Re: [TCML] Top volts with losses (formula bad)

[Paul Nicholson <tcml88@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dex wrote:
> try to understand my disappointment.  I worked on this
> for two days...

> It was too nice,and too simple, to work for messy coiling
> world.  The world where spark loaded secondary Q is low.

Disappointment understood.

As for the spark-loaded real world, all of our models break
down.  Steve Ward hits a nail on the head with:

> Understanding the spark impedance vs Voltage and time
> (i believe the time constants associated with spark
> production are certainly on the time scale of a tesla coil
> RF envelope) seems to be quite elusive.

We know next to nothing about how the TC interacts with its
breakout load.   We don't know how to determine an optimum
topload size and shape for a given coil and power level.
We don't even know if there is such an optimum.  It's a
complicated matching problem involving a dynamic non-linear
load impedance.

I console myself with the thought that to reach breakout, the
TC has to pass through the linear regime that we can actually
model or calculate very well.    A formula restricted to
reasonably high Q factors is valid up to that point, especially
for solid state gapped or driven systems where the primary Q
is not limited by a sparc gap.

The best any of us can do at the moment is model the process
to breakout.

Meanwhile you might be able to rescue the formula by jamming
a Q dependent term into the time-to-max part of the formula.
A bit of a fiddle factor to allow for the early max, but call
it a first order correction so it sounds better and it might
be able to dispose of the bulk of the error at low-ish Q.

--
Paul Nicholson
--
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla