[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [TCML] BPS Testing
I was just reading your E/M I think you miss caculated your figures indicate
a lot more the difference between .25 and.o261 is .224.
From: tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 12:28 AM
To: Tesla Coil Mailing List
Subject: Re: [TCML] BPS Testing
Something else I did today was verify my gap spacing between electrodes.
4 of the gaps are .05", but one is .061" and just happens to be the gap
in which the fiber optic probe is looking at. So, the total gap is not
0.25", but .0261". So a little deviation there. Not really much of a
change for arc voltage with only .011 difference, but still I wanted to
"note" it. The gaps are used and need a good cleaning. The electrode
assembly actually pulls out of the fan assembly as a 1 piece unit after
disconnecting the 2 wires, so I really should take 10 minutes and clean
it one of these days.
However, I was thinking about the gap light. I realize any light along
the length of the tube in which I was monitoring with the fiber optic
probe would saturate the transducer (regardless where the arc occurred
along the lengths of the tubes). Because the other electrodes light is
blocked by the fact that the tubes are epoxied to the pvc ensures other
pipe gap light isn't affecting the bps measurement of this particular
gap. Unlike current measurements at the cap or primary, this measurement
is actually measuring the gap breaks itself without any outside
influence (current phenomenon). When the gap fires, it emits light, and
when it quenches, the light goes out. It's that simple. I think this
particular measurement is actually an "honest" measurement of bps as it
is the gap itself and does have issues with current phenomenon occurring
before, during, or after. What you see is what you get. And that is
something to take seriously about this particular test procedure and setup.
With other measurements, we look at waveforms and "attempt" to deduce
the firing rate. With this setup, the human attempt to deduce firing
rate is removed. I have tried to argue with my own measurements (to be a
skeptic at all times), but I can find nothing wrong here and thus I look
at other measurements in which I "can" make many assumptions.
> Hi All,
> Today I ran the coil at 140Vac and retested bps.
> I also measured input current at both 120Vac and 140Vac while running
> the coil.
> During the 120V measurement, current fluctuated between 12.7A to 13.7A
> = 13.2A average = 1.58 kva.
> During the 140V measurement, current fluctuated between 14.6A to 15.8A
> = 15.2A average = 2.13 kva.
> For the BPS Testing, I ran similarly as before, except this time I got
> rid of the switching power supply and simply installed some 9V
> battery's on the board to power the light transducer.
> The total recording time is 11.3263 seconds. Total breaks were 1176.
> BPS is then 104. So still pretty low.
> Photo of the setup:
> Photo of the gap:
> The sample rate was set to 2500/s, so time divisions are 0.008 seconds.
> Here's the various files (windaq, raw csv, filtered bps excel file):
> Take care,
> Tesla mailing list
Tesla mailing list
Tesla mailing list