Re: ALF: why not DRSSTC?

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Steve Conner <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


> I had thought that OLTC addressed the techniques for 'Off-Line' 
> operation of a Tesla Coil.  Does the term also refer to the general 
> case where a single solid-state device replaces the spark-gap in a 
> classic impulse-type Tesla Coil?

I think nowadays the term refers ONLY to the setup of a DC charging 
Tesla coil with the spark gap replaced by a single solid-state 
switch. After all, if the term was used in the more general sense of 
anything that runs "Off the line", most types of SSTC would be OLTCs 
too and that would cause even more confusion.


>For this reason the DRSSTC might qualify as a *third type* of Tesla 
Coil, >owing to its quasi-CW nature.

I would be the first to agree. I have been banging on about the 
quasi-CW thing for about a year but nobody took any notice until now. :P


>It appears that the full-wave bridge drive isn't essential to the
>quasi-CW operation

Again I agree, I have seen a paper describing a pulsed RF power 
supply (for a fusion reactor) that uses a single switch in a 
flyback-type configuration. However I think the full-bridge is the 
best for developing high power levels. They had to use a lot of 
snubbers on their IGBTs whereas with a bridge, transients are clamped 
a lot better.


Steve Conner