Help, processor reset when power on large transformer.

[Rock]

I've got a simple pic based controller that turns on power via a relay
to a 1000W transformer used for high energy lighting. When I turn the
power on the processor ends up reseting. I've traced this back to about
a 2 micro second low going pulse break in the power to the processor.
Adding capacitance, and even putting in diode based filter has not
helped. I'm guessign the emf field from the transformer is causing
inductance via the wires on the prototype (this design has not gone to
board yet). The power glitch happens on the output of the LM2940 5 volt
reg I'm using, and it is supplied by a 24 volt DC off line power supply
that doesn't glitch. I've tried various caps on the regulator with no
help. I'm switching the power anywhere in the AC cycle, and it doesn't
always reset. Anyone have any ideas of things to try?

I rewrote the software so that a reset is part of the normal power on
and off sequences for this device, if it happens. While this works I
find it a real cop out.

Thanks

Rocky

 

[Robert Monsen]

I've got a simple pic based controller that turns on power via a relay
to a 1000W transformer used for high energy lighting. When I turn the
power on the processor ends up reseting. I've traced this back to about
a 2 micro second low going pulse break in the power to the processor.
Adding capacitance, and even putting in diode based filter has not
helped. I'm guessign the emf field from the transformer is causing
inductance via the wires on the prototype (this design has not gone to
board yet). The power glitch happens on the output of the LM2940 5 volt
reg I'm using, and it is supplied by a 24 volt DC off line power supply
that doesn't glitch. I've tried various caps on the regulator with no
help. I'm switching the power anywhere in the AC cycle, and it doesn't
always reset. Anyone have any ideas of things to try?

I rewrote the software so that a reset is part of the normal power on
and off sequences for this device, if it happens. While this works I
find it a real cop out.

Thanks

Rocky

Most pics take very little power. Perhaps you could use a resistor +
bypass to 'filter' the power supply? If your glitch is 2us, then you
don't need much to keep it above water. If you use a 10 ohm resistor
from the power supply to your Vdd pin, and a 1uF cap from there to
ground, the supply will only drop to 82% of Vdd during the 2us glitch.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Joerg]

Hello Rocky,

Do you have a full ground plane? If not it may be time to provide one.
The uC and other chips should all have at least a 0.1uF ceramic to GND
very close to their pins. No more than very few millimeters.

Also, some low drop out voltage regulators can become a bit fickle when
their input line impedance changes, even if these changes are caused by
EMF. Since you have a 24V supply you shouldn't need low drop out. I'd
consider a more classical regulator such as the LM317 series. These are
the ones I use a lot and I never had any problems even in the vicinity
of serious RF fields.

Another issue to watch out for is where the lines from the uC go. If
there aren't any series resistors or better yet, RC networks, it is
possible that surges are induced in those lines. Then the current spikes
often have no other path than to run into the substrate diodes of the
uC. From there it's either into GND or VCC. If you hook up a battery
such as four NiMH cells and the problems are still there you might have
signal lines picking up stuff.

Regards, Joerg

 

[J M Noeding]

Most pics take very little power. Perhaps you could use a resistor +
bypass to 'filter' the power supply? If your glitch is 2us, then you
don't need much to keep it above water. If you use a 10 ohm resistor
from the power supply to your Vdd pin, and a 1uF cap from there to
ground, the supply will only drop to 82% of Vdd during the 2us glitch.

a reset facility has been used in almost any circuits I've seen with
an 1M and 10-100nF capacitor grounding the reset pin when powered on,
can't understand that such is unknown

-JM

 

[Mark]

I've got a simple pic based controller that turns on power via a relay
to a 1000W transformer used for high energy lighting. When I turn the
power on the processor ends up reseting. I've traced this back to about
a 2 micro second low going pulse break in the power to the processor.
Adding capacitance, and even putting in diode based filter has not
helped. I'm guessign the emf field from the transformer is causing
inductance via the wires on the prototype (this design has not gone to
board yet). The power glitch happens on the output of the LM2940 5 volt
reg I'm using, and it is supplied by a 24 volt DC off line power supply
that doesn't glitch. I've tried various caps on the regulator with no
help. I'm switching the power anywhere in the AC cycle, and it doesn't
always reset. Anyone have any ideas of things to try?

