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

RE: SSTC theory

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

 >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.

I can't get my head around the combination of the concepts "matching" and
"unloaded". Matching, to me, means adjusting a circuit for most efficient
transfer of real power from a source to a load. If there is no load, then
all the math goes out the window. There just isn't anything to match.

If you have a plan for getting round this problem, I would be _very_
interested to see it :-o

BTW, I believe the base impedance of an unloaded resonator is just the
resistance of the wire (counting skin effect, radiation resistance etc) IOW,
it's a loss resistance, and not any impedance that has any significance as
to the spark producing properties of the coil. Matching to this makes no
sense, IMO, and is a bad idea.

Try a little thought experiment- A superconducting Tesla resonator would
have a base impedance of zero* at resonance, so do you think it would be
impossible to drive, and fail to produce any sparks? Common sense says the
opposite: it would work just like an ordinary one, but better.

*Not counting radiation resistance, which is going to be pretty minuscule

Steve C.