Re: More Mini Coils (scopes)

From: 	Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: 	Monday, June 30, 1997 3:57 PM
To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: 	Re: More Mini Coils (scopes)

Hello John,

> From:   John H. Couture[SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
> Sent:   Friday, June 27, 1997 3:35 AM
> To:     Tesla List
> Subject:    Re: More Mini Coils (scopes)
> At 04:47 AM 6/26/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >From:  Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
> >Sent:  Wednesday, June 25, 1997 4:30 PM
> >To:    tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >Subject:   Re: More Mini Coils (scopes)
> >
> >RE:
> >
> >> From:   John H. Couture[SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
> >> Sent:   Tuesday, June 24, 1997 7:37 PM
> >> To:     Tesla List
> >> Subject:    Re: More Mini Coils
> >> 
> >>   A storage scope  captures and holds a certain signal on the scope 
> >> for
> >> study. It can not count the number of breaks/charges per spark unless you
> >> have a custom made scope.
> >
> >Please explain. I have been examining secondary waveforms and their 
> >correspondence to primary breaks. No proof has been presented that
> >you can ring the secondary up and up with successive primary shots 
> >using typical break rates either.
> >-----------------------------------
>  If you are able to count the breaks/charges for a specific spark then you
> are accomplishing what I am recommending. How do you explain the fact that
> sparks from a TC vary in length if the wattage per spark is always the same?
> The wattage is the major parameter that determines spsrk length.

We discussed all this some time back. You get an ion buildup around 
the air streamers that successive shots can more easily conduct into.
Nature's example: You cannot judge voltages in lightning by distance 
because of stepped leader formation connecting isolated pockets of 
charge together. The fact is, that the secondary cannot be rung up
as you suggest using ordinary gaps and what are in reality, low break 
rates. You can see all this in great detail on the scope. I have used
"gaps" timed to microsecond tolerances at multiple-kHz break rates to 
check all this out. I published all this research last year. I stand 
by every word. If you wish to believe this is wrong, you must present 
a counterexample that I can measure. I have not seen otherwise in any
experiments I have tried. These range from a running coil at 1.6kVA
to single shot in coils of a range of power levels.

>   Your table showing the lack of correspondance between the wall plug and
> the EcpxBKS is a good illustration of the number of TC's that do not
> corordinate the necessary parameters for good design. With good design the
> results may be even better than shown.

I am absolutely certain they will, so certain in fact that I am now 
embarking on a completely different strategy to power my larger 
systems that bypasses the traditional approaches. Modern electronics 
has progressed way beyond the simple old transformer and choke 

 > > ------------------------------------------
> >
> >>   The other variable would be the spark length which is varying in length.
> >> The easiest way to average this variable is to use a horizontal continuous
> >> spark from the toroid to a ground point, a controlled spark length.. 
> >
> >I refer you to Richard Hull's experiments with fans that show clearly 
> >what happens to a coil that consistently produces long sparks in 
> >still air. 
>  ---------------------------------------------
>   If Richard Hull's experiments are producing continuous sparks  that are
> horizontal from a toroid to a ground point then they could be called
> controlled spark lengths.

Richard showed conclusively that a coil that can throw attached 
streamers quite a few feet pretty well all the time in still air was 
struggling to throw them a couple of feet with a fan blowing air 
around. I've seen this too. It is acknowledged to be a major 
difficulty in operating outdoors by anyone who has tried it.

>   What are you referring to by "repetitive situation"?  Note that a
> controlled spark length is a repetitive condition.

My definition of repetitive as applied to TCs is the repetitive 
pumping of the discharge by firing the gap often enough (e.g. as 
opposed to slow breaks or single shot). There is a "persistence of 
ions" phenomenon at work. 

>   With your largest coil producing a continuous stream  of sparks and now
> and then a bigger spark can you explain what is causing the bigger spark?

See above. It is definitely *not* higher voltage. A high enough 
voltage will cause a spark to immediately connect with anything 
close enough. You have run a TC. You know how they reach out in 
random directions. IMHO, attached single shot streamers (far far 
shorter than a repetitively pumped discharge in higher powered 
systems) are approaching an accurate indication of the voltage the 
system is producing. Your controlled spark length appears to me
to be simulating those conditions. As a measure of voltage, it 
appears to be good. As a measure of how far a coil will throw sparks,
it appears to be wanting.
    It is worth remembering that a spark is a huge loss. It shows that 
up as a burst of heat, light and radiation. The faster the secondary 
dumps its energy, the shorter the time it is going to ring for. But
if it doesn't break out and an ion buildup around the terminal still 
doesn't permit it to break out, it never will. The gap will be 
lighted up like an arc lamp as the lossiest element under such 
conditions. Robert Stephens has an excellent tape showing a multi-kVA 
system with a very large topload doing exactly this. My mini coil 
also does this. In fact it is almost impossible to quench a gap when 
a significant amount of energy remains sloshing around in a high Q
system according to my observations.
      There is no microsecond timing available in mechanical gaps to 
add to secondary energy with the necessary phasing, yet we observe 
that the sparks grow with repetition while the secondary rings for 
just a fraction of the period between breaks. Lest it be thought that 
a random chance break just happens to occur with exactly the right 
phasing to cause the stretch, you then have to explain why sparks 
will hang onto a target for several hundred breaks when the 
favourable chance cannot be happening for more than just a fraction 
of those breaks, and, with equal probability, it can happen with the 
unfavourable (subtractive) phasing.

This is what I've measured and observed anyway. Counterexamples more 
than welcome.