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

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

to: Malcolm

Bill Wysock and I discussed some of Corum's papers back in the mid-80's at a
Col. Springs Symposium and also came to the general conclusion that
assumptions were being made which were not supported by measurements and our
intuition based on our collective experience with large coil systems.  We
were both very busy with out businesses and simply didn't have the time to
continue the investigation into these areas.  It's great that you and Terry
have put forth the effort to continue to unravel some of the
interrelationships of tuned oscillators.

Regards,

Dr.Resonance


-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Date: Friday, May 21, 1999 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Secondary Theory (Was Bipolar Coil)-Heretical view


>Original Poster: "Malcolm Watts" <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
>
>Hi all,
>        After reading this post and the one from D.C. Cox I've
>decided to put an idea that I think resolves the 1/4 wave/lumped
>conflicts to the list for comment.
>
>> Original Poster: "B**2" <bensonbd-at-erols-dot-com>
>>
>> Hi D. C., Terry, All,
>>     Are you suggesting the possibility that there are oscillations
>> among the capacities of the secondary themselves?  Perhaps an energy
>> loss mechanism scaled with secondary size?
>> Wouldn't this show up as a deviation from the calculated R, L, C
>> lumped frequency model?
>>
>> I personally think more
>> investigation should be done regarding the transfer of energy from
>> turn to
>> turn as this may be a very significant source of energy transfer along
>> the
>> secondary coil.  These effects would also help to explain some of the
>> rather
>> weird differences between present theory and practice.
>>
>> Food for thought.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dr.Resonance
>
>I think Dr R. has hit the nail on the head. There is a fundamental
>difference between helical antennas which the Corums have been
>modelling the TC on and the lumped circuits which appear to work well
>for us. I maintain that there is a world of difference between the
>behaviour of a close wound coil and a highly spaced one with a
>gradual transition in between as the turn-turn spacing increases. I
>think our lumped model has a limited domain of validity as does the
>Corum's model and ours applies to the vast majority of coil designs.
>The reason is the degree of k between each turn. Looking at it like
>this one sees in a closewound coil a transmission line with low
>impedances bridging sections of the line together. k falls off
>rapidly as the spacing increases and the transmission line picture
>becomes dominant. I was able to detect subtle but definite
>differences in numerous measurements between coils whose only
>differences were turn-turn spacing but with everything else equal
>including TPI (they were wound to the same pitch with different wire
>gauges). Additionally, measurements conducted on non-linear wound
>coils by Dr Rzsesotarski and Terry Fritz also show that Medhurst's
>self-capacitance equation is not unconditionally true. If this is
>correct, it explains the discrepancy which Sloan found in his machine
>as well (I think he used a greatly spaced resonator).
>
>    I still have strong reason to believe that the coherence theory
>of the Corums lacks validity in a standard two coil design There is a
>simple thought experiment which can be carried out in practice
>demonstrating an exception to the theory.
>
>Malcolm
><snip>
>
>