Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 27
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
All today's birthdays', congrats!
GODSFUSION (37)
Zajcek (37)
ElectroDog (33)
sportcoupe (56)


Next birthdays
04/29 GODSFUSION (37)
04/29 Zajcek (37)
04/29 ElectroDog (33)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: Tesla Coils
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

DR tank impedance, lower vs. upper pole

Move Thread LAN_403
Steve Conner
Tue Nov 29 2011, 07:38AM
Steve Conner Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
Well, Uspring showed that if the secondary is loaded heavily enough, the two poles disappear, and there is only one frequency where zero current switching can be achieved.

My PLL drivers have always allowed to choose the operating pole independent of the tuning. With this in mind, I'm saying that the choice only matters for ignition and the early stages of the burst, and by the end of a long burst it will have converged to this single operating point.

With a feedback driver, you choose the operating pole by tuning, and tuning will also change the frequency and impedance of that loaded operating point.
Back to top
Goodchild
Tue Nov 29 2011, 08:15AM
Goodchild Registered Member #2292 Joined: Fri Aug 14 2009, 05:33PM
Location: The Wild West AKA Arizona
Posts: 795
This brings up something interesting that I noticed when playing with my QCW. On one run I swapped in a 10nF tank cap but I didn't have enough primary turns to bring the freq down to the secondary frequency. As a result the primary was running 20Khz higher that it should have been, yet the performance of the system was not hindered all that much.

What it did do however was change the performance during different parts of the burst. At higher power (top of ramp) the systems seemed unstable but at the beginning of the burst the system was very stable. This instability in the tuning resulted in a limited power level for a given tuning point before the the system became unstable and the sparks started to branch. This instability was even enough to mess with the regulation of the class D feeding the bridge.

Some one needs to come up with a way to make all this electronics stuff less complex, my brain hurts... rolleyes

Eric
Back to top
Steve Conner
Tue Nov 29 2011, 08:41AM
Steve Conner Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
It's not the electronics that's complex, it's the plasma physics! If the load were a big resistor we could design it easily. tongue
Back to top
Uspring
Tue Nov 29 2011, 12:47PM
Uspring Registered Member #3988 Joined: Thu Jul 07 2011, 03:25PM
Location:
Posts: 711
Steve wrote:

The question is, do our coils ever get to this "heavy loading" condition? Could we find out by measuring the primary/secondary phase shift on the fly with a DSO?

Yes, I think measuring the phase difference between primary and secondary current would be interesting. Below I've plotted as in my previous post on DRSSTC theory the real and imaginary part (blue and red) of the primary resistance as a function of frequency. In addition the green line shows the phase between the primary and secondary currents in radians.


1322566928 3988 FT129254 Image4


I've chosen a k of 0.2 and a secondary Q of 10 and uncoupled primary and secondary frequencies to be equal. The phase shift between the currents is near zero at the lower pole and near 180 degrees near the upper one. For the next diagram I've increased secondary loading, so that the Q is about 4.


1322567504 3988 FT129254 Image5


The poles are gone now. The existence of poles depends on the values of Q and k. If k*Q<1 you don't have poles. In my last diagram I've lowered the primary frequency a little bit so that the operating frequency (= zero crossing of red curve) is approximately at the position of a 90 degrees phase shift.


1322568503 3988 FT129254 Image6


The point I want to make is, that if you have poles as in the first diagram, they will prevent you from getting a 90 degrees phase shift, because the poles are far above or below the 90 degrees point. If you don't have poles, you can tune your primary right to that place. So getting a 90 degrees shift is an indicator, that the poles have gone.

Dr. Kilovolt wrote:

But this is true only when the resonant frequencies of the two individual circuits are the same, right? When we tune for the upper or lower pole, we usually do this by actually detuning the primary tank to one or the other side, so the conclusions might not be true.
Ok, here is still another diagram. I've used the parameters of my first diagram but have detuned the primary up away from the secondary frequency.

1322569700 3988 FT129254 Image7

You are also left with one operating frequency here, although k*Q>1. This rule applies only for the case, where primary and secondary are tuned to the same frequency.
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.