Re: 81" Continuous Arcs!

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

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>

Hi Bert,

Your explanation makes perfect sense to me. This is probably the best
theory I've read. Thanks for
taking the time to sort out the particulars. It would be good for the Geeks
to put this post in their
"experiments to do list" for their upcoming twin coils. If nothing else, at
least observation can verify
how the arcs react with proximity settings (coil to coil).

Take care and thanks,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "Bert Hickman by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-net>
>
> Bart, Sam, and all,
>
> These are some very interesting observations! I'd propose the following
> reasons:
> Leaders (the bright, hot spark channels) are actually being fed
> displacement current by multitudes of dimmer, bright blue colored
> streamers. These diffusely glowing "cold" streamers extend far beyond the
> tips of the brighter leaders, and they are constantly conveying charge
> between the high fields at the tips of the leaders and the surrounding
> regions of lower potential. However, streamer formation and conduction is
> highly dependent on the local E-fields "seen" at the very tips of the
> leaders, and these fields are a function of the distribution of charges in
> the nearby air. In a bipolar system it's very likely that the presence of
> local space charges from the streamer tips of one resonator "feed"
> significantly more current into the streamer tips of the opposite resonator
> since they are of opposite polarity. The resulting local E-fields seen at
> the streamer tips are significantly greater and the degree of charge
> transfer via cold streamer discharges between the two is greatly enhanced.
>
> The combination of stronger E-fields at leader tips, and greater
> streamer-to-treamer charge transfer between resonators in a bipolar system
> should result in enhanced streamer and leader propagation as compared to an
> isolated resonator where leader tips only "see" a far-end potential of
> ground. Enhanced avalanche breakdown, higher streamer currents, and longer
> leaders should result when the resonators are located close enough so that
> they favorably impact each other's E-fields at leader tips. Since the
> dimmer streamer "glow" extends considerably past the tips of the leaders
> and these streamers provide displacement current flow to support the
> leaders, anything which benefits streamer growth or increases streamer
> current will also tend to enhance leader growth and maintenance. This
> improvement should be observed even when the resonators are far enough
> apart so that the leaders are prevented from connecting. If we move the
> resonators far enough apart, the leader length of each resonator would
> decrease to that of an isolated resonator that's driven at HALF the total
> input power.
>
> A further REDUCTION in leader length should be observed if the resonators
> are driven with the SAME phasing since E-fields at the leader tips of one
> resonator are reduced by the presence of the other resonator. A streamer
> trying to grow towards the opposing resonator would, in effect, be trying
> to "swim upstream" from an E-field standpoint. Because streamer growth and
> current flow are considerably reduced, so are the leaders that head between
> the two resonators. Leader length between two similarly phased resonators
> is thus considerably shorter than it would otherwise be with a stand-alone
> resonator.
>
> Sort of makes sense, doesn't it?
>
> Best regards,
>
> -- Bert --
> --
> Bert Hickman
> Stoneridge Engineering
> Email:    bert.hickman-at-aquila-dot-net
> Web Site: http://www.teslamania-dot-com
>
> Tesla list wrote:
> >
> > Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>
> >
> > Hi Sam, All,
> >
> > Tesla list wrote:
> >
> > > Original poster: "Sam Barros by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> > <list-at-powerlabs-dot-org>
> > >
> > > At Tuesday, 12 June 2001, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest.
> > > >net>" <tesla123-at-pacbell-dot-net>
> > >
> > > >Your not speaking out of turn. I know twin-coil sparklength has
> > > been looked at
> > > >this way per previous posts on the subject. I personally have difficulty
> > > >identifying sparklength potential because in a twin setup, there
> > > is quite a few
> > > >more mechanisms at work (i.e, potential differences, spark channel
> > > effects,
> > > >proximity effects, etc..).
> > > >
> > > >Here's a question I have. If say a 10kVa twin produces 20 foot arcs to
> > > >eachother. If the twin is seperated to 25 feet beyond their collective
> > > >potential, is each twin then still capable of 10 foot arcs?
> > >
> > >  In my experience, no. My Twin Tesla Coils always produce their longest
> > > arcs when they are able to connect; otherwise the sparks are actually
> > > smaller than for a single coil working at the same power level. More
> > > information at http://www.powerlabs-dot-org/coil2.htm
> > >
> > >  Sam Barros.
> > >  http://www.powerlabs-dot-org
> > >  "If at first you don't suceed, increase the amperage!"
> >
> > This was my gut feeling last night when I asked the question. It's
> > interesting for the same power
> > level, the sparks are smaller when seperated than a single coil and longer
> > than a single coil
> > when connected. I guess the potential difference and spark channel effects
> > on one another effect
> > the length more than I realized. I wonder if the long arcs occur when a
> > positive and negative
> > streamer formation collide. Well, all speculation from me. The Geeks can
> > verify all this when
> > they build their twin and see if this is typical for twin setups (sounds
> > like it is).
> >
> > Thanks all,
> > Bart Anderson