Re: bang power ? (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 21:21:56 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: bang power ? (fwd)

Antonio your correct (as always). K will be affected, not M (as long as 
the off-axis L is placed far from the coil). Probably in reality, a M is 
also affected slightly as the off-axis is likely near.

The standard K = M / sqrt(L1 * L2); it is K which is ultimately changed 
in the ideal scenario. With off-axis tuning truly out of the EM path, 
the denominator [sqrt(L)] and K will change, not M.

Take care,
Bart

 


Tesla list wrote:

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:18:27 -0300
>From: Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz <acmdq@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: bang power ? (fwd)
>
>Tesla list wrote:
>  
>
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:32:58 -0700
>>From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: bang power ? (fwd)
>>
>>
>>  
>>    
>>
>>>This would be one argument for the classic use of  variable off-axis 
>>>inductance for tuning - it doesn't affect "k". 
>>>    
>>>      
>>>
>>Yep, off-axis tuning mainly changes L. Small change to M.
>>  
>>    
>>
>It doesn't affect the mutual coupling between the primary and secondary 
>coils (M), but increases the
>effective value of the primary inductance, and so affects "k", reducing 
>it to k*sqrt(L1/(L1+Loff)).
>"k" controls the number of cycles required for complete energy transfer. 
>Remembering the "ideal"
>values:
>Mode 1:2, energy transfer in  1.0 cycle: k= 0.600
>Mode 2:3, energy transfer in  1.5 cycles: k= 0.385
>Mode 3:4, energy transfer in  2.0 cycles: k= 0.280
>Mode 4:5, energy transfer in  2.5 cycles: k= 0.220
>Mode 5:6, energy transfer in  3.0 cycles: k= 0.180
>Mode 6:7, energy transfer in  3.5 cycles: k= 0.153
>Mode 7:8, energy transfer in  4.0 cycles: k= 0.133
>Mode 8:9, energy transfer in  4.5 cycles: k= 0.117
>Mode 9:10, energy transfer in  5.0 cycles: k= 0.105
>Mode 10:11, energy transfer in  5.5 cycles: k= 0.0950
>Mode 11:12, energy transfer in  6.0 cycles: k= 0.0868
>Mode 12:13, energy transfer in  6.5 cycles: k= 0.0799
>Mode 13:14, energy transfer in  7.0 cycles: k= 0.0740
>Mode 14:15, energy transfer in  7.5 cycles: k= 0.0689
>Mode 15:16, energy transfer in  8.0 cycles: k= 0.0644
>
>Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>