RE: SSTC modelling- any math geniuses?

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

Original poster: "Steve Conner" <steve.conner-at-optosci-dot-com> 

 >As far as defining the characteristic impedance of the resonator
 >goes, a better option is to consider the topload as a termination
 >rather a distributed part of the line. The Corums did all this a long
 >time ago and produced Smith Charts to go with their writings.

I think that my approach should give the same answer as the Corum one, at
the fundamental frequency at least. After all the topload is just a
capacitive reactance, so I feel justified in lumping it in with the
secondary self-capacitance.

As I see it, if the lumped values are chosen correctly (eg by resonance
analysis with GEOTC/FANTC) the lumped component and transmission line models
should give the same answers at the fundamental frequency, it is only for
higher modes that they differ. And I think I am justified in ignoring the
higher modes, since in a *SSTC only the fundamental is excited.

IMO anyway. If anyone can explain why the Corum approach is better, I would
like to hear it.


 >A problem which occurred with their analysis when considering
 >disruptive coils was that their output voltage calculations were
 >applicable only to CW coils

I think it should be OK to consider the ISSTC as a "Quasi-CW" system. The
burst length seems long enough for it to reach the steady state (where power
out of inverter=power into streamers)


Steve C.