[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TC Output Voltage
Tesla List wrote:
>
> >From MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nzSun Nov 3 22:48:21 1996
> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:50:24 +1200
> From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: TC Output Voltage
>
> Hi everyone,
> I think I have figured out a way to measure output
> voltage indirectly (at least using lumped circuit values). Since
> we can measure the primary directly, we can observe the amplitude
> of two successive beat envelopes. The ring-down, ring-back-up of the
> primary will show a drop in amplitude due to losses and if the
> system is prevented from breaking out into sparks, spark losses are
> excluded from these losses. Using the difference in successive peak
> primary amplitudes, we can deduce system Q and compare that with
> theoretical calcs. We can also make a good estimate of the losses
> over one half of a beat hump and thereby quantify how much energy
> went to the secondary first time round, also how much arrived back
> at the primary. These are a couple of random thoughts. I would
> appreciate anyone else who can contribute to this doing so with
> out relegating it to pooh-pooh status. If anyone cares to, the VSWR
> view of things could also be used to calculate Vsec, bearing in mind
> that the helix is topped by a lumped capacitance and that secondary
> current with a top hat is considerably more uniform than that you
> would find in a pure helical resonator.
> A friend of mine who is an RF engineer has examined some
> structures and come to the conclusion that a low Zo is required in
> the secondary. That is, a low L/C ratio in the helix itself. That runs
> completely counter to what we actually do in these machines (Lo
> Zprim, Hi Zsec) with Zsec dragged down by a lumped topload. As a
> result, I have suggested that antenna theory is not really applicable
> to what we are trying to do with our coils. Antennas are of course
> designed to radiate prodigiously whereas we are ideally after none at
> all (v. high radiation resistance).
>
> Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated.
> Malcolm
Malcolm,
I've been screamin' this for years. (in articles and papers back to 1990)
Antenna design, radio theory, etc, just is not what we are doing. We
are headed in the other direction completely, looking to "do in" RF
radiation and maximize the loses in the system. Radio folks like unity
VSWR. We seek infinite VSWR. They seek maximum electromagnetic
radiation and zero resisitive air losses. We want all of our losses to
be resisitive and in air only, and deny the resonator or, quarter wave
line, a chance to produce even a whisp of RF even though it is
oscillating like crazy!
Your idea sounds feasible. I would say go for it!
Richard Hull, TCBOR