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

Re: Slow Wave Helical Resonator Experiment

Hi Antonio,

	Many thanks for pointing out my error in assuming the gap stopped
conducting during a primary current notch.  I have read that paper many
times and I always just assumed it quenched where all other Tesla coil's
quenched.  I have a high-speed fine-tip multiple-quench (up to 16 gaps)
rotary gap here.  I will try to redo this test and attempt to break the
primary current during the peak of the cycle.  I don't know if I will be
able to do that or not but I have just about the best equipment available
to try it with so...  
	I ran the situation through my computer model (the computer can quench
whenever it wants :-)).  The secondary voltage was at zero during the break
in the primary current and just stayed there.  The primary voltage across
the gap spiked into the 200kV range as on would expect in breaking the
primary inductor current but the secondary voltage showed no change.  So
the computer does not predict what the paper says.
	I will see what real testing can determine and report what I can find.

Thanks,

	Terry Fritz
	terryf-at-verinet-dot-com




At 11:10 AM 12/7/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Terry Fritz wrote:
>
>>         As the scope picture I posted shows, there was absolutely no
observed
>> voltage rise. The primary circuit quenching is clearly defined in the
>> bottom trace occurring at 180uS (50us/div) on the fourth notch after the
>> initial burst began. The secondary voltage at 294uS (180+114) appears very
>> stable at ~70kV peak with no voltage rise or any evidence of the effects
>> described in the Corum's paper.
>
>That experimental result was (?) obtained with the interruption of the
>primary current at a maximum, not a notch (using a rotaty spark gap).
>The 
>abrupt rise in the secondary voltage was probably an induction coil
>effect,
>with most of the energy in the primary circuit being transferred
>immediately
>to the secondary circuit when the primary current was interrupted.
>Or maybe more probably a bad contact in the oscilloscope attenuator
>corrected 
>itself during the measure...
>
>Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
>
>
References: