[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Modeling a magnifier
----------
From: Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 1998 3:52 PM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Modeling a magnifier
Hi Antonio, all,
> From: Antonio C. M. de Queiroz [SMTP:acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 10:08 PM
> To: Tesla List
> Subject: Re: Modeling a magnifier
>
> Malcolm Watts wrote:
>
> > It is beginning to look as if a number of aspects of
> > Antonio's modelling is correct.
>
> Well, physics cannot be so wrong... Your system uses L3>>L2, right?
> (What are the inductance and capacitance values?)
L2 was 355uH, L3 is about 5uH from memory (notes at home).
> In this condition C2 is small, and the system can only resonate
> producing beats while the primary is connected, as in the first model
> that I proposed. As Jim McVey observed, it is impractical to have a
> distributed C2 such that L2*C2=(L2+L3)*C3, what would produce beats
> after the opening of the spark gap (second model, with C2), if L2<<L3.
> There is another possible working behavior for the magnifier, that
> is the primary/secondary system being used as a CW generator, but
> most of the members appear to agree that this is practically impossible.
> (Or not?)
Not in a cap discharge system because the primary decrements as the
cap empties. No reason why not if the primary is driven from a CW
source. In this case, system Q limits final amplitude.
Malcolm