[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwrRE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr



Tesla List wrote:
> 
> >From lod-at-pacbell-dot-netWed Oct  9 22:54:40 1996
> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 20:28:36 +0000
> From: GE Leyh <lod-at-pacbell-dot-net>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwrRE: Arc length vs pwrRe: Arc length vs pwr
> 
> Richard Hull wrote:
> 
> > Example:  1000 watts input energy
> > watts remaining:
> >                                 best case       worst case
> > Transformation                  980 watts       960 watts
> > ballasting                      882             864
> > Tank/switching                  794             648
> > coupling                        119             97
> > secondary                       113             92
> 
> Interesting figures.  I'm not sure that I'm reading this chart correctly.
> Is this chart stating that over half of the total losses occur in the
> primary and spark gap (794-119 = 675 Watts, best case)?


I see how the chart might be mis-interpreted.  My fault.  The figures 
given refer to the energy remaining after the named factor to the left of 
the figures is accounted for. 

 Thus, prior to magnetic coupling we had 794 watts in primary magnetic 
energy and after this energy coupled to the secondary we only had 119 
watts introduced into the secondary.  The biggest losses are in coupling 
the magnetic energy to the secondary.  Unless you are using iron cores at 
low frequencies, magnetic couplng is a real losser.  BIG TIME!!!!  Air 
cores are LOSS CITY!

Richard Null, TCBOR