[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Arc length equation (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:13:31 +0000
From: Langer Giv'r <transworldsnowboarding19@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Arc length equation (fwd)
awesome thanks for the info
>From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Arc length equation (fwd)
>Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:44:06 -0600 (MDT)
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:00:43 -0500
>From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Arc length equation (fwd)
>You actually need both for longest sparks. High voltage is necessary to
>create the electrical fields which support initial breakdown and further
>spark growth, while high peak currents are necessary to produce channel
>heating and charge replenishment during spark growth. A low power coil
>with a low capacitance topload will generate high voltages but can only
>source relatively low current. It will produce only numerous thin,
>reedy-looking purple colored streamers. Current is required to form the
>hotter, blue-white leaders that are necessary for longer sparks. Without
>forming hot leaders, the individual small spark channels cool down
>between bangs, and you can not get the bang-to-bang growth necessary to
>form long sparks. Forming and maintaining long, hot leaders simply takes
>power. This is not completely unexpected since the same is true for the
>behavior of AC and DC arcs - leaders and arcs share many characteristics.
>John's empirically derived formula encompasses the experimental results
>from a large number of Tesla coils made by him and many others on this
>list. You could actually view it as a form of "empirical optimization",
>since it is based on the results of the best performing coils at various
>power levels spanning watts to huge systems operating at over 100 kVA.
>And, because the equation is based on a parameter that is easily
>measurable (input power), it is actually considerably more useful than
>one based on output voltage or current, neither of which is easily
>We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge
>magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured
>Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit
>Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslamania.com
>Tesla list wrote:
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 03:59:03 +0000
> > From: Langer Giv'r <transworldsnowboarding19@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: mod1@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Arc length equation
> > Hi again
> > That equation for spark length does show the relation between power
> > and arc length, but I was looking more for what makes more of a
> > in arc length, voltage or current?
> > Thanks for the help!
> > Daniel.
> >> From: List moderator <mod1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: Langer Giv'r <transworldsnowboarding19@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: Re: Arc length equation
> >> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 22:39:46 -0600 (MDT)
> >> Hi Daniel.
> >> There was just such an equation posted. Check out the archives, june
> >> 2007, the thread is Jonathon's 6" Coil.
> >> Let me know if this doesn't do the trick.
> >> Chip
> >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Langer Giv'r wrote:
> >>> Hey, I am currently in my second year of Engineering at the University
> >> of
> >>> Alberta. I am just wondering if it is possible to derive an equation
> >> for
> >>> arc length as a function of voltage and current, given temperature,
> >> density,
> >>> dielectric strength, frequency, and any other variables that might
> >> into
> >>> play and make the equation uncontrolled for anything except voltage
> >>> current. The purpose of this is to create a data set, and plot it
> >> a
> >>> graph in 3 space to find out what creates the most breakdown, voltage
> >>> current (for a given quantity, as you obviously cannot match current
> >> with
> >>> voltage number wise, typically). Although I might be goin about this
> >> all
> >>> wrong and there is a simple answer that I have not yet read. Oh well,
> >> doing
> >>> this is good experience anyways. I was thinking something along the
> >> lines
> >>> of:
> >>> L(E,I) = unknown variables and given quantities.
> >>> This multivariable equation will then be partially differentiable
> >> because
> >>> there are only two variables as everything else in the equation must
> >>> known.
> >>> If the equation is then plotted on a 3D graph with z = L, x = E, y =
> >> the
> >>> surface graphed should show peaks showing which variable adds to the
> >>> length the most.
> >>> I havent quite thought that far into the fact that voltage and current
> >> are
> >>> related (which is probably huge).
> >>> Thanks a lot,
> >>> Daniel
Tell us your tech love story in the Summer Lovin Competition for your chance
to win laptop loaded with Windows Vista, Office 2007 and Windows Live