[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Tube Type Tesla Coils



-- BEGIN included message





<< > To All -
 > 
 > I have noticed lately that sometimes over 50% of the Tesla List postings
 > refer to tube type TC's. It should be noted that tube type TC's are not
true
 > Tesla coils.


Both types use air-core dual-tuned resonant circuits, and produce a spark
output, this to me is the essence of a Tesla coil.  In today's postings only
3 out of 40 posts discussed tube type coils.  If there is a desire to limit
the number of postings, then I suggest that people adher to Chip's rule that
"one liner" responses and thanks, be omitted, if they add no new data  (also
stay on Tesla topic in general).

 
 > Tube TC's operate with continuous sine waves from a radio transmitter type
 > of power supply. The load on the transmitter is not the usual resistive
 > antenna type load but a reactive coil circuit load. This device uses coils
 > and capacitors in a much different manner than the way they are used in
 > standard Tesla coils. There is no charging of a primary capacitor to
create
 > dampened sine waves like the typical classical TC, etc. This type of
 > operation produces brush type sparks and sometimes disruptive sparks
 > depending on the adjustments.


Tube coils do operate differently than disruptive TCs, but to me, this is
part of the vast scope of the Tesla coil legacy, hobby, and research.  Why
should experimenters on this list limit themselves to only one approach?
 Perhaps even newer ways to utilize the magic of tesla's invention will be
discovered.  I think I speak for others in saying that most list subscribers
enjoy reading about all aspects of Tesla research. 

 
 > The tube operation and the classical coil TC (or magnifier) operation are
 > two completely different methods of producing sparks. The standard
classical
 > TC operates with a VSWR of about 10 to 1000 while the tube TC operates
with
 > a VSWR of about 1 to 3 like most radio transmitters. I show a graph of
these
 > two types of operation in the Tesla Coil Notebook. Has anyone tried to
 > measure the VSWR of their classical or tube coils? The Corum's said they
had
 > made these measurements but gave no details. I have tried to make these
 > tests but did not have much success.


It seems to me that the whole question of the applicability of VSWR to Tesla
coil operation in still mired in controversy.  There are the VSWR
(transmission line theory) folks, and the lumped constant folks.  The Corums
say that before the spark quenches, lumped constant theory dominates, but
after the quench, transmission line theory dominates.  Most spark gap TCs
have poor quenching, and produce most of their sparks while the gap is still
firing.  
 
 
 > At one time I started to add a chapter to one of my books that would cover
 > tube TC's. I soon realized that I could not find enough information on
these
 > devices to develop a method of engineering design criteria that was
possible
 > with the typical classical TC's.
 > 
 > It appears that now there are several coilers that have enough information
 > to write a tube TC book and publish it for other coilers interested in
this
 > type of device.
 > 
 > My question is " Should tube TC's be on a separate Tesla List of it's
own?".
 > Coilers who are interested in tube types will then not have to scan thru
 > classical coil (or magnifier) postings to find the information they need.
 

I suspect that most tube coilers are also intensely interested in and
continue to build, disruptive coils (such as myself).  Although I have done
tube coil work, my main interest remains in disruptive (both classic and
magnifier) coils.   Also, many disruptive coilers, although they may not
build tube coils, may enjoy reading about them.  And who knows, A COMPARISON,
between the two coil types may lead to new insights into coil operation in
general.  I see tube coil research as potentially valuable towards disruptive
TC research.  An example of this, is a recent experiment by Richard Hull, in
which he compared the electrostatic charging capability of disruptive and
tube coils.  As experimenters, I don't think we can risk the separation of
these two coil types onto different lists.  The tube type coil also provides
a sense of variety to the art.  It seems both reasonable and useful to keep
all this information on one Tesla list.  

    
 > John C.
  >>

John Freau






-- END included message