[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: SSTC theory

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz> 

On 24 Jun 2004, at 8:59, Tesla list wrote:

 > Original poster: "Steve Conner" <steve.conner-at-optosci-dot-com>
 >  >So, in this network the primary and secondary circuits are -not-
 >  >tuned to the same frequency! >The driving frequency is the resonant
 >  frequency of the secondary >circuit alone. The primary circuit is
 >  tuned to a slightly lower >frequency. Strange, but true.
 > Interesting. This matches with experimental results. The ISSTC people
 > found that the primary has to be tuned ~15% lower. I thought it was
 > streamer loading but..
 > Steve C.

I don't think I was ever convinced that streamer loading was a
culprit. The typical operation mode is to ring the secondary up until
it lets go and one usually designs the secondary to not let go until
the bulk of primary energy has reached it (at which point there is
little left in the primary to transfer). In my opinion, recent
attempts to use matching theory are valid only if one wants to feed a
continuous arc in CW operation. I seriously doubt its validity when
applied to either classic disruptive coils or the ISSTC which is
pretty much the same thing when examining the operation of the
secondary in such coils. Past experience with my disruptive coils
often (if not always) showed better results with the primary tuned to
what would have been the LSB generated with the tunings equal. This
was referred to in the past as "offset tuning" and has appeared in
early papers on TCs. I forget which ones but I have seen voltage vs
tuning graphs in some of them. I still have those papers buried in a
mountain at home.