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

Incorrect... But... "current" OLTC?



Original poster: Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-twfpowerelectronics-dot-com>

Interesting....  The initial condition error was basically sending 333 amps 
into the large primary inductor and storing 14.9 joules of energy in it as 
1/2 x L x I^2 !!  Sort of a "current charged" version of the 
OLTC...  Charge a big inductor with current instead of a big cap with 
voltage...  That theoretically could charge 40pF to 863kV.  500kV is only 5 
joules...  66% of the energy is still being lost but most into the streamer 
at say 9 Joules "output"

If one could charge the "inductor" with current, pumping from each side of 
the primary cap, and then quickly removed the current source with 20kV of 
isolation...  You would get a very large output voltage as the model 
originally showed...  No IGBTs at all would be needed!!  Maybe another use 
for that old arc welder!!

You would need practically nil voltage (just to overcome DC resistance) but 
very high currents.  With such a low R, the charging time constant should 
be nil.  t/RC, t/LR, ...  Can't remember it...  5LR = 38uS...

The model then gives us 500kV peak!!.....  Hmmmm....  We seem to have more 
ideas than we know what to do with ;-))

I think this idea was mentioned before in the old OLTC days...

It's going to be a very long winter ;-))

Cheers,

         Terry

At 04:51 PM 10/3/2004, you wrote:
>Hi again,
>
>I hope im wrong, but it seems like ive found something about your
>simulation that makes it look exceptionally *good*.  You gave the tank
>capacitor an initial charge, and that seems to have made all the
>difference.  Im not sure why because it was only set to 10, which i
>assume may mean 10v, but maybe 10kv?  Anyway, resetting the IC
>(initial charge) to 0 made things look just normal.  60kv on the
>topload, a bit over 1kv on the tank cap, and not even 20A in the
>primary (... huh??).  Anyway, just looks like a mismatched setup :-(.
>
>Maybe *I* missed something???  But now you have me thinking of something 
>new...
>
>Steve