[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Top Terminal Shape
Subject: Re: Top Terminal Shape
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 09:32:10 +1200
From: "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
Organization: Wellington Polytechnic, NZ
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Hi Robert, all,
> From: "Robert W. Stephens" <rwstephens-at-headwaters-dot-com>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>
>
> >
> > > Also, its the smallest radius anywhere (exception below) that
> > > is expected to control, so a thin wire to a separated sphere
> > > is questionable, in fact designing the to terminal so as to
> > > be phyisically mountable, while not having sharp curvature
> > > is tricky. I noted a few weeks back that someone reported (?)
> > > improvement by spacing the toroid up WITH A LARGISH CYLNDRICAL
> > > METAL SUPPORT, to there was minimal corona loss off the wire.
> > > (Was i hallucinating, did somoen so report?) If so, it would
> > > want a slit in one side to avoid 'shorted turn', effects, i
> > > think.
> > >
> > big snip
> >
> > >regards
> > > dwp
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The slit in any component on top of most 2.5:1, L/D or better resonators
> > is
> > absolutely not needed at all. The primary coupled energy at that point
> > is
> > usually k=.005 or so.
> >
> > experiment:
> >
> > Take a shorted ring of copper pipe just slightly larger than the OD of
> > the
> > resonator. Remove all terminal gear to leave a naked resonator sitting
> > in
> > the primary. Disconnect the primary and hook an LCR meter to it.
> > Slowly
> > lower the ring down towards the top of the resonator (you will see
> > little
> > if any change in the primary inductance provided your coil is 2.5:1 or
> > better L/D ratio and you have a tolerable inductance in the resonator.
> > as
> > the coil gets really close to the primary more effect will be noted.
> > But
> > near the top it is of almost no concern and receives almost no primary
> > coupled energy. If you have a mind to, and can actually see a change on
> > the
> > LCR meter with the ring near the top turn of the resonator, figure the K
> > value and compare it to your coupling pri/sec.
> >
> > Feel free to jam all sorts of shorted turn garbage on the top of your
> > resonators! (remember, it will affect the effectiveness the top
> > resonator
> > turns, but it will also protect and shade them. It is a balance.
> > Forget
> > the primary, it is in the next galaxy, inductively.
> >
> > Richard Hull, TCBOR
> >
>
> Richard,
>
> With my background in radio astronomy I can support your claim about
> the primary field being 'effectively in the next galaxy' by the time
> you get to the top of the secondary,.......however I would consider
> the field associated with the top region of an excited secondary in this
> case to
> have some form of an interplay, albeit of reduced power levels to the
> primary example, but an interplay with the shorted turn the topload
> represents, nevertheless. This *may* explain
> a part of the different throwing effects seen from a coil system when
> the large toploading, shorted turn toroid is tried at varying heights
> above the top secondary turn, over and above what effect the
> electrostatic field control also being changed has to do with the
> experiment.
I think it is significant that raising the toroid above the top turns
increases the Q of the resonator up to a point.
Malcolm
> I would expect that the shorted turn represented by the toroid, or
> toroid cluster (when more than one are typically used such as my
> work) would produce a dampening effect on the slow wave rate of
> propagation as it approaches the topload end of the secondary.
> Perhaps my practice of NEVER going to expanded turn spacing at the
> top several turns of a secondary, but adjusting the top turn-toroid
> spacing by
> experiment, creates the same effect of damping the wave near the top end
> of the secondary. I have been very successful with my approach.
>
> Grey matter cognitive thoughts encouraged! Those relying solely on
> spreadsheets and other computer simulations may tackle this problem
> at great personal risk of failure IMO.
>
> rwstephens
>
>