[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fanciful spark-augmenter

Original poster: "Kennan C Herrick by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <kcha1-at-juno-dot-com>

[Reply from KCH}

See my posting of today on this, & the following.  

On Tue, 29 May 2001 19:00:12 -0600 "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Original poster: "Scott Fulks by way of Terry Fritz 
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <darkthing-at-earthlink-dot-net>
> KCH wrote:
> > The purpose of doing all of this would be, of course, to allow for 
> a
> > significantly larger build-up of energy than otherwise could be
> > accomodated in a s.s. system before secondary-spark break-out.
> I have been following these posts with some interest, as I think 
> that one of
> the most enjoyable aspects of coiling is doing research on new ways 
> to
> improve the art.  However, this idea of using a switched half of the 
> primary
> to buck the field and alter the frequency seems flawed to me.
> In a solid-state coil, the secondary is used as the energy storage 
> device.
> The Q of the secondary is high, so the cycles build up on one 
> another until
> breakout voltages are achieved.  In your example you are using the 
> primary
> tank as the energy storage device instead (as is done in a 
> disruptive coil),
> which due to it's low Q will be much less efficient at building up 
> energy
> from a relatively low-powered solid state oscillator. 

Actually, I am suggesting an intermediate coil as the storage
device--although it could well be the actual primary coil itself, in a
system not using my particular s.s. scheme, which would preclude that.

Also, I'd think the type of coil system I am suggesting would have a Q at
least as high as that of a good secondary; wouldn't that be the case?

> even
> though the primary and secondary are not resonant during the 
> ring-up, there
> will still be losses due to the coupling of the coils, and that 
> energy will
> simply be wasted.  

I don't know that we Tesla people worry too much about wasted
energy--except perhaps here in CA.  And the energy that ultimately finds
its way into my proposed resonant element should find its way to the
secondary, once the gap fires, with much the same efficiency as in a
conventional system:  Both the coil and the (energy-storage) capacitor
would be much the same--a H.V. MMC or whatever and perhaps a
copper-tubing coil.

A transformer still works at nonresonant 
> frequencies, it
> just doesn't build up energy.  Also I think the paralleled segments 
> of the
> primary would give additional losses from the autotransformer 
> effect.

True about the losses; see my prior posting of today.

> I think you have an interesting idea about trying to get disruptive 
> coil
> performance from an SS coil, but I don't think this circuit would 
> work well
> in practice.

Well, I may give it a shot, although someone else might beat me to the
punch; I don't yet have any of the H.V. hardware lying around.

One last comment:  I'd calculated that the current passing thru the gap
would be 1/5 that in a normal system, and suggested that thus the gap
wear might be 1/5 also.  But power dissipated in the gap must vary as the
square of the current thru it.  So perhaps the gap wear would be 1/25 and
not 1/5.  Wouldn't that be something!

> Regards,
> Scott Fulks (darkthing-at-earthlink-dot-net)
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit: