[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwrRE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr
Tesla List wrote:
>
> >From lod-at-pacbell-dot-netSat Oct 12 13:13:56 1996
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 20:12:49 +0000
> From: GE Leyh <lod-at-pacbell-dot-net>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwrRE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr
>
> Richard Hull wrote:
>
> >Example: 1000 watts input energy
> >watts remaining:
> > best case worst case
> > Transformation 980 watts 960 watts
> > ballasting 882 864
> > Tank/switching 794 648
> > coupling 119 97
> > secondary 113 92
>
> <snip>
>
> > Thus, prior to magnetic coupling we had 794 watts in primary magnetic
> > energy and after this energy coupled to the secondary we only had 119
> > watts introduced into the secondary. The biggest losses are in coupling
> > the magnetic energy to the secondary. Unless you are using iron cores at
> > low frequencies, magnetic couplng is a real losser. BIG TIME!!!! Air
> > cores are LOSS CITY!
> >
> > Richard Null, TCBOR
>
> Any theories as to where the energy goes that is lost due to coupling?
>
> -GL
Greg,
I would image that any flux lines that are not common to both coils are
just lost, provided they do not couple to something else nearby in
either the expansion of collapse phase of the primary magnetic energy
pulse. (ground, effective shorted turns, etc). Most of this magnetic
energy would collapse back in on its source coil. (the primary). If we
open it though, (quench the spark), the voltage induced in it is never
forced to do work and is lost. Those flux lines common to both the
secondary and the primary would induce voltage in the secondary as well
as the primary. Some small amount of energy would most likely radiate
away as RF obeying the inverse square law.
Richard Hull, TCBOR