Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:49:55 +1200
From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 21:21:38 +0000
> From: "John H. Couture" <couturejh-at-worldnet.att-dot-net>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Re: How to rise the secondary? (fwd)
> Malcolm -
> What you are saying contradicts what theory says and that is that coupling
> only changes the time of energy transfer and not the amount of energy
I claim it does. The longer the transfer time, the more is lost in
the primary in the process of effecting the transfer. The primary is
not lossless and neither is the secondary.
> However, the scope should show coupling as a change in the half cycles
> timing and tuning as a change in the amplitude of the waveform at the end of
> the transfer. Do you see this on the scope and how does it correlate with
> the K coupling and tuning changes that you are making?
> John Couture
The fundamental frequency of the system is not substantially altered
by the degree of k applied. The scope shows this. The spectral
content of the beat envelope is but I claim that is a moot point.
If the coils are tuned to one another, there is no perceptible change
in the system fundamental when examined in the time domain. Changing
tuning of either coil doesn't make a big difference to the final
amplitude except if the capacitance of either circuit is more than
incrementally altered. Changing the L/C ratio of either tuned circuit
makes a difference in proportion to the degree of alteration.
> >> I have not solved the problem
> >> of finding the exact coupling for a particular TC. However, coupling is not
> >> critical as it does not affect the amount of energy transferred. Only
> >> sufficient pri/sec clearance is required to prevent sparkovers. I agree more
> >> research is needed.
> >I think coupling does affect the amount of energy transferred. If it
> >is set between two of the magic values (again, loss-adjusted) then
> >transfers will not go to completion. One can see this on the scope.