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

30 BPS, 60 BPS tests





----------
From:  Greg Leyh [SMTP:lod-at-pacbell-dot-net]
Sent:  Monday, March 23, 1998 2:45 AM
To:  Tesla List
Subject:  Re: 30 BPS, 60 BPS tests

John H. Couture wrote:


>   What must be determined is the total amount of instantaneous energy in the
> bangs that are involved with a particular extra long spark. This would be
> the instantaneous input wattage x dt times the number of bangs. To my
> knowledge no one has ever done this or even suggested a method of
> implemating this kind of measurement. Are there any suggestions for making
> these measuremts?

-----------------------------------------------------
Subject:  Re: How should we measure coil efficiency
   Date:  Sun, 20 Jul 1997 12:14:57 -0800
   From:  Greg Leyh <lod-at-pacbell-dot-net>
     To:  Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>

John Freau wrote:

> I agree that a standard method for measuring coil efficiency is needed.
> I've said all along that the method I'm advocating ignores "true" (energy
> in vs. energy out) efficiency, and that it is more of a practical method
> for measurement.  I've also suggested that sometimes a practical method
> has more value than a "scientific" method...it all depends on what we are
> trying to accomplish.
> 
> Maybe some more of the list members will join the discussion.


GOODNESS = (spark length to grounded terminal)  vs. (Energy in Cpri) X
BPS

[snip]
The above figure of merit is also easy to measure -- all that is
required
is a tape measure and a voltmeter.

-GL
-----------------------------------------------------

>   Apparently the exact process of what is going on in the TC system to
> produce the extra long spark is not completely known. What is known is that
> it could require the energy of more than one bang to create that extra long
> spark. 

YAY!

[snip]
> This means that energy from a previous bang is stored somehow in the
> secondary circuit to be added to the energy from the next bang. 

Not observed in actual operating coils.  
The ion persistance argument works much better.

-GL