My replies ... my 2 cents or opinions ... are embedded within the
chained original message below and are marked with prefacing **
--- In MEG_builders@y..., "Phil Karn" <anonanon7@y...> wrote:
> --- In MEG_builders@y..., "fletchmo47" <fletchmo47@n...> wrote:
> > Can anyone
> > explain a voltage INCREASE with a primary to secondary ratio of 8
> > 5? Seems strange to me.
> I'd expect this when the transformer is operated at or near its
> self-resonant frequency. The windings have both inductance and
> capacitance, and they form a parallel resonant circuit. Excite a
> high-Q resonant circuit, and you can get some pretty high voltages.
** Agreed. Yup, yup.
> This explains the sinusoidal output waveforms from Naudin's MEG,
> though the driving circuit applies a square wave.
** Possibly as indeed it appears that Naudin is driving it with
square wave and operating at resonance.
> The MEG closely resembles the ferroresonant transformer, a device
> has been around for over a century. It was originally invented to
> regulate the voltage being applied to lamps to reduce flickering,
> it can also be used to convert square waveforms into sinusoids.
> is (or was) a line of uninterruptible power supplies (UPSes) made by
> Best that use ferroresonant transformers to produce clean sinusoids
> from a square wave inverter drive, and also to provide a "flywheel"
> through the switching transients when mains power fails and the
> inverter is just coming on.
> Ferroresonant transformers are notorious for their low efficiency
> for the accoustic noise they produce, so they are not widely used
> these days.
** Don't entirely agree with this. The MEG exeriments that I have
done, and I have done more than a few shows me that the MEG as
presented by Naudin IS NOT A TRANSFORMER and trying to evaluate it on
paper, as it seems that you like to do, as a transformer is, IMHO,
pretty much a waste of time, like trying to measure the resistance of
a non-linear resistor or MOV with an ohmeter :-). If you want to
continue treating it like a transformer, then there are better
choices than the "ferroresonant" transformer that you refer to as
being notoriously inefficient but there are other members at this
site ... David Ball for example ... that can speak to this better
than I. How about 85% efficiency? I got this and perhaps better
with a couple of my meg experiments. I'll wrap this up with the
following suggestion: Build the MEG "transformer" and I very very
strongly suspect that you will at the very least observe some very
interesting and unexpected things. Theorization is definitely not
the same as the real thing! :-)