[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Voltage/Length (fwd)




----------
From:  Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent:  Wednesday, January 28, 1998 2:36 PM
To:  Tesla List
Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length (fwd)

A comment:

> 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)
> 
> At 09:01 AM 1/27/98 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >----------
> >From:  Bert Hickman [SMTP:bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-com]
> >Sent:  Tuesday, January 27, 1998 9:12 AM
> >To:  Tesla List
> >Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length (fwd)
> >
> >Tesla List wrote:
> >> 
> >> ----------
> >> From:  John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
> >> Sent:  Monday, January 26, 1998 6:19 PM
> >> To:  Tesla List
> >> Subject:  Re: Voltage/Length (fwd)
> >> 
> >>   Antonio -
> >> 
> >>   How do you do the calcs for finding the secondary voltage per Greg Leyh's
> >> problem with 3 MV and 100 pf? Do you use this equation?
> 
> -----------------------------------   big snip 
> >
> >John and all,
> >
> >
> >  Vs(max) = F*Vgap*sqrt(Cp/Cs)  where 0.5 < F < 0.9 typically
> >
> >Now, if I have 1 bang/second or 400 bangs/second, the above equation
> >does not change! Vs does not increase with increasing input power levels
> >(although sparklength may for other reasons). Cs may increase a bit in
> >the latter case because of additonal ion-cloud loading. Also, the above
> >equation is only appropriate if I don't have loading from secondary
> >breakout.  
> 
> >----------------------------------   big snip-
> 
> p current is highest. John, something appears to be amiss somewhere in
> >the model you're using, or in the set of assumptions used for your
> >model. 
> >
> >Safe coilin' to you!
> >
> >-- Bert --
> >
> --------------------------------------------
> 
>   Bert -
> 
>   I agree the above equation does not change when bangs change. But what is
> your point in bringing in bangs? The above equation does not include joules
> (energy) or watts (power). However, the bangs determine the joules or watts.
> 
>        Joules (watt seconds) = .5 Cp Vp Bangs/eff
> 
>   It is obvious from the above equation that when bangs change the Joules
> will change. If the joules are not changed the charge on the capacitor will
> change and this is another type of problem.
> 
>   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.
> 
>   The model I am using is correct but may not be accurate because
> assumptions were made.

That statement is clearly an oxymoron (nee - a contradiction in 
terms)!

Malcolm

> 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.
> 
>   John Couture    
> 
> 
>