Voltage/Length -> reactive losses

To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:14:59 -0600
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net


----------
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?

>
>  The model I am using is correct but may not be accurate because
>assumptions were made. For someone to say these assumptions are incorrect
>requires that they collect test data from several dozen coils and do the
>necessary calculations and graphs as I have done. This would make it
>possible to show where the assumptions should be changed. I am hoping that
>someone will do this so we can compare results.

  Actually, to disprove something only requires a single counter example.
  The person disproving something has the easy job in that sense.

>
>  John Couture
>
>

Jim Monte