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

Re: Corum's Resonator Theory


From: 	John H. Couture[SMTP:couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net]
Sent: 	Saturday, November 01, 1997 2:29 PM
To: 	Tesla List
Subject: 	Re: Corum's Resonator Theory

At 12:28 AM 10/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
>
>From: 	Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
>Sent: 	Thursday, October 30, 1997 6:03 PM
>To: 	tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: 	Corum's Resonator Theory
>
>Hello All,
>            After some cogitating and some discussion with Kenneth 
>Corum, I now understand where they are coming from when comparing 
>lumped vs distributed theory. Before I launch into this, please note 
>that (a) I am assuming *no* topload for the resonator, and (b) no 
>spark is issued from the resonator under any conditions (see 
>"problems" below). Assuming these two points, here are the basic 
>ideas:

----------------------------------------   Big snip

>Thanks for listening,
>Malcolm

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

  Malcolm -

  You are a brave soul to want to enter the world of fourth order, non
linear, differential equations. A solution to these equations applying to
Tesla coils is what the Corums claimed in their TCTUTOR Analysis of Tesla
Coils. The Corums have done a commendable job of producing a book and
computer program to cover the theoretical aspect of Tesla coils. However,
trying to decipher the Corums conclusions without resort to reference of
their differential equations is not very fruitful as many coilers have found. 

  The problem of distributed vs lumped L and C values is important to Tesla
coil design but I believe the solution lies in empirical design and not in
differential equations. In the case of Tesla coils the solutions to these
differential equations for TCs are too complex and indeterminate. However,
your analysis would still require the use of standard electronic equations
so others can follow your results. 

  Why would you want to analyse the Tesla coil with no terminal and no load
? Note that a load does not necessarily mean breakout or sparks. It could
mean just charging the terminal to a certain no breakout voltage and
producing an electric field plus losses around the terminal. This would
represent an actual TC more accurately and privide a more useful solution.
This would also give the voltage rise to which the Corums refer. Quenching
would also be more like a typical operating coil.

  "The distributed model fails to predict the resonant frequency, etc." and
also any model that does not take actual test data into consideration. This
means you have to use empirical design if you want your design to represent
an actual working coil.

  I do not think that K would influence the current in different portions of
the resonator. The current is a wave function that must be treated as an
instantaneous value in the circuit. Cutting off the gap without a secondary
terminal would be difficult as you suggest.

  The Corum TCTUTOR computer program uses both the solution of differential
equations and standard electronic equations for its operation. The
weaknesses are that it is not based on empirical data and that it requires
inputs such as mutual inductance, etc, that is not available to the user at
the design stage. These parameters should be calculated by the computer. The
JHCTES program does not have these weaknesses. It uses empirical data to
avoid the problems of distributed vs lumped L and C values. It also has
other features that TCTUTOR does not have.

  John Couture