RE: A photographic tutorial of Pancake Coil winding...with movies...(fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:36:45 -0500
From: David Thomson <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Tesla list' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: A photographic tutorial of Pancake Coil winding...with
    movies...(fwd)

Hi Bert,

> > What made you think my flat spiral coil was acting like a waveguide at 
> > microwave frequencies?
> 
> You previously stated:
> "Bart just pointed out that the metal pipe you are using acts 
> like a waveguide, or third coil."

The solenoid shaped third coil was acting like a waveguide, not the flat
spiral coil.

> My point was that waveguide behavior will only meaningful at 
> frequencies in the GHz range, not at 428 kHz or 1300 kHz. I 
> fail to see how the operation of your 3rd coil is anything 
> like an air cavity Helmholtz resonator. The only similarity 
> is that both systems are exhibiting forms of resonance, one 
> acoustic, the other electromagnetic.

As an engineer, I know it must be difficult for you to understand electrons
are not actually flowing as a current in the third coil.  There are only
displacement waves in the electrons, themselves.  One electron bumps against
the next electron in such a manner that it is identical to an acoustic wave.
When the third coil is in resonance, both with the driver system and the
coil's own geometry, there is absolutely no current flow, only a potential.

Why modern physics does not acknowledge such an easily observable and
measurable phonomenon is beyond me.

> >> Given the
> >> above, I don;t believe that Helmholtz resonators (audio frequency 
> >> sound resonating chambers) apply to the physics of your system (or 
> >> for magnifiers in general).
> > 
> > Your logic is at odds with my experimental results.  It is clear from 
> > the stationary coronal discharge on the topload that longitudinal 
> > standing waves with no current was achieved (i.e. no wasteful streamers
> > were produced).
> 
> Not exactly - my conclusions are significantly different than 
> yours, and they are consistent with observed behavior, with 
> known Tesla Coil theory/practice, and with the known physics 
> of air breakdown.

This would explain why you, Ed, Matt, and others cannot understand how
Tesla's wireless power transmission system works.  You can only see the
third coil in EM mode and not in acoustic mode.  Is there no small chance
that your understanding is limited and that my understanding is an extension
of your understanding?

> Let's get a bit more specific - I assume you are referring to 
> the experimental setup shown on your web page:
> http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/FlatSpiralSolenoidCombo.htm
> 
> Corona initially appears as short bluish-violet tufts at 
> points where the electric field gradient is sufficiently 
> high. 

So it follows that a system with long bluish-violet tufts have a very high
electric field gradient.  As I witness the countless coil photographs of
long streamers, I notice the conspicuous absense of long bluish-violet
tufts.  This indicates coils producing long streamers have relatively low
electric field gradient, correct?

> On systems with larger terminal 
> capacitance, burst corona makes a distinctive "popping" sound 
> with no corresponding streamer.

Are the systems you are referring to two-coil systems, or three-coil
systems?  I'm specifically talking about three coil systems where the third
coil is seen as a capacitor (ion storage container) only.

> Most experienced coilers have heard and seen burst corona 
> (sometimes referred to as "gas jet" discharges), but they may 
> not have recognized them as such. 

It is quite evident that the quiet and constant corona discharges from my
third coil are not the burst corona phenomena you are discussing.  It is
irrelevant to this discussion.

> Burst corona most typically 
> appears in inefficient or underpowered systems, especially if 
> they also have small toploads. 

As Bart has shown, my system is highly efficient and sufficiently powered,
so again, this meaningless diversion has no relevance to the discussion.

> In order to develop longer streamers and leaders, it is 
> necessary to develop significantly higher terminal voltages, 
> combined with significant topload capacitance. 

It is also necessary to have a net current at the top load, which will feed
the streamer with ions.  You can have all the potential in the world, and if
no ions are being emitted from the top load, there will be no streamers.  

> In analyzing your system, I conclude that you are 
> getting inefficient energy coupling to the tertiary coil. 

Your analysis is inadequate.  The electrostatic field around this coil was
excessively strong, much stronger than any coil having 24" streamers.  You
cannot see the energy because it is all stored in the E field, instead of
supplying a current to produce useless streamers.  

The corona discharges seen on my system only indicate that tuning was still
not perfect.  If the tuning had been perfect, there would have been no
visible discharge at all.  All of the energy transferred via capactive
coupling would have remained entirely in the third coil and only a very
small amount of energy would have been needed to maintain the
primary/secondary system.  This is exactly what Tesla claimed for his
wireless power transmission system.

> This results in low output voltage, with a small topload C, 
> perhaps combined with a dash of low energy 1.3 MHz shock 
> excited ringing - the system cannot progress beyond the burst 
> corona stage.

There is no burst corona in my system, as evidenced by the lack of popping
noises and the consistent output.

> The above discussion reflects the hard-won knowledge and 
> measurements of countless coilers, independent researchers in 
> gas discharge physics, and my own direct observations of many 
> systems. 

God be praised, Bert.  But your two coil analysis does not apply to a three
coil system.  

> I know that you believe you are seeing something 
> else, but at least I've presented the "logic" I employed to 
> arrive at my conclusions.

You are right, I do see something different from you.  And you are right,
you applied your knowledge of a two coil system to a three coil system.  

> How did you conclude that a lack of streamers means a lack of 
> current? 

Because there was a strong electrostatic field around the coil, which could
easily be felt by the skin eight feet away.  When you have that much energy
locked up in potential and there are no streamers, it can only mean there is
no (or very little) current avaiable.

> Was this confirmed by any measurement? You must know that the 
> fact that you are seeing visible discharges means that 
> current IS being exchanged between your topload and the 
> surrounding air. 

Yes, and I acknowledged it is very little.  The standing wave corona
discharge showed that I was very close to resonance, but not exactly there.

> This is fundamental to, and easily 
> demonstrated for, any kind of gas breakdown. If your model 
> says otherwise, it simply doesn't conform to the realities of 
> electrical discharges in gases.

If your model says you can analyze a three coil system by the physics of a
two coil system, then it does not conform to the realities of coil
operation.  

Dave