[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The 1500t secondary myth
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: The 1500t secondary myth
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:08:28 -0700
- Delivered-to: teslarchive@pupman.com
- Delivered-to: tesla@pupman.com
- Old-return-path: <teslalist@twfpowerelectronics.com>
- Resent-date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 08:09:52 -0700 (MST)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <FAbTJB.A.pCB.yAzrBB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Lau, Gary" <gary.lau@xxxxxx>
The ratios of pri-sec inductance (i.e. turns) and inversely, capacitance
(your point) both yield the same theoretical voltage gain at resonance.
My take is that perceived performance (streamer length) is not
necessarily correlated with top load voltage, theoretical or otherwise.
If it was, I think small top loads would fare better than they do. The
recent discussions of streamer-load to secondary impedance matching may
hold promise.
Regards, Gary Lau
MA, USA
> Original poster: Finn Hammer <f-h@xxxx>
>
> How does it make sence to use more turns than those that allow the
build up
> of a voltage higher than that limited by the transfer of energy from
the
> primary capacitor to the secondary capacitance?
>
> Cheers, Finn Hammer