Re: [TCML] Quench time

["Jared Dwarshuis" <jdwarshuis@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 25, 2007 3:56 PM, Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, that is true. But the losses are comparative. From an efficiency
> standpoint, it is less efficient to transfer energy over a greater
> number of cycles (if looking only at the transfer losses). But how the
> transfer results in losses elsewhere in the system is where we must
> compare overall losses. The typical coil cannot take advantage of higher
> frequencies in the range Chris is looking at, but Chris's coil can. By
> reducing the secondary losses with high conductance and few turns, the
> gap losses (which are thermally huge) are the real threat (just like our
> coils).
>
> All coils use energy over time to do what they do. Typically, we use
> many turns in the secondary and di/dt to achieve the energy storage and
> breakout voltage, but higher frequency can be very lossy. Chris's coil
> can actually take advantage of a higher frequency to promote a large
> di/dt without the need for a high turn coil. We normally consider
> secondary losses as insignificant. Their only insignificant in the fact
> that secondary losses are compared to gap losses, transformer losses, etc.
>
> It may prove that this is "not" a good method for spark production (if
> that is where Chris is eventually going with this coil), but Chris is
> simply experimenting with an idea. Very refreshing I think.
>
> Take care,
> Bart
>
>
> > For a given power level, as the number of transfers of energy per unit
> > time increases the energy of each transfer must decrease. Otherwise we
> > would get free energy;  a direct violation of the second law of
> > thermodynamics.
> >
> > Jared Dwarshuis
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>

I am not out to rake Chris over the coals, or anything like that. In
fact I was not really thinking about his coil at all with my last
post. Mostly I am looking at the large number of posts on this topic
where the accounting of energy needs a bit more clarity of thought.

As for conduction loss at the spark gaps, in wires, and between tank
capacitor plates. One can make a general remark regarding
thermodynamic efficiency. As we slow down the flow of energy across
dielectrics and imperfect conductors we will find that our entropic
losses decrease This may sound trivial, but it is not. In theory if a
spark gap could take forever to act, it would have no heat loss.  Of
course it is also true that a spark gap that took forever to act would
process very little power. (the catch- 22)

As a general trend, slow reactions equate to higher efficiency.

Jared Dwarshuis
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla