[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Pri-Sec Phasing
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 09:30:01 -0500
From: David Huffman <huffman-at-FNAL.GOV>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Pri-Sec Phasing
I have to agree with Greg. I know that the voltage polarity is the same,
that is positive on the start of the primary will make positive on the start
of the secondary, with the same winding sense. The current on the primary
would go into the coil to create the positive polarity and the current would
need to come out of the secondary to cause a positive polarity on a
resistive load. This still works with the autotransformer analogy since the
currents sum to zero at any given node.
Dave H.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Pri-Sec Phasing
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 18:54:31 +0000
From: Greg Leyh <lod-at-pacbell-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Pri-Sec Phasing
Thomas McGahee wrote:
> Greg,
> I agree with Malcolm. If what the book said was true, then if you
> bifilar wound two primary coils and then connected the start of the
> windings together and then the endings together you would have a
> current flow between them due to their supposedly opposite
> polarities. But that just ain't so.
That is true, assuming both parallel filaments make up a primary
winding. But what if one filament was the primary(sourcing power),
and the other was the secondary(removing power)?
-GL