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

Re: 7.1Hz, Frequency variation and Q

Original poster: "Gary Peterson" <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Ed and the group,

Tesla might have used two separate primaries in Colorado Springs as well. The master oscillator's top turn could have been configured as a single primary turn. (Corum & Corum; see http://teslascience.org/archive/descriptions/CS018.htm for a photo showing the top turn.)

Instead of a second primary tank circuit, it is likely that Tesla would have used a low frequency alternator configured to give relative widely spaced successive pulses with a very fast rise time.

Talking about one of the alternaters he used in his wireless transmission experiments Tesla said,

"I reduced the number of poles . . . for the purpose of generating currents of higher frequency. If I had a great number of poles, I could not realize my idea, because these poles would come in quick succession and not produce a rate of change comparable to the rate of change which is obtainable by the discharge of a condenser owing to a sudden break of the dielectric. That is to say, a blow. It has to be a blow, you see. I had to place my poles comparatively far apart, then run them at excessive speed and generate comparatively few impulses, but each of those impulses are of such tremendous intensity that the dynamo is practically short-circuited. That gave me a blow which replaced the arc. . . . The output of the machine was about 8 kilowatts. . . ." [Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents . . ., p. 15]

In this case the ELF excitation of the desired earth resonance mode would not be sinisoidal, such as the product resulting from the beating of two closely-spaced LF oscillations.

Gary

On Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:35 PM you wrote:

Original poster: Ed Phillips <evp@xxxxxxxxxxx>

 > >" Might be worthwhile to analize a set of twins to see what
 > >beats they produce.
 > >David E Weiss"
 > >In one of his papers Tesla discusses doing exactly this and says
that
 > >by changing the (relative?) tuning he can produce a large variety of
 > >different sparks.


They'd have to be separate and loosely coupled, no?  I wouldn't think the
nearly-identical coils could drive the same main terminal.  Wouldn't one
of them see the other one as a short to ground?  I don't know what
happens
with quarter-wave waveguides, but connecting two parallel resonant RLC
tanks together doesn't give beats, it gives 2x lower frequency.   If you
wanted to inject 100KHz and 100.001KHz into the same antenna, you'd need
some sort of big matching network."

I found the reference.  It's in "Inventions, Researches, and Writings"
[Of Nikola Tesla], Second edition, 1992 Barnes and Noble reprint, pp
202-204.  He starts out by pointing out the difference between the
discharges of his demo coil and that of a static machine.

"Now compare this phenomenon which you have just witnessed with the
discharge of a Holtz or Wimshurst machine - that other interesting
appliance so dear to the experimenter.  [He previously mentioned
conventional induction coils.]  What a difference there is between these
two phenomena!  And yet, had I made the necessary arrangements, ..... I
could have produced with this coil sparks which, had I the coil hidden
from your view and only the two knobs exposed, even the keenest observer
among you would find it difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish
from those of an influence or friction machine.  This may be done in
many ways .."  He mentions some and then goes on to say "Another way is
to pass through two primary circuits, having a common secondary, two
currents of slightly different period, which produce in the secondary
sparks occurring at comparatively long intervals. ......"  Same point as
Bill raises.
. . .
Ed