issue but it will take some time.

Smudge

Smudge

Doesn't superposition play a part here, with fields combining at a point in space?

[partzman]

I started to compose a reply but it quickly developed into a deeper concern involving the difference between two types of E field, that from quasi static charge distrbutions (on conductors) and that from time changing magnetic fields.   In particular I show that the virtual particles or virtual photons that carry these E fields do not annihalate when the two E field sum to zero at a region of empty space, only the effect annihalates.  The virtual particles pass through that space unhindered.  But if that region of space is not empty (like it is part of a conducting wire) then that region (and the rest of the wire) will contain its own sources of both types of virtual particle, sources that respond to the arriving virtual particles.  I will eventually produce a document on this deeper issue but it will take some time.

Smudge

Smudge

What is interesting, to me at least, is that if one views C1 to be instantly charged or not, the end results are the same!

Then there is the fact of transposition when bias is applied along with the resulting anomaly.

Pm

[web000x]

No.  That current logically charges C1 from 0V.  I don't see C1 as being charge separated to ~4V, I see C1 showing charge separation identical to a piece of wire so you are seeing an induced voltage, not a charged voltage.  I tried to demonstrate this with your image of the capacitor plates where I put + and - symbols against the conductive vertical plates.  I try again here where I put colours on those plates to demonstrate you are seeing charge separation along a conductor, not charge separation across the dielectric.  C1 is at 0V charge while showing 4V induction and then gains charge.  The two scope pics (C1 in the core and out of the core) show identical situations.

Smudge

This is what I feel is happening in this circuit.  The residual negative voltage on the capacitor is fairly conclusive evidence of this.

Dave

[partzman]

In reference to my 1st post on this thread, see the triangular shaped coil below with 30 turns with a split ferrite filter section placed over one leg of the coil.  Also placed thru this ferrite section is a single turn with scope probes attached.  Now, before looking at the scope pix below, how much voltage do you think will appear across the single turn wire when 30v is applied to the triangle coil?

Pm

[Smudge]

In reference to my 1st post on this thread, see the triangular shaped coil below with 30 turns with a split ferrite filter section placed over one leg of the coil.  Also placed thru this ferrite section is a single turn with scope probes attached.  Now, before looking at the scope pix below, how much voltage do you think will appear across the single turn wire when 30v is applied to the triangle coil?

Pm

That ferrite section will supply the majority of the inductance of the 30 turn loop.  You would expect the 1 turn to obtain about 1 volt and your scope shows this at about 0.93V.  For 1 turn that is a dPhi/dt flux change of 0.93Webers/S.  That flux change comes from the current rise at the application of the 30V that is almost linear over the 12.8uS pulse.  With your measured input current rise to 150mA over that pulse time the effective Reluctance of your magnetic circuit calculates as 3.78E5 yielding an effective inductance of 2.381mH for your 30 turn coil.  After the end of your pulse we see the coil current reducing back to zero so you must have some means for that current to flow after switch off, i.e. a resistor that is then receiving energy from the circuit.  Your math channel that assumes that falling current is coming from the 30V supply is IMO misleading.  But without a view of your actual circuit my analysis could be wrong.

Smudge   

[Verpies]

After the end of your pulse we see the coil current reducing back to zero so you must have some means for that current to flow after switch off, i.e. a resistor that is then receiving energy from the circuit.

...or a diode.

But without a view of your actual circuit my analysis could be wrong.

...and probe positions for the other channels.

[Verpies]

... how much voltage do you think will appear across the single turn wire when 30v is applied to the triangle coil?

I would expect the turn ratio to dictate that.  ½ : 30

[Smudge]

I would expect the turn ratio to dictate that.  ½ : 30

Why 1/2:30?  I would say 1:30

[Verpies]

Why 1/2:30?  I would say 1:30

Because full turn is 360° around the core.

[Smudge]

Because full turn is 360° around the core.

The single conductor (through the ferrite cylinder) connected to the scope probe creates a full turn 360° around the ferrite core that is carrying nearly all the flux.  There is no such thing as 1/2 a turn, either the secondary conductor passes through the core (coupling one turn or N turns) or it doesn't (coupling zero).
Edit.  Of course you could drill a radial hole and pass one wire end through it so the coil only intersects half the flux and that would be like 1/2 turn.

[Verpies]

The single conductor (through the ferrite cylinder) connected to the scope probe creates a full turn 360° around the ferrite core that is carrying nearly all the flux.

Aha! but then you have to treat the scope probe as a part of the turn ...which is the main issue in this experiment.

[Magluvin]

In reference to my 1st post on this thread, see the triangular shaped coil below with 30 turns with a split ferrite filter section placed over one leg of the coil.  Also placed thru this ferrite section is a single turn with scope probes attached.  Now, before looking at the scope pix below, how much voltage do you think will appear across the single turn wire when 30v is applied to the triangle coil?

Pm

ill take a poke at it.  i like this one.

30v in, 1v on the single wire out.  all of the action is in the hole of the core. all the rest is additional resistance.  if im correct, now add 2 more cores, 1 to each other line of the triangle and do the same, 1 wire out for each.  should now have 1v for each single wire out.  every turn in the core will read the same as every other turn.

i get what you are trying to prove here.  i have different ideas on that, but let me know if i have the answer to the question correct first.


mags

[Smudge]

Aha! but then you have to treat the scope probe as a part of the turn ...which is the main issue in this experiment.

I don't see that as an issue (problem?).  If you stick a resistive load there, is the resistor as part of the turn an issue?  Would you still consider a 1/2 turn?  I think not.  Move that resistor away so that there are long wires connecting to it.  Is that an issue?  No, IMO you should take account of the effect of additional resistance, capacitance, inductance as external to a single turn feeding them, not something that somehow creates a partial turn.

[Verpies]

It is an issue when you stick a capacitor at the end of these probes in lieu of a wire.

[partzman]

ill take a poke at it.  i like this one.

30v in, 1v on the single wire out.  all of the action is in the hole of the core. all the rest is additional resistance.  if im correct, now add 2 more cores, 1 to each other line of the triangle and do the same, 1 wire out for each.  should now have 1v for each single wire out.  every turn in the core will read the same as every other turn.

i get what you are trying to prove here.  i have different ideas on that, but let me know if i have the answer to the question correct first.


mags

Very good!!  There are several points to this exercise and you have hit on one.  If two more cores are added with each having a single wire secondary, we now have three cores placed on the triangular coil.  However, the output of each secondary will now be ~.33 volts for a total secondary voltage of ~1 volt.  The reason for this is that we still only have a source of 1 volt/turn.

Pm

Edit:  BTW, you are correct on the ~1 volt on the secondary.

[Magluvin]

thanks for that.  is that triangle a setup done by you?   if so, did you try 2 more cores for the other 2 angles with 1 wire output to confirm the .33v output?

mags

[partzman]

thanks for that.  is that triangle a setup done by you?   if so, did you try 2 more cores for the other 2 angles with 1 wire output to confirm the .33v output?

mags

Yes and yes!  Below is a pix of three ferrite cores on the triangle coil with single wire secondaries all connected in series.

The scope pix shows the total voltage measurement of the secondaries on CH3(pnk).

If one begins to view transformer induction as a result of charge separation in the E-Field, even complex winding arrangements become easy to "see".  For example, in any given "E" core with the primary and secondary wound on the center leg, what is the E-Field magnitude relative to the primary V/T in each window?  Or again in an "E" core with windings on each leg, to induce the center leg from the outside windings, they must be in a bucking configuration.  But what if I wish to configure the outer leg windings in an aiding configuration which would normally not induce the center winding.  What sort of center leg winding configuration would I need to provide induction?  Yes, it is possible.

Pm

[Magluvin]

good stuff

now if you can, measure one of the single turns with just the 2 additional cores in place, not connecting all 3 in series. does that bring the single turn down to .33v? 

i like this thread.

mags