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

Power Factor Correction of Air Core Transformer/ Neon wattage Miniscule?

Original poster: "harvey norris by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <harvich-at-yahoo-dot-com>

Dont know if this kind of work directly relates to
Tesla Coils, but the action does equate itself as an
air core transformer analogous to that of a tesla
coil, with the important difference that the function
of an arc gap is not used on L1C1, thus it is not
strictly a high frequency transformer. But this also
depends how we interpret the term, since the  stator
source emf itself is of a somewhat higher frequency
and it is this effect that enables one to tune L2C2 to
that higher frequency and also exhibit a voltage rise
far beyond that of the primary input, more than
probably the turn ratio itself would deliver, so the
simularities of principle reveal themselves. Also on a
tesla secondary the effect of grounding increases
performance, where the same principle is noted on a
power factor corrected primary, with a neon grounded
(For the series resonant primary DSR1)
There are actually three options for placing a neon as
secondary load for the transformer.  In making these
options the observeed VAR of the neon load will always
be below the VAR input. Initially I had specified that
.5 VAR was making 5 VAR of output, and Paul N had
stated that without designating a load this
complicates things. No load was designated because a
one ended neon does not qualify as a load, and
although its actions can be measured, the instruments
themselves dramatically change that measurement. Thus
it is better to give the neon two endings, where
considered as a load, input VAR and Output VAR
comparisons can be had.  By putting the neon across
one of the reactances, and taking new VAR measurements
for the neon as a load, the VAR output will always be
lower than the VAR input.

There also appears to be 3 options for placing the
bulb across the voltage rise.  The first of these is
to use either L2  or C2 as the voltage source, in
which case a path of current has been diverted from
the resonance. This led to two other testings where
instead the bulb is either grounded, or hooked to the
primary L1C1 midpoint, making it a sort of
autotransformer principle, though not quite exactly,
since the neon discharge itself then connects the
primary and secondary.  I hope to soon make a jpeg of
what can be procurred in that situation. The neon can
be shorted and still display miniscule discharge!
Doing this also reduces the input amperage 5 fold.

Thus we have 3 different scenarios, (actually 4
counting the untested line autotransformer one, but
then the device would not strictly be an air core
transformer) where the operation is made with the
primary L1C1 in series resonance. To make a power
factor correction for this circuit is to merely take
L1C1 in series as the primary, and instead place them
in parallel to the single delta stator input, making a
Delta Tank Resonance of 1 ohm. (DTR1).  In that
scenario we can also load the neon two different ways,
either across the voltage rise  on either L2 or C2 of
the reactance, or with the voltage midpoint rise with
respect to ground. The ground method appears to be

Jpegs of these differing methods can be found at
Autotransformer Corrections and Equivalent Actions.

The ground method with a power factor correction
seemingly shows a paradox, that would seemingly be
explained by the idea that the VAR reading of a neon
is no where near its true power input expressed as
I^2R. However other methods have suggested that the
"acting resistance" of this 20 inch neon disharge is
around 125,000 ohms, so there seems to be confusion
here, because then I^2R as true power expended becomes
large and we are then forced to assume that the VAR of
the neon is indeed the true power. Here is jpeg from

"Lastly the method of making a DTR1 (tank primary)
with a neon 
grounded secondary can be shown.
DTR1/ L2C2 midpt neon grounding
Here I forgot to change the amperage label to DTR1 but
it has a 
reduced consumption, whereby at this voltage with a
DSR1 primary we 
would have the noted 2.6 Amps, but now we only have
.12 A for a 15.97 
=~ 16 volts. V(int) meter shows no voltage rise,
confirming this to 
be a tank circuit. The secondary bulb records 526
volts above ground 
enabling .689 ma conduction to ground. This is .362
The input VAR appears to be 16*.12= 1.92 VAR. However
if we were to 
go by the argument that the true power input is always
expressed by 
the quantity I^2R, then only (.12A)^2*1 ohm =.014
watts input is then 
the real power as input. Thus if we were to believe
that somewhat 
foolish argument, with this power factor correction to
ground, .014 
watts goes in and .362 watts goes out from ground
connection. Let us 
compare the power factor correction for when the bulb
was instead 
across C2, and the ground was not involved."

In this article I neglected to consider that The
amperage reading of DTR1 is on the outside of the
loop, thus this is not an accurate representation for
I^2R as input. This is because a (source frequency)
tank circuit also has a "resonant rise of amperage"
with respect to that inputed. However earlier
measurements of this resonant amperage rise showed
that the tank fails miserably to produce the predicted
results, and less then twice the input amperage is
found inside the loop. Thus by going by I^2R as true
power input, this at most would be doubled to .028
It should also be recognized however that for a source
freq resonant tank circuit, the reactive power
measurement MUST be used as the true power input, and
it is easy to make an argument to show why this is
true. This may not be so obvious to others, who might
put up an argument. But here the necessity of using
the reactive power input as the true power input
becomes apparent in the fact that if this is not done,
we wind up with figures showing more output than
Sincerely HDN

Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances