[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Binary Resonant Tesla Primaries
Sorry to all for no paper yet. I prepared a small 2 page intro at Mid-Ohio
Teslafest which I am sending to postal adresses of those who inquired of
this. I have decided to build this system first before making a paper.
Included will be scale drawing of my attempt in formation, so that if others
interested on design can advise me of potential errors on my part, and this
could be changed during construction.
In the beginning writing of this paper I immediately understood that my
knowledge is so lacking that this should be called a hypothesis, sort of a
what if situation. As I was researching the Colorado Spring Notes to find a
precedent for this circuit(I recorded this circuit with ASCII drawing in May
Archives under Binary Resonant Arc Gap or BRAG Schematic, cant remember
which) I came across Teslas entry of July 2 where he mentions a schematic
used in a earlier design to produce an oscillation on the high freq.
primary. This was not the design I am using, but it resembles half of it. In
the CSN Notes{if any one knows how I can obtain Richard Hulls? CSN
Commentary Please send offlist} Tesla gives reasons why this schematic is
undesirable basically because the position of the arc gap is within the tank
circuit, making regulation difficult because the oscillations are quickly
damped. Having noted that every schematic I have seen has the arc gap as a
short to the high voltage secondary of the input transformer, I then took
this as gospel, when in fact I was mistaken. Bill Wysock uses a variation of
this in his Model 12 schematic at www.ttr-dot-com. As previously mentioned he
had wrote me a letter directing me to that site, and that he had already
made a 180 phased system, in which I returned a letter indicating that what
I was talking about was different. How is it different? This takes a little
discussion about symmetry and what constitutes 180 phasing.
Basically to convey the full understanding of this involves a story in which
I reached a paradox in my mind by the watching a BBS episode of Red Dwarf in
which I realized that a series resonant circuit is not symmetrical with
respect to time, and a parallel resonant or tank circuit is, or appears by
argument to be so. Before immense confusion starts reigning let me ask a
simple question that should start to clear things up. I myself may be the
one in confusion, and when I first wrote this conceptialization contained in
freeng archive as Red Dwarf My Mind on 4/11/99 no one appeared to fathom my
humour.(This can be found by going to Author List under H in the 3rd
selection frame) http://www.escribe-dot-com/science/freenrg/index
Basically this paradox consisted of a what if scenario. The Red Dwarf
science fiction team had arrived on the planet earth, but everything
appeared to them as running backwards in time. I then wondered how a series
resonant circuit would look to them and concluded that that it would look
like the same thing in 180 degree phasing, then I wondered how a series
resonant circuit from a long extension cord from their ship might interact
with the same series resonant circuit on earth. To quote as a reply from
Holly the hologram in this imaginary scenario"Holly Replies:The coil you
resonated from
the ship had its own inductive reactance which you resonated it by
cancelling with the identical capacitive reactance. The folks on earth did
the same thing. But when you put these coils together they produce two new
possibilities, that of a mutual inductance
either higher or lower than the original values each of you used to
resonate
the coils in the first place!!
Now to ask this simple question, is not a bipolar Tesla coil the same thing
as as two tesla coils mirror image with two primaries placed back to back?
Of course the capacitance used to resonate both primaries then changes
because of mutual inductance between the primaries. This is already well
known by coilers, and placing the primaries in MAGNETIC 180 phasing of
course increases the needed capacitance for both.
Now to quote again from my article to show what I saw as a paradox:
Needless to say that I could make a series resonant circuit in a box.
I could make two of them in two boxes. I could turn one of them opposite
and
plug them both in like two appliances in parallel. Then I could interact
them in space and see how each capacitive reactance would needed to be
changed so that both could still resonate to their fullest degree in
spatial
interaction of mutual induction.
In accordance with this idea it is simplistically stated that two
commonsense methods can be used to create an opposite or supposedly
conjugate phase. Either turn the whole schematic upside down and plug it in
to the source backwards with respect to its conjugate, or reverse the
source
connections. It sounds very stupid having to say such a thing but I would
rather be clear on the exposition of a method than be misunderstood in the
realm of semantics and word games few can understand. Now understand this
next paradox.
Simply turning the circuit around like that gives a opposite phase
for
a series res. circuit because it is 2 parts in series, a cap and coil, that
can be looked at differently in two directions. Now suppose I wanted to
go
back to Red Dwarf and do the same thing to confound Holly, only this time I
am given the task of making a replica mirror image of a parallel resonant
circuit instead of a series. When I turn the schematic upside down and plug
it in, it is the same thing because that circuit has a mirror image
symmetry and turning it upside down does not solve the problem; it is still
the same circuit.
Yet reason dictates that I should be able to go back to this
hypothetical Red Dwarf ship and be able to make 2 parallel resonant
circuits
on two identical coils; each with coils conducting currents in opposite
respective directions as in the former example. The only other seemingly
plausible possibility left is none at all; that is reversing the input
connections as the other possibility.
Now of course loking at Teslas schematic for July 2,1899 that he deemed as
unworthy of use the answer of how to make 180 phasing SCHEMATICALLY of 2
tank circuits appeared to me. Let me first rehash what has been said.
It is easy to show how a series res. circuit can be SCHEMATICALLY made 180
degrees out of phase. It is also known or assumed that simply taking the
same circuit and replicating it as another schematic in parallel, and then
making the coils interact by simply reversing the coil connections OR
reversing the coils in space accomplishes EXACTLY the same thing. NOTHING
COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. The reason for this is the fact that if a
wire is run BETWEEN the midpoint connections in the second example it does
not change the conditions or the schematic. In the first case however it
changes both the schematic and the conditions dramatically. The connecting
of the two midpoints of 180 phasing made SCHEMATICALLY of 2 series resonant
circuits changes the whole schematic into a special kind of parallel
resonant circuit. This now represents a tank circuit with two inductors in
series and two capacitors in series, with the additional modification that
the schematic has been twisted into a figure 8, providing a new pathway that
is used by both the inductive AND capacitive branches, BUT IN OPPOSITE
DIRECTIONS OF TRAVEL. Because these branches themselves conduct reactive
currents in opposite directions of travel with respect to each other and
with respect to the input connections, when they share a new current pathway
in opposite directions that reactive current becomes unity and shows twice
the amperage contained in either branch alone.
I am sure skepticism about this fact exists, so to offer experimental facts
derived from the 56 Henry coils;
One coil in series resonance consumes 90 mA.
Two coils in series resonance in parallel without mutual inductance between
the two consumes 180 mA. It does not matter whether they are schematically
made 180 out of phase, both sides are assumed to be resistive branches where
the reactances are cancelled which is what series resonance accomplishes.
One coil in parallel resonance consumes .5 mA with 5 ma in the actual
reactive circuit due to what has been termed the resonant rise of amperage
which occurs in a tank circuit.
Two coils in the figure 8 schematic I have described as a special tank
circuit made by connecting SCHEMATICALLY 180 PHASED SERIES RESONANT BRANCHES
ACROSS THEIR MIDPOINTS results not in double the .5 MA but half or .25 mA
recorded as input amperage.On either side of the circuit or each reactive
current path contains 2.5 mA with 5 mA across the midpoint path. These
recorded measurements bear out the facts previously mentioned.
Now to try and end this long post it of course needs to be said that tesla
primaries use a tank circuit or parallel resonant condition, and not a
series resonance per se although Malcolm has posted a message at my
messageboard containing info where he may see the situation a little
differently in his interpretation of things. This is near the bottom of
board under Re; Spatial Harnessing of Resonance. Specifically he mentions
the fact that resonant recharging emcompasses both series and parallel
resonance, but I may have misunderstood his view.
To sum it all up 180 phasing is accomplished both by spatial AND schematic
methods. Because of the fact that a tank circuit appears to be a mirror
image of itself, it was or appeared to be impossible to me in my limited
understanding to make a SCHEMATICAL 180 phased version of the tank circuit.
NOW I understand that if one takes Teslas discarded circuit of July 2nd ,
which I will simply describe for those not having the CSN as a tank circuit
with the arc gap across the top branch of the tank instead of the
traditional position as a short to the high voltage secondary of the input
transformer, (the arc gap is inside the tank circuit in teslas 7/2/99
example of an earlier version)and THEN applies it to a single phase of a
center tapped secondary that can supply two phases already 180 degrees out
of phase, a glimpse of the solution appears. This appears to me as a mirror
image of that schematic on the other side of the center tapped secondary.
This definitely appears to me to satisfy the seemingly impossible situation
of schematically showing two 180 tank circuits together.Note also the facts
that each 180 reactive current uses the same pathway as the arc gap, the
same as in the former condition. In fact I think it would be a good
definition of how a binary resonant set of primaries could be made. But this
is not the method I will be trying. The method I am trying is the SAME
schematic as already posted in archives, however I thought it should be
shown that this same idea could shown schematically two different ways. An
understanding of this can be shown by asking if the center tap of the
secondary were removed,would it be the same circuit and method I am talking
about? Definitely not. The transposing of the schematic makes it have point
symmetry with the arc gap as that point. The circuit is the same thing from
the outside in as the inside out.
I suggested this method and gave it the name binary because prior to arc
formation series resonant conditions exist allowing a potential series
resonant rise of voltage to enable the arc to take place,and once this takes
place, the whole system becomes a special parallel resonance. It seems to me
that the historical methods of oscillating a tesla primary involve it going
in out of resonance, rather than oscillating BETWEEN resonances, or a BINARY
resonance.
Sincerly,
Harvey D Norris
Binary Resonant System
http://www.insidetheweb-dot-com/mbs.cgi/mb124201
________________________________________________________________
Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite-dot-com
Talk online at http://voicechat.excite-dot-com