[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The 1500t secondary myth (long)
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: The 1500t secondary myth (long)
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:05:07 -0700
- Delivered-to: teslarchive@pupman.com
- Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
- Old-return-path: <teslalist@twfpowerelectronics.com>
- Resent-date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:08:31 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <dOEpy.A.y4.t_yrBB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi Ed,
On 1 Dec 2004, at 18:17, Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> "If everything else is the same, the lower frequencies also tend to
> need a higher inductance primary coil which tends to lower primary
> currents which reduces primary losses significantly. Higher
> inductance primary systems tend to have lower losses in the coil,
> wire, gap, etc."
>
> I wonder if gap losses also favor the lower operating frequency?
>
> Ed
All things being equal they do. If Cp is held constant, dropping Fr
to half its value => boosting Lp by a factor of 4 (since Fr is
inversely proportional to SQRT(L)) which increases Xp by 2x (as Xp
now becomes = 2.PI.(Fr/2).4L)
Malcolm