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

*To*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Subject*: RE: SSTC theory*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>*Date*: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:01:21 -0600*Resent-Date*: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:06:17 -0600*Resent-From*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Resent-Message-ID*: <gVObaD.A.mO.mwG4AB-at-poodle>*Resent-Sender*: tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com

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 anyway Steve C.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: watts, camels and too many beers?** - Next by Date:
**Re: Air core flybacks, small flybacks and self resonance........** - Prev by thread:
**RE: SSTC theory** - Next by thread:
**Re: SSTC theory** - Index(es):