Re: Paper about multiple resonance circuits

["The Flavored Coffee Guy" <elgersmad-at-msn-dot-com> (by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>)]

This multipul resonant circuit is capable of summing two different
frequencies, and is also capable of higher output than the input as a result
of ring of the second stage.  The higher value of Xl, and Xc produce a
longer ring, that requires less energy than the first stage.  Its only
compliant to di/dt current to voltage as it operates.  No load, or high
impedance loads produce high voltages with a 1 to 1 ratio, after stepping to
the second stage, and back down to the final output.  By stepping up the
voltage 10 to a 100 times, the Flywheel Effect, Qfactor, or impedance ratio
of Xc being = to Xl results in the two values being 10 to a 100 times higher
as well.  Therefore, the number of cycles produced as the result of a single
pulse is higher with the higher impedance values of Xc, and Xl.  When these
load the primary the demand is less per cycle once the circuit starts into
resonance.  It can resonate at that frequency, or reach a point that the
voltage of the signal applied is equal across the first tank circuit driven
by the oscillator.  The load presented by the low impedance side of the
circuit may start as low as 2 or 3 ohms, and reach a peak as high as 400
ohms but, you would first have to match impedance with the initial 2 or 3
ohms before enough current was presented to the circuit to reach the peak
applied voltage across the tank circuit.  For the first cycle, the
impedances can be substituted as parallel DC resistances, and the output of
the oscillator must be at least that value on start up.  The circuit as I
designed it will work, and conserve as much power as possible by the nature
of it's design.  That's all chaotic resonance really is though, and in your
diagrams in the ps file, you used odd harmonics.  Those will pound
themselves down to a square wave if you keep adding stages at odd harmonics.
Even harmonics boost the power.  Just by altering circuit ground the
voltage, and current swing of the output of the circuit at this link can
change allot based upon the phase of one transformers ground in respect to
the other.  But, the difference is that current of the high voltage is low,
and the voltage of the high current low.  The higher the step, and step down
ratio in one to one eventual output through both stages reduces the demand
on the first stage to a minimum.  If follow all of the equations in order
and work them out using parallel capacitances to accumulate the value you
find in any calculation as exactly as you can, then it works much more
effeciently.  I usually, thumbwheel the oscillator for the first stage
because, it would be so close to the calculation but, the second is parallel
capacitors that accumulated add up to precisely the value of the calculation
for C2.  I also solved a transformer problem that goes with stepping up, or
down, and using high frequencies.  The instructions are at the same link,
it's just that the page order doesn't start with hand winding a toroid.  I
know this much bi-flar won't work for coupling, you'll loose allot of energy
there.

http://members.xoom-dot-com/suckyfish/Resonance/ChaosI.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla List" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 9:31 AM
Subject: Paper about multiple resonance circuits


> Original Poster: "Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz" <acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br>
>
> Hi all:
>
> Last week I presented a paper in an important IEEE conference
> that had some reference to Tesla coils. The paper was a
> development of the ideas about how to design a "magnifier"
> that we discussed in this list, and extends the same ideas to
> higher-order systems.
> The paper is available at (the last link):
> http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/papers.html
> It's entirely theoretical, with lots of formulas and circuit theory,
> but you may find the ideas interesting.
>
> I wish to thank the members of the list for the discussions that
> called my attention to the subject.
>
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
>
>