[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Optimal Quenching
Subject:
> Re: Optimal Quenching
Date:
Tue, 18 Mar 1997 09:39:17 -0800
From:
Skip Greiner <sgreiner-at-wwnet-dot-com>
Organization:
Greiner, Ltd.
To:
Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
References:
1
Tesla List wrote:
>
> Subject:
> Re: Optimal Quenching
> Date:
> Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:45:41 +1200
> From:
> "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
> Organization:
> Wellington Polytechnic, NZ
> To:
> tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>
> Hi John (Freau), all,
> Firstly, John requested a description of my
Big Snip
> A final note about the MOSFET experiments: anyone (everyone) who
> uses either transformers with leakage inductance built-in (neons) or
> near perfect transformers (pigs) with "current-limiting" inductors
> attached should know that current-limiting applies *only* to limiting
> the transformer current in the gap. It has exactly the opposite
> effect when charging the primary cap because the two form a resonant
> circuit of rather high Q.
Malcolm
Are you saying that if a cap is "matched" to a neon (ie., a .021uf for a
15kv-at-120ma neon) then it would be possible to charge the cap to the peak
neon voltage (or more) more than once each half cycle of the mains. If
so it seems to me that our poor old neon will be able to deliver
sustantially more power than the nameplate implies?
Skip
In many ways it is a Catch-22. There is an
> obvious need to reduce transformer discharge current in the gap (to
> zero if possible), and yet let the reactance of the primary cap at
> mains frequency control its charging current and hence final voltage.
> The relevance of all this to my experiments? At low rep rates and
> with a charging choke between the supply and primary cap, the energy
> stored in the choke was able to charge Cp to near 60V from a 6V
> supply!!
>
> Malcolm