Re: Calculating streamer breakout of top-loads

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

Original poster: "Rikard Titus" <rikard_titus-at-hotmail-dot-com> 





>Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>
>
>On 8 Sep 2003, at 8:00, Tesla list wrote:
>
> > Original poster: "Rikard Titus" <rikard_titus-at-hotmail-dot-com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Hi Rikard,
> > >
> > >Do you mean:  1/2 * (0.05uf x 13KV ^^2)  = 5.6 joules
> > >5.6J x 345 pps = 1940 W
> >
> > Correct.Forgot about the square.
> > One way or another,some 1000 W is missing,(see dr Resonance's post).

Gerry,I respect your remark about correction of CV/2 formula.
It has to be E=(CV^^2)/2
But you misscalculated :with 50 nF and 13 kV it is E=4.225 J
Cosequently P=1457 W stays.
You probably  entered 15 kV  for voltage instead of 13...
I rechecked,something was peculiar...

> >
> >
> > >John's empirical spark length formula of 1.7 sqrt (power) is based on
> > >xformer input power not the power delivered thru the spark gap. Is this
> > >right???
> >
> > I am not familiar with this formula.Provide me with link/more info .
> >
> >
> >
> > If so, seems like1940 watts at the spark gap could mean
> > >3000W
> > >xformer input power





> >
> >
> > Hey wait a minute!
> > If PT losses 34 % of a real power,than it means it is mature for garbage  !
> >
> > -Rik
>
>Not necessarily. The degree of (over)loading of a transformer plays a
>not-insignificant part in the efficiency stakes. Some power supplies
>are terrible losers. Iron-cored ballasts such as welders for example
>cannot be wonderful performers with a high harmonic content from the
>gap generating eddy currents in the core.

I think well designed TC circuit does not return much of RF watts back  to 
supply.
5 % of total power in worst cases my guess.
Filter network is made to reduce this to resonable level.

To some extent that are
>being asked to behave like SMPS inductors.
>
>       For this reason, whenever I have been considering efficiency,
>how well you can do with such-and-such a pri-sec combo, etc. it has
>always been useful to specify whether one is dealing with wallplug
>power or primary power (E.BPS) since the two are obviously not the
>same. For me, the parameter of interest has always been primary power
>since running conditions can be set such that it is easily and
>repeatably quantifiable, particularly on a per-shot basis. It also
>eliminates poorly defined losses which can vary from one transformer
>to the next from the mix.
>
>Malcolm
>



With power changed back to my level (laughter,see above):P=1457 W the 
efficiency of PT is less than 50 %...
My atitude is that PT's losing 50 % of input power worth a shit !
With harmonics ,rf  + add everything.
It is a word of 1500 W of loss here,not about "VA" thing.

kind regards,
-Rik