Re: 2 tank 1 seconday/ HF Marx Tank made using alternator inputs

["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: "by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <PsychoticMinds1-at-aol-dot-com>
> 
> 
> 
>          Dear terry 
> 
>                          I think hes talking about
> using 2 tank cicutes with 2
> seperate primarys both coupled to the same secondary
> and making the different
> tanks circutes fire 180% apart...I tihkn its kind of
> similat to a few months
> back there was talk on making a 3 phased tesla coil
> using 3 primaries?  
> 
See Three Phase Rotary Arc Gap Solved
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/message/115

--- Tesla list <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com> wrote:
> Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Stand back!!... :o))  I am not sure what your
> configutation is, but I would
> think the inductances would simply add together
> lowering the priomary circuit
> frequency...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>         Terry
What about the C values? Sure L will double, but C
will also go in half with two C's in series.The
resonant freq for LC is the same as that for 2L with
C/2
> At 09:23 PM 12/27/2001 -0800, you wrote: 
> >
> > I have a question, what whould happen is you havd
> 2 tanks on one secondary,
> > and maybe phase them 180 deg, appart some way? to
> an uneducated fool like my
> > self sounds interesting lets let you EE's educate
> me, lol. Just an intersting
> > thought.
> >  
> > Paul
> > "Do I need to stand Back?"
Nope, dont think so. what you have is simply a Marx
Type tank circuit that will discharge at twice the
input voltage. The caps charge in parallel with the
value of impedance primarily determined by their C
values in parallel (2C), and discharge at twice the
voltage when converted in series with the value C/2.
See TCML TC Primary Tank Comparisons, here extracted
from
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/message/112
Tesla Coil Mailing List at its webpage at
http://www.pupman-dot-com/
the INDEX there shows
TANK.GIF 
as L C loops with primary arc shunted to HV source,
the prefered 
method employed with tesla coils.

TANK1.GIF 
shows the rejected circuit, not recomended by tesla at
the very beginning of primary arc gap notes in the
Colorado Spring Notes, of 1899 research, and
commentators following that fact.

The BINARY RESONANT, OR MARX TANK ADAPTATION of that
schematic is to add a  point symmetrical image to that
schematic where the arc enables function for two LC
oscillations 180 out of phase instead of one, and 
the source voltage connection of one side moved to the
actual new source connections of the circuit. In this
way one arc gap can be shared by two LC oscillations
of components, using 4 of them instead of the
customary two.

TANK2.GIF  
shows the same idea as the first schematic where only
one capacity is used in the loop instead of two, and
the arc is parallel, or shunted to the voltage source.

In the MARX TANK scenario charging to each capacity
directly connected to each HV source is made 180 out
of phase, where arcing at gap developing between
chargings releases twice the voltage, hence the use of
4 LC quantites, instead of two as used in conventional

tesla primaries.


Confusion is possible in that the MARX BANK method is
already known as a switching method to increase
voltage, where switch mechanisms employed to charge
capacities first in parallel, then release of 
voltage in series is employed by use of many of these
C values, and switched actions to build up a high
voltage release across a air gap.

The MARX TANK OSCILLATION is then merely using the
same idea only with two opposites, where each C to be
charged oppositely before release gets the L in series
to negotiate the resonant frequency that will be 
made.

What will then be made is by the inventors employing
this technique as an arc gap made for HF oscillations,
where it seems certain that the vast variety of
practicioners of teslas art have neglected this 
possibility. 

The miniature lightening traveling across water
between a needle and its opposite polarity shown on
TRG homepage or also at
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/Dzl13B2.jpg
 is created by this same circuit, where the special
consideration of allowing each LC component to ALSO BE
RESONANT TO THE SOURCE FREQUENCY, gives a beyond
charging input voltage, or resonant rise of voltage to
occur across both the caps and inductors, so that
instead of twice the voltage on caps discharged , you
get twice the voltage rise made by each system alone.
At 60 hz the 60 henry coils have a q of 15, so at 60
hz resonance with a 440 volt input, this enables a
postulated 13,200 volts to develope for the arcing.
Ball discharge from 440 volt BRS 
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/Dzl1373.jpg
shows larger gap technique
180 phased midpoint arc gap~ 17 volts stator 
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/Flux%20Capacitor/1004.jpg
Shows the same application  of the arc being the short
between two oppositely phased resonances, whereby two
phases of the alternator at 480 hz were instead used
for the inputs. The q of the coils is reduced to ~8 at
480 hz.

I have also tried the actual MARX TANK circuit using
dual spirals for primaries in inductive relation to be
in magnetic agreement. This circuit worked to power a
very weak arc gap with only 15 volts inputed to
primary of 10 KVA pole pig transformer that supplies a
62.5 voltage rise using only .75 nf/ branch. Only 1875
volts should have been enabled this singing arc gap,
where there may be considerations that at a higher
input frequency of 480 hz, spark gap ignition might be
possible with lower than normal voltage levels.

In this alternator scenario, THE INPUT PRIMARY OF THE
POLE PIG TRANSFORMER itself can be subjected to the
same procedure, as being placed as a midpoint shorted
load between separately phased resonances. Since this
is done for the secondary arc gap in tesla primary
pole pig tranformer circuits, to limit by ballasting
the possible current that can develope, the procedure
for accomplishing this same principle on the input
side of the tesla primary transformer, is being
referred to as RESONANT CURRENT BALLASTING, which
incorporates 4 and not 1 reactance factors to limit
the  primary current. 

The advantage there is that a preliminary voltage rise
beyond what the stator voltage  delivers may appear
across the primary. This was demonstrated with NST's
However to achieve this with a pole pig primary, the L
quantity must be very small compared to the inductance
presence in the primary. Complications using 1 ohm
series resonances for dual phased voltage inputs were
that only 4/5 ohms conduction with a 1 ohm load would
be predicted when the stator resistance was also
considered. The bus alternators having small busbar
for the stator windings may offer a distinct advantage
for resonating low resistance series resonances. The
present circuits using the one ohm resonances have an
acting q factor of 4.7, making 8.1 as interphasal
voltage rise available for the interphased pole
primary pig load. At 30 volts stator, 240 volts
appering at open circuit will be reduced to an large
degree by loading of primary, where it is hoped that a
100 volt level can be made. This was formerly in the
80-90 volt range for NST primaries, where 10 mh was
used for the outer resonances. Here this is then now
being tried with 1/4 the former inductance, at 2.2 mh

Here are some comments on tesla CSN notes concerning
the choice of tank circuits, and how the differences
of the Marx Tank adaptation would be indicated.

The first record Of Tesla's high frequency coupled
oscillatory circuit with an air cored transformer is
to be found in patent 454622 of 23 June 1891 under the
title "System of electric lighting". The oscillator
converts low frequency currents into "currents of very
high frequency and very high potential" which then
supplies single terminal lamps. (from Aleksandar
Marincic's CSN preface)
The arc gap in this schematic is within the tank
circuit, something later abandoned as the best method.
On July 2,1899 Tesla notes the reasoning for this;
In a schematic showing the break within the tank
circuit he comments... "the scheme of connections has
the disadvantage that the primary discharge current
passes through the break hence, the resistance of the
latter being large, the oscillations are quickly
damped and there is besides a large current through
the break which makes good operation of the latter
difficult. To prolong oscillation in the primary and
increase economy one of the schemes before considered
may be resorted to." He then refers to the
conventional approach of allowing the break to be
shunted across the hv secondary outputs where he
comments.. "in this arrangement the currents through
the break device are much smaller and the oscillations
started by the operation of the break device continue
much longer."
Tesla makes no comment concerning the idea of placing
an inverse tank circuit on the other side of the break
in the first example for a center tapped high
frequency transformer.  As we can see here, he must
not have grasped that doing this would have enabled
the production of twice the voltage from the same
input voltage, as the adaptation of Marx's capacitve
voltage rise method incorporated as dual 180 phased
tanks. In that situation two (180 phased)primaries
would recieve their oscillations from a single arc
gap. The problem of the arc containing the entirety of
the currents is then circumvented by the pathway
established along the sides of the newly configured
figure 8 LC quantities. 
Here are some special considerations for the dual
primaries;

I have made some preliminary modeling ideas using the
dual spirals available at Radio shack as their flat
stranded 50 ft insulated for a mini-tesla coil
primary. I'm trying mine in a bipolar application for
a mini tesla coil one would suppose that length of the
wire is is small in comparison on the smaller mini
secondary, thus making the operation at a high
frequency. Since the duration of that rf burst is then
a very small time period,I am aiming for a very high
bps rate which this system should permit. Here are
some considerations of difference in tuning with a
single arc, oscillating two primaries 180 out of phase
as I have described as a Binary Resonant System,(BRS)
1)Because magnetic agreement between the primaries is
necessary for the maximum inductance, and the currents
on the primaries themselves are 180 out of phase, and
the further fact that the spirals themselves are not
themselves bifilar with respect to each other: to make
the fields in agreement means that opposite outer and
inner coil connections to the repective opposite hv
terminals is necessary. The inner and outer leads of
the dual spirals that remain are in turn connected to
capacities which connect in series with the opposite
hv potential. This then consists of two oppositely
phased series LC quantities in parallel which is the
current limiting condition before gap firing.
2) The arc gap is made from the connections at the
midpoints of the 180 phased series LC quantities, or
the ends of the inner and outer wire spirals that are
not connected to the hv secondary. Thus upon arcing
the resistance of the primary is on either side of the
arc: the arc is not directly shunted to the hv ouput.
3) The capacities on each side are NOT made from the
resonant frequency calculated from that sides L
quantity, but rather the quantity established by the
needed capacity to resonate with both L quantities in
mutual inductance where the primaries are in series to
determine this new L(total). A C(total) is then
matched to this new L figure to resonate, and each
side will recieve twice C(total). This is because
these capacities will appear in series when the gap
fires, thus to arrive at C(total) twice the value must
be used in series.

And finally to end this long reply it may sometimes be
necessary to make a full description of what goes with
the figure 8 souce frequency tank circuit, so for the
benefit of any coilers wanting to try it here is a
case example for 60 hz using 60 mh, on each side,
which is higher than most coilers would use for
limiting inductive reactance for a pig primary. This
is extracted from a reply to someone how RCB might
also be applied for water electrolysis, since it also
generally uses ballasting. If one uses RCB for pole
pig ballasting, one might want to employ some kind of
fuses, because the design factors will be inherent in
how catastrophic the amperage rise would be if the
load comes open!

The the idea of current limited by reactance is always
practiced with capacity for electrolyis. However in
pole pig current limiting for tesla coil use is
accomplished with large inductive reactances. Resonant
current ballasting is combining both reactances on
both sides of the load being ballasted. For 115 uf,
first we can find the actual capacitive reactance,
given by X(C) =1/2pi*f*C 1(6.28*60*.000115) = 23 ohms,
thus -at- 230 volts we should expect 10 amps if the water
cells had no resistance. The L value for 60 hz
resonance is determined by Thompsons formula
R(F)=1/[2pi sq rt{LC}] yeilding a value of 61.24 mh
This becomes one LC branch, L = 61.24 mh and C = 115
uf. Now another identical LC branch opposite to the
first must be constructed, so that they are actually
two series resonances 180 of phase, and constructed as
two parallel branches each having separate
conductions. Now to procure the 60 mh using 14 gauge
coils of 500 feet I have used this before in a similar
models, as those components do seem to closely follow
actually in 60 hz resonance. It would take 5 of those
coils together for mutual inductance to make 60 mh. It
would then be about 6 ohms, at 120 volts household AC,
and thus the wire not being able to hold 20 amps in
each branch could not be operated at household voltage
levels. However a particular modification can be made,
which alters that circuit into what we might call a
potentially catastrophic resonant circuit. That
modification consists of simply running a low
resistance wire and amperage meter across the midpoint
between each oppositely phased series resonance. This
is simply to determine a ballpark figure to see how
much current will go through that line at the wall
voltage. By running the wire between each resonances
voltage rise, we have converted two single opposite
series resonances into a single tank circuit made in a
figure eight. Now the q factor tell how much more
impedance will be made by that. Q for the coil
arrangement is X(L)/R, and since we also know that
X(L)= X(C) for resonance this becomes 23 again also by
X(L)=2 pi * F*L= 23 ohms , so Q = 23/6= 3.83 Now
another consideration comes into play is that the
reactance of each side of the loops will be twice the
quantity as before, because they are going from
parallel to a series action. Thus the total reactance
is doubled, but also the resistance so Q remains 3.83.
Now for 120 volts input one should then see 120/46 =
2.6 Amps on the components, and 5.2 amps across the
connecting line. If one simply traces out the path of
travel taken in the figure 8, while going in one
direction, this represents both the inductive and
capcitive reactances in operation for one half of the
input AC cycle. Halfway through the tracing from the
top to the bottom of the figure 8 , where the actual
voltage sources are placed, we notice that the
direction of the current travel is downward, where
this can be represented as one reactance path of
travel. The second half of tracing the figure 8 will
be a path of travel from the bottom to the top, so
that current is 180 out of phase with the first, and
represents the currents contained in the opposite
reactance, however since these currents both share a
common line of travel across the middle pathway, or
the short line across the 180 phased series
resonances, it will contain twice the reactance
currents contained within either reactance alone.
However the amperage input into the figure 8 loop will
be reduced q times to 2.6/3.83 = .68 amps. Thus by
tank figure 8 resonant rise of amperage at 60 hz
resonance, we have turned a small amperage input of
.68 A to enable a larger oscillation where the
midpoint path current flow of 5.2 amps is made. From
there one would simply replace the water cells and
diodes as the middle line connection , or load. This
will reduce the existant q factor according to the
resistance of the cells. I do not know how far it
would be reduced, as I have not yet tried these things
with 14 gauge coils at 60 hz resonance, as these coils
are now usad for alternator resonant components for
480 hz. ...
By adding resistance to the load, it essentially
changes the tank into a more "series resonant" action,
meaning more current will be drawn, and the ratio of
interior currents to inputed current is reduced,
Ideally one would want much lower resistance L
components, which is why for 60 hz, the approach is
problematic. 5 amps of current through 14 gauge wire,
with 12 ohms (total wire)resistance represents 300
watts of heat loss by I^2 R. If that L quantity were
instead 1 ohm, only 30 watts loss would be taking
place, and the q would be increased 6 fold. But the L
quantity to make that for 60 hz would be massive. To
investigate solving this problem and its potential
application towards higher frequency 480 hz alternator
inputs, the same kind of inductor that will make this
process with only one ohm can be made, which was the
reson this post was originally made, by the
realization that the L quantity for a resonant current
ballasting, or BRS application need only involve a
relatively small amount of inductance, where 4 spirals
totalling 1 ohm are being investigated. A long
rambling on this as RCB3/ Three Retunings on 4Spiral
Alternator Resonance. should be accessible at
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/message/113

Sincerely Harvey D Norris


=====
Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/

_