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

Re: More arc simulations



Tesla List wrote:

> Original Poster: Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
>      Models can do wonderful things, They can test new ideas and designs
> quickly, simply, and cheaply.  They can search out and find design problems
> and suggest optimal component values.  My earlier posts had modeling data
> that took about three hours to find.  If I had to make real coils to do
> those tests, it would have taken years.  There is no doubt that models
are an
> extremely powerful tool.  However, the problem with models is getting the
> darn things to agree with the real world!

> Although, Richard, you may have done this too and haven't mentioned it
> in the time I have been on the list.  I know you have most of the tools to
> do it ;-)



>   Lots of bleeding edge technology in this hobby but, of
> course, that's why we are all here.
>
>      Terry
>
> At 06:59 AM 10/15/98 -0400, you wrote:

Terry,

Your recent work of modeling successes is what prompted my post!  The
models are
indeed looking up.  But as you note, they are quite complicated.  I would be
stunned if they actually get simpler due to deletions.  I feel they will
only get
more complex as they approach perfection.  As well they must be to describe
anything close to reality in the complex interactions involved in the
calamity of
sparks and arcs in larger systems.  The best that might be derived is what is
almost always derived in such cases.  A few "engineering equations" to get
close
to the goal based solely on observational/experimental evidence.   As
always, the
engineers should be pretty saavy to apply them well.(tweeks and fudge factor
tables.)

I have stated my feeling on current vs. potential and ionic bridge building
of arc
channels in other posts this evening.  Most of my experiments both past and
present seem to point to this.

Yes I have made those measurements with the instruments in the past.
1990-1996
and they are in my lab notebooks with little real commonality.  I always
seemsed
to build something that severely violated my findings and it often worked
better!
More measurements, more meaningless numbers.

Only recently with my fusor studies and in depth plowing into the phsics of
plasmas and ionized gases to I start to see the figures in a better light.
The
light shines outside the coil and not within.  All coil design must be
based on
gaseous conduction and figured backwards.  This closely mimes Tesla own
admonition
in the CSN to perhaps design from the discharge terminal backwards.  They are
close analogs.

 I now finally have a basis for understanding why I screamed bigger and bigger
toroids (which were giving real world results) in spite of my good engineering
background telling me that with each increase in size, I was killing system Q.

Richard Hull, TCBOR