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

Re: Secondary Research (fwd)





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:39:31 +1200
From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Secondary Research (fwd)

Hi Richard, all,
                You wrote in reply....

> Finding the actual RMS watts into a TC is not all that trivial or easy!  A
> time integration method is a must.  Most amateurs are not really equipped
> for this.
> 
> Second, the actual setting of the static gap is hyper critical and variable
> at best, if true peak firing on the AC sine is demanded. (but could in
> theory be accomplished).  I usually run my static gaps to fire at the 707
> point on the sine. This gives me at least two pops per half cycle but
> sometimes as many as 4 with the same gap setting (quench variability uneven
> discharging, circuit losses, etc).  This is real tough to figure for in real
> life.  Firing point moves along the cycle and even multiplies on occassion.
> I find about 5% of the time I get 4 pops/sine (half cycle) and about 25-30%
> of the time I get 3.  All the rest are two popers and are never symetrical
> about the wave.

Fair comments all. In fact using peak voltage and repetition for 
calculating input primary power is only useful for a static gap and 
then only as an approximation as gap spacing is usually not ideal
as you say. I was using such measures as a comparison only. 
Nevertheless, it was in those particular systems that I noticed that 
utilization appeared to be rather poor when compared to the stated 
power inputs. Perhaps power inputs quoted by some are actually VA. It 
also suggests that rotary gaps are probably better at utilizing 
available power. 

Thanks for the input,
Malcolm