Coils for Ion

[garfield at pilgrimhouse.com]

On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 07:39:19 +1200, Mike Morrin <mikem at southern.co.nz>
wrote:

>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).

Yes, I stand corrected. That's true. Not only that, but IF the condensor
were removed (and no protection diode were substituted), the waveform in
the primary would be significantly altered (a lot more ringing), and
this would be of course be reflected into the secondary, too!

Now that you've made several people's day, Mike, (hee) I still havta say
that the impedance the ionization signal sees (which WAS the issue
raised) is completely dominated by the intrinsic uncoupled impedance of
the secondary inductance and it's own winding capacitance. What these
guys were proposing is that the L & C of importance, was the L of the
secondary and the C of the primary, cuz at least one bloak was saying he
WAS able to compute the impedance of the secondary by using the primary
condenser value directly. NOT. I overstated the case to say that the
primary condensor had NO effect on the secondary impedance.

Ahhh, I'm MUCH happier now. Nobody can now accuse me of either being or
feigning infallibility OR an incorrigible attitude. Heh heh. Thanks,
Mike! "Faithful are the wounds of a friend." Old Proverb.  B)

Gar