Re: The 1500t secondary myth (long)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "David Rieben" <drieben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Bert, Phil,

I have to reiterate Phil's comment - please give us more dertails ;^()

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: The 1500t secondary myth (long)


> Original poster: FIFTYGUY@xxxxxxx
>
> In a message dated 12/4/04 11:17:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Want an efficient, amazing coil?  Here's the secret in one sentence:
follow
> Richard's lead - outrageous top loads, very high voltage potential
> transformers, small capacitors, and most importantly, very good 8 point
> series rotary gaps.
>
>      Thank you, Bert!
>      But could you quantify each of these conditions?
>      What constitutes an "outrageous" top load? In his widely-posted
> article, Hull wrote: "We further found that the moderate sized toroids
then
> used could be increased by one full order of magnitude and the result
would
> be a fantastic increase in the amount of energy handling capacity of a
> relatively small system!" This is something I'm leaning towards myself,
> after a modest amount of experimentation.
>      How high is "very high" potential for a charging transformer? Hull
> wrote, "Only one rule applies here. The voltage must be as high as
> possible!!!" Of course, I mentioned that maybe we should be focusing SGTC
> efforts on how to charge the primary caps to higher voltages. What kind of
> relationship exists between primary voltages and streamer length, all
other
> factors equal?
>      How small are "small" caps? Again, Hull said: "When we hear of a
> builder that uses more than 0.1 uF of capacitance, we wonder about the
> builder. Our 10Kw Nemesis used only 0.09 uF of capacitance and produced
> straight line, point to point arcs of 14-15 feet." Yet we have folks on
> this list right now advocating caps at least 0.1 uF to produce these kind
> of sparks.
>      And what makes a "very good" rotary? Hull wrote :"We have designed a
> special series arc rotary quench gap that can actually quench faster than
> required (also a bad condition)." If this is of the utmost importance, how
> exactly was this done? The only picture I've seen of a TCBOR rotary was a
> good-sized "propeller" gap. And how does one tune a rotary for precisely
> the correct amount of quench?
>      I'm just deathly curious about how the TCBOR made magnifiers with
such
> small resonators (which represent a huge cost and space savings) that
> produced arc lengths of up to 7 times their height. I don't know about
> everybody else, but I'd rather build a giant toroid than wind a giant
> secondary (bringing this post back on topic :) ). I'd also rather build a
> MMC of much smaller value but slightly higher voltage rating. BTW, I read
> that Gary Lau has gotten best results yet by going to a much smaller cap.
>      So what do(did?) all the current design programs have to predict
about
> the performance of the TCBOR coils such as Nemesis and their last
magnifier?
>
> -Phil LaBudde
> (am I asking too many questions? :) )
>
>
>