Re: An SSTC simulation

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

Original poster: Jan Wagner <jwagner-at-cc.hut.fi> 


On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Tesla list wrote:
 > Original poster: a a <hermantoothrot2000-at-yahoo-dot-com>

Hmm, monkey islands? ;)

 > What part is dangerous about the hard switching? Is it the extra loss, or
 > the voltage spikes? The voltage spikes can be handled with MOVs, and when
 > tuned right, the switching should be reletively soft.

If the MOVs are directly accross the switches and other critical
components, and leads cut to minimal length, then yes, switching is
relatively "soft"=spike free. But total efficiency goes down
nevertheless.

MOVs take the energy from the voltage spikes and warm up. The switches
have increased power loss from the conducted_current * voltage overlap
during turn on/off.

That's not necessarily a "bad thing(TM)". It's just that hard switching is
so horribly inefficient ;-)) because you could do way better with soft
switching, like zero current switching or zero voltage switching.

Soft switching with a resonant load like the TC also means optimum power
delivery to the load.

cheers,
  - jfw

--
**************************************************
  high voltage at http://www.hut.fi/~jwagner/tesla
  jwagner-at-cc.hut.fi - Jan.Wagner-at-cern.ch
  Jan OH2GHR