RE: SSTC theory

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

Original poster: "Steve Conner" <steve.conner-at-optosci-dot-com> 

 >I seriously doubt its validity when
 >applied to either classic disruptive coils or the ISSTC

I agree that matching theory is no good for disruptive coils. But for the
ISSTC I think it is useful. The ISSTCs built so far have small toroids with
a breakout point, and a relatively long burst length, that carries on after
breakout. Scope traces I have seen show the primary current ringing up
relatively quickly, and then levelling off at breakout.

This I think of as a "quasi-CW" ISSTC, and it can potentially have a "bang
energy" much greater than a disruptive coil with the same components, as the
inverter feeds the discharge directly.

The opposite is a "quasi-disruptive" ISSTC, with a big toroid, full-rated
tank capacitor, no breakout point, and the inverter switching off around
breakout time so it never feeds the discharge directly. It has roughly twice
the bang energy of a disruptive coil with the same components.

Whether the "quasi-CW" thing is a red herring, will have to be proved by
experiment, by measuring the tank capacitor voltage and seeing how the
stored energy compares to the bang energy. But, I think even if it turns out
that all practical ISSTCs are quasi-disruptive, the matching theory will
still get you into the right ballpark.

Steve C.