Re: ScanTesla program -> Optimization

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Terry Fritz <teslalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Antonio,

"""but the square wave is synchronized with the current, and there is no to 
include
feedback on this analysis."""

OH!!  Your right!!  There goes a pure linear analysis!!  NOT time 
invariant...  I won't waist time on that now ;-)))  I think there are ways 
around that, but that is high level math guru stuff...

Many thanks for your other post with the equations.  That helps to get me 
going in the right path ;-))

Marco had many good programming tips.  I used to program a lot like 30 
years ago.  They went and changed everything since >:p  What was wrong with 
FORTRAN and BASIC...  I don't think C was even invented yet...  Bill Gates 
was in jail*...  Carter was pres...  Where did the 8 bit CPUs go!!  What is 
this dual core 64 bit stuff!!!  Hahaha   My "old" SUN computer had 64 bits 
LONG ago :o)))  But I have not done much programming in the last 20 
years...  Sort of back to zero...  But I know the "ideas" ;-)))

Gary warned me of Microsoft books and such.  I boiled all my Microsoft junk 
in oil years ago. >:-))))  Since last year.  All the computers can go to 
Linux "overnight" if/when needed....

Malcolm notes:

""Given John Freau's spark vs power equation which shows no coil
parameter dependencies and the infinite number of coils that can be
built to meet that condition I don't see it happening.""

Indeed!!  Conventional coils should be inside a "flat spot" given that they 
run in pretty well known coil configurations.  We don't build 200 or 20000 
turn secondaries.  Natural selection has already weeded them out.  But the 
DRSSTC is "different".  We need to re examine the "old rules"...

*
http://hot-streamer.com/temp/Old2002Files/2002-02/bill_gates.jpg
http://hot-streamer.com/temp/Old2002Files/2002-02/bill_gates-1.jpg

but he got even...

http://hot-streamer.com/temp/BILL-GATES-bsod.jpe

Cheers,

        Terry



At 09:20 AM 5/19/2005, you wrote:
> Tesla list wrote:
> > Original poster: Terry Fritz <teslalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > The step function and input square wave (Fourier series) should be about 
> > 10000X faster to compute than a pure say 10-nS stepwise number grinder.
> > For the linear time-invariant case, that is the way to go.  Program like 
> > MathCad can also reduce the equations to run faster.  But the equation 
> > are not super bad.
>
> Actually, you can consider a periodical input, with n square wave cycles
> and m cycles with zero input, with a period of n+m cycles, decompose
> the waveform in a Fourier series, use sinusoidal steady state analysis
> for each component, and add the results in the time domain. This will
> compute the waveforms correctly, with the transients.
> A problem is the interpretation of the input voltage. We already discussed
> about short-circuiting the input not being a great idea, because this
> increases the input current. To let the diodes of the driver conduct
> produces a square wave as long as there is current, but the square
> wave is synchronized with the current, and there is no to include
> feedback on this analysis.
>
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz