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

Re: Why does top capacitance work?



-- BEGIN included message





At 09:01 AM 3/7/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Return-Path: <tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com>
>Received: from poodle.pupman-dot-com ([204.133.95.34]) by mail.stic-dot-net
>          (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-10265) with ESMTP id AAA201
>          for <tesla-at-stic-dot-net>; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 00:42:20 -0600
>Received: (from slist-at-localhost) by poodle.pupman-dot-com (8.7.6/8.7.1) id
XAA19951; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:39:22 -0700
>Received: from ns-1.csn-dot-net (nameserv [199.117.27.21]) by poodle.pupman-dot-com
(8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA19793 for <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>; Wed, 5 Mar 1997
23:34:28 -0700
>Received: from elle (elle.wnp.ac.nz [150.206.51.20])
>	by ns-1.csn-dot-net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA08466
>	for <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:03:03 -0700 (MST)
>Received: from directorate.wnp.ac.nz [150.206.200.1]  with smtp 
>	by elle with smtp 
>	:(Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2) id m0w2iRb-0002hVC; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 08:03:11
+1300 (NZDT)
>Received: from DIRECTORATE/MAILQUEUE by directorate.wnp.ac.nz (Mercury 1.12);
>    Thu, 6 Mar 97 19:06:08 +1200
>Received: from MAILQUEUE by DIRECTORATE (Mercury 1.12); Thu, 6 Mar 97
19:05:58 +1200
>X-Envelope-From: MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz  Wed Mar  5 23:39:21 1997
>From: "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
>Organization: Wellington Polytechnic, NZ
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 07:05:52 +0000
>Subject: Re: Why does top capacitance work? (fwd)
>Priority: normal
>X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.31
>Message-ID: <39B5046553-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
>
>Hi John,
>            The problem I have with using different k's is that the 
>gap losses being the defining losses in the system are going to be 
>quite different for each. How can you compare an extra coil system 
>with a two-coil system when the losses are different? I think you'll 
>discover nothing about the merits of the different approaches with 
>regard to operational mode.
>
>> > >I believe the comparisons should be made using the K that produces the
>> > maximum spark for the system. This is because the magnifier system requires
>> > a high K secondary but the classical coil uses a lower K. Only the input
>> > wattage would be fixed.
>> > >
>> > >I often wondered if a critically coupled classical coil would be superior
>> > to other combinations. I do not believe a critically coupled coil has ever
>> > been built. There are several parameters that have to be coordinated. Rp
>> > would have to equal Rs and Lm = sqrt(RpRs)/(6.283 F). Also Lm = K
>> > sqrt(LpLs).  Note that critical coupling involves more than only a single
>> > hump test.
>
>I would say that in order to state that unequivocally, one first has 
>to define things even more closely - e.g critically coupled while the 
>secondary is ringing up but not issuing sparks? While it is issuing 
>sparks and the gap is still alight?
>
>What say?
>Malcolm
>
--------------------------------------------------------

Malcolm -

Different K's have to be used for the comparisons because the magnifier will
not work properly using the low K's of the classical coil. The gap losses
will be different and that will determine which is the better system. The
overall efficiency and not the operational mode would be the main interest.

I would like to see someone try all of the test combinations you mentioned
for critically coupled coils. If no one has ever built a critically coupled
Tesla coil it's about time this possibility be researched in all its
variations. 

For example, has anyone set up a Tesla coil with a single hump physical
coupling arrangement and determine if this gives Rp = Rs?  How did the
controlled spark length compare with the different combinations?
>
I believe there are many classical coil combinations (and magnifiers) that
we have not explored that may offer advantages over what we are now using.

John C.






-- END included message