It's an RC circuit well before it becomes an LC circuit.
Haha!
I was insisting that must be the case the other night in the chat session we had.
Let me throw something out here Ronnie and you guide me if my instincts are correct…
If you DC bias the primary, you have the ability to push that half of the core into saturation where you can modify the behavior of the L2 choke. However, with a gap between the two core halves, the tendency to also saturate the other core half is much reduced, so what happens to the L2 doesn't happen or happens much less to the secondary and L1.
And why would anyone want to do this…?
I have been thinking about this question a lot. Seems to me we have created quite a conundrum by having the L1 and secondary on the same core connected in-phase while the L2 hangs out there all alone on the secondary side. As I see it, the L1 and secondary are working together as one big coil with a much higher combined turns ratio than the L2. So we have more volts, but much less amperage to speak of. So compared to the L2, how do we get the amperage up to about equal on the L1 and secondary?
Answer. We don't.
Instead, we drop the amperage on the L2 without changing its voltage much, by introducing a DC bias to that particular core. If we do it right, the B+ and B- current flow will the equal (from the reference point) and the differential between these two points will become zero--no current flow between B+ and B-, while still maintaining the two to one charge ratio.
That's my thinking anyway and I say this because it appears to me in my current setup, there is current flow between B+ and B-, which is why my L1/secondary voltage looks knocked down by the L2. It looks that way because the L2 is actually overpowering the other side and pulling it down towards B-. If I'm right about all this, adding the correct DC bias along with the proper core gap, should fix the problem I'm seeing.
Yes, no, maybe so?