[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*: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:20:39 -0600*Resent-Date*: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:21:33 -0600*Resent-From*: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com*Resent-Message-ID*: <LbFm6B.A.rkB.cRX58-at-poodle>*Resent-Sender*: tesla-request-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: "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. Yes, but is that situation using a tesla set up where the frequency of oscillation is increased by means of an arc gap? Obviously then the efficiency of secondary action to primary will increase. In this situation there is no arc gap, or change in frequency among the components. 480 hz goes in & 480 hz comes out soley due to mutual induction. The secondary and primaries have no where near similar geometry where the primary is a 14 gauge coil (no of turns unknown), of low ohmic resistance,(1.1 ohm) and the secondary is of high resistance (1000 ohms containing 20,000 winds of 23 gauge wire) > > 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. The only input to the primary coil is that made by connecting the L1 primary coil to 2 of 3 available outputs from an alternator stator producing 480 hz. Although the coil is only ~1 ohm, at 480 hz the 10.8 mh primary still has an appreciable impedance of near 30 ohms. To get more current to develope on that primary we give L1 a C1 value in series, (for conditions of resonance) Those conditions of course change if L1 has a secondary in proximity for mutual inductance. On the first L1 tuning in isolation we find that a 10 uf value will deliver the best possible resonance. There are also idiosyncrasies involved in all of this, where the book derived C values may differ from what is actually used. For L1 there may not be such differences, but there are further complications in that the 1 ohm L1 value will never come to full conduction by ohms law, especially when the inductive secondary influence is added. As Paul Nicholson has noted, the complications involved here are that R(load) is now getting closer to R(int stator resistance), thus this dramatically cuts down on the delivery of the external resonance, when the internal resistance of the source is taken into account. That alternator AC source itself is CURRENT LIMITED to a greater degree than might be suspected. To illustrate: the 1 ohm resonance might be expected to deliver 1.7 amps at 1.7 volts input. However only .7 amps actually develope, and the expected voltage rise (by the 30 fold Q factor at 480 hz)to accomplish that conduction is reduced to over half that needed to cause the conduction. So we see .7 amps conduction and can not initially understand why 1.7 amps is not developing. The reason for this is readily seen by simply placing a short across the outputs instead at the same stator/field conditions and measuring the amperage to see what the source alone will deliver with no load. In this situation shorting the .7 Amps delivery will only deliver 1.25 Amps on short, so it is easy to see that if only 1.25 A is available from the source in those conditions, this is why we shouldnt expect 1.7 amps to be delivered in identical circumstances whaen a 1 ohm resonant load is added. The (current limited) source simply cannot meet the demand being asked for by the load, when using this low ohmic resonance. Where all of this became most remarkable is when the second side of the process was added. I did not at all set forward with the intention of making a source frequency air core transformer, this was made by sort of accident by making further observations of the current limiting idea. I have described how this DSR1 uses L1C1 in series for resonance, and how it then takes two of three stator connections (using a single of three phases) to be enabled. We also know that this process is only using one of three available output phasings of the alternator. I then began to wonder about ways to use all 3 phases to be incorporated for a single phase of delivery. This was accomplished by using what I call a resonant interphasing. We can place larger Delta Series Resonances, (DSR's) of 12 ohm .15 henry resonances on the other two unused phases, but this does do no good because logically those current flows will both be 120 out of phase with the DSR1 resonance. Now the 1000 ohm coils themselves will barely make any conduction themselves without increasing the voltage applied to them, but by placing that large coil between the two outer DSR2 resonances, this has the action of supplying that needed higher voltage, because on either side of the larger coil there will be resonant voltage rise present on each DSR2 midpoint. Then we can note the reactance of that inner coil conduction and also give the interphasing coil an equal capacitive reactance in series. In this way we have made a resonant transformer, by stacking an interior resonance within two outer ones as shown with a single interphasing as http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/Flux%20Capacitor/3ph.jpg The further advance beyond this point was to consider that the bottom DSR, (here in this application is DSR1), actually does nothing for the interphasing and it can be removed if desired, but a much better option exists for increasing the overall delivery. Looking at all the branches involved, we find that the interphasing has a line parallel to the bottom DSR1 line, and this then implies that the curents on each of those lines are actually in the proper phasing arrangements to interact them inductively with each other. It is in this way we have taken three phases of input and combined them into one phase for actual application! This is done by merely placing the DSR1 coil on top of the interphased high induction coil. However now each coil sees new conditions of impedance because a magnetic interaction has been added, thus it seems sensible that both coils should again be retuned. There are also two options present, where the sensible one is to make those fields be in magnetic unison, not in magnetic opposition. We already know that magnetic unison will increase the q factor for both systems so this seems like the better alternative. But let us then see all 3 circumstances starting from the isolated case of resonant interphasing, so that we can see what the initial conditions before improvement actually are. Solitary Resonant Interphasing from dual DSR input. http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/RI/Dsc00173.jpg The parametric stator input of ~1.8 volts (not shown in that Jpeg) has been increased to 48.4 volts by