RE: Current Limiting and Impedence, resonant charge inductor challenge, designers wanted!

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Jim Mora" <jmora@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Hello all,

There seem to be some interesting exchanges consistent with my interest in
building a robust, non suturing, presumably gaped resonate charge reactor
for, in my case, a DC 500pbs max coil. I would propose to offer a challenge
to the inductor Savoy group to suggest ideal materials, shapes, gap sizes
and compositions of the gap and of such a charge inductor. It would have to
be able to deliver 8-10va input dc of 15KV x2 to the tank, and for overbuild
margin lets say 21KV * 2. I am willing to contact our friend in so. Dakota
for something like a small pig core. Ideally, I would like to cut or
dismantle the core apart so the wind can be inserted on the form or
mechanically wound. I am thinking not too great a width of coil and layered
with polyethenol or polypropraline sheets or PETE from 2 liter clear soda
bottles. Multiple taps would be cool. The thing seems like a mineral bath
would be in order. Some reference to transformer material being too
magnetically persistent troubles me some. **** some synergy could be of
value to the whole group**** a working charge inductor and  faithful current
limitation seems a bit fuzzy at the mo;-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 5:30 PM
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Current Limiting and Impedence

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 8 May 2005, at 8:41, Tesla list wrote:

 > Original poster: "Paul B. Brodie" <pbbrodie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 >
 > Gerry,
 > I'm really interested in what you guys have had to say on this thread.
 > Please let us know the results of your investigations into gapless
 > toroids. I do have one little question: are there gapped toroids? I've
 > never seen one and it seems that would defeat the purpose of using the
 > toroid shape in the first place. Regards. Paul Think Positive

Some toroidal cores have a distributed airgap, namely iron-powder
types. These are designed to handle high DC currents and are totally
unsuitable for use as transformer cores and large alternating
currents.
      Gapping a core artificially boosts the length of the magnetic
path enormously.

Malcolm

 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Tesla list" <<mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
 > To: <<mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
 > Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 2:09 AM
 > Subject: Re: Current Limiting and Impedence
 >
 >  > Original poster: "Gerald  Reynolds"
 > <<mailto:gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 >  >
 >  > I'll reply to my own reply.
 >  >
 >  > Maybe what I'm missing is:   if I increase the area to prevent
 >  saturation, > the inductance goes back up so maybe this is self
 >  defeating.  I think it is > time to play with some real numbers with
 >  gapless toroids and see what the > inductance and saturatiion levels
 >  are. > > Gerry R > > >>Original poster: "Gerald  Reynolds"
 > <<mailto:gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 >  >>
 >  >>I wonder if the real issue is physical size between the two
 >  designs.  If I >>take a gapped ballast and remove the gap, the
 >  inductance goes up.  I will >>need to reduce the number of turns to
 >  get back to the original inductance. >>This will increase the volts
 >  per turn that will push the ballast closer to >>saturation unless I
 >  increase the cross sectional area. > > > >
 >
 >
 >