RE: SSTC theory

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

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

Hi Steve,
           What I was suggesting is that in the case of the ISSTC,
matching to the *unloaded* resonator would, in my opinion, be more
useful than matching to a load.

Malcolm

On 25 Jun 2004, at 7:57, Tesla list wrote:

 > 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.
 >
 >
 >