RE: CAPACITOR ORDER
Subject: RE: CAPACITOR ORDER
From: richard.quick-at-slug-dot-org (Richard Quick)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 21:03:00 GMT
>Received: from uustar.starnet-dot-net by ns-1.csn-dot-net with SMTP id AA01196 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com>); Tue, 28 Mar 1995 19:22:53 -0700
Quoting Chip Atkinson:
CA> As I understand it, if you increase the capacitance, the
CA> inductance must then be decreased (all other things being
CA> constant). This means that you will tap the primary coil at
CA> a fewer number of turns. I believe that the frequency
CA> equation is f = 1/((LC)**1/2) (that's 1/2 power, or square
CA> root). Therefore to maintain a constant f, LC must be
CA> constant. Chip
True. But what we are saying (and Ed Sonderman's preliminary
experiments verify) is that as the primary inductance decreases,
the power processing efficiency of the system drops
correspondingly. This has nothing to do with tune.
It is quite possible to maintain a nice sharp tune by adding a
larger capacitor, then decreasing the primary inductance. But the
reduced inductance in the primary also reduces the system
efficiency = no real gain in system power processing. Ed
Sonderman is attempting to apply both the maximum possible
primary inducatance, and the maximum tank circuit capacitance,
using his existing coils. He wants just enough capacitance to
tune with his 14 turn primary tapped all the way out.
If he wanted to maintain this efficiency and apply more input
power he has to reduce the secondary frequency by adding a larger
toriod, then add additional tank circuit capacitance. By fiddling
around he can add another .01 mfd of capacitance, and still have
his tank circuit in tune with the primary tapped at 14 turns.
... If all else fails... Throw another megavolt across it!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12