[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Gap Losses



Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >> >> >Subject: Gap Losses
> >> >Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >> >> >Subject: Gap Losses
> 
> >From couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-netTue Oct  1 21:50:44 1996
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:18:13 +0000
> From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> 
> At 04:26 AM 10/1/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >
> >From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-comMon Sep 30 22:17:58 1996
> >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 11:15:54 -0700
> >From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
> >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >
> >> >From couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-netSat Sep 28 14:56:07 1996
> >> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 18:39:56 +0000
> >> From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> >> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >>
> >> At 04:26 AM 9/27/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >> >> >Subject: Gap Losses
> >> >
> >> >From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-comThu Sep 26 21:46:35 1996
> >> >Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 10:11:00 -0700
> >> >From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
> >> >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >> >Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >> >>
> >> >> >From couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-netWed Sep 25 22:10:41 1996
> >> >> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 22:08:02 +0000
> >> >> From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> >> >> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >> >> Subject: Re: Gap Losses
> >> >>
> >> >> At 04:25 AM 9/25/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >> >> >From rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-comTue Sep 24 22:21:55 1996
> >> >> >Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 04:18:51 -0700
> >> >> >From: Richard Wayne Wall <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>
> >> >> >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >> >> >Subject: Gap Losses
> >> >> >
> >
> >
> >Megasnip
> >
> >
> >> The 'easy way' test would have to be with a complete Tesla coil operating
> >> with a continuous stream of sparks from the secondary terminal (length not
> >> important). The load at the ammeter could then be considered at almost 100%
> >> POWER FACTOR. The advantage of this test, of course, is that many coilers
> >> have the equipment to try it but very few coilers, if any, will be able to
> >> do the other three tests.
> >>
> >> I must admit the above is based on estimates made by me and all comments are
> >> welcome.
> >> I would be especially interested in comments from R. Hull and R. Wall.
> >>
> >> Jack Couture
> >> JHC Engineering
> >> San Diego, CA

THE  OLD.......
> >
> >Jack,
> >
> >I agree with all you say, but to me, the power input to my system is
> >based on what I pay Virginia Power for runnin' the thing at the meter
> >base.  Power output is the actual power contained in the sparks
> >themselves.  The latter is very tough to measure.  I still would imagine
> >that 20% return on the input power is a darned good coil.
> >
> >Richard Hull, TCBOR>


THE  NEW.....

Jack,
> >
> >I agree with all you say, but to me, the ENERGY input to my system is
> >based on what I pay Virginia Power for runnin' the thing at the meter
> >base FOR PERIOD OF TIME.  ENERGY output is the actual ENERGY contained in the sparks
> >themselves.  The latter is very tough to measure.  I still would imagine
> >that 20% return on the input ENERGY is a darned good coil.
> >
> >Richard Hull, TCBOR

Same statement different verbage... Still a true paragraph



SNIP


> 
> I would appreciate it if you would perform the test I described with one of
> your operating coils and advise us of the results. It would help pin down
> the estimated losses in the spark gap. Still waiting for comments from R.
> Wall who started all this discussion.
> 
> Jack Couture

Jack,


I still can't see how presicely measuring the the input energy (even to 
the nearest microwatt)  Would give us even the remotest idea of gap 
losses when there are a lot of circuit losses starting at the power cord 
in the wall through the ballasts, transformers, variacs, capacitor and 
primary circuit.  The gap is of course the biggest loser of energy, but 
the ballast system would be right on its heels.  

In my water arc explosion work, (uses a simple capacitve discharge 
circuit with a switch or a gap), I have found that the gap or switch 
losses are often between 30 and 40% of the input energy. and the 
inductive tank circuit (wiring and capacitor) is good for another 10%.  I 
have changed the wiring by 1 foot plus or minus and get another gain or 
loss of 5%.  The stuff is just too touchey to pin something down relating 
to the gap alone with generalizations made from one measurement way back 
at the head end.  System efficiency would demand a precise measure of the 
output energy (spark) which can't be done by the use of common 
instruments.

Using the ammeter in the power transformer secondary circuit won't do 
much for us either, as the gap is a dead short across the transformer 
secondary when firing.  It might tell us more about the percent impedance 
of our transformer than gap losses.

True gap losses can only be obtained with a wideband CT in series with 
the tank circuit components and a simultaneous voltage measurement across 
the gap. Integrating these with time will show the actual energy expended 
in the gap which can then be subtracted from the input energy to yeild 
still another inaccurate idea about how much energy reaches the Tesla 
primary. (Circuit losses and magnetic losses in the Tesla primary circuit 
are still ignored.)

The gap losses are ever changing throughout its conduction period.  The 
drain on the power line or mains is increased during this time by 
shorting of the power transformer.  Resonant energy from the discharging 
capacitor in the tank circuit is just one of the currents which flow 
though the gap when it is firing.

Richard Hull, TCBOR