[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Gap Dwell Times (formerly: Beating Solved)
Tesla List wrote:
>
> >From MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nzThu Sep 26 22:18:09 1996
> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 08:13:59 +1200
> From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Gap Dwell Times (formerly: Beating Solved)
>
> In reply...
>
> > I did some research this weekend, pouring through a Corum brothers
> > monograph and some old posts to this newsgroup and found out that the
> > optimal dwell is 1/(k*Fr), *not* 1/(2*k*Fr). In other words, the spark
> > gap should conduct for only 1/2 of the superimposed beat-frequency
> > envelope. Primary current peaks at that point, and maximum energy is
> > transferred into the secondary.
>
> I started from k approx dF/F, and ringup time = 1/2dF so you can see
> how I derived that. The problem when cutting the gap off (if you
> could) when Ip is maximum is that with k<1, most of the primary
> energy is coupled to the primary. I tried doing exactly this with the
> MOSFET gap and the spikes hit the roof. Virtually none of that energy
> was coupled to the secondary. The spikes in a real gap would have re-
> ignited it anyway. I wonder if they have actually tried doing this?
> I found the ideal dwell to be when the secondary was fully rung-up
> and the primary had virtually nothing left. Even then, quenching at a
> primary zero-crossing is a no-no because of spike generation. I sent
> some photos I took of this process to several people.
>
> Malcolm
Hi Malcolm and all
This is an extremely interesting thread. I am now getting confused.
Exactly what do you mean when you say that the secondary was fully rung
up? Is this when you believe that all of the energy is fully transferred
to the secondary from the primary? If so, how can you tell?
Thanks
Skip