Re: Theory of LTR

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Harvey Norris <harvich@xxxxxxxxx>



--- Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It just requires that you can define the ballast
> impedance (constant
> impedance) so you can put that impedance in series
> with the equivalent
> circuit and do the ac analysis on it.
Of quite great interest also is the ability of a field
regulated alternator to supply power. In a certain way
the field regulated alternator, ( as a control factor
measure) also represents a "ballasted" supply when
hooked to the pole pig transformer. In fact at lower
regulation values it may be safe to short out the
stator outputs to determine how much availability of
amperage that source can supply. Suppose the short
reveals a 10 AMP supply at the specified open circuit
voltage. Now suppose that we then use a capacitive
reactance that should deliver the same 10 AMPS at the
noted open circuit voltage. If fact what happens is
that excess of 10 amps is drawn under those
conditions, because the chosen capacitive reactance
begins series resonating with the internal Z(int)
value of the stator windings. Thus in actuallity the
method of using a short to the supply to determine
maximum available amperage from the same supply is
invalid; when using matched opposite reactance values.
     The objection that when NST's are used in this
same kind of reactance matching; where that objection
to overvolting the NST transformer is countered by
using Larger The Resonant: LTR cap values as a load,
would seem to be ruled unnecessary in the case of a
well insulated pole pig to achieve the same objective.
It may well be that "identical to resonant cap loads"
or ITR values could then be successively employed with
pole pigs themselves powered by the (properly) field
regulated alternator. If we look at the Z(int) value
of the pole pig itself  being a perfect reflector
that would cause  its capacitive secondary load to
achieve its same primary consumptive value as the
secondary predictions would make; this is a serious
error.

     Predictions mean nothing when practical real
world demonstrations show different results. The
inductive reactance of an open secondary pole pig
primary amperage measurement is SUPPOSED to be a
linear relationship with regard to frequewncy input.
The quantity of inductive reactance present in the
pole pig primary measured by open secondary
measurement at 60 hz is Supposed to be linear/ whereby
8 times the frequency input that should result in 8
times the  measured inductive reactance is entirely
untrue. Likewise the same linear supposition for large
inductive reactive loads being linear is likewise
entirely untrue. The relationship is quite more
unlinear then people would assume by book learning.
   But assumptions themselves can be decieving. If a
30 ma rated short NST is driven at 8 times the pole
pig imparted frequency by a smaller voltage inputed
alternator, the shorted NST output THEN does show the
same linear relationship, in that formerely at 60 hz i
shows 30 ma on short, with 120 volt input/ but now it
shows 30 ma/8 currents at short.( with the same 120
volt input @ 480 hz) In contrast however the same
(resonant)capacity chosen as the pole pig load may
provide a significant voltage rise.
    These things may sound confusing however certain
non- linearities are present when assuming X(L) to be
a constant linear increased value with increase of
frequency input. There is far more here to the eye
then would initially appear.
Sincerely HDN