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.
Registered Member #1451
Joined: Wed Apr 23 2008, 03:48AM
Location: Boulder, Co
Posts: 661
Here's my problem: I'm going to build a spiral coil that is really four different coils all put together in one... There will be four leads and four different caps; one for each section of the coil. I'm hoping that this will give a much higher rise time without sacrificing magnetic field strength. I've seen a similar system like this and each coil had its own switch to control the current. I'm wondering if I couldn't just tie all the ground leads of the coils together and feed them to one scr that is really connected to ground. The other side of the coils would be connected to the negative side of each of their own caps. Would the coils share the current evenly? Or should I use a separate scr for each coil section? Thanks for any info!
Registered Member #2099
Joined: Wed Apr 29 2009, 12:22AM
Location: Los Altos, California
Posts: 1716
Do you want a higher (slower) risetime, or a higher slew rate?
Are the four sections of your quad-wound flat spiral identical, each with its own identical cap, and all fired simultaneously? Then by symmetry, you could connect the 4 coils and 4 caps in parallel without affecting the behavior.
The speedup (with respect to single-wound coil with the same spacing and total number of turns) comes from the sections now being in parallel instead of in series. Assuming the caps are paralleled in both cases.
Theoretically the single-wound coil with 4 caps in series, would have the same timing as the quad wound coil with 4 caps in parallel.
if your just taking a normal coil and splitting it into 4 pieces to divide the inductance and resistance by 4, then just connect them together in parallel and use one bank of caps and one scr, much simpler.
Registered Member #1819
Joined: Thu Nov 20 2008, 04:05PM
Location:
Posts: 137
Putting the 4 individual coil pieces in parallel will divide the resistance by 4, but the inductance can vary widely from expectations.
It would be safe to assume that the inductance would divided by 4 if the coils had none to negligible coupling between them. However, from what I understand about this setup, the smaller coils will be part of a single coil, and thus be very close together. The conventional methods of finding inductance in parallel would no longer apply, and a simulation of the magnetics would need to be run to find the actual inductance.
Registered Member #1451
Joined: Wed Apr 23 2008, 03:48AM
Location: Boulder, Co
Posts: 661
If I put all coils in parallel and use one cap bank, would that increase the rise time? I need to have as fast a rise time as possible with these coils, that was the reason for splitting them up. If they're all in parallel, would they act like one coil with much thicker wire, or will the magnetic fields from each coil still add together? Sorry about all the questions, I'm not that solid on my inductors.
Yes they will act very similar to a coil with thicker wire. Just remember, you are not just changing the rise time, the pulse will also be around 4 times shorter. I dont see why you dont just use a coil with thicker wire, this would achieve basically the same effect.
Killah: Yes the inductance would be variable for each individually coil, but if they have similar geometries etc then it can be assumed they should have similar inductances.
Registered Member #1451
Joined: Wed Apr 23 2008, 03:48AM
Location: Boulder, Co
Posts: 661
I know that the formula for the magnetic field strength is dependent on both current and number of turns. I'm hoping that with this setup I can have a high peak of current (lower inductance and lower resistance) with the same amount of turns. Maybe it won't work like that, but I'll see. I can also set up the wiring to act like one coil with 4 times the voltage and anything in between.
Registered Member #1819
Joined: Thu Nov 20 2008, 04:05PM
Location:
Posts: 137
Turkey9 wrote ...
I know that the formula for the magnetic field strength is dependent on both current and number of turns. I'm hoping that with this setup I can have a high peak of current (lower inductance and lower resistance) with the same amount of turns. Maybe it won't work like that, but I'll see. I can also set up the wiring to act like one coil with 4 times the voltage and anything in between.
If the coils are coupled beyond anything negligible, then the effect will not be the same. If you want a higher peak current with the same pulse time, then you need to increase your system voltage. As an alternative, you can make a thicker-wire coil with less turns and make a bigger capacitor bank to achieve the same LC pulse time. If you are just looking to increase the peak current without regard to the pulse time, just make a thicker-wire coil and use your existing system voltage capacitor bank. Doing so will reduce the pulse time, which, from what I understand, is one of your goals.
Registered Member #2099
Joined: Wed Apr 29 2009, 12:22AM
Location: Los Altos, California
Posts: 1716
I drew this picture to support our discussion of intra-coil coupling and external magnetic fields. Was momentarily surprised by conclusion that parallel connection of quad, or just winding fewer turns in the same area, speeds things up but does not increase the peak magnetic field intensity.
Coils Q and S are quad and single-wound with the same size, wire spacing, and total number of turns. Let's start with the 4 sections of coil Q connected in series, and carrying the same current as coil S. It's obvious that the total length, resistance, and magnetic fields are practically identical to coil S. Also the inductance, because each little wire segment in Q has a corresponding segment in S at same distance from center, and effectively the same flux linkage with the rest of the coil.
Now connect the four sections of Q in parallel, but don't (yet) change the wire current. Magnetic field is unchanged, but terminal current is 4x and terminal voltage is 0.25x. So the coil R and L are reduced by a factor of 16. Time constant sqrt(LC) and characteristic impedance sqrt(L/C) both go down by a factor of 4.
So if capacitor bank is unchanged, and we neglect all parasitic R and L and PIT plasma motor effects, then the capacitor discharge will happen in 0.25x the time, with 4x the peak currrent -- at the capacitor! So the peak current in each of the 4 parallel coil sections, and hence the magnetic field intensity, will be just the same as the series-connected and single-wound cases. (All the stored energy from capacitor is reversibly shifted into energy of the magnetic field, no matter how the coil is wound).
Not all is lost. Because the parallel-connected case has a faster timescale, the absolute rate of change of I and B, and hence the induced electric field, will be 4x greater. So more plasma ionization (?), currrent, acceleration power, and specific impulse during the shorter discharge time, we hope. On the other hand, the R and L of capacitor, switch, and interconnect (and even the R of coil itself) will be proportionally more significant in the parallel case.
It sounds like Turkey9 has not overlooked the intermediate option of connecting quad coil sections in series-parallel.
I agree with big that a single winding with heavier wire and 1/4 as many turns would be similar to the parallel coil. But it would have a less uniform field, and not save any copper. Sorry to be rambling; it's way too late.
-Rich
p.s. don't forget the voltage reversal problem with your electrolytic capacitors. I bet real PITs (designed for efficiency) have an underdamped, oscillatory impulse. If you add a clamp diode then di/dt and plasma motor action are truncated after first 1/4-cycle, wasting the remaining energy in the circuit.
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.