J
Jon Kirwan
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
Transformers are specified with a percentage regulation which means the
change in voltage from no load to full load conditions. A small,
inexpensive transformer might have 15% regulation so that the 30VCT unit
would have a 15% higher output voltage with no load, or 34.5 VRMS or 48.8
P-P. Mains voltage may vary +/- 7% or 120 VAC +/- 8, or 112 to 128 VAC. At
the high end of this range the tranny puts out about 52.2 V P-P. Assuming a
FWB rectifier and the CT as reference, with 0.7 V diode drop, you get 25.4
volts peak.
Hmm. Totally new thoughts. So that's what the term
"regulation" means. It's about the transformer design? And
here I was off and away on the capacitive-filtered ripple
side. Well, that's still useful to have gone back to,
anyway.
I'm not buying the 0.7V diode drop, yet. At peak currents
near 10 times larger than average load currents, I have to
imagine more than 0.7V drop with anything silicon and not
schottky. Do they use schottky's? (Leakage comes to mind.)
Okay. So the 25V was specifying the peak, not the bottom
side. And that is unloaded, basically. Which brings up the
question of what exactly does 15% regulation _actually_ mean.
What is the definition of "full load?" Since the peak diode
currents can be quite a lot more than the average load
current from my calculations, that seems to place quite a
burden on the transformer ratings.
So could you go further here? In other words, let's say I
know that the average load current will be 1.4A, but that the
peak diode current given the bridge/capacitor design will be
15A. The transformer is a 25.2Vrms CT unit. The DC rails
are at -15 and +15, with 2200uF caps on each side to ground,
and the ripple on them is about 3.8V peak to peak (+/-1.9V
around 15V.)
What's the VA rating here? And "regulation" number are you
looking for in the transformer and how does it relate back to
VA and other terms that might be used?
If you put a capacitor on the output, it eventually charges to the peak
voltage. This is the high limit that must be considered for design. It may
not be exact, and probably will be a bit lower, because a power transformer
is usually designed to operate in partial saturation, so the output will
not increase linearly above its design rating.
Ah. Core saturation is __intended__ as part of the design? I
haven't done that one before. What guidance can you give on
that aspect?
Under load, the output will drop, caused by the effects of primary and
secondary coil resistance as well as magnetic effects. These will cause
heating over a period of time, and the coil resistance will increase,
adding to the effect until a point of equilibrium is reached based on the
ambient conditions and removal of heat via conduction, convection, and
radiation.
Now that, I understand and worry about.
Large power transformers, high quality audio transformers, and
instrumentation transformers are designed with perhaps 1% or 2% regulation,
which is usually accomplished by using more copper and iron, and also using
special cooling mechanisms such as oil flow and forced air.
Okay.
Maybe it is useful to work out these equations to get a concept of what is
going on, but I prefer a more empirical method which may involve initial
rough estimates and prototyping and bench testing, as well as LTSpice
simulation.
I reverse this. I like understanding the _theory_ and don't
care at all about practice until _after_ I've mastered the
theoretical aspects that bear more on the problems. I _then_
use LTspice _after_ being able to work things on paper, just
to check and verify that I got it. The reason is, if I'm
missing something important it will then show up and that
will kick me to go back and find additional theory to cover
the gap in my paper knowledge. That's how I learn. It's the
only way I really feel that I understand something. (I think
I talked a little about that here.)
The simulator includes the equations that determine the
performance of the circuit, and may also include the effects of losses and
heating and temperature change. But usually I just use approximations and
best guesses of final operating conditions such as temperature, and use
parameters such as internal resistance based on these figures. Then it is
time to build the circuit and do real world bench testing.
I think there is always time to go build. And when I do
that, I will take measurements and make adjustments to get
where I want to be and I won't be sweating the theory so much
at that point. However, before I get there I like to make
sure I've mastered the relevant theories.
Let me put this in an entirely different context that may
shed some light on "how I think" and "why I think that way."
The reality of modern US surgery is that an anesthesiologist
uses well-worn practice with well-surveyed and well-studied
drugs and tools. They work. And as a general matter, they
work most of the time without the anesthesiologist having to
remember anything about chemistry or metabolites or liver
pathways or the kidney micropipette filtering system. They
don't care about memorizing any of that, or frankly, even
knowing much how it works.
I make it a matter of regular practice to check off the "yes"
box every time any of my family gets the surgery forms where
there always present the question, "Do you want to meet with
the anesthesiologist?" The very first question I ask is,
"What are you using and what are the liver pathways and
resulting metabolites for it?" I have yet to have a single
one of them be able to answer the question. Not once. I
have had one or two tell me that "Well, we studied all that
in school but I don't remember any of it." At least a frank
admission there.
