[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Arc length vs pwr
On Mon, 14 Oct 1996 22:25:28 -0600 Tesla List <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
writes:
>> Subject: Re: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwrRE: Arc length vs
>pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr
>
>>From hullr-at-whitlock-dot-comMon Oct 14 21:20:39 1996
>Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 10:58:39 -0700
>From: Richard Hull <hullr-at-whitlock-dot-com>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: 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
>
This is just a thought, but wouldn't any energy in the
primary tank that wasn't utilized in coupling to the
secondary simply remain in the primary as reactive power
creating a "standing wave" on the next primary half cylcle? I know what
I'm trying to say, I just don't know
if I'm saying it right <G>
Mark Graalman TCBA#1399