[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A Puzzle
From: Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 1997 12:23 AM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: A Puzzle
Hi George,
> From: George W. Ensley[SMTP:erc-at-coastalnet-dot-com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 1997 9:36 PM
> To: Tesla List
> Subject: Re: A Puzzle
>
> At 06:45 PM 9/2/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >From: Malcolm Watts[SMTP:MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz]
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 1997 6:03 PM
> >To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> >Subject: A Puzzle
> >
> >Greetings All,
> > This is a genuine enquiry (no, I don't know all the
> >answers regrettably). Last night, I replaced the large resonator in
> >my work system with a much smaller one with the same sphere on top.
> >I am using the same primary but k would be somewhat different.
> >
> > The large resonator is a 10" x 44" space wound job (Ctot about
> >26pF). The small resonator is 4" x 17" and with the same topload
> >resonates at exactly the same frequency as the large one. This coil
> >has around 1800 turns of wire one it and consequently its inductance
> >is much higher (which it would have to be to resonate at 146kHz as
> >its Ctot is much less than the larger coil). OK, I know the wire
> >losses are a lot higher in the small one so on to the next bit of
> >information.
> >
> > Under single shot conditions, the spark length is pretty much
> >the same as the large resonator so that implies that output voltage
> >is pretty much the same. Now that is reasonable because of higher
> >losses and possibly reduced k probably compensated for by reduced
> >total capacitance.
> >
> > The cruncher: The large resonator has created those rare long
> >sparks measured well over 4 feet p-p. The little one is struggling to
> >get to two feet p-p. This is with exactly the same primary coil and
> >cap, energy and gap setting. This situation echoes someone recently
> >switching from a 3" (?) coil to a 6" one. The air discharges from the
> >terminal are a bit shorter with the small one suggesting the reduced
> >capacitance might be a factor. I have not as yet taken any real
> >measurements but will sometime today.
> >
> > The question: why? Any input sought, Ideas welcome from all.
> >I'd like to hear from anyone, no matter how trivial you think your
> >contribution might be.
> >
> >Regards All,
> >Malcolm
> >
> >
> >
> Malcolm,
>
> If this coil was a battering ram i would say it wasn't heavy enough.
> The inertia is either not there or being absorbed by something. I would
> guess a little of both.
I will check the comparative losses. I think the answer might lie
there. If inertia = inductance it certainly is there. In fact the
smaller coil has almost twice that of the large one.
> You can't drive an iron spike with a rubber mallet because the peak
> energy is just not there, but all the energy is delivered just the same.
It appears not to be delivered. Same energy is going in. The answer
might lie in k and/or resonator losses. Those losses are most
certainly higher in the smaller of the two due to the small wire
mostly. It is an interesting experiment none-the-less and might
prove to be definitve in determining how much resonator losses really
matter, even with Q's around 100 or so :)
> I know this is pretty off the wall but i can just see the smaller coil
> crumpling up like a tin can when it slams into the top load.
Well the air streamers off the topload are measurably shorter
than those I get with the large coil. It breaks out just fine though.
Ah well, when all else fails bring on the oscilloscope :)
Thanks,
Malcolm