So why do I care? I completely understand that in almost
every case on the operating table there will be no problems
and that the well-worn paths in anesthesia work on most
people most of the time. However, there is a reason. What
if something unusual takes place. A unique reaction, for
example. Something _outside_ the usual experience. What
then? They would have, let's say, minutes to make a
decision. No time to go to books.
I want someone there who knows the chemistry, knows what _is_
known about the pathways. How much of the primary pathway is
used in proportion to the other pathways? What are the
products in the other pathways? What are their effects
should they exceed some limit? How does that present or
manifest itself?
These are the kinds of things that might bring to bear an
answer -- something needed to mitigate a disaster in the
making when there is no time to hit a book but where if they
did understand the theories well and knew the pathways and
the effects of excessive amounts of the unusual pathway
metabolites they might know exactly what to do when it would
mean the difference of life and death.
There are MANY people who die in these circumstances that are
chocked up to "Oh, well. It happens rarely."
If I were an anesthesiologist, Paul, I'd know this stuff
cold. And I'd keep up on the current knowledge, too. And
more. Because that's the way I am.
Yes, they are practical people and they do a very
satisfactory professional job every day of their lives. But
quite frankly I don't think that's good enough.
Theory provides _all_ meaning. And it's the way I think
about things. It's how I function. Yes, others will be very
satisfied with "practical" results. I'm not. I need more.
[snip]Can you expand a little on what you were talking about,
though? Was that a half wave suggestion? I'm not sure I can
make sense of the rails, if so. If not, then I'd still
appreciate some of the calculations so that I can sure I
follow all of it.
I'm guessing that if a rail is to have a minimum of 25V on it
at the bottom of the ripple, and you are talking about 15%
regulation, the peak is going to be 29.4V -- not counting the
diode drops. Add 1V for that and it's 30.4V. Another 7% on
top would be 32.7V for the peak. RMS would be that figure
divided by sqrt(2), wouldn't it? Or 23.1Vrms or so?
So would that suggest two of the cheap 25.2Vrms transformers
and plan on rails still slightly higher?
Oh, crap. The VA rating. That's another one to consider.
Later, I guess.
I sense a lack of a real direction or intended purpose for this project.
It's for education. I think I stated that at the outset. I
sure hope I did. However, I _do_ intend on producing a
practical result. Not because I need one. But because I
need to make sure that my mental models work, in real
practice. It's like some theorist saying that if you pass
electrons by a certain kind of magnetic field, they will
separate according to a certain observational spin. Great.
But until you build and test the idea, you really don't know.
So you build and test. I intend to build and test an
amplifier, not because I need one badly, but because I want
to see how all that theory works in practical building
circumstances. It may highlight yet something new that I
hadn't considered and will point me to still more theory to
gain a hold upon.
Where this knowledge will wind up "doing something" is
unknown at this stage. It might get used in ways two years
from now that I have no way to predict, today. Or ten years.
I hope to live long enough to see some utility, though it may
not be with amplifiers.
However, I had posted a different question a while back about
my autistic daughter's abuse of volume controls around the
house and ultimately I hope to use this knowledge in
designing a custom system for her that does include some
features probably few others will care about. So I foresee
something in the next year, to be honest.
But the main point is learning, right now. I need to grasp
this stuff from start to end to some _reasonable_ level.
As
an academic exercise and learning experience, throwing all sorts of ideas
into the pot is worthwhile.
But when it comes to the actual task of
building something useful, whether for production or a one-off hobby
project, it comes down to the three factors I offer. I can build it well, I
can build it quickly, and I can build it cheaply. Pick any TWO!
Hehe. I want to _learn_ to design to specified criteria,
have a comprehensive view of the theoretical concepts
involved, and that means I need to only pick the first one.
The 'quickly' is unimportant -- one to two years is good
enough. The 'cheaply' is equally unimportant. If it costs
me 10 times as much in terms of parts and time as it would
just buying something commercial, buying a commercial
solution will teach me exactly zero about what I need to
learn to design what my daughter needs. And there is NOTHING
on the market to get there, either. No one else has my
problem. Or few do.
This is a "give a person a fish and they eat for a day, teach
a person to fish and they eat for the rest of their lives"
thing. It won't just apply to the next solution for my
daughter. It will help me in other ways I poorly understand
right now.
Certainly this depends on your location as well as your budget (time and/or
money) and criteria for the design. If you plan to go the cheapest monetary
route for a one-off project, look for locally available freebies in a
junkyard, flea markets, Hamfests, eBay, and www.freecycle.com. You also
must consider time and transportation or shipping expenses, which can be
high for items like transformers.
I was about to write, earlier, that I already have a large
supply of scavenged transformers. I will have _no_ problem
finding a suitable one somewhere in the pile. The question
was brought up by David. So I asked, that's all.
You must also balance what is readily available with what you actually need
for your project. If you have certain constraints and absolute design
criteria, you may be forced into a narrow range of what is acceptable. At
some point, you may need to modify a salvaged transformer or wind your own
(or have one custom made). There are many off-the-shelf transformers
available at reasonable cost, so it would be rare to need a custom design,
but sometimes it is the only option. You can do a lot with a MOT if you
don't mind spending the time messing with it.
For now, I'm just planning to use what I can lay hands on...
when the time comes. However, I don't mind at all any
discussion about practical choices were someone to buy new
parts. That teaches me about others and their concerns and
helps me to help others, too.
In short, this topic is made even better when it isn't just
about me and my interests and my focus. I like it very much
when others chip in about other thoughts, other places and
times, and where ever that may take it. However, I am still
clear about what part of it makes the most difference for me
-- the learning part about everything from power supply
design, input stage design, class A, class B, class AB
considerations, output stages and drivers, VAS, splitters,
current mirrors, current sources, etc. It's all good to me.
That part of this discussion that went off on the direction
of ICs was also fine. I took note and figure on getting back
to thinking about that too, someday later on.
And you can also get toroid transformer kits that have the primary already
wound, and you just add your own secondary. See www.toroid.com. They have
kits from 80VA ($52) to 1400VA ($110). I used four of the largest ones to
make a circuit breaker test set with an output of 2000 amperes at 2.8 volts
continuous, and the good regulation allowed it to provide pulses of over
12,000 amperes. If you find any equipment with toroid transformers, by all
means salvage them. You can also use Variacs and Powerstats and their
equivalents to make high power transformers. I have about a dozen damaged
units rated at 240 VAC at 8 amps, or 2 kVA, and I had plans to use them for
a 24 kVA test set, 4000 amps at 6 volts. Here are pictures of a 10 kVA test
set I designed for www.etiinc.com, using toroids:
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/PI2000-1-small.JPG
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/PI2000-2-small.JPG
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/PI2aux-5a.JPG
But I have digressed, and this thread has digressed from the discussion of
amplifiers to power supplies (which is related, of course), and line
powered transformers (which may not be the best choice). However, at some
point one must decide if this is to be an actual project or just an
academic discussion, and then proceed to get some parts and put something
together and plug it in. It can be done using as many "free" parts as
possible, or from the standpoint of what is the most cost-effective
overall, and in either case one must have a clear view of the end result.
The digressions are great! I am NOT in a rush to build,
though. I'm wanting to engage the math and learn what can be
achieved by deducing from parsimonous theory. Then test a
few things on the bench, ask questions, learn some more. Etc.
So theory _and_ practical approaches are important. Not one,
or the other, but both!!
Pendulum motion is well understood. One might either have a
practical knowledge about it and some tables and just go with
that. Probably, lots of folks making pendulum clocks stop
there and go no further and are none the worse for that. It
is similarly very easy to develop the infinite series that
describes it (or use the sqrt(L/g) proportionality as a first
order approximation or for small starting angles) from the
simple differentials involved and to take an entirely
theoretical approach, as well.
But I'm interested in more than that. Theory by itself lacks
reality. Reality by itself lacks meaning sans theory. The
two go together like hand in glove, though. Building even
the most simple ones using a peg-in-hole method leads to the
discovery of still more interesting effects, if you know some
theory. For example, the rocking of the pin itself in the
larger hole has a measurable impact of perhaps as much as 2
or 3 percent. It's useful to know that and understand it.
Once that mechanism is itself understood, one can then dig
even deeper to find more subtle (and possibly useful) effects
to continue improvements. A practitioner lacking even the
basic theory might accidentally happen upon some idea, of
course. And a theoretician lacking practical reality to
interfere might accidentally imagine some realistic effect to
pursue, too. But it really takes a marriage of both to make
quick work of progress forward, I think.
Since theory is primary, I like to pursue that part of it
earlier and move to experience once I have the mental tools
required to make sense of the data that results. Without
theory, data is pure noise. Without the theory of a sphere,
even the gentle curvature at the horizon "seen" my a mountain
climber is just so much useless noise to them. But _with_
that theory, the data _means_ much.
Jon