Re: Designing an optimized Magnifier

Bert Hickman wrote:

> Great summary and waveform examples, and a special thanks for
> discovering and correcting the formula errors from the original
> Bieniosek papers! If you were to include the effects of typical gap and
> other system losses (N/I streamers), do you have any recommendations for
> a specific combination of k,l,m to obtain best practical performance?

The first paper had expressions with errors that I didn't identify,
but a correct equation for L3/L2, that was missing in the second
paper. The second paper had also an error in the expression for L1C1.
The expression for k12 I deduced from the second paper, that consider
the coupling adding L2 and L3.

The effect of gap and streamer losses is difficult to assert,
as the equivalent resistances depend on many parameters. 
Apparently, the 1,2,3 combination is the most efficient regarding
resistive losses in the coils, as it results in oscillations of
lower frequency for a given transfer time, what reduces losses due 
to skin effect in the wires and irradiation.
(But this may require larger inductances, and so more wire, and
more resistance...)
I didn't find any reference to these different magnifier regimes,
other than the Bieniosek papers, that mention only the 123 and 125
systems. Other configurations are very probably something never
I will try to add losses to the examples that I have simulated
to see if there is some significant difference in the effect of
losses in the different modes (but I will have to think about a
realistic way to compute equivalent resistances representing
these losses).
I will also make available a simulator that can compute element
values for the several configurations and plot easily the waveforms.

Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz