Re: An SSTC simulation

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

Original poster: jimmy hynes <chunkyboy86-at-yahoo-dot-com> 

Hi,

--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
 > Original poster: Jan Wagner <jwagner-at-cc.hut.fi>
 >
 >
 > On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Tesla list wrote:
 >  > Original poster: a a <hermantoothrot2000-at-yahoo-dot-com>
 >
 > Hmm, monkey islands? ;)

Yep!
 >
 >  > What part is dangerous about the hard switching? Is it the extra loss, or
 >  > the voltage spikes? The voltage spikes can be handled with MOVs, and when
 >  > tuned right, the switching should be reletively soft.
 >
 > If the MOVs are directly accross the switches and other critical
 > components, and leads cut to minimal length, then yes, switching is
 > relatively "soft"=spike free. But total efficiency goes down
 > nevertheless.

I meant soft as in ZCS, not spike free. I was saying that if it was tuned 
right, it wouldn't be
hard switching in the first place, but you should put MOVs on there to 
protect it when tuning it.

When he said "dangerous" hard switching, I thought he might of meant that 
voltage spikes would
blow it up. I thought that if he meant the switching losses, he would have 
said inefficient
instead.
 >
 > MOVs take the energy from the voltage spikes and warm up. The switches
 > have increased power loss from the conducted_current * voltage overlap
 > during turn on/off.
 >
 > That's not necessarily a "bad thing(TM)". It's just that hard switching is
 > so horribly inefficient ;-)) because you could do way better with soft
 > switching, like zero current switching or zero voltage switching.
 >
 > Soft switching with a resonant load like the TC also means optimum power
 > delivery to the load.
 >
 > cheers,
 >   - jfw
 >
 > --
 > **************************************************
 >   high voltage at http://www.hut.fi/~jwagner/tesla
 >   jwagner-at-cc.hut.fi - Jan.Wagner-at-cern.ch
 >   Jan OH2GHR
 >
 >


=====
Jimmy