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

*To*: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: RE: DRSSTC driver tests- Dual resonance disaster*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:48:53 -0700*Delivered-to*: testla@pupman.com*Delivered-to*: tesla@pupman.com*Old-return-path*: <teslalist@twfpowerelectronics.com>*Resent-date*: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:51:32 -0700 (MST)*Resent-from*: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx*Resent-message-id*: <_QkSID.A.ArD.ymo-BB@poodle>*Resent-sender*: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx

Original poster: "Steve Conner" <steve.conner@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>These values, 200 Ohms and 52 nF, look quite strange for streamer load.

Well the reason is that I am using a fake "secondary" with the same number of turns as the primary, and resonated with the same size of capacitor as the tank capacitor. It's safer and more convenient than a real Tesla resonator for prototyping. If it were a real resonator this would correspond to about 220k in series with 15pF.

>So, feedback can´t be from the input current. Can be from the output >voltage, or from the secondary current, with a 90 degrees phase shift.

Well I think feedback from the input current has its advantages. The reason is that I don't trust the secondary current to always be exactly in quadrature with the primary current. I have seen the phase shift change with secondary loading and detuning, sometimes flipping through 180', and I think this is a major cause of poor performance and unreliability.

As long as breakout always happens before the first "notch" and loads the coil heavily enough to stop reversal, primary current feedback should be safe. Or, I think the reversal could be got rid of by deliberately mistuning one of the resonators or skewing the drive frequency to one side of centre.

>Look at these simulated waveforms (mode 17:19:21...

Does this mean that the lower and upper split frequencies of the resonators are 17:21 and the drive frequency is 19? Also can your software simulate self-resonant tunings (which I guess would be represented by say 17:17:21 or 17:21:21 in your example)

On a similar note, I have been trying to derive an equation for the steady state transimpedance (ie Iin=f(Vin, Vout, L1, L2, C1, C2, k, omega) where Iin, Vin, Vout are complex quantities) I want to know this because it would let you predict the worst case primary current in a self resonant coil, knowing the breakout voltage and the coil constants, and adding the boundary condition that Iin and Vin are in phase.

I know that several of the transfer functions are ill defined at the poles for a system with no loss resistance (for instance vout/vin tends to infinity, Iin/Vin tends to infinity) but I believe Vout/Iin should tend to a constant at the poles. My reasoning is that Vout and Iin both tend to infinity, and infinity divided by infinity could perhaps be a finite number ;)

If you (or anyone else) have the transfer function for the dual resonator in pole-zero form I'd be very interested to see it. I tried deriving it myself but it's a long time since I've been in a maths class :-(

Steve C.

- Prev by Date:
**Re: new coil** - Next by Date:
**ignition coil driver** - Previous by thread:
**Re: DRSSTC driver tests- Dual resonance disaster** - Next by thread:
**Re: DRSSTC driver tests- Dual resonance disaster** - Index(es):