[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sync vs. async - was Re: [TCML] 3 phase sync.



Hi Brent,

A couple of comments on your post, interspersed below:

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:50 PM, <bturner@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Higher break rates don't equate into longer discharge lengths. Given that
> the primary circuit isn't swamping out the transformer (saturating) a
> higher BPS results in simply more bangs per second from the secondary, ie;
> transfer of greater energy OVER TIME.
>
> In my 'medium-size' coil system, I have 0.6uF and originally ran at
> 120BPS. Got 6 foot discharges that nicely wandered around. I upped the BPS
> to 240 and the discharges did not increase in length, but became FAR more
> energetic.
>
> Most recently, a gap re-design produced 600BPS(!). Of course the power
> draw (or suck??) went up, but the discharges, though still only about 6
> feet in length, are FAT, NOISY and HOT. White-hot! And my transformer is
> only 1:100 ratio, meaning 12Kv output voltage.
>
> If we step back and think about it for a moment, that's why Tesla had such
> a high BPS in the Magnifying Transmitter - High Cp and low Hp equals FAST
> field build and collapse which couples a lot more energy, which makes
> sense as the 'secondary' was merely a high-current signal source for the
> extra coil.
>
> It's also important to note that the gap dwell time plays a BIG role in
> energy transfer as well. Long dwell in low Z systems is detrimental due to
> a portion of the magnetic field being lost BACK through the gap. Ideally,
> dwell is such that the gap duration *JUST* cuts off when the resonant rise
> in the secondary peaks. Since my system has only 4 turns in the primary,
> and approximately 240 turns in the secondary, it is a relatively high Q,
> low Z system. So a short gap time and high BPS then allow a helluva lot of
> energy to be coupled to the secondary.
>
> I was under the impression that gap dwell time had little to do with
primary/secondary dynamics and coil performance, except for situations when
the dwell is so long and Cp is so small that multiple bangs occur per
presentation.  But since your Cp is a beefy 0.6uF, that shouldn't require a
short dwell time to prevent re-ignition.

I'm also unclear on what you mean by "a portion of the magnetic field being
lost BACK through the gap".  It sounds like you're describing secondary
energy transferring back to the primary tank following the first (or
subsequent) notch(es), but I'm not sure that one can alter when a gap
quenches simply by minimizing RSG dwell time.  Are you suggesting that you
can force first-notch quench just by having a suitably short dwell time?


> Crude math approximation revealed approximately 18 joules(!) of peak
> discharge energy occurring at 600 times per second. Given the uS rate of
> secondary discharge duration, that worked out to something like 18MW(!) of
> peak secondary impulse energy. (And I sit on top of THAT...)
>
> No wonder Tesla was able to coax 100+ foot discharges off the top of the
> 'Transmitter'. (Also no wonder why if I'm not careful, a power-arc will
> literally throw me off the table.)
>

Now now, we've been down this road before - let's stop propagating this
myth.  I thought we were all in agreement that the oft-cited 100+ foot
figure was not at all based in fact.

Regards, Gary Lau
MA, USA


> - brent
>
> <snip>
>
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla