Re: Fw: frequency (fwd)

To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Fw: frequency (fwd)
From: "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz> (by way of Terry Fritz <twf-at-verinet-dot-com>)
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 20:12:23 -0600
Approved: twf-at-verinet-dot-com
Hi Mike,
         A few comments FWIW:

> Original Poster: Hollmike-at-aol-dot-com 
> 
> >  >> Q:  Is it possible to have an input frequency greater than the 60
cycles
> >  going
> >  >> to the spark gap/primary, and if so, how?
> >  >>
> >  >> Thx,
> >  >>           AT
> Marius,
>    I am presently working on a primary charging system using two ferrite
core 
> transformers, from an old x-ray power supply,  that will be pumped via solid 
> state dirver circuit.  My idea is to be able to adjust the frequency between 
> 1000 and 5000 Hz. 
>     I hope to achieve the condition where the "next" cycle starts just at
the 
> point when the secondary ring down is on it's last cycle.  I am thinking
that 
> if the timing is very precise, these waveforms should experience
constructive 
> interference and slightly increase the amplitude with each successive
cycle.  

Exactly what CW systems do except that they pump the secondary on 
every cycle. The higher you try to push it, the greater the output 
losses.

> The idea here, is that if this can be made to happen, the secondary will 
> experience a resonant rise in voltage that will keep increasing until the 
> system losses limit it(or until break out occurs).    My TC system will be 
> designed such that no breakout would occur under the usual charging
system at 
> 60Hz and I will design the secondary such that the LC frequency will be the 
> same as the quarter wave frequency so that a standing wave will be
developed. 

I submit that the secondary is quarter wave anyway. If you look at it 
from a delay line point of view, all you are doing is changing the 
propagation delay by modifying distributed L and C (and by proxy, the 
resonant frequency). I think Terry's current distribution results 
made that clear. It tends to lumped as the terminal capacitance gets 
larger. I haven't seen any unexpected results by choosing Ctop so 
that the wire is physically 1/4 wave long.  

>   The transformers and primary cap are rated for about 6 times the voltage 
> than what I plan to have them put out to prevent damage from feedback.  I 
> think some very interesting effects will be produced if I can successfully 
> achieve the above conditions, including the production of plasma balls(or 
> ball lightning).
>    I believe this is what Tesla was meaning when he stated that there is 
> practically no limit to the secondary voltage that could be obtained through 
> resonance.   I also think this  is what "pushing the swing at just the right 
> moment" means to borrow that analogy.

In principle, Tesla was absolutely right. But think what "no limit" 
would entail: an infinite amount of energy in the primary cap (it is 
charging a secondary capacitance and the best it can do is transfer 
the energy losslessly which amounts to infinite system Q, right?) and 
a terminal shape that can hold off such voltages in air. 
Vo = SQRT(2Ep/Cs) still holds good for the lossless case assuming 
the terminal capacitance is dominant IMHO. With no terminal, the best 
you can losslessly do is 4SQRT(2Ep/Cs)/PI if transmission line 
effects are prominent isn't it?

Comments welcomed.
Malcolm