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

Voltage/Length -> reactive losses


----------
From:  John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
Sent:  Sunday, February 01, 1998 6:20 PM
To:  Tesla List
Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses


  Jim, Malcolm -

  On rereading this post I have a question.

  By "energy lost to stray coupling" are you inferring this is a "reactive
loss"? If so, what are the equations involved? This is very important to the
operation of Tesla coils.

  Are there other coilers that have taken this into consideration?

  John Couture

------------------------------------------------------------

At 11:11 PM 1/29/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>----------
>From:  Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
>Sent:  Thursday, January 29, 1998 2:45 PM
>To:  Tesla List
>Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
>
>Hi Jim,
>
>> From:  Jim Monte [SMTP:JDM95003-at-UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU]
>> Sent:  Wednesday, January 28, 1998 11:46 AM
>> To:  tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
>> 
>> 
>> >From:  John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
>> >Sent:  Wednesday, January 28, 1998 2:17 AM
>> >To:  Tesla List
>> >Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length (fwd)
>> >
>> < big snip >
>> >  Note that energy and power transfer between the pri and sec circuits is
>> >always 100 percent (Skilling). This is easily understood. The transfer is by
>> >induction and there are no losses in inductive reactance. Also, there are no
>> >equations for losses in inductive or capacitive reactances. The coil
>> >resistance losses and the capacitor dissipation losses are all Ohms law (not
>> >reactive)  losses.
>> 
>>   Unfortunately, any loss is still a loss and will reduce total energy
>>   available to do other things.  Talking about "reactive losses",
>>   how about energy lost to stray coupling to other objects?  For
>>   example, has anyone looked into losses due to coupling of the
>>   primary to a good earth ground as a function of primary distance
>>   above ground?  Is this negligible?
>
>You are quite right. It is not negligible. You can easily measure a 
>change in Q if you move a good primary further away from the floor.
>Your note on the losses is appreciated. I have tried to make the same 
>point on other occasions.
>
>Malcolm
><snip>
>
>
>