[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ScanTesla program - basically working!!
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: ScanTesla program - basically working!!
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:52:45 -0600
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Old-return-path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:53:43 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <A6JJQD.A._yD.UFRrCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: "Malcolm Watts" <m.j.watts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 10 Jun 2005, at 20:43, Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: Terry Fritz <teslalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi All,
> I note that the ScanTesla program is repeating something the MicroSim
> modeling suggested months back, but I ignored...
> The MicroSim model took all day to work by "hand"... ScanTesla took
> 35 seconds while I "watched" ;-)))
> But it suggests that "very low" coupling may be a good thing.... Like
> a coupling of 0.03!!! I am guessing that this would ring the primary
> to "very high" voltages and give very high secondary voltages (and
> probably good sparks ;-))... The model suggest that this is a fairly
> "optimal" power transfer (and significantly better!) situation for
> getting really high top terminal voltages even with a significant
> streamer load... Lp is pretty much set for the Fo frequency since the
> coupling is so low...
> The effect seems very real!! I am not sure that say Cp voltage is
> "practical" though.... The peak Cs voltage is like 525kV... But we
> could redesign for some pretty nasty primary voltages if needed...
With primary voltages that high, who needs a secondary?
> Lot of assumptions here, but computers don't lie ;-)))) I will try to
> set up a test of this for Sunday's DRSSTC follies...
> If it does not work, some of our long "proven" model parameters need
> to change...
> Much much to ponder.......