[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-netWed Oct 9 22:54:40 1996
> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 20:28:36 +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
>
> Interesting figures. I'm not sure that I'm reading this chart correctly.
> Is this chart stating that over half of the total losses occur in the
> primary and spark gap (794-119 = 675 Watts, best case)?
I see how the chart might be mis-interpreted. My fault. The figures
given refer to the energy remaining after the named factor to the left of
the figures is accounted for.
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