Has anyone ever bought laminations from a place called Tempel Magnetics?

http://www.tempel.com/

http://www.tempel.com/products/tld/Elkeepers/ei150.html

They are sending me a quote for a quantity of EI-150 M6 laminations. The
smallest amount they can quote is 33 pounds of lams. I will post the
price when they send it.

Is an EI-150 core a good size for a SE 6C33? I figure with the low turns
ratio it should be a good first transformer. For anyone who hasn't seen
this check out the OPT calculator.

http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/yves.html



Adam

Adam Stouffer wrote:

Has anyone ever bought laminations from a place called Tempel Magnetics?

http://www.tempel.com/

http://www.tempel.com/products/tld/Elkeepers/ei150.html

They are sending me a quote for a quantity of EI-150 M6 laminations. The
smallest amount they can quote is 33 pounds of lams. I will post the
price when they send it.

Is an EI-150 core a good size for a SE 6C33? I figure with the low turns
ratio it should be a good first transformer. For anyone who hasn't seen
this check out the OPT calculator.

http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/yves.html

I have my own methods of working out OPTs,
but I tried to download the above OPT program
to make comparisons.

It downloaded to my program files but
would not instal on my PC.

Patrick Turner.




Adam

Patrick Turner wrote:


I have my own methods of working out OPTs,
but I tried to download the above OPT program
to make comparisons.

It downloaded to my program files but
would not instal on my PC.

Patrick Turner.


Hmmm try this updated and smaller version. Beware the installer is in
french

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/yves.monmagnon/OPT_da-211.zip

I have just posted a screenshot of the results to ABSE. The file was
originally posted at diyaudio.com.


Adam

Adam Stouffer wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:


I have my own methods of working out OPTs,
but I tried to download the above OPT program
to make comparisons.

It downloaded to my program files but
would not instal on my PC.

Patrick Turner.


Hmmm try this updated and smaller version. Beware the installer is in
french

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/yves.monmagnon/OPT_da-211.zip

I have just posted a screenshot of the results to ABSE. The file was
originally posted at diyaudio.com.

Adam

I got the above to work.

The spread sheet for the tranny does not include the
cross sectional diagram of the bobbin, and one doesn't know what
the stack height, tongue width, window length or window height is.

No real clear details appear for the wire sizes, and possible secondary
arrangements for various Z matching.

Its very easy to have a formula calculate turn numbers based on
power and RL and the basic stuff, getting the program to think like a
skilled
and practised designer who has wound lots of OPTs is a much harder task.

When altering the current density A/mm.sq, the other numbers don't
change,
but in a real tranny design, going from 2A/sq.mm to 3A/sq.mm would
cause an enormous design change to size and turns.

So a lot lot more refinement is needed before I would bother using this
program.

I use about 65 consecutive steps when designing a PP OPT.

I can do any design quite fast, because the 65 steps are all in my head,
but when i actually listed them all out so someone else could follow,
there were a large number of things to get right and check when you're
done.


I will try the longer vesion of 4.4 MB again.
I think I may have clicked the wrong thing first time during instal.

Patrick Turner

When I worked for a transformer company we did a fair business with
Tempel, and as far as I know their product and service were wholly
satisfactory.

Patrick Turner wrote:
I use about 65 consecutive steps when designing a PP OPT.

Is that all? I think if you tried to write them out you would find that
it is more complicated than that. I don't know anything about
transformer design (thanks, Menno and others but I just don't have a
lifetime to give to something so complicated) but I once tried to write
out all the steps involved in designing even a simple SET amp and after
two days gave up when the list was more than a hundred pages long.

It is indicative that Gordon Rankin, not notably a man to waste time
unless you paid him by the minute, once admitted that his *post-design*
checks on an amplifier circuit amounted to a hundred steps. In other
words, after he committed all the necessary work to create the design,
he took another hundred steps to be certain it would work right. He
shared some of the steps and it was all meaty stuff for which the
reasons for any check would take several pages to write out
comprehensibly. It isn't rocket science to conclude that, if the
post-design check is 100 steps, the actual work is much, much more.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Andre Jute wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

I use about 65 consecutive steps when designing a PP OPT.


