[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Needle Glow Discharge/ Malcolm comments on Corum
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:48:04 -0600, Tesla List wrote:
> Original Poster: "Malcolm Watts" <malcolm.watts-at-wnp.ac.nz>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> > Original Poster: "Robert Jones" <alwynj48-at-earthlink-dot-net>
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > >When I read that the Corums call the lumped parameter model a "naive
> > >swindle" I thought: Who would write a thing like that? Who would use
> > >that sort of language to drive a point home?
> > >
> > >Certainly nobody that I would trust.
There is such a thing known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
A quick rehash of that simply means that we change what we try to observe by
our method of observation. This principle does not appear to hold in the
construction of tesla coils because L and C of the primary tank circuit are
designed for secondary considerations, if an improper secondary arrangement
is inserted into that space, it does not resonate. However it is entirely
possible to create a situation where ANY coil will reasonably resonate at
its own ringing freq when inserted into a special kind of high freq field.
This is done by creating a circuit condition whereby the postulated and
observed magnetic fields from scope observations can instantaneously
reverse directions and polarity. The mechanism for this is not entirely
understood, but stands the total theoretical test of observation of
causitive circuit considerations. One is accustomed to thinking of fields
moving through space, determined by a freq observation made by a sensor
inductor inserted into that affected space. When tests reveal that each test
inductor records a different freq, we begin to interpret this data in many
confusing ways, attempting to conform it to our version of reality; does it
means the length of wire is a causitive factor according to tesla's 1/4
wavelength observation? The medhurst geometry of the coil is also causitive,
and perhaps even the surface area of the wire. Irregardless I have obtained
31,250 hz from a square microwave inductor of pancake geometry containing
1/3 mH, ~160,000 hz from a 14 gauge coil of 500 ft,-at-10 mH, a lesser freq of
the same coil type containing less wire, 500,000 hz from a 1 mH coil of 22
gauge wire of 100 ft purchased from Radio Shack ect. The total flux change
occuring in space per unit time period completely fails to account for these
observations. However if we allow a different theory to explain things they
become more sensible. The fields do not go through space to get to their
destination, they go through time. That is why both 180 signals are viewed
concurrently from scope observations. Unfortunately when You have this
unique high freq process the time reversed signal adds more energy to the
process than inputed, thus leading to a taboo subject on this list. Before
Terry cuts me off at the pass I will simply submit a picture of an arc using
what I have described using 10 watts to produce a ball discharge
upon the surface of water. This is a poor digital picture of the phenomenon
at http://msnhomepages.talkcity-dot-com/LaGrangeLn/teslafy/HarveysLightbulb.html
The description has not yet been placed there and can be found at
messageboard. Concerning also tesla's CSN notes on Sept 19 he noted several
different scenarios for different wavelength designs, including that of a
3/4 wavelength, which he stated was for obvious reasons. HDN
> > I started out with the view that a Tesla secondary resonated much as an
> > inductor and capacitor pair resonates. However there are major
difficulties
>
> > Perhaps the most striking of these is that accidentally or deliberately
> > the primary of a Tesla coil can be tuned to a higher frequency
> > (approximately
> > times three) so that in addition to the brush discharge at the top you
have
> > an additional ring of brush discharge approximately 1/3 from the
bottom off
> > the coil.
> >
> > I am now transmission line proponent and I am good company with
> > Mr Tesla. But I remain amazed but not surprised that signals
> > can move so slowly down the axis of a coil of fine wire.
> >
> > It probable does not matter to the average coiler that the lumped
theory is
> > not how the secondary actually resonates particularly as the parameters
from
> > the
> > particularly after my own conversion. So this is my hopefully polite
vote
> > for the slow wave helical resonator theory or as it is more commonly
> > referred to the 1/4 wave theory or transmission line theory.
>
> I have agonized about their theory for a very long time. I presume
> you have read their papers including the one presented to the ITS
> circa 1990 in which they describe the before-and-after-primary-gap-
> dwell change in behaviour of the secondary. Do you have any
> experimental evidence to support this view? If you can describe an
> experiment where this effect can be observed I would be delighted to
> hear about it.
>
> Regards,
> Malcolm
>
Good to hear both sides of the argument. HDN
Binary Resonant System
http://www.insidetheweb-dot-com/mbs.cgi/mb124201
_______________________________________________________
Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite
Visit http://freelane.excite-dot-com/freeisp