Math Doodling II

• To: tesla-at-PUPMAN-dot-com
• Subject: Math Doodling II
• From: David Sharpe <sccr4us-at-erols-dot-com> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)
• Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 05:09:43 -0600
• Approved: twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net
• Delivered-To: fixup-tesla-at-pupman-dot-com-at-fixme

All

I'm sorry I've not responded to the list earlier, due to family
and work commitments.

I'm very impressed by the thoughtful musing of the List concerning
this topic.  It appears to be timely that John Freau's on going
experiments involving varying sync break rates, capacitor sizing,
and input voltages as related to the earlier post.  I suspect the
final outcome of these equations are that high power machines
require high voltages, and that it is very difficult (design wise)
to build a high power machine that operates at exceptionally low
voltages.  Trying to build a 10kW machine that would operate off
of 2.5-4 kV would present diametrically opposed but similar
design difficulties as building a multi-megawatt super power machine
at inputs of 100-200kV.  Dealing with extremely high tank currents,
large resonant capacitors (and large ESR/dielectric losses), and
attendent circuit losses of the former; versus corona, leakage
currents, substantial RSG design issues and high energy intercoil
(primary / secondary or driver if magnifier configuration) flashover
problems with the later.  I am not discounting the fact that as
power levels scale up, the level of design and "upfront" engineering
efforts often increase by a power function, without consideration of
infrastructure physical requirements or costs.

Also, as pointed out by Reinhard, maximizing Vo MAY NOT provide the
longest spark (Thank you for the reality check  :^) ).  Something
for our group to remember, don't let your emotions or opinions get
in the way of good science.  As Ben Franklin admonished:
DO THE EXPERIMENT!

Another gap design metric to consider is material ablation as compared
to transfered charge through the gap system (milligrams of electrode
material / Coulomb of transfered charge).  The lower this number,
the less removed/vaporized material and perhaps an indication of
gap commutation efficiency. Coulombs per bang is relatively easy
to calculate (Q=CV); Total transfered charge about as difficult
(Qt = CV*BPS*Total Run Time), and weighing the electrode assemblies are
not particularly troublesome either.

I appreciate the feedback from the collective group! And yes we'll
keep doodling (and building)  :^)

Regards

DAVE SHARPE, TCBOR
Chesterfield, VA. USA

• Prev: MMC vs Commercial Caps
• Next: RE: Thorated vs. Pure Tungsten
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread