Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] Serious transformer problem

To: 'Tom W8JI' <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Subject: Re: [Amps] Serious transformer problem
From: John E.Cleeve <g3jvc@jcleeve.idps.co.uk>
Reply-to: g3jvc@jcleeve.idps.co.uk
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 21:00:06 +0100
List-post: <mailto:amps@contesting.com>
Tom, these people may well be audiophiles, however their paper is 
entitled "Suppression of powerline noise, with isolation transformers" 
was presented by B.C.Gabrielson & M.J. Reimold at EMC Expo 87, May 19-
21, San Diego....and available on the internet....John G3JVC.

 
On Sat Jul  1 14:02 , 'Tom W8JI' <w8ji@w8ji.com> sent:

>> the secondary. This beast is heavy, and you need a fork 
>> lift to move it. The reason I specified two electrostatic 
>> screens is that in an American paper I read, on the 
>> internet, on feeding AC supplies to EMC/Faraday screened 
>> rooms, one or two isolation transformers were recommended, 
>> with two electrostatic screens per transformer, the 
>> reasoning being complex, so I just accepted it.....
>
>The Internet is like Alice's resturant. We can find almost 
>anything we want on the Internet. A portion of it will be 
>accurate, much will not. Especially when it is something 
>designed to sell a certain product, or a clan or clique 
>thing like AudioPhool technical papers.
>
>..I also had a proper ground system laid, by a firm of 
>lightning
>> protection specialists...certified ground resistance now 
>> just 2.1ohms...the
>
>What does that have to do with RF noise, which is what we 
>hear on receivers?
>
>> incoming public supply is taken to the primary winding of 
>> the isolation transformer, the output, via a screened 
>> lead, to the shack. Both electrostatic sceens are taken 
>> back to the newly installed ground system, and there are 
>> now no connections between the public supply and my 
>> shack....the result, all the electrical noise has now 
>> gone, and apart from the radiated occasional radiated 
>> emissions, my radio background noise has dropped back to 
>> that of 40 years ago...
>
>You might have revisited the shack equipment, antennas, and 
>connections before going through all those expensive 
>solutions.
>
>The only noise that can "get into" our receivers is RF 
>noise. The only way in should be through the antenna 
>connections. Any other path should easily be down 100dB or 
>more.
>
>I'd have looked at then installation of my feedlines and 
>their interface to antennas first.
>
>>.In text books of that time, the electrostatic screen was 
>>described as a method of preventing the feed back of 
>>interference into the public supply, by the consumer, 
>>however, it was explained to me, by my local transformer 
>>manufacturer, that it was only looked upon as a safety 
>>measure, by the transformer manufacturers,
>
>The manufacturers are correct. It primarily is a safety 
>device. So is bonding transformer laminations at ONE common 
>point and grounding them there, with all other areas of the 
>lamainations insulated.
>
>>with the improved high termperature varnishes for the wires 
>>used in winding, they could save a small amount of money, 
>>by not including the copper electrostatic screens....which 
>>may be, why our received noise levels have been climbing in 
>>the past decades
>
>Lack of shields in transformers has not increased noise. The 
>noise increase is because of the increase in mains voltages, 
>and because switching supplies and similar RF producing 
>devices have increased.
>
>A primary shield is actually very little assurance noise 
>doesn't get through a system. It's a cheap additional 
>band-aid when initially winding a transformer, but the 
>problem is a lack of suitable line bypass capacitors and 
>small  series chokes.
>
>Anything you did with that big heavy expensive transformer 
>at radio frequencies, I can do better with something I can 
>hold in one hand....and at 10% of the cost.
>
>You really ought to learn why your radio system is partially 
>using the power mains as an antenna. That's the real 
>question.
>
>When radios were built on an unshielded wooden chassis, when 
>bypass caps were expensive and erratic radio frequency 
>impedances, before we had ferrites and other modern 
>components,  and before good components at radio frequencies 
>were obtainable, things were done differently. Solutions 
>necessary back then are very often totally meaningless 
>today. The key is always understanding how things actually 
>work, and not relying on accidents to patch problems.
>
>73 Tom 
>
>
>--
>This email has been verified as Virus free
>Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>