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

Re: synch with a pole pig coil (again)



Original poster: "Bart Anderson by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <classi6-at-classictesla-dot-com>

Hi David,

Tesla list wrote:

>Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" 
><Tesla729-at-cs-dot-com>
>Hi bart,
>
>Yep, I think you may have summed it up in better wording :^)
>Since there are fewer oscillations per second, that would mean
>that the total current flow over the entire second would be less
>although each individual oscillation would have the same current.
>Whooo -- I'd better shut up before I really get confused :^P
>The bottom line is that at a given power supply input, the higher
>the bps, the harder it is on the capacitor and the more succep-
>table the cap is to dielectric heating. That's why i figured that the
>120 bps may not be as hard on the cap as 300+ bps. Of course
>I must also consider that each individual bang will be larger, too
>(assuming that I go to a larger capacitance), and that will tend
>to increase the RF currents, so it's probably 6 of one and a half
>dozen of the other :^)

After contemplating that concept, sure, there would be less RF heating 
since the ocillations over time at the gap is reduced. Funny, at the gap 
with 300 bps and the 0.085uF cap, the "effective energy per second" is 
about 2400 (j*sec). For the 0.165uF and 120 bps? guess what, about 2400 
(j*sec). Cool! Any sparklength change will be due to losses I think.

>< PS. David, I like the 0.165uF.
>
>Yes, I believe I'm going to try the cap in that configuration while
>closely monitoring it for signs of excessive stress and/or heating.
>I believe I need to go to that kind of primary capacitance to bet-
>ter utilize the available power of a 10 kVA pig at 120 bps.

Maybe.
Make sure you take a good look at the primary as the turns will be reduced 
quite a bit.

As far as making good use of the available power, you need to trap the 
energy in the secondary as soon as possible. Maybe this change overall will 
allow for a higher coupling coefficient. The higher we go, the faster the 
energy transfers, and the number of cycles required to quench  (ideally) is 
reduced. Higher k means energy transfer (p to s and s to p) will repeat 
less often. That is the best way I can think of to reduce gap losses other 
than a physical mechanical upgrade as your doing now. Unfortunately, we 
have a coupling limit (voltage stress on the secondary keeping k low). Hey 
David, if you get some time, send me your specs (at my email would be 
fine). I'd like to run it through the new Javatc version being composed.

Take care,
Bart