Re: power transformers efficiency

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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

HI Dmitry,
             As you have gathered, part of my last message was sent
in jest......

On 19 Nov 2005, at 11:04, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Dmitry (father dest)" <dest@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>  > Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>  >  > stop - my inattention - what`s the connection between the tank
>  circuit >  > losses and the (E x BPS)? none at all - we compare the
>  consumpted >  > energy from the mains and the energy in the cap, not
>  in the toroid! >  > the difference between W and (E x BPS) is
>  determined only by the >  > losses in the transfomer/ballast - it
>  easily can be less than 10% for >  > example, so - i`m right even
>  more.
>
>  > Richard Quick might have disapproved of your armchair methods ;)

That bit especially :)  I couldn't resist after seeing his quotes
appearing at the bottom of your early posts ;)

> yeah, Obi Van Quick :-D is the _experimenter_, who thought, that
> maximum theoretical efficiency  of the classical coil is 50%, but the
> magnifier`s one is 100% :-) "armchair methods" - d`you remember like
> Richard Hull (without doubt a great _experimenter_) told, that the
> voltage on the toroid didn`t depend from its capacitance at all? but
> you have objected, that _theoretically_ it can`t exceed a definite
> value, in accordance with the energy conservation law? do you remember
> what did he reply to you? i can remind you :-)))

Yes, you are quite right. Quotes from both the above plus the Corums
sent me into the wilderness for quite a while to have a hard think,
just as you are doing. The discrepancies between wallplug draw and
primary power (E x BPS) are there in varying degrees depending on the
coil and power supply configuration. The question I tried to grapple
with was where the inefficiencies lay.

>  > Again, wait until you try it.
>
> NO! i must know this BEFORE, else - what`s the use of this list? ;-)

OK - A current project of mine involves my designing a smps with some
nifty configuration to minimize component count. You can think about
these things for ages but eventually you have to try them when
confidence gets high enough. That's when you discover the things you
haven't thought of.

>  > Bear in mind that 50Hz iron does not perform well with step
>  > functions from the gap being presented to it.
>
> step function is the very small part of the energy transfer period
> from the mains to the cap, isn`t it so? anyway - isn`t it possible to
> solve this problem? as i`ve cope with  the power arcing problem :-)

My theoretical counter was to get rid of the 50Hz iron altogether and
move to a DC cap charger which would allow performance comparisons at
specific dialled-in power levels with different gap settings and with
high supply efficiency (minimize dependencies).

>  > And high voltage current limited transformers have rather a lot of
>  > secondary resistance.
>
> one mot secondary resistance is 113 ohm, i`ll have 4 of them +
> the inductor resistance - not  more than ~700 ohm total. cap`s
> impedance - about 32 kohm, the inductor`s one - about 12.5  kohm, so
> everything will be cool :-)

Right.

Malcolm

>  >  I'm awaiting your measured results with interest.
>
> me too by the way - even with more greater interest ;-D it`s a pity i
> have to wait very long.
>
> -----
> If you ever set up a wireless power transmitting station like
> Wardencliffe as proposed by Tesla, I will personally come and kick
> your ass! (c) 25-07-1996 Robert W. Stephens
>
>
>