@8:45, how is 1/I(B2) plot the impedance, not the ESR?
@sambenyaakov15 сағат бұрын
Since the excitation is 1V, 1/I is Z. At resonance it is equal to ESR.
@drwangjuanmaoКүн бұрын
Dear professor, It's nice to see this thermal modeling approach! This approach is exciting!Have you published any literature on this method? Can you give some references for this method? I want to quote this method😀
@sambenyaakov15 сағат бұрын
No, this is an original stuff. You can cite the video, which is done these day. The way to it; Available at "link"
@noldushumlesnurr61692 күн бұрын
Nicely explained. I use your videos to relearn my lost knowledge. Thanks for taking the time to make them. Best wishes from Norway.
@sambenyaakov15 сағат бұрын
👍and returned wishes from Israel.
@ebarbie50162 күн бұрын
I think you accidentally drawn a reversed second winding direction in the first schematic of the video.
@sambenyaakov15 сағат бұрын
Thanks for pointing this out.
@ats891172 күн бұрын
Another excellent tutorial on the inner working of transformers.
@sambenyaakov15 сағат бұрын
Thanks for the kind comment.
@constantinemihailov42182 күн бұрын
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
@sambenyaakov15 сағат бұрын
👍😊🙏
@electrowizard20002 күн бұрын
Prof, could you take a look at a question someone asked on the riddle, about open circuiting one leg of the parallel MMF situation? This video cleared up a lot, thank you again, but that situation remains unintuitive to me. Based on another comment about parallel MMFs reflecting to input in series, one open circuit must stop current in all branches. I now think it must relate to 9:20 here about the pure inductor case, that only Lm would have current and none flows in the loads.
@sambenyaakov15 сағат бұрын
I thought I have answered it. If one leg is shorted flux will not enter it due to Lenz's Law. So now there is a 1:1 transformer.
@electrowizard200011 сағат бұрын
@sambenyaakov sorry the modified question was if we *open* one of the three legs, not your original question if it was shorted.
@Ian.Gostling2 күн бұрын
Number 2?🤭
@tamaseduard51452 күн бұрын
👍🙏❤️
@sambenyaakov2 күн бұрын
Numero Uno😊
@BB-iq4su3 күн бұрын
Now translate to the temperature of the transistor junction.
@sambenyaakov3 күн бұрын
Tj=Tcase+Ploss*Zjc
@jitendra096164 күн бұрын
Sir, if the right side is shorted and left is opened, then V2 will be 10 V. How is this possible? Please explain.
@sambenyaakov3 күн бұрын
The flux does not enter the leg with shorted windings so you just have a regular transformer
@jitendra096163 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakov That means the flux will get opposition from the flux generated by shorted winding. Is it correct sir?
@sambenyaakov3 күн бұрын
@@jitendra09616 No flux and no current in the short! amazing😊.
@StrsAmbrg4 күн бұрын
Sir, what does the meaning of your statement in the end of this video, "With the B=1mT, this is really core that can sustain a much high power?" Does that mean that the lower/smaller the B is the higher the voltage we can feed to it?
@sambenyaakov3 күн бұрын
The current is limited by the wire cross section, the voltage by B . 1mT is very low so the voltage can be increased much.
@StrsAmbrg3 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakov interesting Prof. Btw, do you have video explaining how or what is the limiting flux magnet/density?
@sambenyaakov2 күн бұрын
@@StrsAmbrg See kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bLOZa7R1qZ2Vpnk.html
@biswajit6814 күн бұрын
Sir please average model of peak current mode control active clamp forward converter.. please
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
Perhaps😊Thanks for interest.
@user-hj6df3jf4w5 күн бұрын
What about a full bridge rectifier with capacitors across each diode?
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
To do what?
@user-hj6df3jf4w4 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakov Just to improve performance and efficiency, I was just reading about the "Graetz bridge rectifier"
@sambenyaakov3 күн бұрын
@@user-hj6df3jf4w This is OK for low frequency like line. It will be disastrous at high frequency
@user-hj6df3jf4w2 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakov So it will work with 240v 50hz? I mostly just want to see if it will improve power-factor of a LED bulb! 😀
@DevpriyYadavCreative5 күн бұрын
I would go by basic MMF balance in an ideal transformer. If assuming high mu_r core, then 3 MMF sources in an ideal transformer will be in parallel. So that N*Is = N*I1 = N*I2 => Is = I1 = I2. Also with energy conservation power input must be total power output, so Ps = P1+P2 or Vs*Is = V1*I1 + V2*I2 => Vs = V1+V2 = I1*R1+I2*R2. Now : 1) Vs = Is*R1+Is*R2 = Is*(R1+R2) = Is*5 => Is = Vs/5 = 10/5 = 2A = I1 = I2 and V1 = 2*4 = 8V and V2 = 2*1 = 2V 2 & 3) if R1 is shorted => V1 = 0 but I1 != 0 but it also holds that Is = I1 = I2 due to MMF balance so Vs = V1+V2 = V1 + 0 = 10V. I1 = V1/4 = 2.5A = Is = I2
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
👍
@phychemnerd5 күн бұрын
Cycle by cycle current protection is possible with average current mode control if you feed the unsmoothed signal (containing triangle wave) to a comparator.
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
Sure, And you can use it with voltage mode control too. The point is that it is built in, does not need any additions.
@Txepetxcc6 күн бұрын
Hi professor. Related to this topic, DC-blocking capacitors in DAB converters.There are people that indicate that DC bias can be solved with a gap in the transformer, others say that DC capacitor is always necessary. I thing that resolution of PWM in microcontrollers is going to always generate some DC and in transients very likely a DC half-cycle applied, and hence saturation. Can you dedicate a video commenting misconceptions on this issue?
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
Will try. The best solution is to use current mode control.
@tamaseduard51456 күн бұрын
👍🙏❤️
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
👍🙏😊
@cyrielmabilde77296 күн бұрын
Excellent explanation, thank you
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
Thanks
@bobby95686 күн бұрын
Simply the most smart professor on this planet! 🎉❤
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
Wow. Let's not be carried away. Thanks . Comments like yours keep me going😊
@ebarbie50166 күн бұрын
I did get the right answers using magnetic circuit analysis as well as by power balance when assuming the 3 currents are identical. But, one thing that bothered me at first was that such analysis "contridics" basic three-winding ideal transformer models including those used in many simulation platforms such as PLECS and PSIM (there isn't any contradiction - see further on for an explantion). For a 3-winding transformer, you get V1=V2=V3 and the currents at eact side are determined by the loads with the source current determined by power balance. Transformer model: V1:V2:V3 = N1:N2:N3 and magnetic circuit model: I1:I2:I3 = N1:N2:N3 So why is there a contradiction? The answer is simple: The configurations of the magnetic circuits assumed for this case (all 3 MMF are in parallel therefore must be equal if N1=N2=N3, or, the total MMF is the average of the three). The assumed configuration for the transformer is all 3 windings are on the same leg -> series connection of 3 MMFs. Parallel MMF connection -> electric loads are in series (post reflections). Serries MMF connection -> electric loads are in parallel (post reflections).
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
These models are of the basic coupled inductors assembly, assuming that the same flux is passing via each winding within a defined coupling coefficient K.
@32bits-of-a-bus596 күн бұрын
At 7:04 I've got confused. Why is V1+V2=10V? In an ideal transformer with 1:1:1 ratio I would say that V1=V2=10V. Now this ferrite does not make an ideal transformer but is it really that far from it to completely change the spirit of the equation? I would expect a small voltage drop when the winding gets loaded but both should still be close to 10V.
@electrowizard20006 күн бұрын
My understanding is that based on the magnetic circuit, the three leg MMFs are equal, MMF=nI so currents are equal (I think) If input power is 10I, output power cannot be 2*10I, the power must be divided. Only way to do that is divide voltage, because V1*I + V2*I = 10*I
@ebarbie50166 күн бұрын
This is not a transformer configuration! See my explanation above...
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
Indeed this is the first stage for answers.
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
Equal MMFs makes equal current and by conservation of energy V1 I+ V2 I= 10 I
@phuochoangvan58476 күн бұрын
Your solution is quite valuable to me. I want to replicate your result but waveforms of Vplus, ID, IL1, IL2 do not match yours. Could you send me your LT spice sim files. I would really appreciate it. Thank a lot
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
I will try to locate it, Thanks for interest.
