Re: tesla secondaries/locomotive wire
Subject: Re: tesla secondaries/locomotive wire
From: "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 19:53:32 +1200
>Received: from rata.vuw.ac.nz (root-at-rata.vuw.ac.nz [220.127.116.11]) by uucp-1.csn-dot-net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA28757 for <tesla-at-grendel.objinc-dot-com>; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 23:52:26 -0700
At the risk of being a pain, I want to add a note, and ask
> >In fact, what you want to find is the self resonant frequency of the coil.
> >This includes the distributed capacity of the windings. Forget about lumped
> >these puppies are slow wave helical resonators.
> Just so. However this touches on a theoretical point that has been
> rattling thru my mind:
> What if one so manages the secondary (tertiary, if used?)
> design so that the distributed L/Distributed C AND THE
> helical resonator mode are the same??
I have a friend in Britain (with whom I'vve temporarily lost touch)
who is looking at EXACTLY that approach. He has sent me some notes
which I have yet to study. May have a post on this later.
> Are there inefficiencies assocaited with having two resonant
> freqs? It seems there might, but i am speculating...
In the one resonator (i.e. secondary alone)? I don't think you can.
What my friend is looking at is matching the velocity corrected wire-
length to the distributed L and C.
> My (sideline) understanding is that 'helical resonator'
> approach gets closer than 'distributed l/c approach'.
Could you elaborate on this for me please? (e.g. closer to what?)