Transformer question

I have a 50 watt valve amp which seems to have blown its output transformer. A new one is on order, but I was puzzled by some of the reading I got off it and wondered if someone could give an explanation. All the measurements were made with the transformer *_completely out of circuit_*, both primary and secondary.

The transformer is from a push-pull standard guitar amp (Trace Elliot 50 watt combo, 2 EL34s) and one of the valves was glowing red hot before the fuse popped. Checking the bias voltages, I had around -46v on the grid of each of the El34s, so that was a reasonable figure. I then removed the output transformer and did some resistance measurements on it. When measure from the centre tap to either of the primary outer connections, the reading was 69 ohms for each. But when I measured across the primary outer connections, instead of the expected 138 ohms, I got an open circuit. I rechecked it numerous times but with the same result. I even removed the cables from their connector and measure across the bare wires, but still the same result,

69 ohms from the centre tap to the outers, but open circuit between the outers.

On the basis of these bizarre reading, I assumed the transformer is faulty and ordered a new one, but can anyone offer an explanation as to why I got such resistance readings? I have a vague recollection of similar results on a small 15 watt amp I repaired many years ago and replacing the transformer fixed it and it went on to give good service, but I would like to know what is actually going on. Anyone?

Reply to
T N Nurse
Loading thread data ...

there are usually two wires in the center tap... if they are not touching when you take your reading ...there will be infinite resistance...

Reply to
philo

--
The only thing I can think of is that the primary is actually two
windings with an intermittent connection at the center tap and that
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Fields

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:35:33 +0100, T N Nurse wrote:

|I have a 50 watt valve amp which seems to have blown its |output transformer. A new one is on order, but I was puzzled |by some of the reading I got off it and wondered if someone |could give an explanation. All the measurements were made |with the transformer *_completely out of circuit_*, both primary |and secondary. | |The transformer is from a push-pull standard guitar amp (Trace |Elliot 50 watt combo, 2 EL34s) and one of the valves was glowing |red hot before the fuse popped. Checking the bias voltages, I |had around -46v on the grid of each of the El34s, so that was |a reasonable figure. I then removed the output transformer |and did some resistance measurements on it. When measure from |the centre tap to either of the primary outer connections, the |reading was 69 ohms for each. But when I measured across the |primary outer connections, instead of the expected 138 ohms, |I got an open circuit. I rechecked it numerous times but with |the same result. I even removed the cables from their connector |and measure across the bare wires, but still the same result, |69 ohms from the centre tap to the outers, but open circuit |between the outers. | |On the basis of these bizarre reading, I assumed the transformer |is faulty and ordered a new one, but can anyone offer an |explanation as to why I got such resistance readings? I have a |vague recollection of similar results on a small 15 watt amp I |repaired many years ago and replacing the transformer fixed it |and it went on to give good service, but I would like to know |what is actually going on. Anyone?

Did you use a digital multimeter?

I have encountered some strange an incomprehensible readings when taking resistance measurements on highly reactive components such as transformers when measuring with my Gossen Metrawatt MetraHit 25S digital meter (a not too cheap instrument), and when this occurs I always revert back to my trusty old moving coil analogue meter (AVO model 7) and usually the correct expected measurement is obtained.

Ross H

Reply to
Ross Herbert

snip

Hello, yes you've reminded me of that same experience. It's caused by the DMM sampling (frequency) and back EMF. Sometimes just shorting out a winding kills the back EMF so a reading can be made.

Reply to
H. Dziardziel

--
You obviously missed the point, which was that a finite resistance
could be measured from the center tap to either end of the primary but
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Fields

I liked the two separate windings with two wires not making contact for the centertap. Has the OP retested or checked for this possibility?

--- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ Mirror:

formatting link
Repair | Main Table of Contents:
formatting link

+Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ:
formatting link
| Mirror Sites:
formatting link

Note: These links are hopefully temporary until we can sort out the excessive traffic on Repairfaq.org.

Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header is ignored. To contact me, please use the feedback form on the S.E.R FAQ Web sites.

Reply to
Sam Goldwasser

its most likely your digital meter. my fluke i use at work will not properly read a field winding above a 100 ohms due to inductive reactions. it just sits there blinking now and then giving me an OL reading. try putting it on DIODE mode.

John Fields wrote:

Reply to
Jamie

Any chance there's more in there than a transformer? Like a couple of protective diodes (perhaps as snubbers) that are back-to-back when viewed from end-to-end? It would be odd, but not completely out of the question.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Reply to
CJT

Thanks to everyone who replied to this. The problem has now been solved - intermittent fault in the probe lead. Grrrrrr!!!! New probe leads now give the correct readings.

, T N Nurse wrote:

Reply to
T N Nurse

Yes.

That's an interesting observation, and perhaps explains the previous weird measurement. I note that someone else has said that their expensive Fluke doesn't like transformer windings over 100 ohms. I tried today with a different multimeter (and leads) and got the expected readings. I assumed that it was the leads at fault, but perhaps not.

Reply to
T N Nurse

At least that is a lot cheaper to fix than the cost of a new transformer.

-john-

--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III            952-432-2708         john@johnweeks.com
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John A. Weeks III

--
So is the transformer burned up, or what???
Reply to
John Fields

Looks like it. The two windings came in at 66 and 70 ohms respectively with combined reading of 135 ohms. Looks like a partial short in one of the windings. I measured it 3 ways just to be sure - using the multimeter, using a constant voltage source and checking the current and using a constant current and checking the voltage. All

3 came in with the same readings. I'm waiting to check with the manufacturer to check if a 4 ohm difference is out of spec - I suspect very much that it is.
Reply to
T N Nurse

amp}

It is not uncommon for the DC resistance of a center tapped winding to = differ on each half. For the same number of turns, one half could have = more length of wire because that part of the winding is further from the = core piece and one turn uses more wire. A better way to test is to put = an AC signal on each half separately and see if the secondary gets the = same output. David .

Reply to
David

It is not uncommon for the DC resistance of a center tapped winding to differ on each half. For the same number of turns, one half could have more length of wire because that part of the winding is further from the core piece and one turn uses more wire. A better way to test is to put an AC signal on each half separately and see if the secondary gets the same output.

--
I disagree. Using EI laminations and winding the entire transformer on
the center leg, it makes nore sense, if only for the sake of economy,
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Fields

John, That may be true, but this transformer may not have been wound with a = bifilar primary. If bifilar I agree, if not, I stand by my original post = and it should be tested by either measuring inductance or seeing if = there is a difference in a secondary by feeding a signal into each half = separately. I know a short on one side will affect both halves but a = difference should still be seen. David

Reply to
David

John, That may be true, but this transformer may not have been wound with a bifilar primary. If bifilar I agree, if not, I stand by my original post and it should be tested by either measuring inductance or seeing if there is a difference in a secondary by feeding a signal into each half separately. I know a short on one side will affect both halves but a difference should still be seen.

--
I don't disagree with your measurement strategy except that I'd put a
signal into the secondary and then measure the primary output voltages
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Fields

I think this is only half right. Winding them bifilar would certainly make them more "balanced" in both turns and impedance, but the total amount of wire used would have to be the same.

Think of it this way: I still need the same number of turns in each winding and the same number of total turns. Winding them bifilar (assuming the same wire gauge) will still occupy the same amount of the winding window.

So instead of "an extra ten feet" of wire in the outer winding, we end up using five extra feet in each winding.

I don't know how a real transformer manufacturer would look at it, but I suspect that the bifilar way has real appeal as long as the voltages are small.

Once the voltages are large, we may want to spread out the ends and wind them separately, which most likely means that we're back to the original method of one on top of (and longer than) the other.

-

----------------------------------------------- Jim Adney snipped-for-privacy@vwtype3.org Madison, WI 53711 USA

-----------------------------------------------

Reply to
Jim Adney

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.