Re: Arc length vs pwr

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Arc length vs pwr
From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 15:29:51 +1200

Hi Mark,
            I have a quick answer to your query....

<mucho snippo>

> >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
> >

Mark Graalman:
>   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>

Only if the gap continues to conduct in which case the energy 
exchange between primary and secondary continues until totally
lost (in my opinion).

Malcolm