Re: [TCML] Re: Dummy load for optimum cap size Experimentation

[Gary Lau <glau1024@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John,

I was specifically targeting static gaps in this experiment.  All of the
advice and tables used today to choose a cap based on NST ratings have been
based on simulations, and now it seems there's a relatively (Ha!) simple
means of testing power throughput over a wide range of cap and mains values,
so I felt it was time to validate or revise the tables.

Yes, a sync gap would result in a much more stable power throughput.  I'm
amazed at how chaotic the light output is with the static gap, even
considering the long thermal time constant of the filament.  The low
frequency component is low enough to make even analog meter movements
useless.

Regards, Gary

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:51 PM, <futuret@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Gary,
>
> Maybe you mentioned this already, but are you using an SRSG, or
> a static gap.  I'd think an SRSG would give a reasonably steady
> power draw.  (or are you specifically looking for the best cap value for a
> static gap setup?)
>
> Seems in general there should be some circuit available to integrate
> the photocell output over a specific time period to even out the chaos.
> You may have to shield the circuits as you said to stop the RF
> interference.
>
> Analog meters might work better than digital ones in general since the
> needle inertia
> is somewhat self-integrating.  You may not need absolute precision
> (steadiness) for all this,
> just enough that you can see which cap size is best.
>
> Cheers,
> John
> ------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla