Re: Safety gap issues

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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


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

> Hi Dmitry,

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

> I think we both understand that RMS can be used in the energy balance
> equation, if the 60 Hz stuff is not included in the calculation of
> Vpri_cap_rms.

yes - if, as you said earlier - "or compute RMS during the bang time
only", then Vsec_cap_rms =  Vpri_cap_rms * sqrt(Cpri/Csec). so as i
said earlier - everything depends from what "thing author assumed as
"rms" in reality".

> but then
>>in the secondary we`ll have the undamped oscillations and then
>>Vpeak=sqrt(2)*Vrms - i spoke just about this :-)

> True for constant amplitude sine wave.  But even in a lossless system
> (above),  the secondary rings up as the primary rings down so the
> output sine wave does not become constant amplitude until the spark
> has quenced. At this point in time, there is no current flow in the
> primary (other than charging current) so nothing to compare (equation
> doesn't apply).

but rms doesn`t fall immediately to zero, as V or I becomes zero - coz
rms is the average  value in a certain time period, so i can`t agree
with "so nothing to compare (equation doesn't  apply)". coz even
when you use Vpeak instead Vrms and compare the Esec with Epri, Epri=0
when Esec=max - "nothing to compare"? :-)

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