Re: HV Arc Resistance

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: HV Arc Resistance
• From: Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>
• Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 20:22:58 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme
• In-Reply-To: <008901becd1b$eb585b80$8105acd4-at-chevy>
• References: <4.1.19990710132834.00a124c0-at-pop.dnvr.uswest-dot-net>

Hi Reinhard,

At 12:38 PM 7/13/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi Terry, Jim, John, all
>
snip........
>
>Here is where I have a question. If you soley run the primary tank
>system (i.e.: w/o the secondary), won´t this REALLY stress the
>cap and primary, as the energy has no where to go? I thought this
>was the reason why you included the coupling factor in your first
>MMC power handling equations. Also wouldn´t the presence of
>a secondary have an effect on the *real* ringdown time, as it
>absorbs some of the primary energy? I would think a secondary
>-less setup would have a much worse quench than the same
>setup with the secondary in place, because the gap has to handle
>a much worse condition (more energy).

If you remove the secondary, Rpri will drop way down.  This will greatly
increase the stress on the cap.  Rpri really controls how much energy goes
into the cap and how much is passed on to other losses.  I wish there were
a simple way to quantify it better.  My "just use 3 ohms" rule is far over
simplified but I don't know of any better way for the normal person (hey,
I'm normle toooo :-o) to find the real number here...

	Terry



>
>Coiler greets from germany,
>Reinhard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

• Re: HV Arc Resistance
• From: Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>

• Prev: Moderator note.
• Next: Re: MMC calculations - UK Caps
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread