[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: PFC
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:46:34 -0600
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Old-return-path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:47:30 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <3riNu.A.K7B.Pv1UCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I've wrestled with this myself. One would think that a LTR capcitive
on the secondary would give the primary impedance a capacitive look.
told that the shunts in the core keep the NST's primary looking
I still dont think I understand this issue. I wonder if the sparkgap is
part of the effect since it takes "real power" from the charging system.
Since the leakage reactance and the load reactance are in series, the
net effective load WOULD be inductive for the case of the LTR (L for
larger). Question is what the input reactance would be with the gap
firing. Pretty chopped up mess!