Re: ALF: why not DRSSTC?

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Greg Leyh <lod@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Terry, All,

Arguing whether to start with OLTC or DRSSTC reminds me of the 
original Blues Brothers' movie, where Jake and Elwood walk into the 
bar and ask what type of music they play there.  The waitress 
answers, "Oh, we have both types... Country and Western!"   The 
design parameter space is teeming with possibilities.

I believe that it's not only possible, but essential to determine the 
best topology at the beginning.  Simulations can accurately model 
much of the complex behaviour exhibited by TC's, and good 
physics-level models now exist for the HV IGBTs.  Changing the design 
topology once the machine is complete would only be justifiable if 
the facility's research mission changed substantially, requiring a 
major upgrade in machine performance.

The current business plan for the ALF involves operating as a 501c3 
non-profit corporation.  There will be no investors per se, and 
therefore no profit motivation beyond the base operating revenue plan.
If some financial windfall caused 'money to pour in,' it would likely 
be spent on increasing the capacities of the facility.

-GL


> Original poster: Terry Fritz <vardin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi,
>
> I guess I should say something :o)
>
> The OLTC is a rock solid "not much that can go wrong thing"...  Greg 
> certainly has the IGBT knowledge!!!
>
> But the DRSSTC is the much better performer with vast capabilities...
>
> "I" would "start" with the OLTC design.  But leave the "option" of 
> going to DRSSTC "wide open" baby!!!
>
> The ALF is a "BIG" project by any standard.  Best to stay with rock 
> solid stuff to get it up and running and make the investors happy 
> ;-))  Then, going to DRSSTC should not be a great leap...
>
> The DRSSTC is definitely "leading edge"!  But with the giant 
> investment in the ALF project, the "bleeding edge" also has to be avoided!!!
>
> So I would play the conservative approach, and be ready to jump to 
> the "wild side" as the money pours in :-))
>
> Like the clever chameleon, keep the options open for change as and 
> if needed...  But at this level of investment "screw ups" are not an option...
>
> Almost stunning to note that the spark gap is not an option either 
> :-))  Tesla would have been...  confused =:O  Till he saw the light :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
>         Terrry