Re: Frequency splitting (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:16:26 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Frequency splitting (fwd)

Jared,

it has come to my attention that one expert on Pupman is now describing 
the plasma arc from the secondary capacitor (topload) as changing the 
frequency of the resonator due to dampening from the non linear 
resistance of the arc which in turn is altering C and C'. This person is 
tuning coils as if the dampening was really there.

Just playing.

I understand your theory and it's not a bad one. But, think for a 
moment, do you "really" know that an arc does not have a capacitance? 
What is your source for such a stout claim? From my understanding, an 
arc absolutely contains a charge or various charges throughout various 
regions of the arc channel and thus a capacity. If it didn't, there 
would be no arc in the first place.

Your theory is interesting, but please don't use phrases like "it has 
come to my attention that many experts....". That just sounds so damn 
degrading! The fact is, sparks load down the coils frequency by a small 
degree. Maybe from the spark itself or in your theory the dampening 
effect. The "only" thing the so called experts are saying is that it 
doesn't hurt to detune the coil for this frequency divergence.

BTW, I've never met an expert coiler. In my opinion, there is no such 
thing as an expert coiler except maybe in ones own mind. There is 
experience.

Take care,
Bart

>Commentaries:
>
>It has come to my attention that many experts on Pupman are now describing
>the plasma arc from the secondary capacitor  as having a capacitance. They
>are tuning coils as if the capacitance was really there.
>
>
>
>There is no such capacitance in the arc. Capacitors do not increase
>capacitance when they arc out. Arcs do not have an ability to store charge.
>Arcs  do not have plates nor can they be described with a fixed geometry.
>
>
>
>Nor can we describe an arc as having an appreciable inductance. The geometry
>is not much good for inductance.
>
>
>
>Nope!;  you are altering C or C'  to make up for changes in frequency caused
>by dampening. (dampening from  the non linear resistance of the arc)
>
>
>
>Empirical corrections are wonderful, my hats off!  I am sure that a great
>deal of effort was involved in arriving at a useable correction factor. But
>there is no capacitance in the arc. There is only non linear resistance and
>perhaps a tiny bit of inductance.
>
>
>
>
>
>Jared Dwarshuis  August 07
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>