Re: Output

["Malcolm Watts" <M.J.Watts-at-massey.ac.nz> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

Hi Jim, Terry,

On 30 Aug 00, at 8:16, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Jim Lux" <jimlux-at-jpl.nasa.gov> 
> 
> 
> > I use a resistance value for the gap loss.  I base this value on the
> ringdown
> > time of the primary circuit without the secondary in place.  A simple
> > equavalent resistance.  Of course, the program can measure the loss on
> the gap
> > resistance like any other element.  The resistnace seems to do fine in
> the
> > model and gives good results.
> > 
> 
> >From a physics standpoint this isn't a bad approximation... An arc can be
> modelled quite well by a fixed voltage drop (of a few tens of volts) in
> series with a resistance.  If you change the current through the gap, the
> resistance will change (more current = less resistance).  The 20-30 volt
> drop is insignificant in comparison to the several kV in the typical
> primary, so the resistance is going to dominate.  

I'm still troubled by this 50% thing based on my scope 
observations. I'd humbly suggest that a primary being allowed 
to ring its course and one ringing for only several cycles 
(and hugely decrementing due to energy transfer to the 
secondary) are two different animals, especially if the 
secondary loses its load fast enough through a well 
established discharge path to prevent a reverse transfer. 

Regards,
malcolm