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

Re: The 1500t secondary myth (long)



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? :) ) > > >