Re: OLTC update - Coupling figured out :-)

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "K. C. Herrick by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <kchdlh-at-juno-dot-com>

Jimmy (& all)-

Yes, you remind me that Terry's turns are in parallel whereas mine are in
series, and that does give him a whole lot less resistance.  But I think
that yields him exactly 1 turn, and not less than 1: you can't get from
here back to here in less than 1 turn.  I believe I could approach that
if I used IGBTs instead of MOSFETs, and 1 (equivalent) turn instead of 3.
 But I don't think IGBTs are going to switch satisfactorily at 140
KHz--unless they've been improved a lot since I last looked.

As to the efficiency of a s.s. switch in one configuration vs. the other,
I'd think it wouldn't matter much.  Not so?

Ken Herrick

On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 13:31:13 -0600 "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
writes:
> Original poster: "jimmy hynes by way of Terry Fritz 
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <chunkyboy86-at-yahoo-dot-com>
> 
> 
> the reason kens coil has such a slow ring up is that the switches 
> cant handle
> any more power. with most coils and the oltc that is not a problem, 
> because it
> is actually less stress on the switch the faster the energy is 
> transferred. in
> the oltc the turns are in parralell making it like less than one 
> turn instead
> of 3 turns. if you use ten big igbts in a s.s coil it would be 
> possible to get
> quick ring ups on even bigger coils. using a switch as a spark gap 
> isnt as
> efficient as using it in a s.s. coil 

[snipped]