Re: Re. Reactive to resistive ballast ratio of sqrt(3):1 ? (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 07:13:23 -0700
From: Jim Lux <jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Re. Reactive to resistive ballast ratio of sqrt(3):1 ? (fwd)
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 15 May 98 14:33:09 EDT
> From: Gary Lau 15-May-1998 1423 <lau-at-hdecad.ENET.dec-dot-com>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re. Reactive to resistive ballast ratio of sqrt(3):1 ?
> My experience has only been with NST-based coils, small potatoes by some
> standards, so I have no experience with inductive and resistive ballast.
> But this got me to thinking, could NST-based coils also benefit from this
> analysis? Most NST coilers use some sort of R/C/L network between the
> main gap and the NST for protecting the NST. Analysis of these networks
> has focused solely on their protective merit. Could these networks also
> be affecting coil performance? Certainly a much harder problem to model,
> given the lack of a good model for current-limited transformers.
There is a good model of a NST. Consider it as an ideal transformer with a
series R and series L. The series L represents the leakage inductance, the
series R represents the winding resistance. You can determine both from
standard transformer measurements with the secondary shorted and open. The
parasitic C might be a bit trickier to measure/model.