Re: Musein' and mathin'

To: tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Musein' and mathin'
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:46:15 -0600
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

From: richard hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
Subject: Re:  Musein' and mathin'
>
>Richard:
>       3 megawatts is still a lot of power!  I suspect some of
>your musings are a bit pessimistic.  Biggest unknown is the real
>secondary impedance under breakdown conditions, and therefor the
>therefore the actual coupling conditions.  However, as far as
>where the power goes, consider the heating.  Obviously a lot of
>heat goes into the spark gap, but the rest has to go into the
>tuned circuits.  You can guess how much is dissipated in the
>primary by observing the temperature of the components (primarily
>the inductor if you have a good capacitor, not the doorknobs I
>use here).  I think you will conclude that the heating is not
>commensurate with 300 watts or so dissipated, and you could check
>that by feeding current through the primary until you get
>the same temperature.
>       Anyhow, what's the difference?  3 megawatts is still a lot of power!
>And, it's all for fun.
>Ed
>
>Ed,

I agree with all of what you say, and the post was designed to have
folks
think before they math and then after the thoughtful math, don't take
the
results to the bank or get real vehemently attached to your result.

I personally see no real reason why 50% of the input couldn't find its
way
to the output, but I have no real reason for this assumption due to my
limited sensory perception.  Engineers view any such system as a
mechanism
of heat losses, and assume these are the bulk of the loss.  This last
assumption is key and is held only because we are used to viewing the
dregs
of energy usage this way. 

 Ultimately, in the article update, I erred on the ultra-cautious side
and
went with 3 megawatts peak power for publication.

Richard Hull, TCBOR