[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwrRE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr
Tesla List wrote:
>
> >From couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-netMon Oct 7 21:28:47 1996
> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 03:28:08 +0000
> From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-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
>
> At 04:57 AM 10/4/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >From gowin-at-epic-1.nwscc.sea06.navy.milThu Oct 3 22:48:08 1996
> >Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:56:35 -0000
> >From: Dan Gowin <gowin-at-epic-1.nwscc.sea06.navy.mil>
> >To: "'tesla-at-pupman-dot-com'" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> >Subject: RE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr
> >
> >
> >
> >----------
> >From: Tesla List[SMTP:tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com]
> >Sent: Thursday, October 03, 1996 12:24 AM
> >To: Tesla-list-subscribers-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
> >Subject: RE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr
> >
> >>From couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-netWed Oct 2 22:53:33 1996
> >Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 21:55:59 +0000
> >From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >Subject: RE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr
> >
> >At 04:25 AM 10/2/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >>From gowin-at-epic-1.nwscc.sea06.navy.milTue Oct 1 21:46:43 1996
> >>Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 08:17:53 -0000
> >>From: Dan Gowin <gowin-at-epic-1.nwscc.sea06.navy.mil>
> >>To: "'tesla-at-pupman-dot-com'" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> >>Subject: RE: Arc length vs pwr
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----------
> >>From: Tesla List[SMTP:tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com]
> >>Sent: Saturday, September 28, 1996 5:25 PM
> >>To: Tesla-list-subscribers-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
> >>Subject: Re: Arc length vs pwr
> >>
> >>>From couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-netSat Sep 28 14:51:15 1996
> >>Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 17:22:14 +0000
> >>From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> >>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >>Subject: Re: Arc length vs pwr
> >>
> >
> > <big snip>
> >I
> still have a hard time
> >believing my current system has a 50% efficiency rating. The laws of
> physics have been broken
> >here some how.
> > I have conducted some careful measurements on my equipement and all of the
> >values I've mentioned before are correct, with two exceptions. My neon
> transformer pulls 14 Amps,
> >not 9.9, and my capacitor banks rating falls off dramatically when its hot.
> This last bit of information
> >I'm not surprised about.
> > I've just recently completed a stacked plate polyethylene capacitor bank,
> to replace my
> >current bank. But with the added prospects about how ineffecient home grown
> capacitors could
> >be, maybe I'll be disappointed.
> >
> >D. Gowin
> > [Part 2, Application/MS-TNEF 4.4KB]
> > [Unable to print this part]
> >
> >Dan -
>
> I ran your new info thru the JHCTES computer program. For 120 volts, 14 amps
> = 1680 watts input with a 19.0 mh secondary the program shows 640 watts per
> foot of spark and an overall efficiency of 31.2%. Your coil appears to be
> similar to a typical coil with this new wattage.
>
> You said you did not believe your coil was 50% efficient and that the laws
> of physics were broken. How do you calculate the efficiency of your Tesla
> coils? Also, how did you determine the laws of physics were broken?
>
> What are you using for a primary capacitor that gets hot during operation?
> If you are careful building a homemade capacitor it might work better than
> the one you are using now. Richard Hull can give you plenty of good
> instructions for building your own capacitors.
>
> Jack Couture
I'll have to go with jack on this one and even go one better. I would
kill to obtain 50% efficiency in a Tesla coil just once in my life before
I die!!!!
If one looks at the losses on a casual basis:
Transformation ~2-4%
Current limiting ~10%
Tank circuit and switching losses ~10-25%
Magnetic primary/secondary coupling factor K=.15 (quiet heavy) 85%
secondary losses ~5%
These losses cannot be just summed, either. They are taken off the
preceeding losses remaining energy.
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
Whittles it down doesn't it? Now these figures are based on good
esitmates of averaged energy from power plug to flaming spark output. We
see that 10% efficiency of conversion is incredibly good. 25% would be a
Godsend. Magnifiers can triple this output figure, but only in the
higher power ranges. Finally part of that output energy is RF radiation
and not spark!!!! A well designed coil will have very little radiative
losses however, as its output is designed for hopefully high local air
loses from spark.
The above losses are probably not all the loses attendant, but probably
covers many of the important ones.
Richard Hull, TCBOR