[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Private mail Re: IMPORTANT: RESEARCH ON WHAT?
At 10:55 PM 11/29/98 +0000, wysock-at-ttr-dot-com wrote:
>THIS IS NOT FOR POSTING ON THE TESLA LIST:
Thanks for this line! I haven't posted personal e-mail to the list yet but
I am sure I will screw-up someday :-)
>It is a direct response to Terry Fritz.
>
>Dear Terry,
>
>I know you are the moderator for the Tesla List. I read you post
>below, and simply _had_ to respond to you. My email program
>(Pegasus) is awkward to cut and paste messages, so please foregive
>this method of responding to your posting below.
>
>With all due respect to you, (and to others on this list,) I have
>been reading for many months now, how one thread after another,
>goes on and on, and all the while, it seems no one counters what is
>being supporeted as "gospel" by this experiment or that observation,
>etc.
Some posts don't get responded to because the people that "know" get tired
of answering the same questions over and over. Also some questions may
seem too obviously flawed to warrant a response. Many are answered off
list. I have been trying to catch the really "wrong" or technically flawed
posts in hopes of relieving the burden of responding to "silly" things. I
hate to be in this position of "post worthyness god" but I received many
requests to filter some of the posts in this way. Of course, anyone my
respond if they wish... I hope, since I am the list moderator (a job I
didn't request :-)), that no one feels timid or afraid to disagree with me.
I have a thick hide and I am always open to comments. I don't learn much
from comments like "hey Terry, you are totally correct". It is the "hey
Terry, you are totally wrong" comments that I hope will point out mistakes
I have made and keep me on the correct path.
>Specifically, with respect to your post below, about the behavior
>and (modeling) and (instrument monitoring) of magnifier-type
>Tesla coils, and with specific reference to the post from Richard
>Hull, please allow me to offer the following comments.
>
>First, I want to ask how many people on this list understand and
>can make use of a Smith Chart?
There are 500+ people on the list so I multiply current users with such
skills by a factor of ten to account for the 90% of people who never post.
Like the number of women on the list, you just have to guess (I ran into a
female list member by chance the other day, so I know they out there). My
best guess on Smith charts would be 7 people who currently post. That
would put the total number at 70. Many people use computer programs these
days to achieve the same means and their skills at "the chart" have gotten
rusty, no doubt. I am frequently surprised that some of the 90% of the
quiet members are extremely skilled and knowledgeable. I wish they would
share what they know but many are "too chicken" or they are rather
secretive. Personally, I have long ago given up on Tesla coil technology
making me trillions of dollars :-)
>If you have read all the material
>published by Dr. James F. Coum, and Ken Corum, then you would
>have known about their landmark publication on "An R.F. Tutorial
>for Electical Engineers." I believe it was released at an ITS
>Symposium, circa 1988.
I would be very interested in reading the papers from the Corums that I
have not seen. This is one of them. I note that you CCed them in this
letter. If they have a list of papers I would be very happy to obtain
them. Of course, I would cover any costs involved. I have found them very
difficult to find. If they could contact me with information on how to get
their papers I would love to get them! I believe they sell them so it
would not be right to simply copy them.
>The point being this: If you take a 3-coil
>system (master oscillator consisting of a primary and secondary,)
>and then use that system to dirve the input of a tertiary ("extra")
>coil, and if you look at what is happening to those component's
>electrical behavior on a Smith Chart, you will see that indeed, these
>elements do not act as "lumped-sum" inductances; rather they behave
>(in series) as a slow wave helical resonator (top load capacitance
>notwithstanding.) In other words, on a Smith Chart, one can graph
>the ground connection point (input to the secondary [master
>oscillator] as "zero" on the chart.) If you look at the output of
>this coil, (transmission line to the extra coil,) you will see that
>the phase has been rotated about such that the output at this point
>might represent about 20-25 degrees of phase shift. Not 90 degrees.
I would submit two cautions to this analysis:
First, the Smith chart is meant to study steady state situations only. In
the case of Tesla circuits, the circuits operate under transient response
conditions. Many of the fantastic output voltages of older theories make
this error in that they assumed high Q coils could resonate up to very high
voltages without considering that there was not enough energy available in
the primary system to ever support those high potentials. A coil my have a
high Q but unless it can be feed with driving power for a substantial
length of time it will never be able to attain significant resonant rise
before the drive circuit runs out of energy. Typically, the primary energy
falls far short of supporting this effect.
The second problem is that the output arcs present a very substantial load
to the system. In order for a system to have resonant rise it must have
some rather nice Q value. However, if you load a system with 220000 ohms
(our present estimate for arc loading) the system Q will drop like a rock.
The output is not simply a secondary (or extra coil in the three coil case)
and a capacitor. The very substantial load of the arc must also be added
to the system. I use 220k ohms plus a series 1pF for every foot of arc
length capacitor as a "model" of the arc load. Testing with this model of
the streamer load has shown to be quite accurate (amazingly accurate
actually).
With the combined effects of transient behavior and arc loading, I feel
that the effects of Q, resonant rise, and phase shift and other
transmission line effects are lost. The elements act as simple lumped
elements. It is well known that a secondary coil can be fed with a signal
generator to create standing waves. However, if you place a 220K ohm
resistor from the output to ground, the resonant rise will be damped and
the coil will act like a simple inductor. Further more, if you pulse it
for the brief time as a Tesla coil uses, the effects will be suppressed
even more. In transmission lines, there is significant phase shift of the
current between the base and the top of the line. If it were a 1/4 wave
device it would be 90 degrees. However, my direct measurements of
operating coils show no phase shift as I have written (there must be some,
but I can't see below 5 degrees well). Thus the "trash the 1/4 wave
theory" posts to the list many months ago. There is phase shift from the
top terminal (toroid) input to the streamers as Greg Leyh and I have shown.
It is this phase shift that we use to calculate the impedance of output
streamers. This does affect the top to bottom phase very slightly but this
is due to loading and not Q effects. The fact that his giant Electrum and
my little coil show the same ~220k ohm real resistance (although very
different capacitance) in the streamers still stuns me. However, many arc
physics experts on the list thinks this is perfectly obvious. I don't
understand all the ions, arc channel, plasma region... stuff but I get what
it means to the output load and I'll trust them.
>This explains why R. Hull wrote about the discharge characteristics
>on his transmission line. There is _real_ current at an elevated
>voltage on that transmission line. It is what I characterize as a
>d'Arsonval type discharge; i.e., very high r.f. current at moderately
>high voltage. It is [precisely] this combination of very high r.f.
>current at moderately high r.f. voltage, that is the "driving"
>electrical thrust, that causes the extra coil (and its associated top
>load capacitance,) to self-resonate in series, with the master
>oscillator's secondary inductance.
There is no doubt that at the output of the second coil, the current is
high and the voltage is moderate. However the available energy is limited.
I don't think there is enough energy to support resonant rise effects.
>In other words, on the Smith
>Chart, the ground connection point would be graphed as "0" degrees.
>The output of the seconadary (master oscillator,) might phase shift
>about 20-30 degrees (at most.) Then the output of the extra coil
>might be 60-80 degrees (but not a true 90 degrees, as this by
>definition, represents a complete out-of-phase relationship of
>output voltage and current.) A so-called 1/4 Labmda resonator
>that is truly 90 degrees phase shifted on its output is totally
>useless, for any practical puropses. The fact that others on this
>list have noted that arc loading of the output reduces Q and also
>changes M between the driver and self inductance 3rd coil, is
>classical. But still the same, for there to be any _real_ power
>available in the output of the 3rd coil, its output phase
>relationship must certainly be less then 90 degrees phase
>shifted, from its input (ground refererece) point.
>
There can be 90 degree phase shifts. Power is not lost by shifting phase.
However, I submit, that the phase shift on the "1/4 Lambda resonator" is
very close to zero. I am not a big fan of that theory as we all know :-)
because, in my testing, I simply don't see it. As I mentioned, I would
question Smith chart analysis in this case.
>My Model 13M produces real output power, and is not 90 degrees
>above the ground point, on a Smith Chart. The input to the extra
>coil is only about 25 degrees phase-shifted from the input to the
>secondary (ground connection point.) The output of the extra
>coil is only about 68-70 degrees phase shifted above the ground
>input point, and that is with the 8 foot diameter top load toroid.
These phase shifts would directly contradict what I suspect is true.
Obviously I will have to make my own measurements to determine how such
observations could be explained. I would suspect that there may be phase
shifts in the instruments. They would need a bandwidth of at least 10
times the fundamental frequency to retain accurate phase information. How
was this measured on your system? I know Greg Leyh used some fancy current
transducers (2MHz) and climbed into the top terminal of his coil with a
scope. Personally, I prefer a less hands on approach :-) Of course, my
ideas could be wrong too! If so I need to find out!!
>None of this behavior is explained by those that follow the
>"lumped sum" circuit analysis. It is a _distributed_ circuit
>model. Actually, in a manner of speaking, it follows (most
>closely,) a r.f. transmission line model, by way of a slow
>wave helical resonator, as described by Corum and Corum.
You point is well taken and experimentation to determine the true nature of
these effects is justified. Fortunately, computer models can also do
transmission lines with ease. If they are a factor in these systems, the
models can be easily changed to account for these effects. Actual tests
will determine the component values needed. So far, I have never needed to
use transmission effects. In fact, I took them out of the early models as
a result of my testing. I suspect that before breakout occurs, there is
some true resonant rise when the losses are low. However, I don't think
this effect is very significant.
>Please bare in mind, that the "speed of light" (and therefore,
>an electrical charge in free space,) is a given and a constant.
>There is _no way_ the output, of an extra coil (tuned to
>resonate with its driver master oscillator,) can be _in phase_
>with its input! It is _phase shifted_ but not a full 90 degrees
>from its input; if its output is be of any meaningfull value!
If I feed 5 amps at 100 kHz through a lumped inductance of 100mH, the
current through the coil is in phase at both ends and the voltage across
the coil is 90 degrees out of that phase at 314kV. At 100kHz, the 1/4
wavelength is 2459 feet. However, in a coil, the propagation speed is
governed by the fields in the coil so the distance is the length of the
coil and not the wire length. For a 48 inch coil at 100 kHz, the phase
shift is 0.0932 degrees. The current only flows through all that wire
under DC conditions. Under AC conditions, the current flows from the
bottom to the top of the coil through the magnetic fields, a far shorter
path. The voltage at the bottom of the coil can be considered as zero.
In the steady state case, where the Smith chart would apply, if the input
and output current were 90 degrees out of phase, the reflected power would
be 100%, the VSWR would be infinite, and no energy would be delivered to
the load. Some phase shift is needed to deliver power. But, like I say,
that would be for a steady state condition.
>I invite you to bring all your (test) instrumentation, to my
>location here in So. Calif. I will set up 13M and have you
>perform all the (qualitative) and (quantitive) measurements,
>you can think of. The results should benefit the members of
>this list, as well as yourself.
Greg Leyh has also invited me out there too. I may have to consider such a
trip... Mine is not the only fiber probe out there. I know others are
working with them and the plane wave transducers. Unfortunately, they are
pretty tight lipped but I have not heard of any theoretical contradictions
from their work. I do wish that they would either confirm or deny my
findings outright. I don't understand the "secretive thing" with Tesla
coiling. I guess, for some, it makes it more fun. I always try to be as
open about my findings as possible to help others and detect mistakes in my
work. I would hate to go along for years and then find out that I had made
some fundamental error years ago that nullified my work since. Of course,
this is an area of research were such risks are part of the game!
>Respectfully,
>
>William C. Wysock.
Many thanks for you thoughts on this. Such issues and questions must be
answered to everyone's satisfaction. Fortunately, we now have the
equipment and, if needed, computer power to resolve such issues. It is
only a matter of time until these questions are answered. I will work on
this. I have also begun work on a major paper that will document some of
these issues for everyone's critical inspection.
