Pulse power is the way to go. On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> *From:* David Roberson > > Actually the characteristic curves suggest that the input power acts like > a bias that stands behind the incremental behavior. If that bias is > quickly removed then there should exist a point of operation that is > located ahead of the dangerous region. Unless some strong memory exists, I > can imagine that the process would reverse as we all hope. > > > Dave, > > Given what you say above – what about the possibility of a higher level of > control simply by use of pulsed power (at very low duty)? > > For instance, if we know from prior experiment that 100 watts of DC will > eventually lead to large gain but at the risk of thermal runaway, and we > also know that quenching begins almost immediately with removal of power > (unless > the system has already progressed to instability) – then it would seem > that low duty pulsing with the same net power will provide better control > against a runaway. (that is the premise but I have not data to back it). > > In effect, as an alternative to 100 watts DC, it would be possible to > design and construct a pulsed power supply that will provide something > like 2000 watt pulses at 5% duty. The net power in is the same, but 95% > of the time there is no power. The frequency can be long but the idea is > to alternate short sharp pulses with long delays. > > Is there any reason in your model to suggest that this approach is valid? > > Jones > >
