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

Re: Theory of LTR

Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Gerry,

The number is (pie-4)/pie = 2.273
Which does not compare well (18% diff) to 2.8
I will clean up the simple (compared to say magic k values) derivation then
ask Terry to host a copy of it.
Perhaps someone can check it.

Note its not dependent on the break rate for a sync gap.

Robert (R. A.) Jones
A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
407 649 6400
----- Original Message -----

From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Theory of LTR


> Original poster: "Gerry  Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> How did your results compare to the "standard" 2.8*Cres
> recommendation for LTR value when using SRSG (at 120pps).
>
> Gerry R.
>
>
> >Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >Hi Richard,
> >
> >The equivalent circuit is just for the SG and C. I used it with an NST to
> >determine the C for the biggest bang.
> >
> >But its equally applicable to any ballast including inductive and
> >inductive/resistive combination or primary ballast.
> >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.
> >The theory is applicable to a sync gap. But as a static gap has similar
> >parameters in a LTR, STR sense you can use it for that as well.
> >
> >Robert (R. A.) Jones
> >A1 Accounting, Inc., Fl
> >407 649 6400
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:01 AM
> >Subject: Re: Theory of LTR
> >
> >
> > > Original poster: "Dmitry (father dest)" <dest@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > >  > Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >  > Hi all,
> > >
> > >  > I recently tried a different direction on the theoretical the
optimum
> > >  > primary C (Cp) for a given inductive ballast (L)
> > >
> > > is it only for nst using case? coz i for example choose the ballast
> > > for the Cp and the current i need, not vice-versa.
> > >
> > > -----
> > > The solution to no primary hits lay in getting rid of the primary!
> > > This is no joke either.
> > > 20-06-96 (c) Richard Hull, TCBOR
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>