Re: Terry's New Plane Wave Antenna

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Dmitry (father dest)" <dest@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> Original poster: Terry Fritz <vardin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>>but how do you think - does the capacitance between the toroid and
>>front plane of the antenna depend from the strength/form of the field?
>>coz the field between the toroid and the antenna is not uniform, and
>>this field is not completely contained between them.

> As long at it does not "change", the shape and distortions do not
> matter.  For a give set of fields, the voltage should be linear and
> accurate.  If you have it all setup and calibrated but then place a
> chair between the toroid and antenna, then everything will be changed
> by the chair.

so the antenna output depends on the field shape changes in process of
measurements :-) then read below.

>>you advice to calibrate antenna by giving a known high voltage at the
>>toroid - say, from the nst. but  the field of working coil is much
>>stronger - imo the charges in the area "toroid-plane of the
>>antenna" will be located in other way, so the capacitance of this area
>>will change and the calibration will be not precise, no?

> It is really best to resonant the coil from a signal generator.  Then
> the top voltage is the input voltage multiplied by the "Q" of the
> secondary system.  Then the fields from say the secondary coil itself
> are more realistic.

i see no big advantages in resonating from gen, coz even if your
seconadary has Q=1000 (and it won`t), you need more than 300v from gen
to make the things "more realistic", otherwise your calibration would
be ruined again. and 300v it`s not sig gen at all - it`s a RF gen.
maybe YOU can calibrate in such way, but i certainly not, so for me
the question stays open as before :-)
btw - at 300v cw your secondary would let the all smoke out very
quickly i think  %-)))

>  In many cases, the
> absolute voltage really does not matter because you are looking for
> notches or other things rather than pure voltages.  Probably 90% of
> the time I don't care about calibration since I really just want to
> "see" the waveform's shape, timing, duration, etc..

gotcha :-) again - i`m talkin about the _measurements_, you - about
the _observing_ waveforms - we`re back to the beginning :-)

> If someone finds out that the waveforms really don't look like that
> at all, let me know :o))

nobody can tell you about that, coz it would mean that someone has the
_other_ instrument, and he`s sure in its accuracy. however, it would
be just a piece of cake if you were Marco :-D
or such direct and parallel comparison took place in the past already
and i just don`t know about that?

-----
Let the bass kick! =:-D