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: GE Leyh <lod-at-pacbell-dot-net>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 20:12:49 +0000

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

<snip>

>  Thus, prior to magnetic coupling we had 794 watts in primary magnetic
> energy and after this energy coupled to the secondary we only had 119
> watts introduced into the secondary.  The biggest losses are in coupling
> the magnetic energy to the secondary.  Unless you are using iron cores at
> low frequencies, magnetic couplng is a real losser.  BIG TIME!!!!  Air
> cores are LOSS CITY!
> 
> Richard Null, TCBOR


Any theories as to where the energy goes that is lost due to coupling?

-GL