Re: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwrRE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwrRE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr
• From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
• Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 05:44:46 +0000

At 04:58 AM 10/10/96 +0000, you wrote:
>From lod-at-pacbell-dot-netWed Oct  9 22:54:40 1996
>Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 20:28:36 +0000
>From: GE Leyh <lod-at-pacbell-dot-net>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwrRE: Arc length vs pwrRe:
Arc length vs pwr
>
>Richard Hull wrote:
> 
>> Example:  1000 watts input energy
>> watts remaining:
>>                                 best case       worst case
>> Transformation                  980 watts       960 watts
>> ballasting                      882             864
>> Tank/switching                  794             648
>> coupling                        119             97
>> secondary                       113             92
>
>
>Interesting figures.  I'm not sure that I'm reading this chart correctly.
>Is this chart stating that over half of the total losses occur in the
>primary and spark gap (794-119 = 675 Watts, best case)?
>

Richard -

Are you saying your coil that produces a 5 inch spark with 17 watts (41
watts per foot of spark) is about the same efficiency as a typical coil that
uses 500 watts per foot of spark or your nemesis that uses about 1200 watts
per foot of spark?

Jack

• Prev: Admin, weird From fields
• Next: Cap Failure
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread