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

Re: ScanTesla7.62 :-))



Original poster: Vardan <vardan01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi dest,

At 10:08 AM 6/14/2006, you wrote:
........
and this two ckts is just the same from circuit theory point of view.
don`t know if it has something to do with a real discharge dynamics -
probably not much at best.

If they are "too close", then there is no advantage of one over the other. If course, if there is a better model, I will be the first to change to it too ;-))) The model is only good as an "average" to make the rest of the model give reasonable "average" numbers. However, my best dynamic models do not do that much better. But they kick at streamer hits!!!!

Yes, I do have better ones than V7.62... :-))) They never stop getting better ;-)) But this "afternoon" I gutted the program from this "morning"... Strike capacitance is useless... Seems to be a Vbr to ground of the leader tip x 1.3 thing... But this night is still young :-)))

you can read in details how and why our bleeding edge scientist
arrived at this in here:

http://www.pupman.com/listarchives/1998/October/msg00290.html

"Still more to study here but the implications of such research may
impact our future coil designs greatly."

have you seen any impact in the last 7 years? : )

At the time (98 - 99), many did not "believe" a linear circuit model "could" be used for Tesla coils!!! =:O John Couture and Richard Hull among them. Richard said it would simply drive me nuts... %:o)) But only John's constant mentioning of "empirical" was ever close to doing that ;-))) At the time there was "NO" model. The real answers seemed to be in things like this:

"In 1996 Corum and Corum published an analysis of Jovian plasma torus signals which indicate that there was a correspondence between the setting of Mars at Colorado Springs, and the cessation of signals from Jupiter in the summer of 1899 when Tesla was there." - wikipedia It's not a joke... They really DID publish that...

There were even direct assaults on linear models like this:

http://www.ttr.com/corum/index.htm

I spent far more time "defending" the models than using them ;-)))

http://www.pupman.com/listarchives/1999/October/msg00428.html

Folks knew papers like this were "right":

http://www.tfcbooks.com/mall/corum.htm

I know you have been reading the old posts, so I hope it is all as silly now as it was then...

"Lumped" models did certainly have problems, but then Paul arrived!!! :-)))

http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tssp/

Even though the real time analysis of secondaries opened a vast new frontier(!!), it also showed that the lumped models were not too bad after all for many things.

Of course, that was all 7+ years ago.... Almost everything has changed since... The "220k + 1pF/foot thing" has been used in "practically every" linear model till just recently when a few others like Dan and Steve(s) were able to make their own adjustments too it. We knew a few years back that the capacitance really was a bit higher than 1pF, but "1" was easy to remember. Without taking into account the toroid diameter it still was hard to pin down the number. But when you used the model as a streamer load, all the current and voltages worked out right as far as one could tell. With the DRSSTCs now and very capable "independent" people making very good tests, any errors will now become clear!! Nobody need to trust "me" anymore :-)) However, for 7 "long" years, the model did it's job and "worked". If better models replace it, no one will be happier than "me" because I am really tired of using at it too :-)) All of the LTR stuff was based on it. MMCs relied on the linear models for current and power estimations. Those models ended those "1 million volt" Tesla coil claims. 1/4 wave stuff was going out anyway. The OLTC "needed" that model. My rarely talked of "self quenching" coils need it very much!

It did it's job then, and still is today!!! Like it or not, if you have a linear Tesla coil model that needs a load, it IS "220k + 1pF/foot"... Steve Conner's is the "first" serious alternative!!

Rest assured this "bleeding edge scientist" is more than happy to let "others" do the "bleeding" too!!!! I now see that I have company ;-))) I have been waiting so long too!!!! So bleed you suckers!!! >:O))))

i wonder at what values of R and C he`ll arrive, if i give to him
plot of I(t) in discharge of our big marx guy : D

It would just confuse me more than I already am %;-)) But your plot is "dynamic". The R and C model was never meant to "go there"... ScanTesla will do that, fairly soon now ;-)))) What is the effective electrostatic radius of a leader tip anyway??? Tesla coils seem to ignore it... Still bleeding.......... I even have a critic now (again...) :o)))

Of course, the bottom line is we now have very stable solid state coils that remove most of the "noise" and we have many folks that have even better equipment than "me"!!! And they will "steal the show" that I have been trying to "give away" for years :-)))

Cheers,

        Terry