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

Re: Theory of LTR



Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Gerry,

The number is (pie-4)/pie = 2.273
Which does not compare well (18% diff) to 2.8
I will clean up the simple (compared to say magic k values) derivation then
ask Terry to host a copy of it.
Perhaps someone can check it.

Note its not dependent on the break rate for a sync gap.

Robert (R. A.) Jones
A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
407 649 6400
----- Original Message -----

From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Theory of LTR


> Original poster: "Gerry Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Hi Bob, > > How did your results compare to the "standard" 2.8*Cres > recommendation for LTR value when using SRSG (at 120pps). > > Gerry R. > > > >Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >Hi Richard, > > > >The equivalent circuit is just for the SG and C. I used it with an NST to > >determine the C for the biggest bang. > > > >But its equally applicable to any ballast including inductive and > >inductive/resistive combination or primary ballast. > >It just requires that you can define the ballast impedance (constant > >impedance) so you can put that impedance in series with the equivalent > >circuit and do the ac analysis on it. > >The theory is applicable to a sync gap. But as a static gap has similar > >parameters in a LTR, STR sense you can use it for that as well. > > > >Robert (R. A.) Jones > >A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl > >407 649 6400 > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> > >To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> > >Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:01 AM > >Subject: Re: Theory of LTR > > > > > > > Original poster: "Dmitry (father dest)" <dest@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > I recently tried a different direction on the theoretical the optimum > > > > primary C (Cp) for a given inductive ballast (L) > > > > > > is it only for nst using case? coz i for example choose the ballast > > > for the Cp and the current i need, not vice-versa. > > > > > > ----- > > > The solution to no primary hits lay in getting rid of the primary! > > > This is no joke either. > > > 20-06-96 (c) Richard Hull, TCBOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >