[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Arc length vs pwr
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996 23:05:20 -0600 Tesla List <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
writes:
>>From MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nzWed Oct 16 22:59:56 1996
>Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 15:29:51 +1200
>From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Arc length vs pwr
>
>Hi Mark,
> I have a quick answer to your query....
>
><mucho snippo>
>
>> >I would image that any flux lines that are not common to both coils
>
>> >are
>> >just lost, provided they do not couple to something else nearby in
>> >either the expansion of collapse phase of the primary magnetic
>energy
>> >pulse. (ground, effective shorted turns, etc). Most of this
>magnetic
>> >
>> >energy would collapse back in on its source coil. (the primary).
>If
>> >we
>> >open it though, (quench the spark), the voltage induced in it is
>never
>> >
>> >forced to do work and is lost. Those flux lines common to both the
>> >secondary and the primary would induce voltage in the secondary as
>> >well
>> >as the primary. Some small amount of energy would most likely
>radiate
>> >away as RF obeying the inverse square law.
>> >
>> >Richard Hull, TCBOR
>> >
>
>Mark Graalman:
>> This is just a thought, but wouldn't any energy in the
>> primary tank that wasn't utilized in coupling to the
>> secondary simply remain in the primary as reactive power
>> creating a "standing wave" on the next primary half cylcle? I know
>what
>> I'm trying to say, I just don't know
>> if I'm saying it right <G>
>
>Only if the gap continues to conduct in which case the energy
>exchange between primary and secondary continues until totally
>lost (in my opinion).
>
>Malcolm
>
I agree, but would that not still be the case since the
gap conduction time no matter how fast the quenching will
always be long in period in comparision to the time
required for a 1/2 cycle at the primary frequency?
The half cycle period of a 100 Khz primary would be about .000005 sec
which as far as I know is a much shorter period of time than the quench
time of a spark gap.
Mark Graalman