Re: Transformerless Tesla coil

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

Original poster: "Jolyon Vater Cox by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jolyon-at-vatercox.freeserve.co.uk>

Thanks, Antonio -the parenthesis was indeed in the wrong place and I am
getting the correct answer now.

Re: the subject of the transformerless tesla coil, would it not be possible
to design a twin transformerless TC by combining a directly-coupled Tesla
Coil with an indirectly-coupled TC like so:-

                    (===)        (===)
                      I            I
                      L2           L3
                      I            I
-----C1-----+----+----+            +
I           I    I                 I
SG1         L1   I                 ------GND
I           I    I
------------+    I   --+--       --+--
            I    I     I           I
           GND   I    GND          I LIVE
                 I                 I
                 -------------------
Both TC's (L2 and L3) are transformerless Magnifiers capacitively coupled to
oppositely-charged planes.
L2 is connected to the "live" side of L1 and its plane is grounded.
L3 is connected to grounded side of L1 and its plane is "live".
I.e. L2 is charged by conduction and L3 by
electrostatic induction.

Does the illustration above not give insight into the equivalence of of the
two circuits;
in both electrostatic coupling takes place between topload and the planar
electrode,
whether the extra be live and the plane grounded OR VICE-VERSA.

Also, isn't the unwanted capacitance C3 that slows energy transfer in the
indirectly-coupled coil also to be found in the directly coupled version as
the capacitance between leads of the extra coil- and in both devices is not
the maximum voltage to be found between the topload and the opposing plane?

Jolyon.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
To: <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: Transformerless Tesla coil


> 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: "Jolyon Vater Cox by way of Terry Fritz
> <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <jolyon-at-vatercox.freeserve.co.uk>
> >
> > Antonio,
> > I am sorry to say but I think there may be an error in the formula for
the
> > "transfer" frequency (fo) as given by equation
> >
> >  fo=(1/2*pi)*(L2*C1/L2final*C1final))^(1/2)
> > in your document.
> >
> > This is because the answer for fo with the given parameters is
296207.4703Hz
> > (or 296.207kHz) not 30 kHz as suggested.
> >
> > When I entered L1 in place of L2 in the formula I got 31266.34409 Hz or
> > 31.266 kHz, which is much nearer to  the 30kHz indicated in the text.
> >
> > So should the "L2" actually be replaced by "L1" in the above formula?
>
> The formula is in terms of L2 and C1.
> Let's see:
> f0=1/(2*pi)*sqrt(1.1049723e-2*90.750693/(28.2e-3*1e-9))
>   =1/(2*pi)*sqrt(1.002839/2.82e-11)=30013 Hz
>
> You probably forgot the parenthesis.
> What the formula says is that in the normalized circuit, w0norm=1 rad/s.
> The use of L2final and C1final instead of L2 and C1 causes a
> denormalization in frequency and impedance, by the factors r0 and w0:
> L2final=L2*r0/w0
> C1final=C1/(r0*w0)
> Solving for w0:
> w0=sqrt(L2*C1/(L2final*C1final))
> and f0=w0/(2*pi) (this formula was wrong, but I corrected it yesterday).
>
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
>
>
>
>