[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why does top capacitance work? (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 01:31:39 +0000
From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <mod1-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Why does top capacitance work? (fwd)
At 04:00 AM 2/28/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 07:52:47 +1200
>From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Why does top capacitance work? (fwd)
>
>A brief comment on this idea from John....
>
><snip>
>> I would be interested in hearing comments on how the true wattage input
>> could be metered so we can compare the classical TC with the magnifier.
>>
>> John Couture
>
>I think the comparison can only truly be made if k is the same for
>each system. A true power meter which takes the phase angles into
>account should do the trick shouldn't it?
>
>Malcolm
>
>----------------------------------------------
Malcolm -
I believe the comparisons should be made using the K that produces the
maximum spark for the system. This is because the magnifier system requires
a high K secondary but the classical coil uses a lower K. Only the input
wattage would be fixed.
I often wondered if a critically coupled classical coil would be superior to
other combinations. I do not believe a critically coupled coil has ever been
built. There are several parameters that have to be coordinated. Rp would
have to equal Rs and Lm = sqrt(RpRs)/(6.283 F). Also Lm = K sqrt(LpLs).
Note that critical coupling involves more than only a single hump test.
A true power wattmeter could be an electronic meter. Refer to Dave Sharpe's
post. Phase angles could be ignored if you are only interested in true wattage.
However, if you are the supplier, you would be interested in the phase angle
because this involves reactive currents you would have to supply.
John H. Couture