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

*To*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Subject*: Re: Rewrite of Mutual Inductance Laws for Tesla List*From*: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>*Date*: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:48:27 -0600*Resent-Date*: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:49:48 -0600*Resent-From*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Resent-Message-ID*: <dPjJ1D.A.Zk.tGG58-at-poodle>*Resent-Sender*: tesla-request-at-pupman-dot-com

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz> Hi Harvey, On 16 May 2002, at 8:06, Tesla list wrote: > Original poster: "harvey norris by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <harvich-at-yahoo-dot-com> > > The laws of Mutual Inductance for air core coils only > implies a several percentage points effeiciency; > TRANSLATION; 100 REACTIVE WATTS IN- 5 WATTS REACTIVE > WATTS OUT Which laws are those? In fact you can get k pretty close to 1 if the coils have very similar geometries. If there are few losses, even if k is quite low, transfer efficiency is demonstrably high. I have measured an energy transfer efficiency approaching 90% between two coupled air-cored coils with k set to about 0.15. > However those laws only specify L1L2 in air core, and > with increased frequency of input for L1L2 coils if we > give each of these L quantities an associated C1 and > C2 values, we should expect the mutual induction to > increase, or more properly the ability of the L1C1 > primary to excite the L2C2 secondary for comparisons > here. I confess I don't understand any of this. M is a function of k and the inductances of the two coils. I don't see where capacitance comes into it. > http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/RI/Dsc00184.jpg > L1 =10.8 mh, C1 =14 uf > L2= 60 henry, C2= 1 nf > > Input = 1.67 volts *.35 A = .58 VAR > Output=(4/3.16*1000)*.004A = 5.06 VAR > > Since the volt-ampereres measurements only indicate > possible deviations from actual real power input, when > it it is shown that the components are actually > matched to be as completely resonant as possible, the > reactive power arguments completely fail to show how > the the output coils appear to be greater than the > input. The reactive power in the output circuit is the result of an accumulation of energy in that circuit isn't it? > The simple statement of the fact is that the > unenergized field of this 7 pole face rotor -at- 480 hz > can produce only 1.67 volts enabling .35 A on the 14 > gauge coil in DSR1 resonance, but >1250 volts to light > a one ended neon leakage current across the 1 nf > capacity occurs on the secondary side. When the field > is actually energized the output side does get reduced > according to the increased neon leakage current. > > 15 Volt Operation > http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/RI/Dsc00178.jpg > > In that operation there having over 6000 volts across > the caps,experimentation suggests that all three > voltage lines of conduction making that high voltage > can be cut from its supply source, and instead THE > SAME LEVEL OF VOLTAGE BY DSR1 INDUCTION ALONE WILL > APPEAR! > > Pray tell us what is the K mutual inductance factor > here in this coefficient by calculations here? The > ordinary L1L2 mutual inducatnce equations do not > account for the increased efficiency afforded by > giving each L quantity a C to resonate with the > imposed frequency. But there is a fundamental difference between two mutually coupled inductances and two mutually coupled tuned circuits. A tuned circuit is not called a "tank" for nothing. The old sum of energy out = energy in minus losses must apply. Energy accumulation in a tank takes place *over time*, something which voltmeters and ammeters do not take into account with their sluggish responses. You can of course see such acccumulation occurring on an oscilloscope since that instrument does use a *timebase*. > Indeed here is an alternator with no energized field > exercizing resonance of L1C1 through space to L2C2 and > producing one ended neon discharge! So to complain at > least to science law makers of presumptions it can be > said that air core mutual inductance laws do not > preclude a non performance factor. Fundamentally, the only difference between air-cored and material- cored coils if the material is not driven close to saturation is the higher permeability (hence L of the coils, hence M between them). Is there something here that I'm missing? Regards, malcolm HDN > > ===== > Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances > http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/ > > > >

- Prev by Date:
**Re: what size wire?** - Next by Date:
**Re: Pulse Transformer** - Prev by thread:
**Rewrite of Mutual Inductance Laws for Tesla List** - Next by thread:
**Re: Rewrite of Mutual Inductance Laws for Tesla List** - Index(es):