[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Primary field strength
----------
From: chris.swinson [SMTP:chris.swinson-at-zetnet.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 8:58 AM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Primary field strength
Hi Malcolm & All.....
>From: Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
>Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 1998 4:00 PM
>To: Tesla List
>Subject: Re: Primary field strength
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>> From: chris.swinson [SMTP:chris.swinson-at-zetnet.co.uk]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 1998 3:48 PM
>> To: Tesla List
>> Subject: Re: Primary field strength
>>
><snip>
>> so if the field is that big, I could easily make a 200" secondary, as it
>> appears the field is huge when the caps are included. Ok, I could not do
>> this as I only have 80" hight in my room. But you see what I'm getting
at.
>>
>> This was only 1 gap as well, If I used all 5 gaps , the field would
probably
>> go 100's of yards away. So what stopping me from building a bigger
>> secondary ?
>
>The problem can summarised thus: You are transferring a fixed amount
>of energy from the primary cap to the secondary capacitance with each
>gap fire. Each gap fire is separate from every other. There is no
>accumulation in the secondary with successive gap fires. The
>capacitance of the secondary rises with its size.
>
I'm not 100% sure of what you getting at. Are you saying that if I did
build a 200" high seconday and ( theory ) had the same capacitance as my 36"
seconday, it would in fact give me a huge power increase ?
>Since Vo = Vgap*SQRT(Cp/Cs), you can see what is happening to your
>output voltage as your secondary gets larger. Taken to an extreme, if
>your secondary capacitance ends up being as big as the primary one,
>secondary voltage only reaches that of the primary assuming no loss
>in effecting the energy transfer.
>
Could you explain your calc a little better, Perhaps with a example or 5.
Chris.
>Malcolm
><snip>
>
>
>