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

Re: Secondary Theory (Was Bipolar Coil)-Heretical view

Terry, Malcolm et all,

    At the risk of sounding ill informed, I'd like to play Devil's advocate 
on the 1/4 wave theory. While there is no dispute that lumped parameters 
"get the job done", perhaps some subtlety has
been overlooked. Could the discrepancy between the wire length and actual 
resonant frequency be a function of velocity? Coil geometry
has a great deal to do with the final outcome for many reasons, not
the least being distributed capacitance. It sounds reasonable that the
more "media" the electrons have to slog through, the slower the velocity. 
Different combinations of LCR will render the pure length
parameter meaningless, yet it still could be a 1/4 wave phenomena.

   Now that I've braced myself, go ahead and blast me!

Jim McVey

>From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Secondary Theory (Was Bipolar Coil)
>Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 01:30:31 -0600
>
>Original Poster: "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
>
>Hi Terry,
>
> > Original Poster: Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>
> >
> > Hi Malcolm and All,
> >
> >
> > At 10:07 AM 5/3/99 +1200, you wrote:
>
><snip>
> > >      In attempting to apply purely classical lumped values to the
> > >coil the analysis will come unstuck because it misses the electrical
> > >behaviour at different frequencies.
***edited> >
disproved their coherence theory too :-)).  In fact, their 1/4
> > wave theory does really hold, but when one plugs the "right" numbers 
>into
> > their complex equations, you end up pretty much back at the lumped
> > parameter model.  The Corum's used values that they took from some radio
> > inductor theory that does not apply to our coils.  This caused them to
> > develop their rather complex theory based on none real data.  The rest 
>is
> > history...  Your observation that they assume steady state conditions, 
>is a
> > major flaw in their analysis...
>
>And not the only one either. I don't for a moment think that a
>uniform transmission line models the secondary accurately. I am of
>the opinion that it looks like an inductor at the base trending to a
>capacitor at the top. I once modelled this with real life components
>to find the grading that worked. However, I thought it might be
>interesting to see what a different group of academics makes of the
>model. I have to admit that the lack of phase shift in current from
>bottom to top has been difficult to make sense of unless the real
>electrical wavelength of the coil matches the physical one. The
>measurements suggest that this is indeed the case.
>
> >     Today, lumped parameter models have shown to be exceptionally 
>accurate.
> > In fact, even some very subtle harmonic effects seen in real life 1/4 
>wave
> > stuff, just like the old wire length stuff (sorry Nikola), simply has no
> > basis and cannot be demonstrated in real life.  Today, we have the tools 
>to
> > actually see voltage and currents in operating coils with > complex 
>combination of electromagnetic fields.  However, these effects are
> > not related to the old 1/4 wave theory at all.  The E-Tesla program of 
>mine
> > really proved a lot of the new theory in that it relies on being able to
> > predict inductances, capacitances, and field distributions on the 
>secondary
> > system.  If it used the wrong theory, that program would fall apart like 
>a
> > house of cards.
> >
>
><snip>
> >     Wheeler arrived at his famous (and very accurate) formula by 
>methodically
> > testing many many coils and fitting his results to an equation with a 
>set
> > of constants.  As John would say, "empirically".  Unfortunately, there 
>is
> > not and will not be a simple equation for this that is based on none
> > empirical results unless somebody changes the present state of 
>mathematics
> > radically.  Only by computers crunching trillions of calculations and
> > simulating physical fields, can we now predict what is going on.
> > Theoretically it is not complex, but to actually come up with the 
>numbers
> > is far beyond simple equations other than the empirical ones (I'm 
>starting
> > to sound just like John aren't I :-)).
>
>
>**more editing..
> > experimental data other than basic electromagnetic constants.  It 
>certainly
> > does not use any 1/4 wave theory, in fact, it only serves to disprove 
>it...
> >
> > This is obviously a big subject that could go on and on.  If it is of
> > interest, we can start a new thread an go for it...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >     Terry
>
>Always interested. As you rightly point out, measurement must be the
>final arbiter of theory.
>
>Regards,
>Malcolm
>
>


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn-dot-com