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

*To*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Subject*: Re: Spark-gap sparks vs. solid-state sparks*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>*Date*: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:51:07 -0600*Resent-Date*: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:33:17 -0600*Resent-From*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Resent-Message-ID*: <Xedwl.A.0VE.ZJh76-at-poodle>*Resent-Sender*: tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz> Hi Ken, I've been following this thread with interest: On 30 Apr 01, at 11:34, Tesla list wrote: > Original poster: "Kennan C Herrick by way of Terry Fritz > <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <kcha1-at-juno-dot-com> > > Antonio (& all)- > > [comments interspersed]: > > On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 21:35:22 -0600 "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> > writes: > Original poster: "Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz by way of > Terry Fritz > <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br> > > Tesla > list wrote: > > > > Original poster: "Kennan C Herrick by way of Terry > Fritz > <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <kcha1-at-juno-dot-com> > > > I think that the > cause lies in the inertia of the air that the > spark must > > push > aside, i.e. heat up, for it (the spark) to advance. As I > wrote, > > > that's the same mechanism that allows nuclear bombs to work (and > > aren't > > we thus in fine company?). > > Humm... I would say that the > heat is a consequence, not a > prerequisite. > The current starts to > flow first, and it's the current that heats > the air. Certainly there > is a positive feedback mechanism once the > air starts to get hot, but > without current there is no heating. > (I don't see the relation to a > nuclear bomb, that has nothing of > electrical). > > A consequence, of course; but my point is that the spark cannot > progress until the heating is accomplished. That takes time and the > time exists because of the air's inertia. > > As to the bomb, my tongue was in cheek a bit. But the bombs do > critically depend on inertia, as do an infinite number of other things > in the Universe, of course, including regular bombs. Inertia holds > things together long enough for the processes to work: thermal burning > in the case of conventional bombs and nuclear fission and/or fusion in > the case of nuclear ones. > > Someone save me from this thesis by (successfully) proposing another! > > > > > >... > > > If my secondary's voltage rises to break-out in, say, 40 cycles > > while a > > > comparable spark-gap-secondary's voltage rises in 2 cycles, then > > the > > > exciting magnetic fields must rise by the same factor, of 1:20. > > In order > > > to get that 20X increase in field rate-of-rise, one needs 20X the > > current > > > in the primary--from 20X the voltage applied. Of course, that > > 20X > > > current doesn't get applied for very long; not nearly so long as > > my ~7 ms > > > per spark for example (Otherwise, coilers would be moving from > > California > > > in droves.). > > > > I commented before on this question of rate of rise. Remember that > > the energy transfer occurs in several oscillation cycles (at least > > one full cycle for coupling coefficient=0.6). If the frequency of > > the oscillations is not changed, the current and voltage amplitudes > > are limited by energy conservation, and the number of cycles has > > little effect on the maximum rate of rise of voltage or current > > anywhere in he Tesla coil circuit. The visible output of the coil > > depends fundamentally on the energy available for each discharge, > > and to a certain extend also on the number of discharges per second > > (the hot air, or ionized air, theories). > > > > Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz > > As I see it, with a sufficiently high initial rate-of-rise (probably > not realizable with normal T.c.'s), merely the first 1/4 cycle of > primary flux, or part thereof, could raise the top electrode's voltage > to the break-out level. If I can do it in 40 cycles and other, > spark-gap, coils can do it in 2 cycles then some other coil could do > it in 1/4 cycle, given sufficient primary flux. > > Ken Herrick It probably is realizable with normal TCs. All it takes is for sufficient energy to be transferred in that first 1/4 cycle at the k you are working with. That implies that the primary voltage/energy store would be *far* larger than for normal operation. If it was a cap discharge regime per most of the coils around, a coil which normally runs on shots of say, 3J might need 20 - 30J to get to breakout that soon. I imagine if this was done, there would be some amazing sparking as the rest of the energy store was poured in over the next few cycles. I wonder if this had anything to do with a report from someone recently who said that they'd pushed their input power to a point where the coil first of all started racing sparking, and then progressed to smooth operation as input power was further increased? Regards, malcolm

- Prev by Date:
**Re: a good topload...Electrodes** - Next by Date:
**RE: Explain 3 Phase** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Spark-gap sparks vs. solid-state sparks** - Next by thread:
**ground rules 1** - Index(es):