Re: A few rules of thumb for the solid state crew.


Comments interspersed.

> Original Poster: "The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elgersmad-at-msn-dot-com>


> There is a way to do this right, and in small versions I have seen
> the same results but, I cannot afford wire that can handle a Megawatt,
>let alone several.  The only way I have found to control this is the
>fundimental oscillator frequency, and the tuned gang.  Basically, what
>I am trying > relate to you is that I don't know how you can control
>the energy > that I can get to pump through a circuit with not more
>than the 5 volts that are driving the 1 to 100 step up arrangement in
>the link I have provided.
> http://members.xoom-dot-com/suckyfish/melissa/Resonance/Circuit.jpg
> The turns ratio is providing the voltage but, the current provided by
>the oscillator is a very small fraction of the power actually used by
>the circuit.  So, when I take 3.488 amperes, and divide it by 8.743
>mA a power gain ratio factor of 398.948.


I had a look at that schematic. Could you please explain how you
can charge a cap with ~9mA and at THE SAME TIME discharge
it with ~3.5A? Iīm afraid I canīt see any way that could possibly
work. This circuit diagram does not represent your typical TC,
because it is missing the switching device (spark gap, tube, or
whatever).  Also, the energy conservation law states that output
energy can NEVER be greater than the input energy.

You say that you need wire that can handle megawatts of
power. Are these values (meaning the wire and the values in
the schematic) peak or continuous values? A spark gap driven
TC (or any kind of pulse duty oscillator for that matter) can
easily be built to achieve Mw of power on a pulsed basis. As
the discharge time isnīt very long there is no need for a wire
size that will handle Mw of power on a continuous basis.

>Now, with a solid state oscillator this is possible but, if you
>insist on using spark gaps then the means isn't effecient
>based on certian basic principals of signal inputs, and type of
>signal as to whether the proper circumstances exist for the
>circuit to function properly.

I think I can agree that a solid state oscillator might well be
more efficient than a simple spark gap driven one. However,
to this day, I have never seen a solid state device that will
handle both high voltage AND high current at the same time.

The reason (I think) that SGDTC (spark gap driven TCs) get
such great spark length results is because of the peak(!) power
they can supply. Although of very short duration, this peak
power is gigantic, which results in impressive sparks. This is
also the reason (I think) why tube TCīs will always give less
spark length than a comparably sized (VA) SGDTC.

>This means that at 5 volts you would have a impedance that
>when the circuit started was only 1.433 ohms.  With each
>successive cycle from the oscillator the impedance of the
>tank circuit goes up, and eventually reaches 571.886 ohms

Hmm. The only way I can see how the impedenace will change
is by altering the supply frequency. The impedance (=R on an
AC basis) is directly dependant on the frequency. If your L is
changing, your frequency must be changing. This, however,
means you will no longer be resonant, which in turn will change
the behavior of the circuit (i.e: in your case the 3.4xxA will drop)

>If the resonant frequency were 159 KHz for the primary of the
>oscillator driven tank circuit then the second stage would be
>at 318 KHz.  Now, if you were building a Tesla coil the output
>of the second transformer would be fed to the primary of the
>Tesla, and it's resonant frequency would need be 318 KHz, or
>636 KHz which would be experimental beyond the scope of
>the circuit I have found appropriate

Well looking at your circuit (if there is an analogy to what you
are saying), how are you back-feeding the circuit? Your
connection from the secondary to the primary is grounded, so
it will reside at zero volts (= no power feedback), unless your
ground is of high impedance, that is.

a bit puzzled in Germany,