RE: New SSTC and topology in need of review

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

Original poster: Marco.Denicolai-at-tellabs-dot-com 

Hi Steve,

I am pretty interested in your results, I would say more in your ability
to have the multistage-bridge reliably running than in the possible
benefit measured in spark length.

Please, keep us informed about your progress. I suggest to use as much
optoisolation as you can and a clever routing of ground connections.

Best Regards

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
 > Sent: 15. joulukuuta 2003 00:24
 > To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
 > Subject: Re: New SSTC and topology in need of review
 >
 >
 > Original poster: "Steven Ward" <srward16-at-hotmail-dot-com>
 >
 > Well Jimmy, im not entirely sure what i am going to gain, but
 > i at least
 > *think* it should be worthwhile.  Dan McCauley mentioned that
 > his MOT SSTC
 > (when working quite a while ago now) produced extremely long
 > sparks.  Also,
 > Dr. Gary Johnson has a large SSTC running 1700VDC into a
 > half-bridge.. his
 > coil makes some 54" sparks if i remember, though it IS
 > powered from a PT.
 >
 > Basically, my thought is that magnetizing current could be
 > reduced a bit,
 > and i can more easily get an impedance match that would give
 > lots of power
 > throughput without half of the current going to Imag.  With
 > my 170V SSTCs
 > ive gotten down to 5 turn primaries that are some 8" tall.
 > Very tight
 > coupling and very few turns.  But, each turn taken off makes
 > the current
 > input skyrocket but does very little to increase spark
 > length.  It just
 > SEEMS that you need higher voltages.  As to how high, i dont
 > know, but
 > 1400V seemed like a *fun* place to begin.
 >
 > I must also note how my half-bridge flyback driver reacts with low
 > voltage/high current (few primary turns) power supplies and high
 > voltage/low current (many primary turns).  At low voltages
 > the flyback has
 > several resonant frequencies and makes decent sparks (with some
 > heating).  But, at 120V input, i get disasterously long
 > sparks but only 1
 > Fres, and with no heating of components at all.  I know we
 > are talking
 > about 2 completely different things here, but i dont see why
 > this concept
 > would not hold up with SSTCs.
 >
 > Steve Ward
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > >From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
 > >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
 > >Subject: Re: New SSTC and topology in need of review
 > >Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:53:49 -0700
 > >
 > >Original poster: jimmy hynes <chunkyboy86-at-yahoo-dot-com>
 > >
 > >Hi,
 > >
 > >I remember seeing that circuit too, and thought it was
 > pretty cool. What
 > >do you expect to gain
 > >from a higher input voltage? The only thing I can see is the
 > increased
 > >number of primary turns
 > >needed for an impedance match. Unless you are using 1 turn on normal
 > >SSTCs, I don't see the
 > >benefit.
 > >
 > >--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
 > > > Original poster: "Steven Ward" <srward16-at-hotmail-dot-com>
 > > >
 > > > Hi everyone,
 > > >
 > > > I have been working out my latest SSTC designed in the
 > hopes that higher
 > > > voltage across the primary coil will work better than
 > typical low voltages
 > > > of some 170-340V.  This new design should be able to
 > produce about 1400V
 > > > across the primary in a very unique way:
 > > >
 > > > http://www.hot-streamer-dot-com/srward16/SSSSTC.htm
 > > >
 > > > Ive been studying this topology for a long time now and
 > im in the process
 > > > of building this thing because i just have to see it for myself.
 > >Basically
 > > > i would like for you guys to analyze this topology and
 > give me some
 > > > feedback on potential problems/benefits i may see.  I
 > look forward to what
 > > > the solid state experts say.  Maybe this will lead to a
 > new avenue in solid
 > > > state tesla coiling... though i have a feeling many would
 > not like to
 > > > reproduce a 16 fet design (or 32 fets if things go well :O).
 > > >
 > > > So lets hear it! what do you all think?
 > > >
 > > > Thanks,
 > > >
 > > > Steve Ward
 > > >
 > > >
 > >
 > >
 > >=====
 > >Jimmy
 > >
 >