Re: Tesla simulations vs. scope traces (fwd)

From: 	Scott Stephens[SMTP:stephens-at-enteract-dot-com]
Sent: 	Tuesday, December 23, 1997 1:23 PM
To: 	Tesla List
Subject: 	Re: Tesla simulations vs. scope traces (fwd)

At 08:29 PM 12/22/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Subject: 	Re: Tesla simulations vs. scope traces (fwd)

>> components are of at least 3 to 1 greater magnitude than the approx 100KHz
>> component.  I think this may be the secret of the magnifier.  If you
tuned the
>> extra coil such that it's res freq is equal to the L1 ring-up, you could
get 3
>> times the output?????

Seems to me, for a high-Q secondary you have Fr>>F-ringup (underdamped)
If the ring-up frequency = Fr, you have a criticaly damped pulse
transformer, right?

>a loose coupled driver, things are much more complex (and not worth 
>the effort) as then the secondary and extra coil have to be looked at 
>as a single resonant entity with a discontinuity between them. I'd be 
>interested to see a model of such a situation.

You mean two loose coupled resonators, K around .1? A detailed analysis is in

"A high potential Tesla coil impulse generator for lecture demonstrations
and science exhibitions by Kenneth Skelden, Alastair Grant and Slan Scott,
in that great little American Journal of
Physics, 65 (8) August 1997, pages 744 to 754." recommended and graciously
offered by Winfield Hill (his tech's will fax you it, see his
sci.electronics.design post)