Re: Even More Mini Coils (twin)
From: Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 1997 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: Even More Mini Coils (twin)
Hi John, all,
I've noted the impedance matching aspect in another
> From: FutureT-at-aol-dot-com[SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 1997 3:35 PM
> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Even More Mini Coils (twin)
> >As a result of this series of experiments, I now think one of the
> >primaries typically used in twin coil systems is redundant. The
> >only requirement for energy transfer is that it gets to the system
> >as a whole. The current is efficiently transferred from the base of
> >the driven coil to the base of the free-standing one. Also, resonator
> >winding directions no longer matter because the operating mode is
> >now different. Perhaps someone with a larger twin system could
> >check it out and let us know please.
> >Malcolm >>
> A very nice, and interesting experiment.
> In a way, your system is something like a "magnifier in reverse", in the
> sense that the additional secondary is fed at its base, except from the
> bottom of the first sec, instead of the top. Of course it's not really like
> a magnifier, but it shares the base feed aspect.
Actually I think it is. The only real difference I can see is that the
feed impedance for the free resonator is near ideal.
> The experiment implies (IMO) that a small number of turns could be
> substituted for the "driven" secondary, and then both secondaries
> could be remotely set up, each connected to opposite ends of the
> "small middle coil". This would truly make it into a twin magnifier,
> with both resonators driven from opposite ends of one secondary, or
> middle coil. Spark length would probably remain about the same. I
> think someone mentioned something like this once on the list also.
Absolutely! This has been a plan of mine for a while.
> But the greatest change here would be that the coupling would change,
> becoming much tighter in typical magnifier fashion, and a faster quench
> time would be needed, of course.
All the benefits :)
> Back to your coil, I agree, your finding does simplify the constuction
> of twin coils, since winding directions no longer matter, only one
> primary is needed, less tank losses occur since long interconnecting
> wires between primariesare not needed, etc. So efficiency should be
> better also.
Well power is now going into spark whereas it was heating the ground
before. The ground is never going to have zero impedance. For one
thing, only the damp subsurface really conducts. Trying to connect to
the core directly is out of reach for grounding systems in use. That
means that any connection must be capacitive and any resistance in
the coupling path is going to waste power.
> I would imagine that anyone testing the concept should keep the overall
> coupling of the system constant between the before and after systems.
Exactly what I did.
Thanks for the thoughts,