The load is an added secondary coil having a resistive load
False: a coil is not a "load". Its impedance is only reactive.
This means that added secondary coil already has the resistive load connected to it as it becomes the secondary for the induction cooker.
Yes, the added secondary coil 'alone' could only appear as a change in the transformer reactance but almost no change as the secondary would be open if it did not have the resistive load connected.
2. With the pot, it would be resonant but will continue to be denied because a voltage increase and sine across the RLC is considered to be proof of resonance when the opposite evidence should be sought since the resonant circuit is series RLC. This circuit will exhibit minimum resistance and maximum current at resonance not minimum current and maximum voltage and also should not show a maximum voltage of sine waves when measuring across the RLC.
False: the load is not in series with the LC circuit but in parallel with L.
Here is where I think the problem may be more than translation.
The load is not in series or parallel with the primary. It is in parallel with the secondary but that doesn't matter. Any primary coil parameter change due to a loaded secondary is simply that - a primary coil parameter change.
In other words, the secondary coil and anything connected to it modifies the primary or 'appears' in the primary -or- appears as a change in the primary parameters.
It's obvious that the lower the load resistance, the lower the Q of the circuit provided that there would be a resonance (what also is false), the limit being Q=0 when R=0.
Do you deny that
peak current through the circuit would be the point of resonance in a
series RLC not peak voltage measured across it?
I have the impression that some of us may not know the difference between a series and parallel RLC and may not be able to identify a series RLC, especially when the C used is changing throughout the complete cycle due to the activity of the switching elements.
Perhaps having a switching element as part of the RLC loop is offensive in some way?
Perhaps it isn't understood that applying a similar planar coil as a secondary does not mean the two constitute a transformer throughout the complete cycle or at all frequencies. Indeed, when frequency rises to the point where the inter-coil parasitic become more important than the intra-coil parasitic the coupling is best handled with antenna theory.
If you wish to see some excellent work on this subject try this for starters:
http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb18/04.09081911.pdfContrary to common belief planar coils are different.
In any case, the previously supplied scope shots confirm oscillation. The bottom half of which may be used to determine the resonant frequency of the complete circuit at that point in the cycle. The first deviation below zero indicates a diode conducting for less than 90 degrees.
Author
Topic: Naudin's Gegene (Read 214440 times)