@jluke68617 күн бұрын
Great Video and explanation. Thank you for taking time.
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
Thanks
@jitendra096167 күн бұрын
Thanks for the explanation sir. At 6:53 , If the right side winding is opened instead of shorting, then as the center, left and right are in series, no current shall flow in center and left winding. Is it correct sir? In short, if R1 is opened instead of shorted, what are the answers to the above 3 questions.
@electrowizard20006 күн бұрын
Let me take a stab before Prof gets to it.. based on the presented logic it initially looks like you are correct. 2. R1=inf I=0 because I=10/(inf+R2) =0A 3. V2 = 0×4 = 0V Like you I don't really like this answer. How could a wire breaking on one side prevent any power input entirely. I think something else happens in this case. Prof neglected reluctance in normal circuits, which was the underlying assumption that I1=I2=I. I think it cannot be neglected in this case. MMF B2=0AT The right arm will flux saturate, producing some voltage V1 depending on the ferrite. Some current <2.5A will flow to I2. I believe you would have to simulate. (Fingers crossed I've redeemed myself here Prof!)
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
Not really. See my answer video.
@sambenyaakov4 күн бұрын
The open winding voltage will be 10V and the loaded leg will pass very little current,
@Stelios.Posantzis8 күн бұрын
I'm not sure my sign conventions for the fluxes are the right way round but here's my take anyway.. Let: V0 = 10V Then: (0) V0 = -NAdB0/dt (1) V0 = -N(A/2)dB0/dt -N(A/2)dB0/dt Assume direction of fluxes of each section are such that from (1) we get: (2) V2 = N(A/2)dB1/dt +N(A/2)dB0/dt (3) V1 = -N(A/2)dB1/dt +N(A/2)dB0/dt where there is a common flux - Φ0 flowing between each half of the centre section and each of the two side sections - Φ1 flowing between the two side sections (2)-(3) => (4) V2-V1 = -NAdB1/dt (2)+(3) & (0) => (5) V2+V1 = V0 (4)+(5) => (6) V0 = 2V2 +NAdB1/dt (6)+(0) => V0 = V2 +N(A/2)dB1/dt -N(A/2)dB0/dt & (3) => V0 = V2 -V1 & (5) => V2+V1 = V2 -V1 => V1 = 0 & (5) => V2 = V0 = 10V. But my flux sign convention can't be correct as it introduces an asymmetry in a symmetrical circuit, right?
@sambenyaakov8 күн бұрын
Hold on to my answer video
@justpaulo9 күн бұрын
I suppose that at sufficiently low frequencies the limiting factor becomes the dielectric breakdown voltage. Can we speak of a typical frequency when that happens ? And if so, what is its value/range ?
@sambenyaakov9 күн бұрын
V and I are two independent limits , At low frequency V is the limit. At high I.
@juanluisbellidoruiz43279 күн бұрын
1) V1 = 2 V and V2 = 8 V The voltage of each secondary winding is related to the impedance reflected in the primary winding. 2) I1= 2.5 A The current of secondary 1 is equalised to the current delivered by secondary 2. 3) V2 = 10 V Since secondary 1 is short-circuited, the impedance seen from the primary is the load of secondary 2. Due to the 1:1 ratio, the voltage is the same as that of the primary.
@sambenyaakov9 күн бұрын
👍👏Thanks for participating.
@robson62859 күн бұрын
Only from reading the first couple of comments i learned a lot totally new insights. Flux splitting and the summing of outputvoltages and so on. The drawing did me think of 3fase transformers from wich i never understand how the different fases can use the same core. I look so much out for the answervideolesson, in fact as always
@sambenyaakov9 күн бұрын
Thanks for participating. Hold on to my answer video.
@h7qvi9 күн бұрын
1) 10V 2) 2.5A 3) 10V The reluctance imposed by R1 is n^2.s/R1, where s=j.2.pi.f The exact overall formula using non zero leg reluctances is tedious but straightforward.
@sambenyaakov9 күн бұрын
Thanks for participating. Sorry , 1 is incorrect, Hold on to my answer video.
If R1 & R2 are infinite (I1=I2=0), then the answer is easy: the magnetic flux (Φ = B.A) generated by the centre winding splits equally between the other two core legs, and from Faradays law (V = NdΦ/dt) each of these windings sees half the voltage, ie: V1 = V2 = 5Vac. However, this flux distribution is not maintained under the loaded condition, since I1 and I2 are not zero. In the reluctance diagram, the total MMF generated by centre leg sees two other MMFs in series. Since the nmbr of turns are the same, the currents must be the same, and the two voltages have to add to 10V. So we solve two simultaneous equations: (1) V1 + V2 = 10. (2) I1 = I2 (3) V1 / R1 = V2 / R2, where R1=1Ω, R2=4Ω. Writing V2 in terms of V1 from (1), and subbing into (3) we get: V1 / 1Ω = (10 - V1) / 4Ω --> V1= (2.5 - V1 /4Ω) --> 1.25x V1 = 2.5 , So V1 = 2, and V2 = 8. And I1 = I2 = 2A. Power: P1 = V1.I1 = 2V x 2A = 4W. P2 = V2.I2 = 8V x 2A = 16W. Total power = 20W, so 2A in the centre winding (ignoring magnetising current). If R1=0, then this situation **defines** the winding voltage to be zero , so V1=0, this means zero magnetic flux, so all the flux (and hence all of the primary voltage) is moved over to V2, so: V2=10V, and I2 = 10V / 4Ω = 2.5A. Power = 10V x 2.5A = 25W. Same for R2=0, V2 is forced to 0, so: V1=10V, and I1 = 10V / 1Ω = 10A. Power = 10V x 10A = 100W. Another way to look at it: let's leave R1=1Ω, and let R2 vary from infinite to zero. For R2 open ckt (infinite), then all the voltage appears at V2, & V1=0. Total load power is zero. As R2 reduces, then V2 voltage starts to reduce, and V1 starts to increase, and load power increases. At R2=R1=1Ω, both the voltage and the currents will be equal, the voltages will sum to 10V, so 5V each, and 5A each, so 25W per winding, 50W total. As R2 reduces toward a 0, V2 reduces while V1 increases, until at R2=0 we get V2=0, V1=10V, I1=10A, and Power = 100W. So power increases quite rapidly as R2 reduces from 1Ω to 0Ω. We can think of this as a way of controlling how magnetic flux is split up from one path to another path.
@sambenyaakov9 күн бұрын
Thanks for participating. Sorry incorrect, Hold on to my answer video.
@justpaulo9 күн бұрын
I do not know, but here is my 2 cents (PS: I see I'm completely wrong by other's answers... Therefore I look forward for you video) -- If the core was ideal ( *no saturation* ): 1) V1 = V2 = 10/2 Vac (b/c the flux of the center portion splits 50/50 onto the other legs) 2) I1 → ∞ 3) V2 would still be 10/2 Vac -- With real ferrite core (i.e. *with saturation* ): 1) V1 = V2 = 10/2 Vac (if R1 and R2 are high enough for the core not to saturate) 2) As R1 → 0 the current in the "primary" increases. Eventually the core saturates and I think that then I1 will reach a maximum I1 = Isat and it will remain that way. V1 will drop to 0 as R1 → 0. 3) When the core saturates the magnetic flux will be Φsat and will stop increasing. V2 therefore will clamp also to V2_sat. Bonus: when the core saturates I_primary → ∞ (i.e. will become a short and bad things will happen)
@sambenyaakov9 күн бұрын
Thanks for participating. Sorry incorrect, Hold on to my answer video.
@markg105110 күн бұрын
1. Since the ratios are 1:1:1, V1 & V2 are same as the driving source or 10V. 2. Assuming an ideal transformer and windings, i.e no other resistances than the values of R1 & R2, and that all the core limbs are equal x-section shorting out R1 will completely short out the flux and draw unlimited current. 3. Because of a short on R1 (all flux diverted to R1) and therefore same on the driving source there can't possibly be a voltage across R2, so V2 = 0V. I'm now ready for the bad news as I've never considered this scenario before.
@markg105110 күн бұрын
Completely wrong above. Just did some actual measurements - did not have access to a suitable ferrite core but had a pair of steel laminated UNICOREs from AEM Cores on which I wound up 3 coils as in the video, 23 turns each. also the signal source I have was incapable of driving such low resistances shown in the video so I scaled the values to 1k for R1 and 4k for R2 keeping the same ratio of loads. in addition had to keep the drive signal to the middle coil at 1V rms to prevent overloading of the drive circuit when R1 shorted. The input frequency is 10kHz. 1. Measured V1 at 433.2 mV rms and V1 at 417.5 mV rms. 2. R1 shorted: I1 measured at 17.4 mA rms. 3. R1 shorted: V2 measured at 787mV rms. As these are real values with real lossy magnetics etc, I'd be curious to see how they compare to the theoretical values using the resistors and input I used. PS sorry for the James T. Kirk method of solving problems.😊 Cheers Mark G
@sambenyaakov10 күн бұрын
Sorry incorrect. Hold on to my answers video.
@markg105110 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakov Thanks for the response, look forward to the answers video. Just out of curiosity, other than a possibility of errors in measurements is there a problem of scaling by using different values in my attempt? EDIT: Further investigation revealed some issues with my ac voltmeter, I also recalibrated my Rigol scope. Using only the scope to do all the measurements I found that if the two secondary windings are either unloaded or loaded with equal resistances, the outputs end up being equal but only half the value of the applied voltage. this makes sense as the total applied flux is split in two equal values, one left and the other right of center limb - this is only true if the L & R magnetic path areas are identical - my cores seem to have a small difference between the two halves. Unbalancing the two loads unbalances the voltages in the direction where the lower resistor develops a lower voltage and the opposite for the higher value resistor. The sum of the two voltages add up to the value on the primary winding. If either of the outside windings is shorted out the opposite winding ends up with almost full primary voltage across it, an ideal transformer without any losses I suspect would get a full primary voltage on the winding with resistive load whose current would be V2 / R2. so in case of R2 = 4R and Vmax across it = 10V, this would end up at 2.5A Not sure what the current I1 would end up being, don't have a clamp meter to do the measurement, replacing R1 with a much lower resistor and measuring the voltage drop across it suggests that the current increases. Will be quite interesting to see the math behind it, hopefully it's not beyond my level of understanding. Thanks for a nice little head scratcher leading up to a weekend. Cheers Mark G
@sambenyaakov9 күн бұрын
@@markg1051 Thanks for your thoughts. Have a nice weekend
@markg10519 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakov you too.
@ebarbie501610 күн бұрын
If the coupling is ideal (infinite Ur core), then because the magnetic circuit is of a 3 MMFs connected in parallel, the two resistors will reftect to the voltage source side as a single series resistor of 4 + 1 = 5Ohms, therefore the source current as well as the two resistors' currents would be 10/5 = 2A (1:1:1 reflection). Thus, V1 would be 2*4 = 8V, and V2 would be 2*1 = 2V. When R1 is shortet (=0Ohms) then the total reflected resistance would be 4+0 = 4 Ohms. and the 3 currents would be 10/4 = 2.5A, thus. V2 would be 2.5*4 = 10V, which makes the magnetic circuit behave as a two-winding Xformer with a 1:1 ratio. The 3rd shorted winding will cancel out (opposite) it's leg's flux (shorted winding leg flux will be zero, thus circuit will become a simple ideal transformer).
@sambenyaakov10 күн бұрын
Good answer! thanks for participating.
@filips715810 күн бұрын
Assuming unity coupling factor (otherwise it is incorrect) : 1. The load on V1 is 4 times greater, so 4*V1 = V2, as well as V = V1 + V2, yielding V1 = 2Vac, V2 = 8Vac. 2. If R1 = 0, V1 = 0, so V2 = 10Vac, therefore I2 = 2.5A. We must therefore have I1 = 2.5A. 3. V2 = 10Vac.
@sambenyaakov10 күн бұрын
Good answer! Thanks for participating.
@zaikindenis177510 күн бұрын
V1=V/(1+R2/R1)=2V, V2=V/(1+R1/R2)=8V, 2.5A, 10V. Thank you for the video!
@zaikindenis177510 күн бұрын
Because, V1+V2=V from flux split, and i+i2=0, i+i1=0, i1=i2, V1/R1=V2/R2 assuming mu=infinity, from mmf theorem.
@sambenyaakov8 күн бұрын
Correct and elegant. Thanks for participating.
@electrowizard20006 күн бұрын
@@zaikindenis1775could ypu explain why does voltage divide this way (R1/R2) instead of R1/(R1+R2) like parallel currents through resistors would?
@zaikindenis17756 күн бұрын
@@electrowizard2000 Actually, I have written it confusing. 1/(1+R1/R2) is the same as R2/(R1+R2).
@Ian.Gostling10 күн бұрын
1. Amp turns must balance,half Mmf on each leg so 10v on both for conservation of energy. 2. As I 2. 3.10v .
@sambenyaakov8 күн бұрын
Sorry incorrct. Hold on to my answer video. Thanks for participating .
@two_number_nines10 күн бұрын
The more loaded a coil is, the more it will deflect the magnetic fields away from itself by creating an opposing field. 1 - 8V+2V. both coils will see half the magnetic flux of the middle one when open circuit. When loaded the more loaded one deflects the field away, so less voltage is induced. 2 - (10V/4Ohm)/2=1.75A. I1=Isupp/2, as it has to run just enough current to match the open circuit magnetic field magnitude. 3 - 10V. The magnetic path towards coil1(the right one) is effectively blocked, leaving out a 2 coil transformer.
@sambenyaakov8 күн бұрын
2 is off. Thanks.
@electrowizard200010 күн бұрын
I would have assumed the flux divides evenly until considering short circuit cases, which tells me flux does not divide evenly. Lower resistance should get less flux. 1. V1=7.2 V2=2.8 (Thus P1=13W, P2=5.2W. Hmm.) 2. Any flux down this leg is resisted by the superconducting shorted turn. Seems undefined? The current has to be nonzero to counteract the input flux. Power is zero. I don’t know! 3. 10V, its a normal transformer on the left half since the right half is effectively disconnected.
@sambenyaakov8 күн бұрын
Sorry incorrect. Thanks for response.
@tamaseduard514510 күн бұрын
👍🙏❤️
@sambenyaakov8 күн бұрын
👍🙏🤞
@SkippiiKai10 күн бұрын
Since the windings are on opposite sides of the middle core, I *think* it's easier to imagine this as two seperate transformers. . Assuming stable power supply and no saturation, Initial voltage drop across each resistor Voltage drop across R1 should be 10Vac, with I1 10A & I2 2.5A. This already feels like I'm wrong. Shorting either resistor would immediately saturate the ferrite core on that side. But it would also saturate the primary core, dropping the impedance to the DC resistance (0 if ideal). Without a voltage drop on the primary you also can't have a secondary voltage, so.... Well, 0 makes me sure I'm even more wrong. By my calculations, the Professor has just invented the worse current-sense transformer ever conceived. I wouldn't normally post such an obviously wrong answer, but since there's only one other comment so far and I already told that guy that he was totally wrong, it only seems fair to admit that I don't have a clue either.
@sambenyaakov10 күн бұрын
Drop the assumption that core will saturate. It will not.
@SkippiiKai10 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakov But that was the only idea I could come up with! 😁 At this point I either need to find a big ferrite core in my parts bin or wait for the answer video!
@sambenyaakov10 күн бұрын
@@SkippiiKai Or, if you are familiar with, build a magnetic circuit diagram with reluctances etc. from which the problem and solution can be better envisioned. OR, wait to my video.
@robson62859 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakovIs it possible to see it as two normal transformers with instead of the middle leg the two primaries in series? Is that really an equivalent circuit?
@grigorioss393610 күн бұрын
This is a real headscratcher (especially the last two questions). Here are my answers, happy to hear of the problem behind my reasonings, as I am really not sure: 1) V1 and V2 will be 5 Vac with a 180-degree phase shift. This is because the flux splits up from the middle excitation winding, giving half the excitation to each winding. 2) The currents should match in a sub-loop (right side) so allow for a closed magnetic loop path. However, the flux swing will be minimal in this path due to the loss of resistance. So 2.5 A (ac) is based on the exciting winding's current. 3) Because voltage can't be present on V1 (as this requires the resistance), the flux swing has to appear at the left sub-loop. Therefore, it's now a fully coupled circuit, i.e., V2 = 10 Vac.
@jony130510 күн бұрын
I think the same way as you. So I agree that V1 = V2 = 5V due to flux splitting and we would have a V2 = 10V if we shorted R1.
@sambenyaakov10 күн бұрын
1 wrong. 2, 3 OK.
@sambenyaakov10 күн бұрын
@@SergiuCosminViorel Think in term of reluctances.
@SergiuCosminViorel10 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakov reluctances not good. give another terms. reluctances rejected, are meaningless. give me something real
@sambenyaakov9 күн бұрын
@@SergiuCosminViorel Hold on to m answer video
@jffighting10 күн бұрын
Thank you, Prof. Ben-Yaakov, very intuitive explanation for this constant on time control for buck converter. Do you know who is the first person to propose this constant on time or constant off time control for buck converter?
@sambenyaakov10 күн бұрын
No. Will be happy to find out.
@jffighting10 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakov Thank you for your reply, Prof. Ben-Yaakov. I tried to find the first reference but not be able to make it. It seems that everyone took it for granted before 1990. But I found one patent from Infineon (US7521913B2) that they use output voltage to adjust the pulse width and frequency during load transient. The technique in this patent is very similar as the COT control during load step up. Will this claim still be valid?
@sambenyaakov9 күн бұрын
@@jffighting 🤔
@mehtabhussain496111 күн бұрын
At 41:42 , you have calculated switching losses by multiplying switching energy at 200A with switching frequency, although the actual Swithing loss will be an average of the loss during once cycle assuming sinusoidal current. So switching losses would be less than what you have calculated and approx 0.63x10000x0.011 W
@sambenyaakov10 күн бұрын
This is not entirely correct . At low speed , low elctrical frequency the inverter spends a long time around the phase current peak.
@mehtabhussain496111 күн бұрын
Dear prof Sam, i always admire your videos but the riddle was a bit misleading because you gave no additinal information about the inductors, i was scratching my head assuming them to be ideal inductors. If you could just tell that they were real inductors with some equivalent load resistor R5, it becomes very simple. The question is if their is no R5, it is obviously going yo explode
@sambenyaakov8 күн бұрын
Your doubts are about the answer?
@sambenyaakov8 күн бұрын
Are the doubts about the answer?
@biswajit68111 күн бұрын
Hi sir could please make video on average model of peak current mode Active clamp forward converter
@GMartinezBaixauli11 күн бұрын
Where is the third part of the explanation?
@sambenyaakov11 күн бұрын
Well, seeing that there was not much interest in the subject, I gave u😊 Sorry.
@SergiuCosminViorel11 күн бұрын
Before i can make the effort to follow it, i must do what i must, meaning that if i can bring something new, unheard, unknown to the scientifis world, then it is exactly that, that i must do. And i have something to say about this. Capacitance, as i think of it, can be defined at least in two ways, the way all know, that is the official science, so to speak, and one more way, though it myself, and this way is as valid candidate as the established way, it shows science is still in many parts of it, a matter of approach, not an ultimate and unique truth. The first way to consider capacitance, the already established way, is of a given capacitance, i call it fully formulated capacitance, that defines the ability of... something to store electrical charge, and that storage is gradually used. The second way to consider capacitance, and science could have chosen this instead, is of capacitance not given, that it is continuously formulated, meaning the ability of storing electrical charge is gradually granted, and the storing is not made gradually, but instantly and fully, to the available capacitance.
@sambenyaakov11 күн бұрын
"meaning the ability of storing electrical charge is gradually granted, and the storing is not made gradually, but instantly and fully, to the available capacitance." This is not defining capacitance but the charging of capacitance, which depends on the charging source not the capacitor.
@Duracellmumus11 күн бұрын
Thank u for show that cruves, i have a shot now for why this is not working well with high speed dc load. In my wiev this type common mode chokes are do better job before the diode bridge at AC side.
@sambenyaakov11 күн бұрын
I am showing a DC (battery) source
@luzhouyang541412 күн бұрын
professor,what's V(EXC) of B4 in your LTspice simulation in your presentation?
@sambenyaakov12 күн бұрын
Please indicate time or slide number.
@luzhouyang541411 күн бұрын
@@sambenyaakov LTspice PCM model at 9:41,thank you!professor.
@sambenyaakov11 күн бұрын
@@luzhouyang5414 it produces REF which is like the output of the voltage error amplifier. Here it is used as a signal to test tracing. E.g. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mJxnqJaKmNKWZqM.html