Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
From: John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 1998 6:51 PM
To: Tesla List
Subject: Re: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
At 11:11 PM 1/29/98 -0600, you wrote:
>From: Malcolm Watts [SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
>Sent: Thursday, January 29, 1998 2:45 PM
>To: Tesla List
>Subject: Re: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
>> From: Jim Monte [SMTP:JDM95003-at-UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 11:46 AM
>> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> Subject: Re: Voltage/Length -> reactive losses
>> >From: John H. Couture [SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 2:17 AM
>> >To: Tesla List
>> >Subject: Re: Voltage/Length (fwd)
>> < big snip >
>> > Note that energy and power transfer between the pri and sec circuits is
>> >always 100 percent (Skilling). This is easily understood. The transfer is by
>> >induction and there are no losses in inductive reactance. Also, there are no
>> >equations for losses in inductive or capacitive reactances. The coil
>> >resistance losses and the capacitor dissipation losses are all Ohms law (not
>> >reactive) losses.
>> Unfortunately, any loss is still a loss and will reduce total energy
>> available to do other things. Talking about "reactive losses",
>> how about energy lost to stray coupling to other objects? For
>> example, has anyone looked into losses due to coupling of the
>> primary to a good earth ground as a function of primary distance
>> above ground? Is this negligible?
>You are quite right. It is not negligible. You can easily measure a
>change in Q if you move a good primary further away from the floor.
>Your note on the losses is appreciated. I have tried to make the same
>point on other occasions.
Malcolm, All -
Can you give us an example of how you calculate the reactive losses if for
example the Q varies from 100 to 50?