Re: bang power ? (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:18:27 -0300
From: Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz <acmdq@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: bang power ? (fwd)

Tesla list wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:32:58 -0700
> From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: bang power ? (fwd)
>
>
>   
>> This would be one argument for the classic use of  variable off-axis 
>> inductance for tuning - it doesn't affect "k". 
>>     
> Yep, off-axis tuning mainly changes L. Small change to M.
>   
It doesn't affect the mutual coupling between the primary and secondary 
coils (M), but increases the
effective value of the primary inductance, and so affects "k", reducing 
it to k*sqrt(L1/(L1+Loff)).
"k" controls the number of cycles required for complete energy transfer. 
Remembering the "ideal"
values:
Mode 1:2, energy transfer in  1.0 cycle: k= 0.600
Mode 2:3, energy transfer in  1.5 cycles: k= 0.385
Mode 3:4, energy transfer in  2.0 cycles: k= 0.280
Mode 4:5, energy transfer in  2.5 cycles: k= 0.220
Mode 5:6, energy transfer in  3.0 cycles: k= 0.180
Mode 6:7, energy transfer in  3.5 cycles: k= 0.153
Mode 7:8, energy transfer in  4.0 cycles: k= 0.133
Mode 8:9, energy transfer in  4.5 cycles: k= 0.117
Mode 9:10, energy transfer in  5.0 cycles: k= 0.105
Mode 10:11, energy transfer in  5.5 cycles: k= 0.0950
Mode 11:12, energy transfer in  6.0 cycles: k= 0.0868
Mode 12:13, energy transfer in  6.5 cycles: k= 0.0799
Mode 13:14, energy transfer in  7.0 cycles: k= 0.0740
Mode 14:15, energy transfer in  7.5 cycles: k= 0.0689
Mode 15:16, energy transfer in  8.0 cycles: k= 0.0644

Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz