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

Re: Theory of LTR

Original poster: "Gerry  Reynolds" <gerryreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Bob,

I tend to run a little less than 2.8 which allows the charge voltage to get higher. I fire my 15KV 120ma at 24000V. I think V^2 goes up faster than C goes down, however, the higher voltage may damage NST's. I believe the 2.8 will prevent the charge voltage from getting much higher than the Vpeak rating of the power source (assuming proper power flow and no saturation). Some get better sparks by running higher than 2.8 but I think this is transformer dependent as to saturation margins. It could very well be that highest bang is at lower Cp if the overvoltage is acceptable and the transformer doesn't saturate.

Gerry R.


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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>