Re: [TCML] Primary Capacitance Calculations - "Black Boxes"

[DC Cox <resonance@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Using MMCs with a pole xmfr will present problems.  Too many lead
connections lead to high relative inductance thus limiting peak currents in
the discharge cycle.  Also, MMCs are not designed to handle the large peak
currents.

Best to use a hi-Q factor energy discharge cap rated to do the job ----
minimal internal connections that are accomplished with the extended foil
design connections.  Typical is a wide foil area with very low inductance
connections which permit high peak currents.

A typical pole xmfr powered coil, operating with a .06 uF 80 kV energy
discharge capacitor will see peak currents of 3,500 Amps (or more) in the
discharge cycle.  Typically these pulses occur at around 400 pulses per
second for best coil performance which again would be a serious strain for
an MMC which is rated at 432 Amps peak (max).

Dr. Resonance





On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Thomas Schmit <Thomas.Schmit@xxxxxxx>wrote:

> Thank you Bart! That is exactly what I was looking for and I will give the
> site a thorough reading as soon as I get a little free time. I'm looking
> forward to it, in fact - I expect it to be very interesting.
>
> I hope no one has misunderstood me here - I'm not railing on "black boxes".
> But, as many of you know, "black boxes" must be used with caution! If you
> don't have a thorough understanding how the device works, you don't know how
> much leeway you have in the "inputs".
>
> Eg. consider a partial differential solver -  there are many different
> algorithms out there that are basically closed boxes because the code is
> proprietary. (Maybe if you were much better at coding than me, you'd be able
> to hack the software and see what it's doing...) Although they may work
> great for a specific PDE they will fail miserably if one boundary condition
> is just a wee bit different. If you naively assume that altering a BC (even
> in a seemingly trivial way) would have no effect on the validity of the
> solution, you would be in all kinds of trouble! ;-) So, analogously, I
> didn't know whether or not these Tesla coil calculations work with my
> "stiff" voltage source.
>
> Dr. Resonance - How many times did he "derive" Gauss's law before getting
> bored and moving on? ;-) :-D I knew what you meant, just giving you grief.
> I'm not sure I agree with you about the Gaussian. It's just a mathematical
> expresion used to characterize a particular distribution - I'm not sure I
> would qualify it as a tool. I suppose it's a matter of connotations; I have
> a different connotative definition of "tool" when applied to physics.
> Incidentally, I've spent the last year writing scripts that pulled from the
> ROOFIT library to fit distributions of missing transverse energy in the
> ATLAS detector. Virtually every distribution is characterized by a double
> Gaussian with some polynomial supression- except for the "interesting" ones
> ;-)
>
> Also, thank you all again for the "practical" advice. I don't mind a higher
> break rate and it may be the cheaper route as I can cut down the number of
> parallel strings for my MMC that way.
>
> Tom
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla