Coils for Ion

[Mike Morrin]

At 02:16 4/06/98 -0700, garfield at pilgrimhouse.com wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 00:14:26 -0400, cosmic.ray at juno.com (Raymond C
>Drouillard) wrote:
>
>
>>Also, I believe that
>>the ringing is due to the primary and the condenser (as in points, plugs,
>>condenser) forming a parellel LC circuit.
>
>This is not the domain of "belief", and the LC circuit that governs the
>impedance of the *secondary* has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the
>condenser in the primary, or if it's even there (many modern points-less
>IGNs don't even HAVE a capacitor there, instead they've got a protection
>flywheel/freewheel/flyback (whatever you wanna call it) diode there.
>
>Whether there's a condenser there or no, or even if the primary were to
>miraculously disappear once the field collapsed, the secondary still
>rings on, as soon as the arc is extinguished, because it's due to the
>SELF-RESONANCE of the secondary coil itself! This is a mistake someone
>else made, in trying to defend your concerns/questions in private. The
>LC circuit in the primary does NOT characterize the reactive impedance
>of the secondary. How on earth CAN it? The primary rings, the secondary
>rings; each would also ring were the other not even present, and they
>even ring at different times; the primary as soon as the primary circuit
>is opened, the secondary, as soon as the spark arc is extinguished.

Point of order...  You are wrong.

The impedance (i.e capacitor) on the primary is transformed to appear at
the secondary scaled by the square of the turns ratio.  

I don't think the primary circuit is of practical significance here, but it
does partly define the seconday impedance (and vice versa).

>
>One of the things I think that's annoyed me about this whole topic of
>ION (thank God EGOR's technology was so far beyond us all but the
>electrochemical guys, that we couldn't even PRETEND to know stuff about
>how IT worked), and how she works, is that maybe this group has gotten
>into the habit of talking about things in way too fuzzy a manner, with
>glib quips on why this is why a certain thing works the way it does (I
>mean, look at the series of snake-oil topics recently hosted), and you
>just can't operate in this kinda wishy-washy mental fog, and discuss
>something like ION. It ain't really all that deep, but deep enough you
>just can't be confusing primary with secondary, the condenser in the
>primary with the capacitance in the secondary winding, and asking about
>frequency components in ION's signal while completely missing the
>evidence to answer those questions in pictures of the waveform itself. I
>mean, an electronics discussion isn't exactly the same as having a nice
>vague chat about the weather or politics, over coffee.
>
>There's just been too many cases of people talking about stuff they
>didn't understand the basics of, and posturing as tho they understood
>the more esoteric elements. 

I agreee entirely.

best regards,

Mike Morin