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

Fw: frequency (fwd)


>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:56:53 -0500
>From: Marius Grigoriu <compwiz-at-stratos-dot-net>
>To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>Subject: Re: frequency
>
>Tesla List wrote:
>
>> Original Poster: "Trent" <trent-at-iex-dot-net>
>>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Q:  Is it possible to have an input frequency greater than the 60 cycles
going
>> to the spark gap/primary, and if so, how?
>>
>> Thx,
>>           AT
>
>Again, I am posting to learn, so if I'm wrong, don't get mad :)
>
>The whole idea of the spark gap and capacitor is to convert those 60 or 50
cycles
>to RF current so it can resonate with the secondary. If you have a current
source
>of the right frequency, you should be able to take it directly to the
primary,
>skipping the gap.
>
>Am I correct in my statments?
>Marius Grigroiu
>


Dear Marius et al,

  Hmmm...your question is interesting and somewhat akin to what I am seeking
to understand; however my aim is NOT to eliminate the spark gap as it is the
source of the damped wave (DW) oscillations I feel are important in my work.

  I am working with electromedical devices and am attempting to understand
the relationship between the frequency of the incoming voltage/current
 typically 60 cps) with regard to the charging of the capacitor and the
breaks per second (bps) of the spark gap.  It appears that the maximum bps
with a static gap are limited to 120.

  This limit doesn't appear to apply to a rotary gap.  My questions:  How
does the use of a rotary gap effect the charging of the capacitor, the break
down of the gap and the power transfer across the gap, when subject to the
typical incoming frequency?  Aren't we sacrificing power by increasing the
bps?  Is it possible, say by using a higher frequency input, to increase the
charge to the capacitor, thereby increasing the power across the gap,
resulting in greater effectiveness of the system?

  I'm looking at the possibility of using a 400cps input in an attempt to
realize greater efficiency from a rotary gap system; any input/feedback is
welcomed.


  Thanx and best regards,
                                                  Trent