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

*To*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Subject*: (Fwd) Re: Vortex gap loss measurements*From*: "Malcolm Watts" <M.J.Watts-at-massey.ac.nz> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)*Date*: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:22:18 -0600*Delivered-To*: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

Just to clarify (after a memory jog): On 5 Sep 00, at 9:39, "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman.co wrote: > Hi Antonio, > > On 4 Sep 00, at 12:35, Tesla list wrote: > > > Original poster: "Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz" <acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br> > > > > Tesla list wrote: <snip> > > Note that unless the primary losses are very high, you can > > approximate exp(-a*t) as 1-a*t with great precision for the > > time used for complete energy transfer to the secondary (the > > intial value and the first derivative fot t=0 are identical). > > The transfer takes just a few cycles, and modeling the gap as a linear > > resistor during this time, if the main difference is that the decay > > is linear and not exponential, doesn't make significant difference. > > ("a" would be Rgap/(2*Lprimary) if you consider only the primary > > circuit. Considering the secondary, there are two time constants > > in the system, a compliated function of the element values and > > losses in the entire circuit.) > > > > Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz > > A couple of years ago I mocked up a couple of bench circuits, > one using a pair of diodes to simulate the gap and another > using pure resistance tailored so that the ringdown amplitudes > started identically. Some tailoring of values in the diode > circuit was needed to obtain a linear ringdown as observed > using a real gap (I obtained both log and antilog with various > other values). I found a clear deviation occurring by the > second peak of ring. While it wasn't much in voltage terms it > is worth noting that primary energy is proportional to V^2 > rather than V so energy differences were significant. I think > John Freau's results are at least indicative and point in a > definite direction. The "value" I tailored was the initial primary voltage, not the L and C circuit values. L and C were the same for both tests. Obviously, the diode characteristics are largely invariant. Apologies, malcolm > In my most humble opinion. > Malcolm > > ------- End of forwarded message -------

- Prev by Date:
**Caps Question:** - Next by Date:
**AVALON, from the ground up.** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Caps Question:** - Next by thread:
**AVALON, from the ground up.** - Index(es):