[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Gap Dwell Times (formerly: Beating Solved)
[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]
----------
> From: Tesla List <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
> To: Tesla-list-subscribers-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Gap Dwell Times (formerly: Beating Solved)
> Date: Wednesday, October 09, 1996 11:58 PM
>
> >From bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-comWed Oct 9 22:50:21 1996
> Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 20:58:31 -0700
> From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Gap Dwell Times (formerly: Beating Solved)
>
Sorry Bert
big snip here-
> 10-15% of the optimal value. Dave could probably punch-in a slightly
> different set of gap opening times on his model to simulate this effect
> graphically as well (hint, hint...).
I see some people have gotten the quench pictures from my FTP site.
For me a picture helps to congeal the talk going on here about quench times
and
energy transfer between primary and secondary. I have some more
pictures/simulations
WRT different gap times.
I have added pictures that show secondary levels at each zero voltage cross
of the primary.
These are only valid for the coupling of 0.1 I should have done this at
0.02 OOPS 8?( but
it made the process faster.
Of course, as Bert stated, if the secondary sparks to soon, quench time
will not be as
important an issue. If someone says the quench time should be 10us they are
wrong. The time
must be related to the frequency and coupling of the coil system.
It has taken me a while to catch on, but I'm starting to see some of what's
been said, by the gurus in
this group, over the last year. Synergy certainly applies.
Dave - boulders and flame throwers as needed.
>
> Whew!! This is _heavy_ stuff! Think I'll go play with some sparks now...
>
> As usual, flames, semantic corrections, and insults are heartily
> welcomed! :^)
>
>
> -- Bert --
>
> <The mother of all snips...>
>
> > Richard and all
> >
> > This brings up a question which has been on my mind for a long, long
> > time.
> >
> > If we only want the primary to ring up for 1/2 cycle .... why is it
> > necessary that the primary and secondary be correctly tuned? I know
this
> > to be true and you know that I continue to try to build a 1/4 wave
> > secondary but I still can't put it together. Why can't we just closely
> > couple the primary to the secondary and jam the power in? I guess I
need
> > something physical to put picture what is going on. I will certainly
> > appreciate any light that the group can shed on this.
> >
> > Skip Greiner
>