resonant interphasing voltage rise, enabling .8 ma conduction on the interphasal branch. DSR1 coil is disconnected from stator source, but the voltage meter acros that coil,(V int) is left intact showing that coil to be recieving .686 volts by induction from the larger coil. Thus we know that when the DSR1 coil is actually energized, there are actually TWO sources of emf imposed on it, that made by the line connections, AND that made by induction. DSR1/ mutual induction for increased voltage rise. http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/RI/Dsc00168.jpg Now this sounds promising as a technique since the midpoint pathway of the interphasing has seen its voltage and amperage conditions doubled where now 82.1 volts is enabling 1.66 ma conduction. The DSR1 coil is given a new value of 14 uf to account for its new impedance requirements, but here for magnetic unison it should actually use 9.5 uf. Only a small improvement was made using the 9.5 uf value, where here the 14 uf is left in place to make the next comparison. DSR1 now is only pulling 167 ma. Vint/stator voltage shows DSR1 acting q factor. DSR1/ mutual induction for decreased voltage, but increased voltage internally http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/RI/Dsc00167.jpg Now as expected the magnetic opposition has decreased the interphasal voltage down to 19.39 volts, BUT instead of decreased amperage conduction on the branch as a result, this has instead been increased to 3.64 ma. A one ended neon remains in place to detect increased voltage rise across the plates, where calculations of the reactance of the 1.05 nf cap show that at 480 hz, 1000 volts would enable 3.16 ma consumption, so here it can be estimated that the last internal voltage rise is 3.64/3.16 * 1000 = 1150 volts The DSR1 amaperage and Vint values have also ~ doubled. NOW, all of this may sound long winded, but it is necessary to show these things to indicate what was done next. We Know the (reactive)wattage expended by DSR1, but we do not know the wattge expended by the addtional DSR2 connections because that had not yet been measured. For the first case of solitary operation, each of the branches pull about 120 ma, and the parametric stator voltage goes up to about 2 volts, thus for solitary operations of DSR2 the reactive input is 2* .12, or .24 watts on each leg, or about .5 watts total. Now let us compare the inside branch that made .8 ma with 48.4 volts across it. This only amounts to .038 watts! Thus that efficiency of resonant voltage transformation compared to transformer voltage rise seems very inefficient! So let us then compare the actions for the improved operation case. In that instance only 60 ma is recorded on the outside branches with 1.8 volts being imposed. Because we know that DSR1 is consuming 300 ma, and the other two branches 60 ma apiece, we would suppose that the total DSR2 expenditure is 2/5ths of the DSR1 branch. However this is not the entire story at all, because when we measure the actual stator input line amperage to the junction serving both DSR2 branches, this logically should be 1.7*(60 ma)= 102 ma, however only 60 ma appears at that junction also! These questions are quickly resolved by measuring what the interphasing branch alone can supply if it were shorted(without changing the input field conditions) IT ONLY SUPPLIES 3 MA ON SHORT! So here we have the incredible situation that 1000 ohms in resonance is producing 3.6 ma on the junction, but it is supposedly current limited to 3 ma of delivery on short! This led to the wondering as to whether any input at all was needed for DSR2 operation. Started pulling those connections from the stator, and 1,2,3, the rest is history, the invention of a air core transformer model made by accidental reasonings made by meter wonderings! DSR2 developes its interior voltage rise, but the voltage on the outside of the interphasings is abscent. This is the only difference of operation I have noted with this recent developement. To show this again, Disconnection of DSR2 lines http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/files/RI/Dsc00184.jpg Formerly with DSR2 connected we had 19.4 volts across the interphasing producing 3.64 ma delivery. Disconnecting those stator lines we now only have 99 mv,(1/10th volt)across the interphasing but there is 3.99 ma amperage delivery. DSR1 slightly increases its input to account for the secondary loading. One might also be able to obtain something from the three DSR2 endings of the circuit that were disconnected, I havent tried that one yet. Let us also compare resonant voltage delivery efficiency with DSR 2 connections enabled where 60 ma was recorded with 1.8 volts input. This would be 2* 1.8 * .06 = .216 VAR and for the actual interphasing 19.4 volts enabling 3.6 ma, or .069 var, but if we use the actual voltages INSIDE the interphasing approxiamted at 1265 volts * .0036 A= 4.55 VAR. Additionally that 60 ma across the DSR2 branches can be downsized to 60ma/1.7 as the actual stator input becoming .216/1.7= .127 VAR. In any case here the reduction of the interphasing (outside)voltage has made the resonant voltage rise appear to be more efficient, as comparison for what is inputed. > > 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? > > 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! > > 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. Truly so, but since everything is occuring at source frequency, I think I can believe the meters, and no HF effects are coming in to distort those measurements. I have also used the output to power arc gaps, but not yet made a sensible combination to power a tesla coil. > 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 > Tried to explain the extenuating circumstances here, hope it makes a light at the end of the tunnel, as I admit this 3 phase stuff gets confusing. In any case we have a higher amperage component primary with low resistance winds enabling higher current to be inputed, and on the other side of things we get a higher voltage with reduced amperage, and this is accomplished exactly as a air core transformer at source frequency. I would normally think this to be quite remarkable, since no arc gap to enable that increased secondary performance is used. HDN ===== Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo-dot-com/group/teslafy/ _

- Prev by Date:
**disintegration** - Next by Date:
**Re: Current in the Coil -** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Rewrite of Mutual Inductance Laws for Tesla List** - Next by thread:
**Re: Rewrite of Mutual Inductance Laws for Tesla List** - Index(es):