I have also learned that there is perhaps another person on the planet who
has done as much or more than I have in this area. I will be contacting
them to see what they have learned independently. I have longed for some
independent study in this area but I have found very few people who have
the resources to do this work. However, in general, the study of these
issues has only been accelerating and I am sure the answers we all seek
will come very quickly.
I posted the details of my old probe system. Since then, it has been
vastly improved. Time has prevented me from documenting the details in a
proper way. If anyone is interested in building such equipment it costs
about $500 (less storage scope, computer interface, and "totally decadent"
printer to print the captured waveforms with the push of a button :-)). I
can make the "hard" parts for you but it will take time. My plane wave
antennas are also very useful and much easier to make but they may not
address the concerns we have here.
I fear people may look at my results and figure they must be true. Thus,
they will not try to duplicate my experiments. This is especially true
considering the cost and complexity of the equipment needed. If I am
wrong, the error may go undetected due to this. However, I have thought of
the following:
I have pondered building a "traveling" fiber optic measurement system.
One that could be sent to interested parties to do testing and then be
passed on to next person. In this way, many people could take measurements
and do experiments like this without having to mess with building the
things. You, Greg, TCBOR, Mark Rzeszotarski Ph.D., and perhaps even
Malcolm (the state-of-the-art fiber optics have export restrictions,
despite being made in Mexico o:-(( could have easy access to such
equipment. They would have to supply their own storage scopes and such
(like batteries :-)). I will inquire if this would be of interest??
Thank you very much for your comments. I really appreciate them!!
All the best!
Terry Fritz
terryf-at-verinet-dot-com
>> Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 12:09:41 -0700
>> To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>> Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: RESEARCH ON WHAT?
>> From: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
>
>> Original Poster: Terry Fritz <terryf-at-verinet-dot-com>
>>
>> At 11:18 AM 11/29/98 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The potential actually going into the 12" X 4" resonator coil's
base on
>> >> 11E is unknown, but the transmission line will give about a 18" flaming
>> >> white hot arc of incredible brilliance and brissance. (snip). RH
>> >>
>> >> Richard, have you measured xmisssion line peak and average current
outside
>> >> the driver's secondary magnetic field? I suspect it is suprisingly
small.
>> >>
>> >> RWW
>> >
>> > No, I have not. The CT needed would be a hula hoop sized unit and would
>> >have to be calibrated at frequency especially if it were a home made
Rogowski
>> >coil. I would suspect the Xmission line current is at least several amps
>> peak
>> >
>> >Richard Hull, TCBOR.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> My Fiber optic probe could measure this current with ease (fully isolated,
>> small, 30Mhz bandwidth). However, I don't have a magnifier type system yet
>> to test. :-(
>>
>> I would suspect that the current at the base of the secondary and at the
>> transmission line will be almost the same level and in phase (Cself of
>> driver is a question) . If the resonator coil (the third coil) were
>> working by true resonance, then the voltage would be a function of it's Q
>> and the transmission line current could be very small. However, The
>> magnifiers I have seen seem to have substantial losses due to giant arcs
>> shooting from their output terminals. :-) This loss would easily overwhelm
>> the effects of resonant rise and Q effects. I bet the current in the
>> transmission line is simply changed to high voltage by the resonator coils
>> inductance ( V= L di/dt ). In other words, the resonator is acting as a
>> simple lumped inductor. I also suspect that the current at the base of the
>> driver and the top of the resonator are in phase. Of course, if you short
>> the secondary (driver) coil to ground it will have a very low resistance
>> path and the current will be "high", although, I could still measure it too
>> if it is less than 500 amps which physics would easily suggest it is. The
>> waveform will probably look like a fast spike that drains the system's
>> energy very quickly.
>>
>> Sounds like I have a new project, magnifiers. It was only a mater of time.
>> :-)
>>
>> Terry
>>
>>
>>
>___________________________
>Tesla Technology Research
>
>