I rewrote the software so that a reset is part of the normal power on
and off sequences for this device, if it happens. While this works I
find it a real cop out.

Thanks

a couple of things..

#1 you may have a measurment issue, when then power transformer turns
on, there is a large EMI spike and you may be seeing that on the scop
and it is not really on the +5. If you put your scope probe on the
ground, do yo usee the same spike?

#2 big power xformers can saturate at turn on due to residual flux.
This causes them to draw a very large current spike. look up
trasnforer flux stauturation at turn on.. the only sure cure is to
soft start it first. Maybe you can use two realys, one through a
resistor, or maybe you can use a PTC soft start device in series.

#3 when the xformer draws the large current spike, this is somehow
being injected into your up. Try to keep all the power wiring away fom
the up low level circuits. think about the current loops in the power
wiring and arrange ther components to minimize the area of the loop.
Example, keep the relay close to the transformer and bring the low
level relay drive to the relay instead of the other way round.

good luck..
Mark

 

[Larry Brasfield]

a couple of things..

#1 you may have a measurment issue, when then power transformer turns
on, there is a large EMI spike and you may be seeing that on the scop
and it is not really on the +5. If you put your scope probe on the
ground, do yo usee the same spike?

I agree with your distinction here, but would add: Anytime you
see big spikes or glitches, either they are really there or some
fast changing field (most often magnetic) is inducing the observed
signal in the probe/scope/circuit-under-observation circuit. Even
if the latter is responsible, it can be a good clue as to what is going
wrong, especially if the circuit being examined is not built in a way
that tends to make it immune from ambient fields.

#2 big power xformers can saturate at turn on due to residual flux.
This causes them to draw a very large current spike. look up
trasnforer flux stauturation at turn on.. the only sure cure is to
soft start it first. Maybe you can use two realys, one through a
resistor, or maybe you can use a PTC soft start device in series.

That is a good point, and very relevant. However, I will quibble
with both the cause and the cure. When a line transformer is not
designed to handle about twice the peak magnetic flux that occurs
during steady state operation, and is switched on near a voltage
zero-crossing, it can saturate, often with an audible "whump". In
addition to the cure you mention, two others are available. One
is to switch on near a voltage peak. (This is counter-"intuitive",
so please consider carefully before contradicting this.) Another
is to specify a transformer with enough more iron that it will not
saturate upon turn-on regardless of the starting phase.

Another aspect of transformer saturation often overlooked is
that the external magnetic field from a saturating transformer
will far exceed that which occurs when the flux is much more
confined to the intended, highly permeable magnetic paths.
This effect can be used as one of the tell-tales of saturation.

#3 when the xformer draws the large current spike, this is somehow
being injected into your up. Try to keep all the power wiring away fom
the up low level circuits. think about the current loops in the power
wiring and arrange ther components to minimize the area of the loop.
Example, keep the relay close to the transformer and bring the low
level relay drive to the relay instead of the other way round.

All good advice.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

I agree with your distinction here, but would add: Anytime you
see big spikes or glitches, either they are really there or some
fast changing field (most often magnetic) is inducing the observed
signal in the probe/scope/circuit-under-observation circuit. Even
if the latter is responsible, it can be a good clue as to what is going
wrong, especially if the circuit being examined is not built in a way
that tends to make it immune from ambient fields.

More generalized bullsh_t from a narcissist who imagines himself to be
the great teacher- but fails miserably because he doesn't have the
intellectual horsepower to put anything into practice.

