Re: Help, processor reset when power on large transformer.

"Genome" <ilike_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_sc4e.5437$Br.2865@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Larry Brasfield" <donotspam_larry_brasfield@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:Czb4e.11$Sd3.180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [Previous quotes repaired for inadvertent line-wrap.]
>
> Very kind of you, we certainly like to follow what's being said in a
> Larry Brasfield thread.

Cute. While your insinuation is superficially plausible,
my note reflects only my intention to quote accurately.
Your post, when quoted normally, was a mess. I've
done the same repair again here. Why not just adjust
your line-length limit and get past this?

>> "Genome" <ilike_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:6bb4e.5432$Br.497@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Bloggs "contribution" cut for relevance and taste.]
>> >> Larry Brasfield wrote:
>> >> > "Mark" <makolber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> > news:1112475640.568470.63720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> >>#2 big power xformers can saturate at turn on due to residual flux.
>> >> >>This causes them to draw a very large current spike. look up
>> >> >>trasnforer flux stauturation at turn on.. the only sure cure is to
>> >> >>soft start it first. Maybe you can use two realys, one through a
>> >> >>resistor, or maybe you can use a PTC soft start device in series.
>> >> >
>> >> > That is a good point, and very relevant. However, I will quibble
>> >> > with both the cause and the cure. When a line transformer is not
>> >> > designed to handle about twice the peak magnetic flux that occurs
>> >> > during steady state operation, and is switched on near a voltage
>> >> > zero-crossing, it can saturate, often with an audible "whump". In
>> >> > addition to the cure you mention, two others are available. One
>> >> > is to switch on near a voltage peak. (This is counter-"intuitive",
>> >> > so please consider carefully before contradicting this.) Another
>> >> > is to specify a transformer with enough more iron that it will not
>> >> > saturate upon turn-on regardless of the starting phase.
....
>> > Well Larry, once again your delivery leaves a lot to be desired.
>> >
>> > You agree there is a problem but you want to quibble about the cause
>> > and the cure. Then, not only do you not properly explain the source of
>> > the problem or why your cure works. You choose to issue a challenge to
>> > anyone who questions your statements.
>>
>> The reason for quibbling about the cause is because it has
>> clear implications regarding the possible cures.
>
> So, I don't suppose you'd like to explain those 'clear implications'.

Is that not obvious by now? Do you honestly believe that
anybody who cared was unable to make that connection?

> You didn't quite do it but you practically told Mark he was wrong.

I disagreed in a minor respect with his assignment of cause.

> Are
> you now saying that he may have had a point? Do you want to include it
> in the explanation you are not going to give?

I thought Mark had a good point, and stated as much.

>> The "proper explanation" of the phenomenon is easily seen by
>> anybody who understands the intregral relationship between
>> voltage applied to an inductor and current flowing thru it.
>
> But you wanted to, and did, talk in terms of flux. Fair enough there
> is a relationship but, again, you're choosing to avoid a full
> explanation. You start to give a partial explanation but next..... you
> say you won't.

Yep. The light appears to dawn. I am not going to be giving
tutorials on magnetics, basic RLC circuit theory, or anything
else without good reason and a favorable cost/benefit ratio.

>> For purposes of getting the OP's problem solved, there is no need
>> to launch into some tutorial on such a topic. In my opinion,
>> when I posted and now, there still is no such need.
>
> Hang on, you were responding to Marks post. There's a not too subtle
> difference here. You tell Mark he is wrong and then you refuse to
> explain why because someone else asked a different question.

I had no reason to believe Mark even wants or needs such
an explanation. For all I know, once he thinks about the
issue for awhile, it is as obvious to him as to me. Maybe not.
If not, he is certainly free to ask why I quibble with his cause.

>> So I deny your claim that I did not "properly explain" the problem.
>
> But...... you didn't..errr.... so you can't. Deny it that is.

I did deny it. You may not be happy with my proof,
but my denial is in plain English. Get a dictionary.

[Silly baiting banter cut.]

>> > No, not you, you decide to start talking about your
>> > experience with other 'experts' in the field and bring up some other
>> > subsidiary effects.
>>
>> My mention of some people who could be presumed to be
>> experts (and in fact were experts) was in support of my claim
>> that some transformers are designed to handle the doubled
>> flux level that can occur upon turn-on. I have no idea what
>> "other subsidiary effects" you are going on about..
>
> OK, on second reading I'll give you that. However you might like to
> group your information rather than spread it about. It makes
> interpretation and understanding easier.

That paragraph could have been clearer. With more
time invested, it might have been.

>> > Do you want to explain the cause and cure or shall I do it for you?
>>
>> Go ahead if it thrills you or you believe anybody really
>> wants to see that sort of education.
>
> That's a bit pretentious isn't it?

No.

> I'm sure there are people who would
> like to know.

If you are so sure, why do you not follow thru on your
implied promise to educate them? My own estimate is
that few if any who read it would learn anything from it.
And playing your silly game is not rewarding enough to
justify the time expenditure.

>> > Oh, I will assume you don't know if you decide to respond with
>> > anything which is not a correct and succinct answer.
>>
>> Assume away. It has no bearing on what I know.
>
> Well that appears to be a half hearted attempt at something that
> wasn't a correct answer. And it wasn't succinct. So you don't know.

So you say. Of the dozens of reasons I might have for
not expounding on something, you choose 'ignorance'
without the slightest evidence. That choice reflects your
state of mind, not mine.

> By the way, how do you manage to write so much stuff with so little
> content so quickly?

It's partially a function of the audience. An ARRL member
once explained to me, as a boy intrigued by his transmitter,
why receivers were much more challenging to design.

--
--Larry Brasfield
email: donotspam_larry_brasfield@xxxxxxxxxxx
Above views may belong only to me.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Pioneer Anomaly
    ... >Mark F. wrote: ... >> But they never really came up with a good reason or new theory. ... >Background Pioneer 10 Anomalous Acceleration ... explanation for the Pioneer Anomaly. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Question about theologians, theologists or whatever they call themselves.
    ... certainly is not hostile or inflammatory in tone [.. ... Is it Mark or Peter who typed the above, or are you using both names? ... Anyway, from now on, I will be reading this group, so feel free to post any ... other reason than theists are thin on the ground here. ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Mark MD Proves Himself to be a LIAR
    ... Mark DISHONESTLY wrote: ... revealed Type II diabetes. ... nutrition. ... Mark MD tried his best to get me to say there was a cure. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Y&R...how many DVDs?
    ... One reason why I haven't written about Jill/Ji Min is ... have had potential -- it's surely TIME Jill, who is still a beautiful, ... like Mark who post long analyses of possible character motivations and ... rarely hits ff anymore. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Re: DAB MP2 bitrate question
    ... Wide off the mark? ... explanation of why I'm heading into mental health problems. ... Jamie, did you know that NICAM sounds great and far better than MP2? ...
    (alt.radio.digital)