Is that all? I think if you tried to write them out you would find that
it is more complicated than that. I don't know anything about
transformer design

Wait, you think 65 steps is too few. Then one sentence later you admit
you don't know anything about transformer design?


Adam

Adam Stouffer wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

I use about 65 consecutive steps when designing a PP OPT.


Is that all? I think if you tried to write them out you would find that
it is more complicated than that. I don't know anything about
transformer design

Wait, you think 65 steps is too few. Then one sentence later you admit
you don't know anything about transformer design?

"Don't know anything" relatively speaking, Adam. I've had some
distinguished tranny rollers give me the inside story and I have read
on it a little. But Patrick actually winds the things, so, relatively
speaking, when I speak to him about transformers, "dunno anytink" is
about right, don't you think?

Adam

Anyway, my point isn't about transformers but about something I know
about: that everything is more complicated when you write down the
steps than it seems in your head. Try putting some simple algebraic
conversion into words and you'll see what I mean.

Andre Jute

Andre Jute wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:
I use about 65 consecutive steps when designing a PP OPT.

Is that all? I think if you tried to write them out you would find that
it is more complicated than that.

Each of the 65 steps may have several considerations, and no I won't list
them on this group, its several pages, and a few diagrams.

I am working with a computer IT student who is trying to
create a useful working program to
create decent transformers.



I don't know anything about
transformer design (thanks, Menno and others but I just don't have a
lifetime to give to something so complicated) but I once tried to write
out all the steps involved in designing even a simple SET amp and after
two days gave up when the list was more than a hundred pages long.

But you are a writer, you do have a tendency to use a pile of words
where the more technical and literary challenged among us will
simply say do this, do that, divide z by m squared, and so on until we are
done.

The guy working on the program is also into tubes, and has built
some gear, but he found it almost impossible to get beyond the basic
turn count and core size. Anyone can do that, but its
woking out how to fill the window efficiently, keep the leakage and shunt C
low,
and losses low and get a range of load matches without wasting sections or
having
unequal wire current densities that take a lot of hard work.
The wire sizes have to be factored in to suit the wanted turns per layer on

standard available bobbins and the tendency that the theoretical
turns per layer won't fit easily in practice must be allowed for, as well
as winding
bulge during wind up; ie, the avoid all the swearing and cursing by first
timers,
the design must finish up absolutely true and bullet proof for anyone to
wind.
It must be extremely easy for anyone to understand the final bobbin cross
section
diagram that tells folks what to do, so that the design can be exactly
described in one simple paragraph, just like the description of the
Williamson
OPT in RDH4.

If only other makers were able to describe so simply and with such easy
precision
and economy of words.
( But they'd rather keep ppl guessing about exactly what is inside the
bobbins. )

I am not aware of any program for winding trannies that is any good.
Hence I am attempting to do this myself.
The IT guy is very slow because he gets distracted with other projects.

But I am not going to hurry him, i don't do that.


It is indicative that Gordon Rankin, not notably a man to waste time
unless you paid him by the minute, once admitted that his *post-design*
checks on an amplifier circuit amounted to a hundred steps. In other
words, after he committed all the necessary work to create the design,
he took another hundred steps to be certain it would work right.

Well, most of what you need to build a decent OPT is at my website.

Anyone with 3/4 of a reasonable brain could just read, understand, and
they'd get 65 steps like me, and the checks to make sure it is right are
included.

A few ppl over the years have emailed me to help them with their attempts.
They all seemed happy.
A colleage in Sydney where far more customers for tube gear lurk
is quite hopeless designing OPTs, so he always comes to me
when there is something fancy, such as an SET OPT for GM70.
I diagrammed the whole amp and OPT, he built it, and the audio club
liked it, and that's a nice result.

If you consider each turn to be something to worry over and write a page
about,
you get thousands of pages.

OPT building isn't rocket science, its just a part of electronics that is a
sum of a whole brew
of simple concepts bundled together like the rest of electronics.

