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

Re: Etesla6 math questions



Original poster: "Peter Lawrence by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <Peter.Lawrence-at-Sun.COM>

Terry,
       set the electric potential of the enclosing gaussian surface to zero
volts. Hmmm, zero volts, does that make sense? wouldn't zero volts have to
be at "infinitely far away", not as up close as a sphere of radius maybe only
twice or three times the TC height?

 >
 > http://hot-streamer-dot-com/andrewb/models/models.htm
 >
These are really great pics! The difference between voltage and E-field is
something to ponder, I think Paul said the E-field is the gradient of the
voltage - makes sense if you think about break down voltage for sparks is
actually volts-per-meter not just volts.


thanks again,
sorry to be asking so many dumb questions, I hope there are other readers
that are appreciating the repies as much as I am,

Pete Lawrence.





Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>

Hi Peter,

At 07:15 PM 2/3/2003 -0800, you wrote:
 >Paul or Terry,
 >               your replies have provided a lot of insight, but I've 
still got
 >questions, starting with:
 >
 >6. what exactly are the known boundary conditions in Etesla6, now that
 >    we agree on where the boundaries are (the enclosing sphere, and the
 >    surface of the TC secondary and toroid).    It seems we know the voltage
 >    of the toroid and the voltage along the secondary by assumption, but we
 >    don't know either the voltage or the E-field at the sphere... it seems
 >    you have to know all the boundary conditions to do SOR or similar...

E-Tesla6 assumes the areas around the coil are at zero volts.  It also
assumes the primary and strike rails are grounded too.  The top sphere is
charged to say one volt and the secondary is charged according to some
voltage profile.  That totally defines all the boundaries:

http://hot-streamer-dot-com/andrewb/models/models.htm


 >
 >7. I always assumed Coulombs law was inverse square (like Newtonian gravity)
 >    rather than just plain inverse, guess I never actually checked. Is there
 >    a handy intuitive explanation.

I think it is.  But I always just used "Gausses law" stuff for
E-Tesla.  Everything else just works out automatically...

Cheers,

          Terry