Re: Gap Losses

To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Gap Losses
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 20:02:47 -0500
Approved: tesla-at-stic-dot-net

From: 	Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: 	Sunday, August 24, 1997 5:48 PM
To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: 	Re: Gap Losses

Hi all,
         Last week Bert Hickman asked:

<snip>
> A very interesting analysis indeed, Malcolm! A one-way energy transfer
> efficiency of 87-88% is great(!) - sounds like theory DOES predict
> reality - at least in some cases. :^) 
> 
> This level is significantly higher than many coilers would have
> surmised!
> However, I suspect that larger coils, with longer energy transfer
> times, would not fare nearly as well. A few questions:
> 
> 1. At this efficiency, I assume you were preventing breakout? 

MW> Yes. 

> 2. Any experiments which measure how this changes under breakout
> conditions? 

MW> I will endeavour to do something this weekend (I have a four day 
weekend coming up). Judging from what I have seen in the past, there 
is no substantial difference in gap loss itself. 
(This answer stands although the losses decrease in inverse proportion 
to the time taken to effect pri-sec E transfer).

> 3. Under breakout conditions, does the overall envelope become 
> somewhat exponential or stay linear with a different slope?

I can't say for certain. I will check this also. 

I checked this: with air streamers only, the secondary waveform DID 
become somewhat exponential suggesting heavy capacitive loading under 
this condition. With discharges to ground, not much of anything 
remained for any length of time :)

Malcolm