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

*To*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Subject*: Power Factor Correction of Air Core Transformer/ Neon wattage Miniscule?*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>*Date*: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:44:41 -0600*Resent-Date*: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:45:30 -0600*Resent-From*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Resent-Message-ID*: <fb5h4C.A.mkC.EB988-at-poodle>*Resent-Sender*: tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com

Original poster: "harvey norris by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <harvich-at-yahoo-dot-com> Dont know if this kind of work directly relates to Tesla Coils, but the action does equate itself as an air core transformer analogous to that of a tesla coil, with the important difference that the function of an arc gap is not used on L1C1, thus it is not strictly a high frequency transformer. But this also depends how we interpret the term, since the stator source emf itself is of a somewhat higher frequency and it is this effect that enables one to tune L2C2 to that higher frequency and also exhibit a voltage rise far beyond that of the primary input, more than probably the turn ratio itself would deliver, so the simularities of principle reveal themselves. Also on a tesla secondary the effect of grounding increases performance, where the same principle is noted on a power factor corrected primary, with a neon grounded secondary. (For the series resonant primary DSR1) There are actually three options for placing a neon as secondary load for the transformer. In making these options the observeed VAR of the neon load will always be below the VAR input. Initially I had specified that .5 VAR was making 5 VAR of output, and Paul N had stated that without designating a load this complicates things. No load was designated because a one ended neon does not qualify as a load, and although its actions can be measured, the instruments themselves dramatically change that measurement. Thus it is better to give the neon two endings, where considered as a load, input VAR and Output VAR comparisons can be had. By putting the neon across one of the reactances, and taking new VAR measurements for the neon as a load, the VAR output will always be lower than the VAR input. There also appears to be 3 options for placing the bulb across the voltage rise. The first of these is to use either L2 or C2 as the voltage source, in which case a path of current has been diverted from the resonance. This led to two other testings where instead the bulb is either grounded, or hooked to the primary L1C1 midpoint, making it a sort of autotransformer principle, though not quite exactly, since the neon discharge itself then connects the primary and secondary. I hope to soon make a jpeg of what can be procurred in that situation. The neon can be shorted and still display miniscule discharge! Doing this also reduces the input amperage 5 fold. Thus we have 3 different scenarios, (actually 4 counting the untested line autotransformer one, but then the device would not strictly be an air core transformer) where the operation is made with the primary L1C1 in series resonance. To make a power factor correction for this circuit is to merely take L1C1 in series as the primary, and instead place them in parallel to the single delta stator input, making a Delta Tank Resonance of 1 ohm. (DTR1). In that scenario we can also load the neon two different ways, either across the voltage rise on either L2 or C2 of the reactance, or with the voltage midpoint rise with respect to ground. The ground method appears to be superior. Jpegs of these differing methods can be found at Autotransformer Corrections and Equivalent Actions. http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/message/390 The ground method with a power factor correction seemingly shows a paradox, that would seemingly be explained by the idea that the VAR reading of a neon is no where near its true power input expressed as I^2R. However other methods have suggested that the "acting resistance" of this 20 inch neon disharge is around 125,000 ohms, so there seems to be confusion here, because then I^2R as true power expended becomes large and we are then forced to assume that the VAR of the neon is indeed the true power. Here is jpeg from entry. "Lastly the method of making a DTR1 (tank primary) with a neon grounded secondary can be shown. DTR1/ L2C2 midpt neon grounding http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/RI/Dsc00206.jpg Here I forgot to change the amperage label to DTR1 but it has a reduced consumption, whereby at this voltage with a DSR1 primary we would have the noted 2.6 Amps, but now we only have .12 A for a 15.97 =~ 16 volts. V(int) meter shows no voltage rise, confirming this to be a tank circuit. The secondary bulb records 526 volts above ground enabling .689 ma conduction to ground. This is .362 VAR. The input VAR appears to be 16*.12= 1.92 VAR. However if we were to go by the argument that the true power input is always expressed by the quantity I^2R, then only (.12A)^2*1 ohm =.014 watts input is then the real power as input. Thus if we were to believe that somewhat foolish argument, with this power factor correction to ground, .014 watts goes in and .362 watts goes out from ground connection. Let us compare the power factor correction for when the bulb was instead across C2, and the ground was not involved." In this article I neglected to consider that The amperage reading of DTR1 is on the outside of the loop, thus this is not an accurate representation for I^2R as input. This is because a (source frequency) tank circuit also has a "resonant rise of amperage" with respect to that inputed. However earlier measurements of this resonant amperage rise showed that the tank fails miserably to produce the predicted results, and less then twice the input amperage is found inside the loop. Thus by going by I^2R as true power input, this at most would be doubled to .028 watts. It should also be recognized however that for a source freq resonant tank circuit, the reactive power measurement MUST be used as the true power input, and it is easy to make an argument to show why this is true. This may not be so obvious to others, who might put up an argument. But here the necessity of using the reactive power input as the true power input becomes apparent in the fact that if this is not done, we wind up with figures showing more output than input.. Sincerely HDN ===== Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/ _

- Prev by Date:
**Re: HV Cable Sources? Fwd: HV Wire** - Next by Date:
**Re:Re: Pole Piglets (what are they good for?)** - Prev by thread:
**Re: HV Cable Sources? Fwd: HV Wire** - Next by thread:
**New Toroid** - Index(es):