Re: Magnetizing current in SSTCs, my previous posting

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

Original poster: "jimmy hynes by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <chunkyboy86-at-yahoo-dot-com>

Hi Ken,

You mean that the primary inductor and capacitor resonate at the same freq. 
as the secondary, and you are driving it at resonance with a square wave 
right? it sounds kind of like my DRSSTC, I like the idea alot!  ;-))

I will write some more tomarrow, but it is bedtime now :-)

Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
Original poster: "K. C. Herrick by way of Terry Fritz "

In http://hot-streamer-dot-com/temp/1-t-pri.pdf, which I just sent along to
Terry, I've now upped the simulated primary to 2 turns instead of one (by
changing the ratio to 0.004 instead of 0.002) and changed C1 to 1.7 uF to
keep the primary Fr the same, and R1 to 20 m-ohms for the two turns. I
now get 250 KV at the output instead of 350 but the input current goes
down to 1.6 KA rms--a big improvement over 5.1!

Unconventionally using the transformer the way I do, the secondary
inductance is held the same by the program; by changing the ratio, I
simulate a change only in the primary inductance and hence in its number
of turns. Starting with fixed secondary inductance and assumed (fixed)
real turns of 500, I figure that a change in the simulation-ratio will
d! irectly simulate a change in the real ratio.

With a simulated 3-turn primary , 750 nF for C1 and 30 m-ohms for R1, I
get only 175 KV out but just (just!) 750 A rms in.

It would seem as if a 2 turn primary would be a good compromise. How
does this jibe with others' findings? And does anyone agree or disagree
with my use of the transformer?

Ken Herrick



Jimmy


Do you Yahoo!?
<http://us.rd.yahoo-dot-com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo-dot-com>The New 
Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.