That is a good point, and very relevant. However, I will quibble
with both the cause and the cure. When a line transformer is not
designed to handle about twice the peak magnetic flux that occurs
during steady state operation, and is switched on near a voltage
zero-crossing, it can saturate, often with an audible "whump". In
addition to the cure you mention, two others are available. One
is to switch on near a voltage peak. (This is counter-"intuitive",
so please consider carefully before contradicting this.) Another
is to specify a transformer with enough more iron that it will not
saturate upon turn-on regardless of the starting phase.

Total bullsh_t once again- every damn transformer made will draw
considerably more current and nearly saturate when starting from zero
flux density...most reasonable people make their circuits tolerant of
this effect rather than over-specifying the transformer, idiot.

Another aspect of transformer saturation often overlooked is
that the external magnetic field from a saturating transformer
will far exceed that which occurs when the flux is much more
confined to the intended, highly permeable magnetic paths.
This effect can be used as one of the tell-tales of saturation.

Well- yeah, yeah, yeah- ya' friggin idiot, it is a simple field divider
circuit where the field divides in accordance with the reluctance- this
is simple Electricity 101...

All good advice.

And as usual, you add nothing but garbage hot air and non-information...

 

[Fred Bloggs]

I've got a simple pic based controller that turns on power via a relay
to a 1000W transformer used for high energy lighting. When I turn the
power on the processor ends up reseting. I've traced this back to about
a 2 micro second low going pulse break in the power to the processor.
Adding capacitance, and even putting in diode based filter has not
helped. I'm guessign the emf field from the transformer is causing
inductance via the wires on the prototype (this design has not gone to
board yet). The power glitch happens on the output of the LM2940 5 volt
reg I'm using, and it is supplied by a 24 volt DC off line power supply
that doesn't glitch. I've tried various caps on the regulator with no
help. I'm switching the power anywhere in the AC cycle, and it doesn't
always reset. Anyone have any ideas of things to try?

I rewrote the software so that a reset is part of the normal power on
and off sequences for this device, if it happens. While this works I
find it a real cop out.

This is almost certainly being caused by the relay and its solenoid
field cutting the area formed by the 5V regulator to Vdd to GND and back
to the regulator. You can verify this by supplying power to the relay
through two twisted wires as well as moving it away from the PIC circuit
altogether.

 

[Pooh Bear]

I've got a simple pic based controller that turns on power via a relay
to a 1000W transformer used for high energy lighting. When I turn the
power on the processor ends up reseting. I've traced this back to about
a 2 micro second low going pulse break in the power to the processor.
Adding capacitance, and even putting in diode based filter has not
helped. I'm guessign the emf field from the transformer is causing
inductance via the wires on the prototype (this design has not gone to
board yet). The power glitch happens on the output of the LM2940 5 volt
reg I'm using, and it is supplied by a 24 volt DC off line power supply
that doesn't glitch. I've tried various caps on the regulator with no
help. I'm switching the power anywhere in the AC cycle, and it doesn't
always reset. Anyone have any ideas of things to try?

I rewrote the software so that a reset is part of the normal power on
and off sequences for this device, if it happens. While this works I
find it a real cop out.

Sounds like it's possible poor pcb design ( loop areas for example ) or
lack of attention to general EMI issues.

There's tons of stuff written about how to do it right but I guess you need
to read some.

You won't be the first to experience this kind of issue for sure.


Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

This is almost certainly being caused by the relay and its solenoid
field cutting the area formed by the 5V regulator to Vdd to GND and back
to the regulator. You can verify this by supplying power to the relay
through two twisted wires as well as moving it away from the PIC circuit
altogether.

Hmmm, thinks. Is the 5V regulator close to the PIC or far away ?

It *should* be close to the PIC.

Watch out for common ground current paths too.


Graham

 

[Larry Brasfield]

Derf transform applied.

news:[email protected]...

....
[derf]

That is a good point, and very relevant. However, I will quibble
with both the cause and the cure. When a line transformer is not
designed to handle about twice the peak magnetic flux that occurs
during steady state operation, and is switched on near a voltage
zero-crossing, it can saturate, often with an audible "whump". In
addition to the cure you mention, two others are available. One
is to switch on near a voltage peak. (This is counter-"intuitive",
so please consider carefully before contradicting this.) Another
is to specify a transformer with enough more iron that it will not
saturate upon turn-on regardless of the starting phase.

[derf] - every damn transformer made will draw considerably more current and nearly saturate when starting from zero flux
density...most reasonable people make their circuits tolerant of this effect rather than over-specifying the transformer [derf].

Many "made" line transformers do saturate when turned
on near a voltage zero-cross. Depending on the regulation
of the transformer, currents 20 times larger than the inrush
under more favorable conditions, or more, will flow. This
is not usefully similar to what happens "near saturation".

The problem is one that leads to reduced fuse life, (even
when slow-blow fuses are used), and is clearly addressed
by those vendors who do design the magnetics to handle
worst case starting peak flux. I have looked at a number of
transformers when dealing with the problem, and discussed
it with at least two transformer designers who worked for
reputable transformer vendors.

Another aspect of transformer saturation often overlooked is
that the external magnetic field from a saturating transformer
will far exceed that which occurs when the flux is much more
confined to the intended, highly permeable magnetic paths.
This effect can be used as one of the tell-tales of saturation.

Well- yeah [derf], it is a simple field divider circuit where the field divides in accordance with the reluctance- this is simple
Electricity 101...

The point, perhaps not clear to you, is that the OP may
want to use the effect to see if saturation is occurring.
As for it being elementary, I have worked with many
competent engineers who had not worked out all the
details and ramifications of how magnetic devices work.

....
[derf]

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Many "made" line transformers do saturate when turned
on near a voltage zero-cross. Depending on the regulation
of the transformer, currents 20 times larger than the inrush
under more favorable conditions, or more, will flow.

Yeah- so what- they're line operated and the saturation is "soft"- no
one seems to have a problem with it except a dodging pseudo-intellectual
and unproductive weakling like you- looking for *any* excuse for not
producing.

This
is not usefully similar to what happens "near saturation".

The problem is one that leads to reduced fuse life, (even
when slow-blow fuses are used), and is clearly addressed
by those vendors who do design the magnetics to handle
worst case starting peak flux. I have looked at a number of
transformers when dealing with the problem, and discussed
it with at least two transformer designers who worked for
reputable transformer vendors.

Yeah- right- BULLSH_T!

Another aspect of transformer saturation often overlooked is
that the external magnetic field from a saturating transformer
will far exceed that which occurs when the flux is much more
confined to the intended, highly permeable magnetic paths.
This effect can be used as one of the tell-tales of saturation.

Well- yeah [derf], it is a simple field divider circuit where the field divides in accordance with the reluctance- this is simple
Electricity 101...

The point, perhaps not clear to you, is that the OP may
want to use the effect to see if saturation is occurring.
As for it being elementary, I have worked with many
competent engineers who had not worked out all the
details and ramifications of how magnetic devices work.

Oh yeah- there you go again with your assumptions about everybody being
inferior to yourself- DESPITE ALL EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE THE WEAKEST
P.O.S. ON S.E.D...BULLSH_T...

Optimized manufacture of line transformers requires that saturation is
approached from zero residual core flux- anything else would be as much
of a waste of material as you are of time. GFY.

 

[Genome]

Total bullsh_t once again- every damn transformer made will draw
considerably more current and nearly saturate when starting from zero
flux density...most reasonable people make their circuits tolerant of
this effect rather than over-specifying the transformer, idiot.

Well Larry, once again your delivery leaves a lot to be desired.

You agree there is a problem but you want to quibble about the cause
and the cure. Then, not only do you not properly explain the source of
the problem or why your cure works. You choose to issue a challenge to
anyone who questions your statements.

Surprisingly when Fred calls you on it you choose not to take the
opportunity to rub his nose in it by explaining the details behind the
cause and cure. No, not you, you decide to start talking about your
experience with other 'experts' in the field and bring up some other
subsidiary effects.

Do you want to explain the cause and cure or shall I do it for you?


Oh, I will assume you don't know if you decide to respond with
anything which is not a correct and succinct answer.

DNA

 

[Larry Brasfield]

[Previous quotes repaired for inadvertent line-wrap.]

Well Larry, once again your delivery leaves a lot to be desired.

You agree there is a problem but you want to quibble about the cause
and the cure. Then, not only do you not properly explain the source of
the problem or why your cure works. You choose to issue a challenge to
anyone who questions your statements.

The reason for quibbling about the cause is because it has
clear implications regarding the possible cures.

The "proper explanation" of the phenomenon is easily seen by
anybody who understands the intregral relationship between
voltage applied to an inductor and current flowing thru it. For
purposes of getting the OP's problem solved, there is no need
to launch into some tutorial on such a topic. In my opinion,
when I posted and now, there still is no such need. So I deny
your claim that I did not "properly explain" the problem.

What you call my "challenge" is nothing more than a request
for some thought before anybody jumps in with ill-considered
"common sense" or other forms of "what everybody knows".

Surprisingly when Fred calls you on it you choose not to take the
opportunity to rub his nose in it by explaining the details behind the
cause and cure.

The notion of either educating Fred or shaming him with his
occasional ignorance is humerous. Your surprise shows
only your misunderstanding of my objectives here.

No, not you, you decide to start talking about your
experience with other 'experts' in the field and bring up some other
subsidiary effects.

My mention of some people who could be presumed to be
experts (and in fact were experts) was in support of my claim
that some transformers are designed to handle the doubled
flux level that can occur upon turn-on. I have no idea what
"other subsidiary effects" you are going on about..

Do you want to explain the cause and cure or shall I do it for you?

Go ahead if it thrills you or you believe anybody really
wants to see that sort of education.

Oh, I will assume you don't know if you decide to respond with
anything which is not a correct and succinct answer.

Assume away. It has no bearing on what I know.

 

[Genome]

[Previous quotes repaired for inadvertent line-wrap.]

Very kind of you, we certainly like to follow what's being said in a
Larry Brasfield thread.

The reason for quibbling about the cause is because it has
clear implications regarding the possible cures.

So, I don't suppose you'd like to explain those 'clear implications'.
You didn't quite do it but you practically told Mark he was wrong. Are
you now saying that he may have had a point? Do you want to include it
in the explanation you are not going to give?

The "proper explanation" of the phenomenon is easily seen by
anybody who understands the intregral relationship between
voltage applied to an inductor and current flowing thru it.

But you wanted to, and did, talk in terms of flux. Fair enough there
is a relationship but, again, you're choosing to avoid a full
explanation. You start to give a partial explanation but next..... you
say you won't.

For purposes of getting the OP's problem solved, there is no need
to launch into some tutorial on such a topic. In my opinion,
when I posted and now, there still is no such need.

Hang on, you were responding to Marks post. There's a not too subtle
difference here. You tell Mark he is wrong and then you refuse to
explain why because someone else asked a different question.

So I deny your claim that I did not "properly explain" the problem.

But...... you didn't..errr.... so you can't. Deny it that is.

What you call my "challenge" is nothing more than a request
for some thought before anybody jumps in with ill-considered
"common sense" or other forms of "what everybody knows".

Like I said 'Your delivery leaves a lot to be desired'. I have
considered the problem and I did not jump in. The way you phrase
things just invites it. You could have explained yourself and avoided
getting into a nice long thread. (cough, but you enjoy it)

The notion of either educating Fred or shaming him with his
occasional ignorance is humerous. Your surprise shows
only your misunderstanding of my objectives here.

I wasn't looking for objectives or motives. Just clear precise
answers, I am quite foolish..... aren't I?

My mention of some people who could be presumed to be
experts (and in fact were experts) was in support of my claim
that some transformers are designed to handle the doubled
flux level that can occur upon turn-on. I have no idea what
"other subsidiary effects" you are going on about..

OK, on second reading I'll give you that. However you might like to
group your information rather than spread it about. It makes
interpretation and understanding easier.

you?

