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

Re: Proposed capacitive transformer TC?



Original poster: "Jolyon Vater Cox by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jolyon-at-vatercox.freeserve.co.uk>

Antonio,
Here is the schematic in the correct font
(Courier New)
-I hope it comes out correctly this time!

                                           (=+=)
                                               I
                                              L2
                                              L2
---------+------L1------+-----)   L2   (  EIP1
            I                     I           L2
PSU    SG1             C1       L2
            I                     I            I
---------+----------------+--------+----GND
Description:
The electric induction plane EIP1 is a metal plate with
hole in the middle wide enough for L2 to stand within the
enclosed space without touching; it is
connected to L1, C1 and SG1 the spark gap, it  not
connected to L2 the secondary coil other than by
capacitive coupling.
L2 is grounded at one end and connected to a toroid at
the other.

An interesting feature is that it is an
"indirectly-coupled" system. Also it seems to me that
if EIP1 were driven by RF generator the system would
essentially become a Magnifier but with the RF connection
to the bottom of extra coil and the ground plane
interchanged ie.L2 the "extra" is directly connected to
ground and RF is applied to the plane -the opposite to
the usual Magnifier configuration.

The same would result with the spark-gap excited circuit
if the positions of L1 and C1 were interchanged.

Is this reasoning correct-only it seems to me that in a Magnifier the
question of whether or not HV RF was supplied to the base of the extra coil
with the planar electrode grounded OR the the base of the extra coil was
grounded and HV RF to supplied the planar electrode would not matter much,
electrically speaking.
Jolyon

Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 4:08 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed capacitive transformer TC?


> Original poster: "Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br>
>
> Tesla list wrote:
>
> > Original poster: "Jolyon Vater Cox by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jolyon-at-vatercox.freeserve.co.uk>
> >
> > Point taken- there is a mistake in my diagram and the spark gap SG1
should
> > be in parallel with the PSU so that when SG1 fires, current flowing out
of
> > C1 is conducted by L1 back to the gap starting the resonant effect.
>
> Ok. This works. I have just made some low-power tests of this system,
> using low-impedance square wave generator in place of the power supply
> and the gap (this produces a scaled down version of the waveforms).
> In this way I can observe everything with an oscilloscope safely.
>
> I found why my system with an antenna besides the main terminal worked,
> but produced relatively low output: The coupling in that configuration
> is low, and the system operates with many cycles required for the
> energy transfer (13 to 27 for 15 to 30 cm of distance between the
> antennas). This increases losses, and also turns the tuning very
> critical.
>
> I tried then the system with a plane around L2, but using a loop
> of wire around L2, at about 10 cm from the coil. I obtained a tighter
> coupling in this way, with the energy transfer taking from 9 to 15
> cycles for a distance of the plane below the terminal varying between
> 13 and 25 cm. Tuning is less critical, and losses are smaller. This
> system would work well at high power (I will try soon).
>
> This is the waveform observed at the induction plane with the system
> adequately tuned (by adjusting the antenna at the terminal):
>
> http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/tesla/vc1ct.jpg
>
> The beats indicate that all the energy is oscillating back and forth
> between the primary and the secondary circuits, with ~9 cycles
> being required for the total energy transfer. As the capacitances
> were not significantly changed from the ones used in my directly
> coupled coil, the voltage gain is expected to be a bit below 9.5.
> (9.5 times the primary voltage that would exist over C1 at the time
> of the first notch ir it were not present, or about 3/4 of the
> starting voltage, as can be interpolated from the image).
>
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
>
>
>
>
>