Re: An Important Post.

From: 	Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: 	Wednesday, August 06, 1997 3:07 PM
To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: 	Re: An Important Post.

Hi John,
> From:   FutureT-at-aol-dot-com[SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
> Sent:   Tuesday, August 05, 1997 4:19 AM
> To:     tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject:    Re: An Important Post.
> In a message dated 97-08-05 02:35:44 EDT, you write:
> << 
> > From:     Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
> > Sent:     Monday, August 04, 1997 7:22 PM
> > To:   tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> > Subject:  An Important Post.
> >
> Malcolm,
> Very nice work.  Yes, this suggests that a magnifier is quite similar
> in operation to a regular 2 coil system, except for the close coupled
> driver, and magnetically separated resonator.  
> I was under the impression that the Corums consider BOTH the 
> two coil system and the magnifier to be distributed, NOT lumped.
> They did say something about the operation being lumped while
> the gap is firing, and distributed after the gap quenches. 

True, they did. Unfortunately, I don't think they experimentally 
checked the conditions which are necessary for quench to occur or 
else they have a better quenching system than I've ever heard about. 
The systems they considered were sterile as far as spark production 
went which is kind of unreal in the real world. The other point that
I've never been able to reconcile about their scenario is the VSWR 
thing. I don't have a problem with that if the resonator is fed from 
a voltage source (I measured this) but a limited energy supply is 
another matter again.

> As we
> know, most of the energy is transfered to the secondary while the
> system is coupled. The Corums suggested that Lou Balint's
> Twin Peaks Dual Resonator magnifier (two different L resonators, 
> capped with one toroid) should obey distributed WSWR rules.
> But the system did not seem to follow these rules, but followed
> lumped constant rules instead.

That seems entirely reasonable to me. I suggested some time ago that 
a distributed system could _appear_ lumped in operation because of 
the limited energy supply.

 > Duane Bylund's work suggested that adding a large top terminal 
C > may make the resonator more lumped-like, and less distributed in
> nature.

I'd have to agree with that. As the topload gets bigger, Cself 
becomes less and less significant and in the extreme, you get an 
inductor operating way below its self-F with a huge capacitor stuck 
on one end.

>  Have you tried modeling the line with a large top-C added 
> to see if anything changes?

I did add extra C to the line and rise from the signal generator 
still obeyed VSWR rules. In fact I was in effect running a free 
resonator. I haven't yet done a 2-coil coupling job on it yet but 
will do so to find out what law Vo obeys (I'd be surprised if it 
doesn't obey the lumped rules because if it doesn't, an explanation
of how Vout can rise beyond that allowed by energy conservation is
then begging).

> Nice data for understanding coupling, and how the resonator > 
"tolerates" the shorted turn toroid. > 
> Just a few thoughts,
> John Freau 

Thanks. BTW, I got too enthusiastic in one bit. I said it looked like 
a second order LP filter at its turning point when loaded by Zo at 
each end. The phase response was correct but the amplitude response 
wasn't :( Sorry.