[TCML] Quench time

[Barton B. Anderson]

Yes, that is true. But the losses are comparative. From an efficiency 
standpoint, it is less efficient to transfer energy over a greater 
number of cycles (if looking only at the transfer losses). But how the 
transfer results in losses elsewhere in the system is where we must 
compare overall losses. The typical coil cannot take advantage of higher 
frequencies in the range Chris is looking at, but Chris's coil can. By 
reducing the secondary losses with high conductance and few turns, the 
gap losses (which are thermally huge) are the real threat (just like our 
coils).

All coils use energy over time to do what they do. Typically, we use 
many turns in the secondary and di/dt to achieve the energy storage and 
breakout voltage, but higher frequency can be very lossy. Chris's coil 
can actually take advantage of a higher frequency to promote a large 
di/dt without the need for a high turn coil. We normally consider 
secondary losses as insignificant. Their only insignificant in the fact 
that secondary losses are compared to gap losses, transformer losses, etc.

It may prove that this is "not" a good method for spark production (if 
that is where Chris is eventually going with this coil), but Chris is 
simply experimenting with an idea. Very refreshing I think.

Take care,
Bart

> For a given power level, as the number of transfers of energy per unit
> time increases the energy of each transfer must decrease. Otherwise we
> would get free energy;  a direct violation of the second law of
> thermodynamics.
>
> Jared Dwarshuis
>