Re: The 1500t secondary myth (long)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Sparktron01@xxxxxxxxxxx 

Hi Bert, John, All

I've been lurking background, reading this thread.  I would like to interject
several points in this discussion.

1.  The actual measured length of R. Hull's Nemesis resonator was 46" with
a wire winding length of 42" x 14" OD.   Wire gauge used was #16 magnet wire.

2.  Resonant frequency with topload final configuration was 54kHz, free 
resonant frequency was ~ 95kHz.  The size of the toroid was such to 
preferentially drop loaded resonant frequency to 50% or less of unloaded 
value.  This design criteria was followed on subsequent magnifier work by 
TCBOR.

3.  Has anyone measured the base "injection" current of a standard TC versus
the base current of magnifier driver secondary, assuming that the primary 
circuit parameters are NOT changed (BPS, kV in, Cp, fo) but coupling for 
magnifier driver primary to secondary is maximized for maximum POWER (i.e. 
charge) transfer?  I believe the advantage (?) of a magnifier; if one truly 
does exist, is possibly higher streamer/arc currents, and higher/faster 
charge-energy transfer then a standard TC.  I suspect there will be little 
or no advantage (i.e. increase) in Vo secondary.   I don't have the 
infrastructure to perform this test at this time, and maybe someone out 
there can and provide the list feedback.

4.  The resonator to driver inductance ratio typically striven for was at 
least 3:1, and good/excellent performance can be achieved with higher 
ratios to some point yet to be determined.  I achieved 42" spark at 1kW 
with a magnifier system with a driver to resonator inductance ratio of ~ 
4:1.  The earlier thread comments of 1 turn resonators with >200:1 spark 
length to resonator length ratios are quite impossible (unless someone can 
build a 10H choke with one  turn of wire...  :^).  I believe it would be a 
"tough" engineering challenge for someone to build a 100mH resonator in a 
form factor of 12" long with a H/D ratio of 3:1; with wire capable of 
withstanding 10kW
input power (go ahead, prove me worng...  ;^)  )

5.  It has been my experience that increased kVin and smaller capacitors + 
larger primary inductance (higher Zsurge primary tank), generally improves 
system performance.  It may be losses in spark-gap are reduced due to lower 
impulse currents, and possibly second order reduced tank i^2r losses in 
primary/tank wiring.

Regards
Dave Sharpe, TCBOR/HEAS
Chesterfield, VA. USA


> Original poster: Bert Pool <bert.tx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> John Freau did an excellent job of describing Hull's magnifier
> work.  Thanks John!
> Bert
>
>
> At 01:03 PM 12/5/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> >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? :) )
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>