Re: More arc simulations

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: More arc simulations
• From: "Mark S. Rzeszotarski, Ph.D." <msr7-at-po.cwru.edu> (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
• Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:37:47 -0600
• Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com

Hello All:
Terry said in part:
<snip> 
>     The DC resistance of my secondary is 70 ohms but if I set the quenching 
>to first notch with no breakout, it tests as 270 ohms judging from the 
>ringdown time.  This does not quite make sense in the real world components 
>and such.  I should probably set the primary resistance to the AC resistance 
>of the coil and use a high value resistor from the output to ground to 
>simulate the secondary's natural no-breakout ringdown time.  The losses 
>would be the same but the model would then "look" more realistic since this 
>resistance could represent corona or dielectric losses in the secondary's 
>capacitance.  That would be about 10 watts.  This is not significant if the 
>coil is arcing but this resistance does insure the model will track the real 
>coil's performance under non-arc conditions.  Of course, the skin depth of 
>the secondary wiring pushes the DC resistance up but I don't think it would 
>be as high as 270 ohms.  I'll have to sit down and calculate this 
>however....
        I calculated your coil resistance some time ago and came up with 227
ohms, with DC resistance, skin effects and proximity effects taken into
account.  The calculation does not take into account dielectric losses and
radiative losses.  I think your 270 ohm value is VERY realistic for this
coil system.
Regards,
Mark S. Rzeszotarski, Ph.D.

• Prev: Re: NST Resonant Charging?
• Next: Re: Fw: Arc Impedance Study - Computer Models
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread