Re: TC Optimum Coupling

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

Original poster: "marc metlicka by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <mystuffs-at-orwell-dot-net>



Tesla list wrote:
> 
> Original poster: "Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br>
>
> Without losses, and considering the lumped model only, the voltage gain
> really goes to infinity if the secondary inductance goes to infinity.
> The problem is that even in ideal lossless conditions, the change in
> geometry caused by a longer secondary causes k to decrease, and the
> number of cycles required for the energy transfer goes also to infinity.
> The tuning also becomes very critical when k drops below ~0.02.
> In practice, losses eat all the power when k is low.

Wow,
I could swear that i was told, just a few weeks ago (and many times
before), that the k of p-s = s-p, thus energy transfer was eaqual?
 It was my intent in saying different, that the shape difference of the
two coils alters energy transfer.
 Although i thought i was clearly explaining this, must have goofed
again?


> 
> These things can be predicted by the current models. If k is decreased,
> more time is required for the energy transfer, the losses eat more
> of the input energy, and the tuning becomes more critical.
> The loss question is the complex problem, because there are many sources
> of loss, and the most important, the spark gap and streamers at the
> terminal, are nonlinear and dependent on many factors.

 Though most think gap losses are the main factor, I think it is the
influence of the streamer field on the capacitance of secondary coil (or
fields) that alters impedance. T
Marc M.

> 
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz