G3RZP wrote:
>
>All very interesting, and useful info. But for some reason, nearly all
>the military stuff over here has, for years, tended to use 'C' cores. I
>can see the
> weight saving for aircraft stuff, but why would the Navy be so keen if
>there
> weren't other advantages?
The British Navy liked to run their C-core transformers in oil, in
two-piece pressed steel cans with ceramic feedthrough insulators.
You can argue this either way: either they used C-cores because they
were more compact, and fitted the shape of the cans better; or they ran
them in oil because C-cores get hotter.
>Or the Army, bearing in mind that 'portable' to them tends to mean 3
>men and a truck?
>
There's no accounting for the Army...
--
73 from Ian G3SEK
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|