Re: tuning more accurately than 5% (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 18:33:30 -0400
From: Richard Hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: tuning more accurately than 5% (fwd)

Tesla List wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 13:40:39 -0700
> From: Jim Lux <jimlux-at-earthlink-dot-net>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Subject: Re: tuning more accurately than 5%
>  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 02:15:53 -0400
> > From: Richard Hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
> > To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> > Subject: Re: Capacitance of a long thin rod (e.g. a spark) (fwd)
> > Tesla List wrote:
> >  This is how I do it.  I am also not deceived into thinking that this
> "optimum"
> > running tune is more than a +/- 5% mime of the real range of
> instantaneous
> > resonator system frequencies.  What it is, is a rough center frequency
> for this
> > resonator in  my room with the specific toroid in place at a fixed
> humidity and
> > temperature and with the sparks hitting those items it typically hits.
> >
> > I stress this in my book on the CSN as did Tesla.  The resonator system
> embraces
> > much more than the wire and topload.  The system, in dynamic operation,
> is
> > non-linear.....So are a myriad of other factors associated with the
> resonant
> > frequency determination over even minute intervals of time.  The idea
> that a
> > disruptively discharged, high power, large sparking system can be tuned
> to
> > within a 5% Delta f about instantaneous system resonance is a pipe dream.
> I fully agree... Perhaps a better use of mathematical models is to predict
> the "general" behavior changes in response to changes, i.e. are big or
> small toploads better, rather than is a 60.12 pF topload better than a
> 60.14 pF load.  And, of course, it is always nice if the theory corresponds
> (at least in order of magnitude (which is a LOT bigger) than 5%) with the
> empirical data.

...........................Agreed!  This is very perceptive of you.   So many
neophytes are looking for that dead on +/- 2% bit.  Order of magnitude is
really good accuracy when dealing with a Tesla system or any system relying of
air arcs or other uncontrolable gas related electrical  phenomena.  R. Hull

> .....................................
> For myself, the physicist in me wants to understand how and why it works
> the way it does for which the theoretical discussion is interesting, the
> engineer in me just wants to see it make big sparks with the least effort
> and just a bit of guidance from theory (and avoid that "analysis
> paralysis". And, I'm not a craftsman, so I'm not going to try and get the
> last 0.001% out of it.   If I want bigger sparks, I'll build a bigger coil.
> Good enough, is...
> (although others will certainly disagree)

Your perspective is mine, precisely!  I am much more of a physicist than I was
10 years ago and am much humbled by the magesty and mystery that man is yet
unable to deal with even in a simple system like the Tesla coil.

So, long arcs it is .....with mystery and magesty for all....

Richard Hull