Re: Spiral Architect/ alternator inputs -at- 480 hz.

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

Original poster: "harvey norris by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <harvich-at-yahoo-dot-com>


--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
> Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry
> Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <paul-at-abelian.demon.co.uk>
> 
> Harvey,
> 
> If I follow your post correctly, you've got 2.28mH
> resonating with 48uF, you're driving the two in
> series
> with an alternator at 480Hz, and you're getting a
> poor
> resonance?
Yes, there appears to have actually been about 27%
more inductive reactance than the LCR meter reading of
2.28 mh would predict. Shorting both L and C
components individually so that they both seemed to
provide equal conductions yeilded a better combination
yeilding 35 uf used for the conduction, but the q
voltage rise factor never seems to go past 4, when 7
is needed to cause conduction at ohms law resonance,
for it to act in the ideal component fashion.

Now this seems perplexing because I seem to recall
using 14 gauge 10 mh coils before where using ~10 uf
the coils would act in the ideal fashion and allow
ohms law conduction. The 10 mh coils in resonance on
two alternator phases with a 10 KVA pole pig primary
as a load between the midpoints of those resonances,
fashioned as 60 degree resonances as LC connections to
the dual stator supply line served to act as a sort of
current limiting to the pole pig,for TC primary
application, but only a distribution of all stator
voltages with losses across the L components of the
(outside)resonances occured. Yet the same or similar
dual delta series resonant current ballasting method
applied to a NST primary did produce a voltage rise to
the primary, but the application would not run the
same arc gap as the pole pig transformer could with a
mere 15 volts across its secondary at 480 hz, because
of the current limiting problems with a NST secondary
which suffers a 8 fold reduction of normal 60 hz
current limited values at 8 times the frequency.

So the work investigating the spirals are that they
would then be a far lower inductance with relationship
to that of the pole pig to TC primary impedance as it
gets delivered  as a interphasal load across the two
phases, thus the NST example should be repeatable for
the pole pig example by simply using low L values for
the outside resonant components.

Since the alternator itself delivers less the
household voltage values, and 20 volts is more or less
ideal application for alternator AC output, a
preliminary voltage rise on outside phasing components
that will pull larger amounts of amperage, and also
deliver a voltage gain to the input transformer is
hoped for in this approach. I seem to read 34 mh for
the pole pig primary, so in the former testings using
the two 11 mh coils, no voltage rise, but only voltage
distribution developed because the impedance of the
primary load appeared large to the individual
reactances  themselves acting as current limiters to
the primary. Additionally the amount of current drawn
at short between the resonances was not an appreciable
quantity for practical TC application, (using 10 mh
coils) By geting lower L values and R to resonate with
the stator outputs, this would seem to be a correct
approach.
> Have you taken into account the internal resistance
> of
> the alternator?  The Q is 6.283 * 480 * L / R, which
> comes out at around Q=7 if you take as R the 1 ohm
> resistance of the coil. But really you have to add
> the
> alternator's internal resistance to get the total R,
> 
> and if thats just a few ohms it will completely 
> dampen your resonance.  Have you measured the output
> impedance of your alternator at 480Hz, and are you 
> including that in the total circuit resistance when
> you predict the performance?
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> Paul Nicholson
> Manchester, UK

No I haven't and  thanks for pointing it out. I have
since retuned the coils for what should be a higher
voltage gain, but there is still not  the correct
value tried for series resonance. Since the resistance
of the source emf stator seems to be about 1/3 of the
load, perhaps it is correct to think one volt will not
produce one amp on a 1 ohm resonant circuit, but
rather the total resistance being possibly 4/3 rds
higher, the source must be current limited to  to 3/4
of the previously calculated ohms law value of
conduction that should be available at series
resonance,  for this 3 fold ratio example for ri(int)
vs r (load)or thats how I seem to be interpreting
things here. The stator resistance reading seems to
fluctating quite a bit, and perhaps the 50% lack of
conduction might be better explained by actually
taking into account the added supposed impedance of
the source stator phase, itself measured .23 mh, and
for this  example, that should only increase the total
inductance of the situation 10 %,if we view that
inductance being in series rather than parallel to the
inductance being resonated,if that is the correct way
to view it. Thus the C value derived for resonance
might be retried at a 10 % lower level then the normal
resonant values being tried. However tank circuit
tests in parallel resonance show a fairly meaningless
curve,  where the impedance level  the stator sees
will remain constant, but the current conductions
inside the the loop keep going up when using
35-48 uf  which were tried in 1 uf additions  of tank
circuit where the circuit seems to yeild a Q of 5 fold
reduction  of outside amperage input to currents
inside the loop, but no marked point of further
impedance increase after a certain point where that
might again be due to internal source emf
considerations. Thanks for pointing this internal emf
consideration out Paul!
Sincerely HDN


=====
Binary Resonant System  http://members3.boardhost-dot-com/teslafy/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo-dot-com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo-dot-com