Re: Tesla Coil Blunders

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Hi Ralph,

On 8 Apr 01, at 20:56, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>"
> <Parpp807-at-aol-dot-com>
> 
> John C, Malcolm,
> 
> I should know well that blundering into the truth is not the worst of
> outcomes.
> 
> I have been following this thread on what I will call TC dynamics.
> That is, the measurement and design of TCs for the changes that must
> take place when the coil is operating and energy is being released;
> the moving (dynamic) state as distinguished from the usual static math
> we normally use in designing a coil.
> 
> When I read about spark capacitance and resistance, and the voltage
> divider network formed by the spark R and the coil R, it all reminds
> me of Heisenberg: I think we should all be very uncertain. Until this
> current thread I have mostly considered the coil as having almost,
> repeat almost, as little effect on the spark as the gun has on the
> bullet once the bullet leaves the gun. In reality, this situation is
> much more complicated because the spark and the coil are operating
> within changing electric fields. The process boggles, and I wouldn't
> begin to know how to approach the math on this. Let the buyer beware
> but IMHO, there is a strong uncertainty factor here and you guys may
> not be measuring what you think you are measuring.

The loaded secondary Q of 10 that I gave can actually go a lot lower. 
I've seen all secondary energy disappearing into a discharge to 
ground in just two cycles of oscillation. It is a lot higher with 
corona or air streamers only. I've seen this captured on the storage 
scope.
 
> The disruptive coil technology never had a chance to mature, and much
> of the math and physics may be unexplored. Do you guys consider your
> work as original research? Is there any text material available on the
> subject?

I've not seen any research on loaded secondary Q outside of what 
people have reported on the list, myself included. Since the 
oscillating waveform in the secondary with no spark loading is log 
decrementing, it is easy to calculate what the Q is under those 
conditions as it is when primarily resistive (dissipative) loading 
occurs. One can then derive a series resistance based on the rate of 
decrement but of course there is a built-in assumption that the 
secondary is a lumped circuit which it isn't. If the spark loading is 
heavy enough, I don't think the classic equation for a log 
decrementing waveform applies. In that case, percentage losses get 
steadily worse as the waveform decrements since it tends to a linear 
shape like the primary and if it starts out with the same amplitude, 
drops away faster than a log decrementing waveform. 
      Hopefully, a formula for effective series resistance for the 
distributed case will come out of the TSSP research.
      I have to ask - does it make any difference whether the coil is 
disruptive or not when it comes to the decrementing secondary 
waveform if energy is prevented from backfeeding to the primary? I 
can't see why it should. 

      John's equation appears to be correct so I take back what I 
said in the heat of the moment and apologize. I can only explain the 
result I got from a rounding error in, of all things, the calculator.
It's still a floating point computer of sorts.

Regards,
malcolm