[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: More arc simulations
Tesla List wrote:
> Original Poster: Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> At 12:17 AM 10/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
> snip
> >All had just a few things in common, inspite of their own unique slants.
> They all
> >used small caps, large primary inductances, extremly large secondary
> inductances,
> >and finally, greatly outsized toroidal capacities.
>
> I assume by "small caps" you meant that they used caps that could be
> efficiently charged given the break rate. They weren't really using
> "undersized" caps were they?
..........................................I suppose that is one way to look at
it. .05ufd for 10,000 watts would, in the 80's and early 90's , by the common
wisdomthen, been considered insainly small. regardless of break rate. 2KW
with a
.009 would have really turned heads. Static gaps outperforming common
rotaries
at 5KW would have been unthinkable. Coil sizes have shrunk drastically per
unit
energy input. This is mostly due to terminal sizing and not some mathematical
breakthrough or successful model. The models only give use a platform to
understand and expalin that which is aleady achieved. All these things
were done
here and by others. In that sense, much has changed. R Hull
.........................................
>
>
> Increasing the inductances and toroid size does the following: It
> increases the number of notches the system sees, lowers the frequency, and
> increases the total time the output arcs last. However if taken to too far,
> the losses catch up and performance starts to fall back. The output voltage
> begins to fall back as well. Although, the system is able to "drive" the
arc
> much longer.
> There is probably an ideal region where the arc performance is best
> given a number of input constraints. Unfortunately, very drastic changes
> in coil geometry change the losses to areas my models can't see yet (not
> enough data). So I can't predict what would be best. However, the
> principles involved are very apparent. Since I like 15kV/60mA neons as an
> input, there is apparently some optimal size and component values that will
> produce the "best" arcs given this input. Even though my coil is rather
> large compared to most in it's power range, I suspect it should be somewhat
> larger still for best performance.
>
> You also mentioned, in an earlier post, that "RF radiation" was "our
> number one enemy". Personally, I don't worry about this very much at all.
> I use the usual heavy grounding and all that. Why is it our enemy? Have I
> missed something?
>
> Thanks,
> Terry
Terry,
Every watt that becomes classic electromagnetic radiation is energy gone
from the
arc channel. All this assumes air arcs are what we are after and not
communications. The suppression of RF is a laudible aim. The shunting of
this
energy from radiation to channel current would be a laudable design goal.
Overall, we should try to divest ourselves from the concepts of doing any
sort of
textbook RF engineering with associated maximized Q's unity VSWRs, etc, etc.
Instead crtical thinking about what our load is and the funneling of energy to
the air is our goal. Sort of a virtual perfection of maximized loss from the
operationg system just short of the destruction of the engine in question.
Richard Hull, TCBOR