>Tom,
>
>I will put aside all comments that smell of Napoleonic Disorder. However I
>will answer you about the
>transformer "conjugate match".
>
>I will remind you for the "n" th. time that these words have been used as a
>comparative point for those that do not understand the process of nullifying
>a reactance with one with an opposite sign.
>
>To be more concise and to clarify this issue once and for all:
>
>Any device, including a power transformer has a definite and measurable
>reactance at it's operating frequency. In the case of an 220VAC transformer
>this reactance has two components, one inductive - from the winding it
>self - and one capacitative created form the internal inter-thread and coil
>to core capacitance. All losses in a transformer, including leakage, are
>related to these rectances. A good engineer will always attempt to reduce
>them as it ultimately translates in heat.
>
>And here I go again!
>
>Much more like the conjugate match in an antenna tuner, the smart engineer
>will at least attempt to compute and then test the inverse reactance
>networks needed to nullify the ones in the transformer!
>If this is possible as some practical issues can impede this effort.
>Efficiency then is improved, heat is diminished and al-in-all you have a
>sound electrical design!
>
Heat ... reactance?
>
>I hope this will clarify and close this issue and help you design your next
>transformer.
>
>And Tom... I propose a truce ... I will not comment on your messages no
>matter what they contain ...
>I will ask you to do the same about mine. OK?
>
A forum without feedback is like a story without adversaries. . -- i.e.,
booring. Hows about calling this the AMPS' builders mutual-admiration
brotherhood?
... and never is heard
a disparaging word ...
>...
- R. L. Measures, a.k.a. Rich..., 805.386.3734,AG6K,
www.vcnet.com/measures.
end
|