[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Magnify Power?


----------
From:  John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
Sent:  Saturday, February 07, 1998 1:52 AM
To:  Tesla List
Subject:  Re: Magnify Power?


  Gomez -

  You are right. Terms for Tesla coils should be agreed upon.

  I agree that using the space shuttle as an example was a poor choice.
However, I was trying to show that power magnification can also occur in
mechanical systems. For example if the power magnification is insufficient
to lift the shuttle increasing the size of fuel tank (increasing the energy)
will not help to solve the power problem. Power is not energy.

  I agree electrical power is volts x amps. However, in the Tesla coil
secondary when power is increased it is usually the voltage and the current
is not important.

  To me power magnification in a Tesla coil means that the voltage is
increased but not the current. A large voltage increase is necessary to make
those big sparks.

  Pulse forming network in the TC secondary that stores energy etc. There is
energy storage in both the pri and sec circuits. The important energy
storage is in the charging of the pri cap under RMS conditions. Next are the
RF dampened waves (not RMS conditions) that occur when the pri cap
discharges into the pri coil. These RF waves are then transferred to the sec
coil by induction at much higher voltages (not resonance?).

  I do not agree that average power must always be lower due to losses.
Losses are always energy and power equals energy/dt. In other words it is
possible to have a gain of power (reduction of dt) in a TC even when there
are losses of energy. 

  Conservation of energy per unit time? Are you saying that power/time
equals what?

  Note, I am not arguing or criticizing, only trying to find a common ground
for TC terms. For example. are power losses proper terminology?

  John Couture  

------------------------------------------------------------------

At 01:10 AM 2/6/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>----------
>From:  Gomez [SMTP:gomez-at-netherworld-dot-com]
>Sent:  Thursday, February 05, 1998 8:41 AM
>To:  Tesla List
>Subject:  Re: Magnify Power?
>
>It seems there is some difference of opinion on how commonly-used terms
>of electrical units are defined.  I know how I've used these terms for the
last twenty 
>years or so, but in order to make sure that I know how everyone else is
using them, I 
>offer the following:
>
>John H. Couture wrote:
>
>>   Power is not energy so magnifying power does not defy the law of the
>> conservation of energy. 
>
>Agreed, if we also agree that:
>energy = power/unit time (ie; Joules=watt/sec)
>-and-
>electrical power = voltage X current
>
>>   Tesla coils are like the space shuttle and hundreds of other power
>> magnifying mechanisms. With the space shuttle if there is not enough
>> power
>> magnification (thrust) in the engines because of faulty design the fuel
>> (energy) will be consumed but the shuttle will remain on the pad. 
>
>Er, having studied propulsion systems formally, I'm afraid you've chosen a
poor 
>metaphor, but I'll go along with it for now.  Comparing electrical energy
systems with 
>chemical/mechanical energy systems is like comparing apples to platypus-
generally 
>non-useful and misleading.
>
>> With a
>> Tesla coil of faulty design there will not be enough power magnification
>> (voltage) and this means the energy (input) will be consumed but there will
>> be no sparks (output). 
>
>Whups, now we have a problem in terms.  "Power" as used by myself or any
other  
>engineer, scientist, or technician that I know does _not_ equal voltage
alone, but 
>voltage X current.
>
>It seems to me that when people on this list refer to power magnification,
what they 
>really mean is increasing the amplitude of some unit vs. time, -or-
decreasing the 
>unit time during which the given amplitude of some unit is observed.
>
>ie; a Tesla coil's secondary "system", properly designed, acts (in gross
terms) as a 
>pulse forming network that stores energy over an arbitrarily longerperiod
of time and 
>releases it in an arbitrarily shorter period of time.  _peak_ power could
be seen as 
>being higher in such a case, but avg. power must always be lower due to
losses, thus 
>the conservation of energy applies in terms of conservation of power per
unit time as 
>well.
>
>>The law of conservation of energy will not be defied.
>
>I agree, but wanted to clarify terms.   If we aren't using the same terms
to mean the 
>same things, we are going to have a lot of confused people on this list,
myself included.
>
>-Gomez
>
>-- 
>Gomez: card-carrying mad scientist, extreme fetishist, fiction dabbler, 
>pyrophiliac, technomage, goth, SF fan, lighting designer, dominant 
>pervert, and juggler of labels... http://www-dot-netherworld-dot-com/~gomez
>
>
>