Go ahead if it thrills you or you believe anybody really
wants to see that sort of education.

That's a bit pretentious isn't it? I'm sure there are people who would
like to know.

Assume away. It has no bearing on what I know.

Well that appears to be a half hearted attempt at something that
wasn't a correct answer. And it wasn't succinct. So you don't know.

By the way, how do you manage to write so much stuff with so little
content so quickly?

DNA

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Genome <[email protected]>

By the way, how do you manage to write so much stuff with so little
content so quickly?

He's under then impression that those laxative tablets you sent him are
suppositories.

 

[Robert Monsen]

By the way, how do you manage to write so much stuff with so little
content so quickly?

I find his long posts hard to follow. I tend to nod off, and wake up
with a start while reading Fred's inevitable reply.

However, I'm guessing he feels like he has to explain every little
detail in order to forestall attacks. It's like reading a legal brief.
He is preparing for the inevitable court battle. I wonder why he cares
so much? As Larkin pointed out, usenet is just an RPG.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

[Previous quotes repaired for inadvertent line-wrap.]

Well Larry, once again your delivery leaves a lot to be desired.

You agree there is a problem but you want to quibble about the cause
and the cure. Then, not only do you not properly explain the source of
the problem or why your cure works. You choose to issue a challenge to
anyone who questions your statements.

The reason for quibbling about the cause is because it has
clear implications regarding the possible cures.

The "proper explanation" of the phenomenon is easily seen by
anybody who understands the intregral relationship between
voltage applied to an inductor and current flowing thru it. For
purposes of getting the OP's problem solved, there is no need
to launch into some tutorial on such a topic. In my opinion,
when I posted and now, there still is no such need. So I deny
your claim that I did not "properly explain" the problem.

What you call my "challenge" is nothing more than a request
for some thought before anybody jumps in with ill-considered
"common sense" or other forms of "what everybody knows".

As is usual with you wise-ass morons who aspire to *teach*, you can't
*do* a f_cking thing...this is too classic.

The notion of either educating Fred or shaming him with his
occasional ignorance is humerous. Your surprise shows
only your misunderstanding of my objectives here.

"Humerous"? So in addition to being totally incompetent and uneducable
in technical matters such as electronics- you can't consistently spell
at the 4th grade level. It has been pointed out to you time and again
that what you consider a revelation in theory to be announced to the
whole NG is trite and elementary trash. You are a pretentious little
zero who can't produce anything worthwhile.

My mention of some people who could be presumed to be
experts (and in fact were experts) was in support of my claim
that some transformers are designed to handle the doubled
flux level that can occur upon turn-on. I have no idea what
"other subsidiary effects" you are going on about..

Yeah- well whatever- those would be custom jobs for such a small number
of applications that they are representative of nothing and no
manufacturer could afford to maintain off-the-shelf inventory for them.
This is just another example where you have to allude to something that
makes you quite *special*- when all you do is confirm that you are an
e-*special*-ly worthless reject.

Go ahead if it thrills you or you believe anybody really
wants to see that sort of education.




Assume away. It has no bearing on what I know.

You don't really "know" anything- it is clear that a long time ago you
started compensating for the lack of intelligence enabling you to
*comprehend* with some sort of schizoid fantasy you live by which you
"know"- pathetic really.

 

[Larry Brasfield]

message
[Apparently quoting the OP]

This is almost certainly being caused by the relay and its solenoid field cutting the area formed by the 5V regulator to Vdd to
GND and back to the regulator. You can verify this by supplying power to the relay through two twisted wires as well as moving it
away from the PIC circuit altogether.

Most relays have a closed magnetic path going through
iron everywhere except for small construction gaps and
the gap which varies to operate the relay. Allowing much
flux into the surrounding air is bad for the efficiency, and
would be a sign of a poorly designed relay, if it happened.

I have used quite a few relays in close proximity to other
circuits without seeing the magnitude of effect you claim,
including circuits made with single-layer etch for cost
reasons. So I am quite skeptical that your "certainly"
is well founded in reality.

 

[Larry Brasfield]

[Previous quotes repaired for inadvertent line-wrap.]

Very kind of you, we certainly like to follow what's being said in a
Larry Brasfield thread.

Cute. While your insinuation is superficially plausible,
my note reflects only my intention to quote accurately.
Your post, when quoted normally, was a mess. I've
done the same repair again here. Why not just adjust
your line-length limit and get past this?

message news:[email protected]... [Bloggs "contribution" cut for relevance and taste.]

Larry Brasfield wrote:

#2 big power xformers can saturate at turn on due to residual flux.
This causes them to draw a very large current spike. look up
trasnforer flux stauturation at turn on.. the only sure cure is to
soft start it first. Maybe you can use two realys, one through a
resistor, or maybe you can use a PTC soft start device in series.

That is a good point, and very relevant. However, I will quibble
with both the cause and the cure. When a line transformer is not
designed to handle about twice the peak magnetic flux that occurs
during steady state operation, and is switched on near a voltage
zero-crossing, it can saturate, often with an audible "whump". In
addition to the cure you mention, two others are available. One
is to switch on near a voltage peak. (This is counter-"intuitive",
so please consider carefully before contradicting this.) Another
is to specify a transformer with enough more iron that it will not
saturate upon turn-on regardless of the starting phase. ....
Well Larry, once again your delivery leaves a lot to be desired.

You agree there is a problem but you want to quibble about the cause
and the cure. Then, not only do you not properly explain the source of
the problem or why your cure works. You choose to issue a challenge to
anyone who questions your statements.

The reason for quibbling about the cause is because it has
clear implications regarding the possible cures.

So, I don't suppose you'd like to explain those 'clear implications'.

Is that not obvious by now? Do you honestly believe that
anybody who cared was unable to make that connection?

You didn't quite do it but you practically told Mark he was wrong.

I disagreed in a minor respect with his assignment of cause.

Are
you now saying that he may have had a point? Do you want to include it
in the explanation you are not going to give?

I thought Mark had a good point, and stated as much.

But you wanted to, and did, talk in terms of flux. Fair enough there
is a relationship but, again, you're choosing to avoid a full
explanation. You start to give a partial explanation but next..... you
say you won't.

Yep. The light appears to dawn. I am not going to be giving
tutorials on magnetics, basic RLC circuit theory, or anything
else without good reason and a favorable cost/benefit ratio.

Hang on, you were responding to Marks post. There's a not too subtle
difference here. You tell Mark he is wrong and then you refuse to
explain why because someone else asked a different question.

I had no reason to believe Mark even wants or needs such
an explanation. For all I know, once he thinks about the
issue for awhile, it is as obvious to him as to me. Maybe not.
If not, he is certainly free to ask why I quibble with his cause.

But...... you didn't..errr.... so you can't. Deny it that is.

I did deny it. You may not be happy with my proof,
but my denial is in plain English. Get a dictionary.

[Silly baiting banter cut.]

OK, on second reading I'll give you that. However you might like to
group your information rather than spread it about. It makes
interpretation and understanding easier.

That paragraph could have been clearer. With more
time invested, it might have been.

That's a bit pretentious isn't it?
No.

I'm sure there are people who would
like to know.

If you are so sure, why do you not follow thru on your
implied promise to educate them? My own estimate is
that few if any who read it would learn anything from it.
And playing your silly game is not rewarding enough to
justify the time expenditure.

Well that appears to be a half hearted attempt at something that
wasn't a correct answer. And it wasn't succinct. So you don't know.

So you say. Of the dozens of reasons I might have for
not expounding on something, you choose 'ignorance'
without the slightest evidence. That choice reflects your
state of mind, not mine.

By the way, how do you manage to write so much stuff with so little
content so quickly?

It's partially a function of the audience. An ARRL member
once explained to me, as a boy intrigued by his transmitter,
why receivers were much more challenging to design.