Re: Solid state gaps beginners questions? (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:32:46 -0400
From: Scott Bogard <teslas-intern@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Solid state gaps beginners questions? (fwd)

Matt and all,
     I thought up another, possibly better idea, but once again, do not have 
any clue if it would work at all in real life or even just in theory (or be 
worth trying).  What if you had only 2 switching devices on separate chains 
facing opposite polarities, and then instead of more transistors in the 
chain, you filled it with diodes, so when it conducts the voltage drop 
across the switches would be small, but synchronizing firings is not an 
issue, and the diodes would not conduct until an "easy" path was established 
by opening the transistor.  You would need at least two chains, one to 
conduct in either direction, as the coil "rings", and enough pairs to carry 
the tank current, and one could rig up a timer chip to do the switching at 
asynchronous speeds, so the BPS could be adjusted lending for much 
experimental license.  My gut tells me, it wouldn't work this way, unless 
the internal resistance of both the diodes and transistors were carefully 
chosen, minimizing the load on the switch (and the resistance in the tank 
did not end up too high, but one could just add more chains to fix that), 
and assuming one found a way to completely isolate the timer from all 
possible HV, but once again, just curious.
Scott Bogard.
P.S.  My thanks to everybody who provided me with answers to my other 
questions, maybe someday I'll try building a real DRSSTC or SISG solid sate 
coil, but for now it is still a little too complicated my mechanical 
(non-electrical) mind!
>
>
>
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>I can answer one of the questions. In principle, an array would work.
>However, finding the required number of components with  characteristics 
>that
>identical, and switching them with absolute  synchronicity would be very 
>unlikely.
>Without identical turn-off and  turn-on, you would have unbalanced loads
>resulting in what I believe would be  catastrophic failure.
>
>Matt D.
>
>
>
>************************************** See what's free at 
>http://www.aol.com.
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from Microsoft 
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0540003042mrt/direct/01/