Re: [TCML] Subject: Overheated Secondary

[bartb <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi David,

Yes it would.

If I used a .075uF cap size at 120 bps in say an SRSG setup: = 6.48j x 
120bps = 778W.
If I used a .019uF cap size at 120 bps is say an SRSG setup: = 2.13j x 
120bps = 256W.

For spark length, I use the following:
Spark Length (inches) = sqrt(VA) + (sqrt(eJ x BPS x 1.263) x .75), (.75 
is as a loss factor).

In the case of the .075uF, sqrt(2120)+(sqrt(6.48*120*1.263)*.75)= 69.6"
In the case of the .019uF, sqrt(2120)+(sqrt(2.13*120*1.263)*.75)= 59.5"

My coil runs about 60" spark length on average, so it's exactly as I 
would expect it to.
For a cross check, the JF equation would show 66" in both cases.

The reason I use the above equation is that it accounts for bang energy. 
Someday I may insert a cap into LTR mode on this coil, but not today.

Btw, Javatc had a similar sqrt(2) issue in the rsg and static gap spark 
length fields (noticed while checking my math). This caused the output 
spark length value to be high by a factor of 1.4. I corrected that and 
pushed Javatc to version 11.5 on the web and pc download zip file. I 
also found my script editor kept changing the Omega symbol when it read 
in the file, so I simply put that back to text "Ohms" as it use to be.

Take care,
Bart

David Rieben wrote:
> Hi Bart,
>
> Am I reading that right? You're running an NST coil at 2.7X
> LOWER or smaller than resonance? Wouldn't that really limit
> your bang energy?
>
> David Rieben
>
>
>
> > Hi Wyatt,
> I'm running my NST coil about 2.7 times lower
> > than Cres with no problems (safety gaps, gap widths, etc. are of 
> > course important).
> >
> > Take care,
> > Bart



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