[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [TCML] 50Hz = 'short end of the stick?'
Thank you for your response; my apologies for a belated reply.
At a lower frequency, the tank capacitor must be larger (at the same input voltage and current) due to a longer charging cycle, which forces more power to be pushed through the capacitor per period. The capacitor is, at this point, required to be larger to make the bang-rate synchronous with the line-cycle (resonant).
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:28:48 -0400
> Subject: Re: [TCML] 50Hz = 'short end of the stick?'
> From: johansense@xxxxxxxxx
> To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Back in the day, it made sense to use 50Hz, or 33Hz, or even 25Hz, and
> there were even 16-2/3Hz systems in place
> one reason for the lower frequency is more efficient transformers.
> keep in mind that 600mT was on the high end for flux density in 1900,
> and iron losses were very high before they discovered around 1910 that
> adding silicon made everything so much happier.
> Today its 1.2T minimum, and the new designs pushing 1.9T with an
> amorphous strip wound core, so its less of an issue. (iron loss around
> 1 watt per kilogram at 1.8T 60Hz)
> you beat us when it comes to the 16% savings on line compensation,
> which might be a bigger savings than the 6% larger transformers.
> though for anything under 100KW, higher frequency = higher efficiency
> and lower cost *generally*
> i do have access to 400hz at work, and will be building a TC this
> year... (that will go over well)
>
> why is the tank cap larger?
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850552/direct/01/_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla