Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Bridge\s+vs\.\s+Doubler\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[AMPS\]\s+Bridge\s+vs\.\s+Doubler\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: k8cc@ix.netcom.com (David A. Pruett); Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:29:34 -0400; Regarding the question of the preferred HV P/s design, a full wave bridge vs. a doubler, I think the nod goes to the brdige for several reasons. First, I think the G3RZP comment about higher peak cur; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00037.html (9,534 bytes)
2. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 11:49:02 -0700; ? What I am essentially saying is that for equal DC output voltages and currents using similar cores, a FWB winding has More than four times as much resistance as a FWD winding. ? depends on the los; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00040.html (10,929 bytes)
3. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: k8cc@ix.netcom.com (David A. Pruett); Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 19:00:30 -0400; "because a doubler is full-wave -- i.e., current flows on both half cycles. The trouble with half-wave is that DC flows in the transformer's secondary winding." I'm afraid that I can't agree, but may; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00053.html (9,149 bytes)
4. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: phil@vaxxine.com (Phil T. (VE3OZZ)); Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 21:26:10; If I may, I think Rich is assuming (but not stating) that the transformer in a FWD would be DESIGNED for such service, and as such, would have windings with wire having at least 2 ( and maybe up to 4; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00057.html (11,270 bytes)
5. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: amps@txrx.demon.co.uk (Steve Thompson); Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 08:28:09 +0100; Original message: I think this isn't true. In FW doubler, each diode conducts on alternate half cycles. In FW bridge, each diode conducts on alternate half cycles. The whole piece was very well put b; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00061.html (10,163 bytes)
6. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 00:55:43 -0700; ? Your e-mailer application is not doing attribution marks correctly, Dave. ? Not a sound bet. ? with a DC ampmeter in series with the winding and one sees a DC current. Transformer are not at all h; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00064.html (10,456 bytes)
7. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: Peter_Chadwick@mitel.com (Peter Chadwick); Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:39:20 +0100; And in the primary. Which is why the IEC specs limit the amount of DC component that can be drawn from the AC supply. Admittedly, they're shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted..........; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00068.html (9,386 bytes)
8. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: phil@vaxxine.com (Phil T. (VE3OZZ)); Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 15:21:40; Well, you're one up on me at this point Steve. I haven't measured some of the parameters to the degree you have, nor do I have SPICE for modelling. My comments are based on somewhat theoretical calul; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00081.html (11,293 bytes)
9. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: amps@txrx.demon.co.uk (Steve Thompson); Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 08:08:21 +0100; I'll try to find time to re-measure too. The Spice numbers stack up with data from the 5th ed. RSGB handbook from 20 yrs ago, but that's far from a reliable guaantee! Double checking the bridge syste; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00088.html (11,085 bytes)
10. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: amps@txrx.demon.co.uk (Steve Thompson); Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:00:42 +0100; Now I've woken up properly, I realise that the strain on the insulation is just the same... Steve -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html Submissions: amps@contesting.com Administrative; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00094.html (8,553 bytes)
11. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: measures@vc.net (Rich Measures); Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 12:03:57 -0700; ? agreed, Steve. As I understand it, the trade-offs are that the FWD filter requires twice as much capacitance and the FWB transformer typically needs about 1/3 more layers of paper insulation. // T; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00095.html (8,664 bytes)
12. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: phil@vaxxine.com (Phil T. (VE3OZZ)); Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 23:31:17; Even the peak current for the FWB is alot higher than I'd expect, Steve, I studied a previously unread section of Flanagan's book that contains considerable new computer generated data on transformer; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00103.html (11,169 bytes)
13. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: amps@txrx.demon.co.uk (Steve Thompson); Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 06:53:54 +0100; One thought, largely in ignorance: is the 'less iron' bit really true? If the peak currents in a doubler system are higher, don't you need higher magnetic flux to support that? If that is the case, t; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00109.html (8,882 bytes)
14. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: phil@vaxxine.com (Phil T. (VE3OZZ)); Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 16:06:43; For a wishy washy answer : yes and no. Yes, less iron, because the the smaller winding size means a smaller "window" area is required in the core which means a smaller core (less iron). This is usual; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00115.html (10,550 bytes)
15. [AMPS] Bridge vs. Doubler (score: 1): Author: amps@txrx.demon.co.uk (Steve Thompson); Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 06:55:23 +0100; Phil, I won't waste space by re-copying the whole piece, but again, thanks, very well put and I doubt that I'm the only one to find it informative. Fortunately there's a few of us left who apply the; /archives//html/Amps/1999-05/msg00122.html (9,035 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]