[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: More arc simulations





Tesla List wrote:     Acknowledgement: Mark Barton who used to be on this list
was the

> first coiler *I knew* who reasoned that a high Xp was a desirable
> attribute. There were probably others I was not aware of. We jointly
> investigated this a couple of years ago. Further experiments without
> the gap showed a dramatic improvement in raw Q if the primary was
> elevated considerably from the ground or mounted perpendicular to it.
>
> Malcolm

..............................

  Malcom,

The TCBOR in tape #1 or 2 back in 1989 and 90 made a number of statements
based
on our work so it is on record before the internet was ever an item of note.

1. Never build a coil low to the ground.  (losses increase)
2.  Always use a primary of larger inductance (5-6 turn absolute minimum)
Note*
doesn't apply to 20 foot diameter primaries.
3. Always use the smallest tank capacitor and the highest voltage possible
within
the limits of your power design goals.
4.  Always use a very high inductance secondary.


By 1991 we had added the maximim that........" only the largest toroidal sizes
allowed large sparks to be produced and that our recommendation was that the
toroid should dwarf the resonator."

I think I got on the internet back in 1995 or something like that.  I screamed
that then when this list was young.  I have re-iterated all these tips
about 20
times in numerous posts.

 It is nice to see that theory and intellectual reasoning is finally
catching up
to casual observations by experimenter/researchers of 10 years ago.  Not
that the
theory or math proves the observations.  Quite the other way around (as almost
always) - solutions and working systems forces the theorists to scurry
about in
search of reasons for seemingly disparate results found in working systems.
 They
just gotta' fill in those blanks.

Thus far, I haven't seen one of our old maxim's given the lie....Only
supposedly,
" rediscovered" afresh by each new wave of Tesla buffs lapping up on the
shores
of real experiment.  While it is true we offered generalizations which left
many
thirsty for a "model" or something they could simply "plug in values and
turn the
crank".  I still have not seen that happen to my complete satisfaction.
Lots of
great efforts and new "mathematical support" for old hard won knowledge,
but no
"plug in the numbers and spit out a killer system" programs.

I doubt that might ever occur because the math has yet to deal with Arcs in
air
and plasma dynamics at atmospheric pressures or the divergent
characteristics and
abilities of individual builders.

What we have is spice or Pspice or this or that model...monte carlo method,
 etc,
etc, and some "special reasoning" has shown that the old counter-intuitive,
anti-RF engineering, emperical observations and results are not just a lot of
hooey.  The secret was that many would be theoreticians never really
gripped the
idea that spark was all we were after at any price!  Not efficiency, not the
highest Q, not the highest terminal voltage, etc.  A lot of recent work
posted on
the net has shown, now theoretically, that large sparks, don't necessarily
mean
any or all of these optimum RF engineered conditions need be present to the
ultimate figure inorder get fantastic sparks.

It is and has always been a matter of how to best transform energy into
loss in
the medium (air) and avoid at all costs..... RF radiation...... our number one
enemy.

A good 10KW coil will not be able to be picked up on a decent radio at its
resonant frequency 1 mile away.


Richard Hull, TCBOR

P.S.  The above in no way is meant to demean or nullify the excellent work of
late by any on this list, but to point out that the theoretical
machinations are
finally catching up to simple obsevation.  I have remained silent on much
of this
as I feel with two ears and one  mouth I should listen and learn about
twice as
much as I spew out or try to teach.  RH