Re: Fw: Arc Impedance Study - Computer Models

• To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
• Subject: Re: Fw: Arc Impedance Study - Computer Models
• From: "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz> (by way of Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
• Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 23:53:45 -0600
• Approved: terryf-at-verinet-dot-com

Hi Terry,
           I meant the *charging* combination, not the tank.

M

> Original Poster: Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>
> 
> At 10:40 AM 10/13/98 +1200, you wrote:
> >Hi Terry,
> >            Reading over this reply of mine doesn't really convey 
> >what I intended. What I really meant to say was that there is a range 
> >of L/C charging ratios which work well with simple gaps. If the L/C 
> >ratio falls below this, extra quench ability appears to be 
> >proportionally needed. If one starts with NST X and sets the cap size 
> >for mains resonance, then reducing the cap size below this requires 
> >more quench ability from the gap.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Malcolm 
> >
> snip
> 
> Hi Malcolm,
> 
>     Of course, the current through the gap varies with the L/C ratio.  No
> doubt, with small L values and large C values, the resulting high currents
> cause quenching to be more difficult.  This is another reason larger
> primary inductances may be better in general.
> 
>     Terry

• Prev: Re: Fw: Arc Impedance Study - Computer Models
• Next: Re: Arc Impedance Study
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread