Re: [TCML] Magnifier topics

[David Sharpe <sparktron01@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Paul Nicholson <tcml88@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> David Sharpe wrote:
> > All experiments that Richard Hull, Alex and I have done
> > with magnifiers strongly suggest us must "trap" the energy
> > in the driver secondary, and decouple the "parasitic"
> > load of the powering transformer/primary tank from the
> > resonant secondary/tertiary.
>
> Are these behaviours not also observed with 2-coil systems?
> I suppose quenching would be more critical and harder to achieve
> with the 3-coil, is that the case or is it difficult to compare?
>

The typical behaviour I've noticed with TC's are they have an "optimal"
break rate that if you exceed it, all you succeed in doing is burning
more power, with no net increase in spark length beyond the
optimum.  Based on our collective groups experience, a magnifier's
streamer length continues to grow based on BPS and power input
limitations only.

Our group tried typical RSG, and noticed that there was a dramatic
improvement in performance (kva/ft) by a fast quenching RSG.  Thats
why we developed several super series rotary spark gaps to increase
the approach / departure  speeds by the multiple of active gaps firing.
Also, successful coilers as Ed Wingate uses a 12 point super series
gap of his own design.  So yes, successful quench time is an
absolutely critical value.

I would also like to point out that it would be a serious stretch for
someone in the TCML community to build a truly adjustable SS SG
that could hold off these voltages.  A SISG would retrigger I believe
based on the dV/dT excursions when it is commanded off.  Also
based on your animation, it is not the dI/dT excursion that's so severe
but the dV/dt when turning on (0 to -Vapplied peak in turn on time of
100ns -- 2 usec time regime).  Steve Ward, Finn Hammer, Greg Leyh,
other power electronics experts out there, prove me wrong ;^D
Solid state switches to operate to megawatt power levels have been
commercially available for nearly a decade now, and their costs
have dropped significantly.  But my intuition suspects that the MTBF
for this RSG SISG replacement would not be acceptable at an
academic level, much less and industrial / experimental level;
ignoring the significant developmental and capital cost.

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