Once youv'e wound a few trannies, you wonder what all the fuss is about
and wonder why ppl think its so hard and complex and not easy to do.

The practical aspect does take natural skill with tools, something
not all the population has, some guys I know are quite dangerous
with any sort of tool in their hands. They will never
be able to do anything, and will have to rely on
the skilled to get them through life.
One in particular comes second in the local speed chess competions.
He comes about 3rd in the major tournements, and I will never beat
him at chess.
I don't understand his encyclopedic knowledge of chess games,
I don't know whay I lose or win sometimes, since analysis
6 moves deep is beyond me, so horses for courses.



He
shared some of the steps and it was all meaty stuff for which the
reasons for any check would take several pages to write out
comprehensibly. It isn't rocket science to conclude that, if the
post-design check is 100 steps, the actual work is much, much more.

I doubt its as difficult as you say.
I have a few checks for F response, primary L, leakage L,
shunt C, and testing, and that's all that's needed.
Its all in RDH4 on just a few pages which most ppl just cannot understand.

The working out of total lumped shunt C of an interlaved OPT
is very difficult though if one tries to use the table for it in RDH4, so I
don't try,
and there is no need, because empirical ideas for insulation thicknesses
will always give low enough shunt C, and what's important is the
C looking into each end primary end with the secondary grounded.

The reactive nature looking into the primary ends with an interleaved
tranny
is never just pure C or L, but a complex arrangement of a low pass multi
order filter which is usually far too difficult for anyone to accurately
measure, calculate, or model
with a program and nobody has ever done it correctly.
Engineers hate such things that cannot be designed with predictable
precision.
So its suck it and see, creating much nervousness in anyone worried by the
actions of a maker who does not appear to know much.
But there are some things that cannot be known.
But after following a few known golden rules, its dead easy to get
a huge E&I OPT to go 15Hz to 270kHz at 250 watts for tubes or any other
devices,
and with no horrid series or parallel resonances withing the pass band.

Patrick Turner.





Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Andre Jute wrote:

Adam Stouffer wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

I use about 65 consecutive steps when designing a PP OPT.


Is that all? I think if you tried to write them out you would find that
it is more complicated than that. I don't know anything about
transformer design

Wait, you think 65 steps is too few. Then one sentence later you admit
you don't know anything about transformer design?

"Don't know anything" relatively speaking, Adam. I've had some
distinguished tranny rollers give me the inside story and I have read
on it a little. But Patrick actually winds the things, so, relatively
speaking, when I speak to him about transformers, "dunno anytink" is
about right, don't you think?

Adam

Anyway, my point isn't about transformers but about something I know
about: that everything is more complicated when you write down the
steps than it seems in your head. Try putting some simple algebraic
conversion into words and you'll see what I mean.

My website trys to use simple formula without any math that is beyond high
school.
No calculus is needed for the production of superb tube amps.
Simple math and a couple of diagrams
will speak 10,000 words.

I know ppl who despite all their concentration efforts will never understand
that E = I / R.
They could gaze at that for 20 years and still have no idea.
But one like that who I know well is a much better artist than I will ever be.
Its not their fault, the God of Triodes just didn't give them the right brain
cells at conception :-).

Patrick Turner.





Andre Jute

Patrick Turner wrote:


I got the above to work.

The spread sheet for the tranny does not include the
cross sectional diagram of the bobbin, and one doesn't know what
the stack height, tongue width, window length or window height is.

The datasheet for their EI-150 says each lam is .014" thick and 107
pieces are in a stack. Thats 1.498". I measured a Hammond 1628SE and its
definitely EI-150 but 2.5" thick.


No real clear details appear for the wire sizes, and possible secondary
arrangements for various Z matching.

Its very easy to have a formula calculate turn numbers based on
power and RL and the basic stuff, getting the program to think like a
skilled
and practised designer who has wound lots of OPTs is a much harder task.

When altering the current density A/mm.sq, the other numbers don't
change,
but in a real tranny design, going from 2A/sq.mm to 3A/sq.mm would
cause an enormous design change to size and turns.

They do change but you have to click inside another number window for
the update to happen. The turns stay the same but the wire size changes.


Adam

"Patrick Turner" a écrit dans le message de news:
...


Andre Jute wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:
I use about 65 consecutive steps when designing a PP OPT.

Is that all? I think if you tried to write them out you would find that
it is more complicated than that.

Each of the 65 steps may have several considerations, and no I won't list
them on this group, its several pages, and a few diagrams.

I am working with a computer IT student who is trying to
create a useful working program to
create decent transformers.



I don't know anything about
transformer design (thanks, Menno and others but I just don't have a
lifetime to give to something so complicated) but I once tried to write
out all the steps involved in designing even a simple SET amp and after
two days gave up when the list was more than a hundred pages long.

But you are a writer, you do have a tendency to use a pile of words
where the more technical and literary challenged among us will
simply say do this, do that, divide z by m squared, and so on until we are
done.

The guy working on the program is also into tubes, and has built
some gear, but he found it almost impossible to get beyond the basic
turn count and core size. Anyone can do that, but its
woking out how to fill the window efficiently, keep the leakage and shunt
C
low,
and losses low and get a range of load matches without wasting sections or
having
unequal wire current densities that take a lot of hard work.
The wire sizes have to be factored in to suit the wanted turns per layer
on

standard available bobbins and the tendency that the theoretical
turns per layer won't fit easily in practice must be allowed for, as well
as winding
bulge during wind up; ie, the avoid all the swearing and cursing by first
timers,
the design must finish up absolutely true and bullet proof for anyone to
wind.
It must be extremely easy for anyone to understand the final bobbin cross
section
diagram that tells folks what to do, so that the design can be exactly
described in one simple paragraph, just like the description of the
Williamson
OPT in RDH4.

If only other makers were able to describe so simply and with such easy
precision
and economy of words.
( But they'd rather keep ppl guessing about exactly what is inside the
bobbins. )

I am not aware of any program for winding trannies that is any good.
Hence I am attempting to do this myself.
The IT guy is very slow because he gets distracted with other projects.

But I am not going to hurry him, i don't do that.


It is indicative that Gordon Rankin, not notably a man to waste time
unless you paid him by the minute, once admitted that his *post-design*
checks on an amplifier circuit amounted to a hundred steps. In other
words, after he committed all the necessary work to create the design,
he took another hundred steps to be certain it would work right.

Well, most of what you need to build a decent OPT is at my website.

Anyone with 3/4 of a reasonable brain could just read, understand, and
they'd get 65 steps like me, and the checks to make sure it is right are
included.

A few ppl over the years have emailed me to help them with their attempts.
They all seemed happy.
A colleage in Sydney where far more customers for tube gear lurk
is quite hopeless designing OPTs, so he always comes to me
when there is something fancy, such as an SET OPT for GM70.
I diagrammed the whole amp and OPT, he built it, and the audio club
liked it, and that's a nice result.

If you consider each turn to be something to worry over and write a page
about,
you get thousands of pages.

OPT building isn't rocket science, its just a part of electronics that is
a
sum of a whole brew
of simple concepts bundled together like the rest of electronics.

Once youv'e wound a few trannies, you wonder what all the fuss is about
and wonder why ppl think its so hard and complex and not easy to do.

The practical aspect does take natural skill with tools, something
not all the population has, some guys I know are quite dangerous
with any sort of tool in their hands. They will never
be able to do anything, and will have to rely on
the skilled to get them through life.
One in particular comes second in the local speed chess competions.
He comes about 3rd in the major tournements, and I will never beat
him at chess.
I don't understand his encyclopedic knowledge of chess games,
I don't know whay I lose or win sometimes, since analysis
6 moves deep is beyond me, so horses for courses.



He
shared some of the steps and it was all meaty stuff for which the
reasons for any check would take several pages to write out
comprehensibly. It isn't rocket science to conclude that, if the
post-design check is 100 steps, the actual work is much, much more.

I doubt its as difficult as you say.
I have a few checks for F response, primary L, leakage L,
shunt C, and testing, and that's all that's needed.
Its all in RDH4 on just a few pages which most ppl just cannot understand.

The working out of total lumped shunt C of an interlaved OPT
is very difficult though if one tries to use the table for it in RDH4, so
I
don't try,
and there is no need, because empirical ideas for insulation thicknesses
will always give low enough shunt C, and what's important is the
C looking into each end primary end with the secondary grounded.

The reactive nature looking into the primary ends with an interleaved
tranny
is never just pure C or L, but a complex arrangement of a low pass multi
order filter which is usually far too difficult for anyone to accurately
measure, calculate, or model
with a program and nobody has ever done it correctly.
Engineers hate such things that cannot be designed with predictable
precision.
So its suck it and see, creating much nervousness in anyone worried by the
actions of a maker who does not appear to know much.
But there are some things that cannot be known.
But after following a few known golden rules, its dead easy to get
a huge E&I OPT to go 15Hz to 270kHz at 250 watts for tubes or any other
devices,
and with no horrid series or parallel resonances withing the pass band.

Patrick Turner.

Hey Ozzy, stops looking at Frenchies as unbrained batrachian !
Nope, my toy does not brew fresh coffe and I don't remember if 64 or 66
steps are involved in the process.
And, yes, without basic knowledge of what happens in an OPT, it wont give
miraculous nor definitive answers.
Like any automated software, it is stupid and if feeded with stupid
requirements it will deliver stupid answers.
But don't go like an impatient kid, make an effort to read my admitedly poor
english "how to use" bla bla and I'm sure you'll have fun.
Use the latest (most compact) version preferably.

Must I add that your papers hepled me more than a lot ?
So much left to do, still working on !

Yves, froggy.






Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

Adam Stouffer wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:


I got the above to work.

The spread sheet for the tranny does not include the
cross sectional diagram of the bobbin, and one doesn't know what
the stack height, tongue width, window length or window height is.

The datasheet for their EI-150 says each lam is .014" thick and 107
pieces are in a stack. Thats 1.498". I measured a Hammond 1628SE and its
definitely EI-150 but 2.5" thick.

Nobody would know what EI-150 is, and when I changed the various sizes,
nothing else would change.
ALL the EI data should be on the program input, and spelled out
for the dumbest of diyer or manufacturer.




No real clear details appear for the wire sizes, and possible secondary
arrangements for various Z matching.

Its very easy to have a formula calculate turn numbers based on
power and RL and the basic stuff, getting the program to think like a
skilled
and practised designer who has wound lots of OPTs is a much harder task.

When altering the current density A/mm.sq, the other numbers don't
change,
but in a real tranny design, going from 2A/sq.mm to 3A/sq.mm would
cause an enormous design change to size and turns.

They do change but you have to click inside another number window for
the update to happen. The turns stay the same but the wire size changes.


I'll let them work out the problems. Its just not good enough to attract
me.

Patrick Turner.


Adam

"Adam Stouffer" a écrit dans le message de news:
jmWof.50$Fo1.27@trndny07...
Has anyone ever bought laminations from a place called Tempel Magnetics?

http://www.tempel.com/

http://www.tempel.com/products/tld/Elkeepers/ei150.html

They are sending me a quote for a quantity of EI-150 M6 laminations. The
smallest amount they can quote is 33 pounds of lams. I will post the price
when they send it.

Is an EI-150 core a good size for a SE 6C33? I figure with the low turns
ratio it should be a good first transformer. For anyone who hasn't seen
this check out the OPT calculator.

http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/yves.html



Adam

Hi,
Probably you already found that:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...threadid=56364

Some helpfull informations ...

Cheers, Yves.

Yves Monmagnon wrote:

"Patrick Turner" a écrit dans le message de news:
...


Andre Jute wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:
I use about 65 consecutive steps when designing a PP OPT.

Is that all? I think if you tried to write them out you would find that
it is more complicated than that.

Each of the 65 steps may have several considerations, and no I won't list
them on this group, its several pages, and a few diagrams.

I am working with a computer IT student who is trying to
create a useful working program to
create decent transformers.



I don't know anything about
transformer design (thanks, Menno and others but I just don't have a
lifetime to give to something so complicated) but I once tried to write
out all the steps involved in designing even a simple SET amp and after
two days gave up when the list was more than a hundred pages long.

But you are a writer, you do have a tendency to use a pile of words
where the more technical and literary challenged among us will
simply say do this, do that, divide z by m squared, and so on until we are
done.

The guy working on the program is also into tubes, and has built
some gear, but he found it almost impossible to get beyond the basic
turn count and core size. Anyone can do that, but its
woking out how to fill the window efficiently, keep the leakage and shunt
C
low,
and losses low and get a range of load matches without wasting sections or
having
unequal wire current densities that take a lot of hard work.
The wire sizes have to be factored in to suit the wanted turns per layer
on

standard available bobbins and the tendency that the theoretical
turns per layer won't fit easily in practice must be allowed for, as well
as winding
bulge during wind up; ie, the avoid all the swearing and cursing by first
timers,
the design must finish up absolutely true and bullet proof for anyone to
wind.
It must be extremely easy for anyone to understand the final bobbin cross
section
diagram that tells folks what to do, so that the design can be exactly
described in one simple paragraph, just like the description of the
Williamson
OPT in RDH4.

If only other makers were able to describe so simply and with such easy
precision
and economy of words.
( But they'd rather keep ppl guessing about exactly what is inside the
bobbins. )

I am not aware of any program for winding trannies that is any good.
Hence I am attempting to do this myself.
The IT guy is very slow because he gets distracted with other projects.

But I am not going to hurry him, i don't do that.


It is indicative that Gordon Rankin, not notably a man to waste time
unless you paid him by the minute, once admitted that his *post-design*
checks on an amplifier circuit amounted to a hundred steps. In other
words, after he committed all the necessary work to create the design,
he took another hundred steps to be certain it would work right.

Well, most of what you need to build a decent OPT is at my website.

Anyone with 3/4 of a reasonable brain could just read, understand, and
they'd get 65 steps like me, and the checks to make sure it is right are
included.

A few ppl over the years have emailed me to help them with their attempts.
They all seemed happy.
A colleage in Sydney where far more customers for tube gear lurk
is quite hopeless designing OPTs, so he always comes to me
when there is something fancy, such as an SET OPT for GM70.
I diagrammed the whole amp and OPT, he built it, and the audio club
liked it, and that's a nice result.

If you consider each turn to be something to worry over and write a page
about,
you get thousands of pages.

OPT building isn't rocket science, its just a part of electronics that is
a
sum of a whole brew
of simple concepts bundled together like the rest of electronics.

Once youv'e wound a few trannies, you wonder what all the fuss is about
and wonder why ppl think its so hard and complex and not easy to do.

The practical aspect does take natural skill with tools, something
not all the population has, some guys I know are quite dangerous
with any sort of tool in their hands. They will never
be able to do anything, and will have to rely on
the skilled to get them through life.
One in particular comes second in the local speed chess competions.
He comes about 3rd in the major tournements, and I will never beat
him at chess.
I don't understand his encyclopedic knowledge of chess games,
I don't know whay I lose or win sometimes, since analysis
6 moves deep is beyond me, so horses for courses.



He
shared some of the steps and it was all meaty stuff for which the
reasons for any check would take several pages to write out
comprehensibly. It isn't rocket science to conclude that, if the
post-design check is 100 steps, the actual work is much, much more.

I doubt its as difficult as you say.
I have a few checks for F response, primary L, leakage L,
shunt C, and testing, and that's all that's needed.
Its all in RDH4 on just a few pages which most ppl just cannot understand.

The working out of total lumped shunt C of an interlaved OPT
is very difficult though if one tries to use the table for it in RDH4, so
I
don't try,
and there is no need, because empirical ideas for insulation thicknesses
will always give low enough shunt C, and what's important is the
C looking into each end primary end with the secondary grounded.

The reactive nature looking into the primary ends with an interleaved
tranny
is never just pure C or L, but a complex arrangement of a low pass multi
order filter which is usually far too difficult for anyone to accurately
measure, calculate, or model
with a program and nobody has ever done it correctly.
Engineers hate such things that cannot be designed with predictable
precision.
So its suck it and see, creating much nervousness in anyone worried by the
actions of a maker who does not appear to know much.
But there are some things that cannot be known.
But after following a few known golden rules, its dead easy to get
a huge E&I OPT to go 15Hz to 270kHz at 250 watts for tubes or any other
devices,
and with no horrid series or parallel resonances withing the pass band.

Patrick Turner.

Hey Ozzy, stops looking at Frenchies as unbrained batrachian !

My observations of your winding program amount to
only constructive criticisms.

I like many things that have a french origin, and do not think
for a millisecond that the french are any more unbrained than other people, so
calm down,
you should be happy to talk with me to make your product better,
because if you can confuse me, and I do know something about trannies, you will
surely
totally confuse others who know less than either of us.

I am on your side!


Nope, my toy does not brew fresh coffe and I don't remember if 64 or 66
steps are involved in the process.
And, yes, without basic knowledge of what happens in an OPT, it wont give
miraculous nor definitive answers.
Like any automated software, it is stupid and if feeded with stupid
requirements it will deliver stupid answers.
But don't go like an impatient kid, make an effort to read my admitedly poor
english "how to use" bla bla and I'm sure you'll have fun.
Use the latest (most compact) version preferably.

The compact version does not quite work as I would expect it to.
I did finally instal it OK, despite the french instal language which I guessed
right.

Now that is only what i think after trying it out;
it doesn't seem to automatically recalculate the variables
when trying to make changes to all of what what you are allowed to reset, and
data
about the choice of E&I materials seems to be disabled,
and I had no idea of what the core dimensions actually were for
L,H,T,S.



Must I add that your papers hepled me more than a lot ?
So much left to do, still working on !

I hope I have helped everyone.

Anyway, I do wish you all the luck at finishing things off, but please try to
understand that a finished
program won't ever be a pleasure to use unless ALL the bugs are removed, and
it is totally able to be used by an idiot who knows very little.

Because I am working on a winding program here with another guy I am not
allowed by my ethics to share my typed out "Design methodology for OPTs"
which he has and which will enable him to design a program to suit my logic list
which took me weeks
to work out.
While much of that has been derived from what I have already established at my
website,
a lot is in it which is the result of quantifying my winding experiences
with regard to practicalities of winding and tolerances and interleaving
geometry.
My colleage has got about as far as you have with our OPT design program,
but the agony is in the detail for converting turn counts, wire sizes, core
sizes
and insulation thicknesses into optional windable blueprints which include
a cross section of the bobbin, which can be printed off and pinned up
in a grimy workshop for a person to use as his guide.
Finishing it is a long way off for us,
mainly because my colleague has other urgent projects to attend to.

Maybe you will get there first. Take a deep breath, calmly read what have said
in the last day or two, and make adjustments if you have to.

I may be the first to verify what you come up with
if it is correct and easy to use.

Best wishes,

Patrick Turner.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:43:11 GMT, Adam Stouffer
wrote:

Has anyone ever bought laminations from a place called Tempel Magnetics?

http://www.tempel.com/

http://www.tempel.com/products/tld/Elkeepers/ei150.html

They are sending me a quote for a quantity of EI-150 M6 laminations. The
smallest amount they can quote is 33 pounds of lams. I will post the
price when they send it.

Is an EI-150 core a good size for a SE 6C33? I figure with the low turns
ratio it should be a good first transformer. For anyone who hasn't seen
this check out the OPT calculator.

http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/yves.html



Adam

Tempel is a very reputable company. They are
the largest lamination company in North and South
America. Their sales volume is over $260,000,000
per year. They are a large supplier to the motor industry
as well as the transformer industry. They have been a
supplier to us since 1953. Their anneal cycles are
very good especially on the grain oriented material.
All is hydrogen annealed in very long tunnel ovens. The
tooling is quite good. Very little burr on the lams.

Jerry