Re: Theoretically, Cltr/Cres = pi/2/Typo errors?

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "harvey norris by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <harvich-at-yahoo-dot-com>
> 
> --- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
> > Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz
> > <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>
> >
> > Tesla list wrote:
> > >
> > > Original poster: "Peter Lawrence by way of Terry
> > Fritz
> > <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <Peter.Lawrence-at-Sun-dot-com>
> > >
> > > does anyone believe "L-sec" and "k" are
> > "independent of manufacturer"
> > > so that tables can be published for typical NSTs
> > >         6-30
> > >         7.5-30
> > >         9-30,  9-60
> > >         12-30, 12-60
> > >         15-30, 15-60
> > >
> > > the curious duffer,
> > > -Peter Lawrence.
> >
> >       IF the open circuit voltage and short circuit
> > current equal to the
> > ratings, the leakage inductance referred to the
> > secondaries will be very
> > close to the same.  The leakage REACTANCE will be
> > the open circuit
> > voltage divided by the short circuit current IN
> > AMPS.  For a 60 cycle
> > transformer the inductance will be the
> > reactance/377.  So, here's what
> > the results would be:
> Is one to divide by 377 or as below where 3677 is
> used?
> The 377 (ohms?)sounds familiar, isnt this the
> permeance of free space or something like that? I also
> assume the repetition of the 12000 no to be in error.
> Can a comment be made as to why one divides by this
> no, and whether it is supposed to be 3677 or
> 377?Thanks for any info or clarification here. HDN

	OK.  First 377 (actually 376.9911184......) is two pi times 60 Hz, or
120 pi.  Not coincidentally that is the characteristic of free space.
(The reactance of an inductor is 2 pi f.) As for the 3677, that is
easier to explain.  Just make an error in the first calculation and copy
and paste it to get the rest of the table!!!  Obviously the correct
divisor is 377, not 3677.  My keyboard must have been full of stray
typos, as I NEVER make mistakes!!!

	As for the double entries for 12 and 15 kV, that is because there are
two different currents listed, 30 and 60 ma.

So solly,

Ed

> >   "6-30"   X=6000/0.03 = 200,000 ohms
> > L=200,000/3677 = 530 henries
>  I Must be  asking an irrevalent question , doing the
> math I see that 377 is the no actually used. Can one
> indicate why one divides by this no?
> > "7.5-30"   X=7500/0.03 = 250,000 ohms
> > L=250,000/3677 = 663 henries
> >
> >   "9-30"   X=9000/0.03 = 200,000 ohms
> > L=200,000/3677 = 530 henries
> >
> >   "9-60"   X=9000/0.06 = 150,000 ohms
> > L=150,000/3677 = 398 henries
> >
> >  "12-30"   X=12000/0.03 = 400,000 ohms
> > L=400,000/3677 = 1061 henries
> >
> >  "12-60"   X=12000/0.06 = 200,000 ohms
> > L=200,000/3677 = 530 henries
> >
> >  "15-30"   X=12000/0.03 = 500,000 ohms
> > L=500,000/3677 = 1326 henries
> >
> >  "16-60"   X=12000/0.06 = 200,000 ohms
> > L=200,000/3677 = 530 henries
> >
> > In reality, the core properties and effects of flux
> > density may differ,
> > resulting in some difference in the inductance,
> > which is only an
> > approximation at best.  "Plenty good enough for
> > government work".
> >
> >       I don't think the concept of coupling factor (k) is
> > of much value here.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
> 
> =====
> Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
> http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/