[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
magnifier vs. classic tc (magnifier modeling)
-
To: "'Tesla List'" <tesla@pupman.com>
-
Subject: magnifier vs. classic tc (magnifier modeling)
-
From: Tesla List <tesla@stic.net>
-
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:30:45 -0600
-
Approved: tesla@stic.net
----------
From: Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM@directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 2:22 PM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: magnifier vs. classic tc (magnifier modeling)
Hi John,
> From: FutureT [SMTP:FutureT@aol.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 6:41 AM
> To: tesla@pupman.com
> Subject: Re: magnifier vs. classic tc (magnifier modeling)
>
> In a message dated 98-03-22 01:40:55 EST, you write:
>
> <<
> > I am personally happy with the results I've obtained. As I say, k for
> > my driver was somewhere between 0.4 and 0.5 and I obtained overall
> > k with unequivocal resolution from the scope of less that 0.1. In fact
> > I have the first piccies of the traces back now. I will scope the
> > same driver with different primaries and different resonators at some
> > stage.
>
> Malcolm >>
>
> Malcolm,
>
> Did you mention the inductance values you used in your tests, I don't
> seem to remember seeing them? The inductance ratio made a big
> difference in my tests, but now I'm seeing still new factors which I've
> described in another posting.
>
> John Freau
I did. The tertiary was somewhere around 5mH, the secondary about
350uH and the primary around 8mH. I agree the inductance ratio will
make a big difference.
Malcolm