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

RE: Corums New Tesla Coil Theory Paper

	Hi all,
	Does anyone know were I could find a copy of Corums New Tesla Coil
Theory Paper
	Thanks

	Jacen 

<<<< www.ttr-dot-com/corum is where the paper is. - Terry >>>>




> ----Original Message-----
> From:	Tesla List [SMTP:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 28, 1999 7:16 PM
> To:	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject:	Re: Corums New Tesla Coil Theory Paper
> 
> Original Poster: "Malcolm Watts" <malcolm.watts-at-wnp.ac.nz> 
> 
> Hi all,
>            I have a few observations of my own to add to those already 
> made on the Corum's paper.
> 
>       While great play has been made on the subject of the role that 
> VSWR plays in coil operation, nothing has been said in this paper 
> (unless I've missed it) that Q is related to VSWR by multiplication 
> with a constant (4/PI).  This has been stated by them in other 
> papers.  There is a clear inference that if a coil has a high VSWR, it 
> also has a high Q, Q being an excellent description of the losses 
> present and easily quantifiable by bandwidth measurements.
> 
>        Nothing has been said about the voltage that can be reached in 
> a lossless helix of specific parameters *when fed by a specific 
> amount of energy* as it is in each and every cap discharge coil. I
> think a clear distinction should be made between the characteristics 
> of a coil fed from a CW source and a fixed energy source. IMHO, 
> anyone tempted to think that a coil rings up and up with successive 
> cap discharges should get an oscilloscope onto it and see what 
> actually happens in a running coil for themselves.  It is also 
> instructive to use a cap discharge circuit capable of sub-
> microsecond dwell and break time adjustment to get a feel for just 
> how difficult it would be to achieve that kind of result with a 
> mechanical gap of any sort, especially when voltages, ions present 
> etc. dictate the actual spark timing.
> 
>      I wonder about the appropriateness of modelling the secondary 
> as a *uniform* tx line. I don't think there is disagreement that the it is
> 
> made up of distributed elements and that current for small toploads 
> is non-uniform.  I can't for a second buy the notion that secondary 
> current is uniform during gap dwell. I can construct a primary which 
> would make that situation impossible (unless the speed of light is 
> infinite of course ;)
> 
> Regards,
> Malcolm
>