Re: The 1500t secondary myth

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Paul Nicholson <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

jdwarshui@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> The impedance formula found in text books are derived on the
> basis of lumped analysis.

> Now if we are applying these formulae to Resonant transformers
> we are pre supposing that resonant transformers are also lumped.

> If resonant transformers were lumped then it would not be possible
> for nodes to form along the length of an inductor as this implies
> a non uniform current, an immediate violation of the lumped
> assumption. One can then conclude that the classic impedance
> formula (as is) is incomplete when applied to Tesla coils as it
> lacks spatial components.

Sounds like you're still floundering under the misapprehension that
'lumped' and 'distributed' are two different kinds of resonance.

They are just alternative (and equivalent) ways to analyse the
TC resonances.   We've explained this at length in previous
threads.

To illustrate how the 'lumped equivalents' are derived from a
distributed resonator model, see section 7 of

 http://www.abelian.demon.co.uk/tssp/pn2511.html

Hope that helps.

Phil LaBudde wrote:

> I am starting to think that the streamer's impedance may be
> far more stable and predictable that we realize.  If that was
> not the case, the models should fail or deviate far more than
> they do.

I like that line of thought.   BTW, any luck measuring those
overtones?

There does seem to be a factor of 2 or more spread in Zo values
for successful TCs.

Perhaps there's an optimum Zo for use with each size or ROC of
topload?
--
Paul Nicholson
--