On 3/1/2013 11:43 AM, legg wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:07:51 -0500, wrote:

snip
There is a resonance near the frequency I would expect, but it is not so
close actually. I can't figure why it is about 5% off. There is a
second resonance fairly high up that I can't figure at all. None of the
component values seem to combine appropriately to produce this peak.
snip

Pulling out the old reactance paper, there are a couple of expected
interactions using the values present:

Around 50KHz (89.42uH+48uH) with 50.42nF (L3+L1) with C1
Around 290KHz (89.42uH+48uH) with 6.25nF (L3+L1) with C2*N^2
Around 360KHz 48uH with 6.25nF L1 with C2*N^2
nL1/nL2=N=25

The mid-resonance is a dip or rejection.

What's the issue?

290 kHz matches the calculations you just gave. But 290 kHz is the null
(or dip as you call it) from C2 and L2 (or L1 and C2 reflected with N^2).

I thought I wasn't getting the 60 kHz resonance, but I was mistakenly
adding the two capacitances together. So that is closer. Using L3+L1
with C1 I get 60.46 kHz while it is measured at 60 dead on in
simulation. That's nearly a 1% error.

I solved the equations finally. I found some info on the impedance of
series and parallel circuits. With that info I wrote the equation for
the ratio of Vout/Vin and found the roots. Turns out it is not so bad.
The equation is a fourth order, but it has no x^3 or x^1 terms and so
is actually a quadratic of x^2. Solving the quadratic gives the exact
figures for 60 kHz and 393 kHz peaks. Since this is from taking the
square root of x^2, there are also solutions at the negative values... duh!

Reflecting C2 through the transformer to create C2', the two nulls I
found can be calculated by the resonance of L1 and C2' (290 kHz null on
C1) or L1 with C1 and C2' (96500 Hz null on L3).

--

Rick