Re: Safety gap issues

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Dmitry (father dest)" <dest@xxxxxxxxxxx>


> Original poster: "Gerry  Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Hi Dmitry,

> I think Adam dropped a term in his equation and should be:.

> Vsec = Vpri * sqrt (Cp/Cs)

it`s obvious, that`s why i didn`t worried about that.

> If one uses Vpri_rms, one might think one gets Vsec_rms.  However,  I
> really don't think it correlates to the secondary voltage cause the
> secondary only sees the resonate frequency stuff where as the primary
> has that as well as the 60 Hz charging voltages.

the primary sees 60 hz charging not always - for example, when Cpri is
connected across the transformer, so be careful with such statements :-)
but it`s not important, as i of course mentioned not the Vprimary and
Vsecondary rms, that depend from the duty factor & damping factor and
from many other things in the _real_ coil - it`s obvious too.

the author wrote:

>> E = .5CV^2
>> >  > assume Epri = Esec, that gives you
>> >  > .5CpriVpri^2 = .5CsecVsec^2

we see from the first two lines, that Vpri represents Vprimary_cap
and Vsec represents Vsecondary_cap:

> Csec includes the secondary's self
>  >  > capacitance and the topload.

as the secondary is connected in parallel with Cs+Ct=Csec.
the equation:

>> >  > .5CpriVpri^2 = .5CsecVsec^2

is true for the ideal case - when there`re no losses, right? but then
in the secondary we`ll have the undamped oscillations and then
Vpeak=sqrt(2)*Vrms - i spoke just about this :-)
so if the author assumed that Vrms=Vpeak/sqrt(2), then everyhting`s
right, i told just about this in my post.

the thing author assumed as "rms" in reality - is the other subject,
but it doesn`t mean that author`s statements are always incorrect, just as
it`s not always correct that "the primary sees 60 Hz charging voltage"
for example.

"hope that helps".


>>Original poster: Yurtle Turtle <yurtle_t@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>That's what I meant, though my typing fingers got
>>ahead of my brain. I was trying to point out that he
>>shouldn't use RMS values, but should instead use peak
>>values for this.
>>
>>thanks for clarifying this.
>>
>>Adam
>>
>> >  > E = .5CV^2
>> >  > assume Epri = Esec, that gives you
>> >  > .5CpriVpri^2 = .5CsecVsec^2
>> >  > rearranging give you
>> >  > Vsec=sqrt(Cpri/Csec)
>> >  >
>> >  > Volts are RMS, Csec includes the secondary's self
>> >  > capacitance and the topload.

> Original poster: "Dmitry (father dest)" <dest@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>  >  > It's the first. This is basically a conservation of
>  >  > energy equation. It also assumes no losses, which
>  >  > isn't realistic, especially if you don't have a good
>  >  > spark gap.
>  >  >
>  >  > E = .5CV^2
>  >  > assume Epri = Esec, that gives you
>  >  > .5CpriVpri^2 = .5CsecVsec^2
>  >  > rearranging give you
>  >  > Vsec=sqrt(Cpri/Csec)
>  >  >
>  >  > Volts are RMS, Csec includes the secondary's self
>  >  > capacitance and the topload.
>  >  >
>  > In the first equation above the voltage is usually defined as an actual
>  > voltage not rms.

> it`s critical only for the energy calculation, but if we need to
> calculate the voltage (rms) at the secondary - what`s the difference?
> nil.


-----
Happy coiling, unlimited electricity, basic food and requisite sleep.
21-06-1996 (c) Robert W. Stephens