Re: Calculating E-Field of SSTC or Tesla Coil

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Gerry Reynolds by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <gerryreynolds-at-earthlink-dot-net>

Hi John and Terry,

I'm wondering what are the other areas that aren't as well understood that
could be incorporated into the "programs".  Following are some ideas
perhaps:

1. Model affects of resonant charging (or partial resonance) when Cp is on
either side of resonance.

2. Incorporate affects of losses
     - in the transformer
     - in the spark gap
     - in the primary tank circuit (winding and capacitor losses)
     - in the secondary

3. Predict breakout voltage for the top load

4. Estimate spark length for the modeled system instead of just the maximum
obtainable length based on input power.

5. It would be nice to do simulations.

Gerry R
Ft Collins, CO



----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:43 AM
Subject: RE: Calculating E-Field of SSTC or Tesla Coil


 > Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>
 >
 > Hi John,
 >
 > At 08:35 PM 7/28/2003 -0400, you wrote:
 >
 > >Terry -
 > >
 > >I agree the programs are getting better. However, there are still
problems
 > >when it comes to tests like the toroid capacitance reduction when placed
on
 > >the secondary. What is required is a standardized testing method for all
of
 > >the Tesla coil measurements. The programs are getting too precise to be
 > >checked by tests as in the past. This is also a problem because if the
 > >program is incorrect no one will spot the problem assuming the test is
 > >wrong.
 > >
 > >John Couture
 >
 > Paul will ask that we need zero ohm impedance signal generators and
 > "pingers" averaging 512 "tests" to extract super accurate data at this
 > point.  It becomes a problem for "purisits" trying to seek that last
detail
 > of accuracy...  We have all those low-Z boxes and stuff....
 >
 > But really, if we are within 1%, who cares?
 >
 > "Practical" accuracy is far exceeded now.........
 >
 > I don't think the high level programs really need "us" right now...  "In
 > the beginning" "we" guided them to the "true" path...  But now, I think
 > "they" guide "us"!!!
 >
 > I always used actual measurements to guide my models and verify them.  But
 > now, the roles are reversed.  Rather than trying to have the models "able"
 > to verify our measurements, we are at a point of having our measurements
 > "trying" verify the models...  The models are good enough we assume "they"
 > are right...
 >
 > Actual measurements have all that accuracy of the equipment, fly's buzzing
 > around, beer cans in the way...  But the computer guys with 64 bit
 > processors and 2gig of ram on board at 3GHz...  The computers are taking
 > over....  We must realize, "simply" that the computer's calculations are
 > "better" than even those of us with the best equipment can measure!!!
 >
 > Cheers,
 >
 >          Terry
 >
 >
 >