[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Arc length vs pwr
[The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
snip
Hi Bert, All,
I agree with what you say if things were ideal. If, however, the Qp is in
the range of 10 or so then we lose quite a bit on each cycle, probably
half. It might therefore be beneficial to quench early and save some for
the next push. At some point we can't put much into ringing the primary and
time might be better spent on recharging Cp for the next bout.
Looking forward to a display in the dark.
Dave
> Mark, you've got the right idea, if not the precise wording! For
> example, if k=0.2, 80% of the primary flux NEVER intersects the
> secondary. However, this energy will be lost ONLY if we force the quench
> too soon! Assuming we let the gap continue to fire, almost _all_ of this
> energy gets "recycled" by reverse-charging the primary cap. The
> re-charged tank cap then provides energy for the the next
> expansion/contraction of primary flux. During each half cycle, the 20%
> of flux that DOES link to the secondary transfers 20% of the remaining
> primary energy to the secondary tank circuit. After about 5.5
> half-cycles, ALL of the primary's energy will have been transferred to
> the secondary (less gap/other losses). Barring premature breakout from
> the toroid, the BIG energy loser in the system is still the gap.
>
> However, quenching too soon will needlessly worsen coil losses.
>
> As usual, flames, catcalls, and overripe fruit are readily welcomed! :^)
>
> Safe, and optimally quenched, coilin' to ya!
>
> -- Bert --
>