[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Optimal Quenching

Subject: 
            Re: Optimal Quenching
       Date: 
            Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:49:06 +1200
       From: 
            "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
Organization: 
            Wellington Polytechnic, NZ
         To: 
            tesla-at-pupman-dot-com


Hi John,
          I am writing a detailed note on why all this happens but I 
don't think the simulation is correct.....

> Some time ago, I had a discussion
> with
> Bert H. regarding just when splitting occurs.  His PSPICE models showed
> NO
> splitting before ~1/2kF.  Are you saying that splitting occurs at or
> beyond
> 1/2 cycle, but that it does not become "troublesome" (noticeable, or
> possible
> racing sparks, etc.) until after ~1/2kF?  Is it a matter of degree?  Is
> PSPICE correct?  I'd be most interested to hear your views.
> 
> Towards optimal coiling,
> 
> John Freau

.... because side frequency production is a necessary condition of 
the changing Fr amplitude. I'm reluctant to expand too much at this
point but briefly, consider that when the amplitude is changing 
continuously, the slope d(f(t))/d(t) is also changing and that change 
with respect to time corresponds to a frequency or frequencies that is 
not the resonant frequency. It *is* a matter of degree in my opinion. 
I think it must be happening even on the first quarter cycle but the 
relative amplitudes of the signals will change as the transfer 
proceeds and at that early point, the side frequency signal is almost 
buried in noise beside the main signal.
     I'm also going to try and arrive at an explanation for the shape 
of the beat envelope in terms of the amount of energy 
transferred/cycle or increments thereof.
     It would be nice to do this one justice because I think it's 
about time an understandable explanation based on the physical goings-
on was made available and it has made me think quite a bit over the 
weekend. I came to the conclusion that such an explanation can 
definitely be arrived at and moreover can be be made quite 
understandable without the need for screeds of mathematics (although 
a little will help).

I would like to hear all opinions on this. I could be quite wrong but 
I'd like to know why. This forum is ideal for the task and I know 
that others here are more mathematically inclined than I.  Bert?  Dr 
Rszesotarski?  Ed Phillips?  Greg?  Tim Chandler? (apologies to those 
I've missed).

Malcolm