Re: SSTC- feedback vs. none

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Steve Ward <steve.ward@xxxxxxxxx>

I say if everything is tuned properly, it will work just fine.  This
is much easier said than done!!  The streamers mess everything up.
Using feedback usually just eliminates 1 tuned part of the scheme.

I think you are in an interesting situation where your IGBTs are slow,
but your secondary Fr is kinda high, so feedback is just difficult to
make work properly.

Good luck!

Steve

On 1/26/06, Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Original poster: "K. C. Herrick" <kchdlh@xxxxxxx>
>
> A voice from the past, still around...
>
> My "bucket-primary" SSTC sits there un-fixed but I hope to get to it
> again before I expire.  In the interim it's occurred to me to ask,
> Why bother to employ feedback to sustain oscillation, when circuit
> phase-shift and/or inability to track exactly the secondary's Fr
> requires that excitation cease after the first few cycles, to evade
> that pesky "notch"?  Absent contrary words from the wise, I'm
> inclined to change my setup to a) stop each spark event after a max.
> of just a few cycles and b) merely use the starting-oscillator I've
> already incorporated to provide the drive to the IGBTs.  I currently
> employ a binary counter to cut off the drive, which would yield
> cutoff at only 2, 4, 8, etc. cycles.  If I change that to a
> decimal-output counter, I can cut off at 1, 2, 3,...10 (or maybe 9)
> excitation cycles.
>
> What say you?
>
> Ken Herrick
>
>
>