Re: Even More Mini Coils

From: 	Thomas McGahee[SMTP:tom_mcgahee-at-sigmais-dot-com]
Sent: 	Sunday, June 29, 1997 10:23 AM
To: 	Tesla List
Subject: 	Re: Even More Mini Coils

> From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> To: 'Tesla List' <tesla-at-poodle.pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Re: Even More Mini Coils
> Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 3:15 PM
> From: 	FutureT-at-aol-dot-com[SMTP:FutureT-at-aol-dot-com]
> Sent: 	Thursday, June 26, 1997 3:33 PM
> To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: 	Re: Even More Mini Coils
> << Then I removed the ground connection 
> >altogether and just let them work one against the other.  What?
> >It improved!  >snip>
> >     Robert, I think I just joined you in coiling heaven :)
>  >Malcolm
>   >>
> Malcolm,
> Any theories about why the system works better without the ground?
> Could it be that the base needs to be free to "surge" with the RF
> times, i.e. certain "unbalanced" conditions may occur which need to
> be "free" to occur.   (I'm being a little unscientific here, but oh
> John Freau
I know you addressed this question to Malcolm, but in the spirit of
this Tesla List I offer my own two cents for what it may be worth. Do
you remember the "free-resonator" experiments that preceded the
"magnifier" experiments by the TCBOR? It sounds to me that what
Malcolm has built is pretty much identical in operation to the
free-resonator. In the initial experiments the free-resonator was
attached via a common ground. In this arrangement some of the energy
that *could* have been transferred to the free-resonator *WAS NOT*
due to *OTHER* items being included in the ground system. (Just think
for a moment of ALL the things that are connected to ground...)
Anyway, when the free-resonator and base of the driven secondary are
directly connected without the ground connection, then more energy
can be directly transferred via the base connection. Note that such
an arrangement may appreciably increase the voltage stresses between
the primary and the driven secondary, but that depends on the
symmetry of the system.

The free-resonator experiments quickly led to the full-blown
magnifier experiments. I think that if Malcolm continues his
experiments, he will find that they will lead him in the same
direction eventually. Sort of like a twin magnifier. In this case you
would have a tightly coupled primary and smallish secondary. To
maintain symmetry both tertiary coils would be identical and attached
to opposite ends of the driver secondary. To improve actual operating
characteristics and reduce voltage stresses, it would probably be
best to center tap the secondary driver and attach the center tap to
a good separate RF ground. In *this* arrangement the ground
attachement will *not* appreciably reduce the output, but will
instead give the streamers a good reason to head off in ALL
directions, even though the preferred path will be from the top of
one twin coil to the other. If the tertiary coils are vertically
oriented, then the driver primery/secondary could be horizontally
oriented so that there is no flux linkage and the action would be
100% magnifier action.

Keep up the good work, Malcolm, and keep us all informed of your

Fr. Tom McGahee
(I have not been able to get my portable computer set-up in West
Haverstraw, New York operational yet, but I returned to Paterson for
a day or two, and of course the first thing I did was download my
e-mail for the week. I will attempt to get on-line whenever possible,
even if it is just once every two weeks!)