Re: OLTC Update - The baby has arrived :-)))

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>

At 10:42 AM 8/26/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>I'll add my congratulations to the rest!  Good work, Terry.  

Thanks to you and everyone :-)))

>
>One thing that surprises me, not having to do with the primary scheme at
>all, is the spacing you have between the top of the coil and the toroid. 
>I would have thought that the field of the toroid, "protecting", so to
>speak, the top of the coil, would not extend that far.  I'd expect sparks
>from the top of the coil.

I am raising and lowering the toroid for tuning.  It just ended up way up
there.  Not much thought went into anything else ;-)

>
>Let me remark that your work with the OLTC has inspired me to consider a
>lower-resistance configuration in my s.s. system, in order to improve the
>amperes-x-turns factor toward what you have achieved--and to bring it
>closer to what I had had in mind in the first place.  After all, it's
>ampere-turns that do the job in the primary, isn't that right?  I'll post
>something shortly for those interested in a possible adaptation of your
>fundamental notion--low voltage applied to a very-low-impedance primary
>coil--incorporating my current s.s. scheme.

Neat!

>
>Jimmy Hynes' comment about "k" is interesting:  I see nothing except
>dielectric breakdown that would preclude making k as high as possible, in
>a s.s. system, as long as the driving transistors are protected against
>voltage transients.  (I'll try to work on that...) 
>

Those TVS transorbes from DigiKey work great!

Cheers,

	Terry


>Ken Herrick
>