[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Desktop Bipolar Coil
Original poster: "John H. Couture by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>" <couturejh-at-mgte-dot-com>
John -
It actually is a random maximum spark length and also a random watt second
energy that produces these sparks. However, I believe this is a useless
ratio for Tesla coils. A ratio consisting of random numbers can give you an
infinite number of unusable solutions.
OK it was a twin coil with a 36 inch spark. Note that the 36 inch spark
still gives a 396% over unity energy efficiency regardless of the type of
Tesla coil. The big problem is in my amazing (arbitrary) number crunching.
Clever number crunching can lead to nonsense. Like the old high school
algebra problem where it is proven that 1 = 2. However, I agree that it is
fair to use a different multiplier (2.4) for your equation with a different
type of TC. How many twin TCs have been in agreement with this equation?
John Couture
-------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 10:05 PM
To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
Subject: Re: Desktop Bipolar Coil
Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>"
<FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>
In a message dated 6/30/03 1:29:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:
John C,
Comments below..... oh BTW, it's not a random spark length I'm
considering, it's a maximum spark length.
>John F. -
>
>This is what I mean by nonsense engineering when using random TC spark
>outputs. This possibility also occurs with other engineering systems. Your
>spark 36 inch length can be real, however, the exact watt second input to
>produce this spark cannot be determined and the spark length should not be
>compared to other spark lengths with an assumed same watt second input.
Keep
>in mind that the random spark length also has a random watt second input
for
>that particular spark. With most engineering systems random outputs can
lead
>to over unity energy.
>
>For example -
>
>7500 x .03 = 225 watts
>
>John Freau equation -
>
> spark inches = 1.7 sqrt(watts)
> = 1.7 x sqrt(225)
> = 25.5 inch spark
Correct so far.....
>John Freau 36 inch spark -
Now where did this 36" spark come from? Did you perchance
take the spark length for a *twin* coil? Twins give longer sparks
than a regular coil, and I use a different formula for them. I posted
about this very recently. In fact I mentioned that a 7.5/30 may give
a 36" spark in a twin coil. My guess is you must have taken that
figure. Unfortunately that's mixing apples and oranges.
> watts = (inches/1.7)^2
> = (36/1.7)^2
> = 448 watts
This is correct for a 448 watt input for a regular coil, but for a twin
you only need 225 watts for a 36" spark. More on that below.
> unity eff = 448/225
> = 3.96 = 396% over unity energy
I believe you are confusing the results for a twin coil with results for
a regular coil. That would indeed give a nonsense result if that's what
you did. I recently answered a post about a twin coil, and you may
have missed that distinction.
>It is amazing what you can do with numbers using random sparks!
>
>This is the penalty that coilers must pay for using random TC spark
lengths.
>Hopefully, in the future TC spark lengths and watt second inputs will be
>better defined.
There is no penalty at all. But one must be accurate in selecting
the proper formula. I'll explain it again.
Using a 7.5/30 NST for a normal TC:
spark length inches = 1.7*sqrt input watts
25.5" = 1.7*sqrt 225
Using a 7.5/30 NST for a twin TC:
spark length inches = 2.4*sqrt input watts
36" = 2.4*sqrt input watts
The reason twins give longer sparks for a given input power is
because a twin coil can be considered to be two coils each of
one half the total input power.
I hope this helps to clarify the situation.
John F.
>John Couture
>
>--------------------------------
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla-at-pupman-dot-com]
>Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 9:18 PM
>To: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
>Subject: Re: Desktop Bipolar Coil
>
>
>Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <teslalist-at-qwest-dot-net>"
><FutureT-at-aol-dot-com>
>
>In a message dated 6/28/03 1:00:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>tesla-at-pupman-dot-com writes:
>
> >. It is my understanding the John Freau's equation for
> >spark length is only good for NSTs when the NST is modified.
> >
> >John Couture
>
>
>John,
>
>My equation is good for NST's whether they are modified or not.
>One should use the measured input wattage for the calc, or at
>least the PF corrected VA which should be a reasonably accurate
>approach too. Consider for example John Morawa's beautiful
>15/30 NST coil which gave 40" sparks from an unmodified NST,
>at 120 volts input.
>
>John
>