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

Re: More arc simulations




>
>
>
> I would be the last to *knowingly* lay claim to knowledge gleaned by
> those who had gone before me. I hope I offended no-one. I did feel
> that the points were worth reiterating and I also feel that it is
> about time that theory matched practise. I cannot see myself making
> any further useful contributions to the theory now. All that is left
> to do is build according to well established principles and see
> whether those principles are sound enough to break records.
>
> Most Sincerely,
> Malcolm

  Malcolm, All,

I don't think anyone was offended.  I believe that maxims are out there for
superb
coiling and that a lot of building and tweeking would actually yield longer
sparks
and teach more.  Many, many on this list are already benefiting from the doing
like the Texas guys (Bert Pool and Bill Emory).  Their first magnifier out
of the
chute was a killer system.  Kevin Eldridge,  John Carbone, Richard Quick, Bob
Svangren, Fred Glessner, are just a few of the names of folks who achieved
incredible performance using a post 1990 mentality of coil construction.

There are numerous others who were never on this list who came and went
from the
coiling scene in the early 90's who also exceeded all common records per
unit coil
size and power.  I have over one hundred video tapes from others in my
posession
who have contributed by the doing.  At last  count I have about 250
photographs
taken by other coilers.  Most show the traits so common to fine performance
mentioned earlier.

All had just a few things in common, inspite of their own unique slants.
They all
used small caps, large primary inductances, extremly large secondary
inductances,
and finally, greatly outsized toroidal capacities.

The magnifier may only be an extended lightly coupled two coil system, but it
stomps any two coil system into the dust if only for the fact that it gets the
tank system many yards away from the sparks.  This alone would be enough,
but it
also allows the use of extreme terminal loadings.

>From the recent "discoveries"  this would allow much more intense currents
to be
supported in the arc channel.  Inspite of killing Q, it raises ion energies
lengthing their  lifetimes and marginal potentials can be extended to far
greater
ranges by ion bridging.

Lightning could never make its jump off potential.  There just isn't enough
there.  I makes it off current.  Those currents are small at first but the
ionic
bridge is built rather fast in spite of that.
I see the same effect with lightning on my recording electrometers during
electrical storm activity that I see with the Tesla coil.....  Tremendous area
ionization of atmospheric gases.  The Tesla coil has the advantage of rapid,
repetitive, unavoidable resupply of energy to the arc channel that lightning
traditionally can't lay claim to.  Thus, the ionization of area air occurs
very
quickly with a coil (~250ms).  Lightning can take many seconds to build
local area
charge to favorable levels.  Coils can't draw on the megajoule total energies
found in storm cells, but are much more efficient at what they do per watt
expended.

To some degree, potential on the resonator terminal is wasted if it is
purchased
at the cost of channel current.  It is the happy median or synergization of
potential and current at given powers that we seek.  If one must suffer,
let it be
potential.

I, once again, have been doing other fun experimental stuff for about the last
week  Had a few minutes to play computer again.

Richard Hull, TCBOR