Re: Safety Gap, Grounding, and Secondary Questions/Bipolar Oudin Considerations

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Robin Copini by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rcopini-at-merlin-dot-net.au>

John,

 As far as discharge output is concerned, I believe that
your point is taken. However, from a setup point of view
there is much to be gained by being able to place the
tertiary coil 'out there' and have the primary/secondary
driver close by - particularly in 'staged' events of the type
that KVA etc do.

best regards

 Robin Copini


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Safety Gap, Grounding, and Secondary Questions/Bipolar Oudin
Considerations


> Original poster: "Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br>
>
> Tesla list wrote:
> >
> > Original poster: John Freau
>
> > I still waiting for someone to demonstate that a magnifier
> > can produce longer sparks than a classic coil for a given
> > input power.  I used to be a magnifier advocate.  But not
> > after I did some comparative tests.
>
> Some difference would only appear in a system with high coupling,
> and correspondingly fast energy transfer. What would be gained
> would be only a small increase in efficiency. Otherwise, plain
> energy conservation limits the output as a function of the input
> power.
>
> A Tesla coil variation with a direct coupling between the primary
> and the secondary, without magnetic coupling between the two
> coils, is perfectly possible, but has no reason to be better
> than the usual form. I wrote a paper that shows how to design this
> kind of circuit for optimal performance. See the example 3.1 at:
> ftp://coe.ufrj.br/pub/acmq/papers/is00mr.pdf
> A problem with the structure is that the voltage gain depends
> on the number of cycles taken by the energy transfer.
>
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
>
>
>