In article wBnai.22483$dy1.20886@bigfe9,
Randy or Sherry Guttery wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

This is where your logic goes wrong, in our perfect idealized
"transformer" with the secondaries connected in the "bucking"
configuration, and no DC in the primary, the inductance is already as
low as it can get, how can the inductance be less than zero when the
"transformer" is saturated?

Not talking transformer - but rather saturable reactor. Drawn similar -
but windings, core, etc. are different - and they don't interact the
same as a transformer. and I still think that's what's in the S/W. I
think if we get a side shot of the construction - we'll see three
leggs... maybe not.

Bucking - when talking about saturable reactors - bucking means one
winding reversed so that it's induced field is opposite the other
winding's field *when they meet at the control winding*. That would
translate to aiding as looking at the two load windings (but since
they're usually in a three legged config - the two don't interact as
such)... So yes - *one* of us has to "adjust" our perspective....

That's not clear to me, I thought we were talking about all coils being
on the center leg, in which case what I said about "bucking" goes. I
thought I was the one that introduced the windings on three legs idea,
and I had the impression, perhaps wrongly, that you were resisting the
idea. At any rate in the three legged configuration I considered
"bucking" to work exactly as you are describing and simply didn't
realize you were talking about that configuration, so if I have it all
straight who's on first it appears neither of us have to adjust our
perspective.

And I am glad you caught the two outer leg windings on Dave's
transformer that I missed, with that input it all makes sense now.

Again - look at the illustration at the bottom of this page::::

Sorry I haven't had a chance to look at the links you posted yet.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/