Re: 1/4 wave TC (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:45:10 EDT
From: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 1/4 wave TC (fwd)

 
Hi Bart, Skip, All,
 
    I concur that experimentation is a great teacher,  perhaps the best. I 
was just trying to ascertain the reasoning, or driving  force, if you will,  
behind the experiments. An old professor of mine once  said that there are two 
distinct types of  experiments. He called them  "science experiments" and 
"science appreciation experiments". The first begin  with a theory, proposition, or 
conjecture, and an experiment is designed  and conducted to verify the 
hypothesis. The second type is one in which you do  something just to "see what will 
happen". The theoretical basis for this  experiment was not clear to me, nor 
was it obvious to me what the experiment  would illustrate in light of the 
points I raised. If it is one of the latter  type investigations, that is 
perfectly OK.
 
Matt D. 
 
"The most subtly difficult part of any experiment is determining what it  
really is we have learned from it."
--Alfred E. Bender
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/26/07 11:18:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007  19:59:27 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson  <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list  <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 1/4 wave TC (fwd)

Hi   Matt,

I agree 1000 percent! But I think it's good for coilers to try  things 
out. Once a coiler builds a coil to experiment down a certain  avenue, I 
prefer coilers continue down that path without intervention  because 
experience is absolutely the best teacher. This is a personal  preference 
of course and isn't held by all. I think your questions are  absolutely 
valid. However, Skip may just be trying out something new and  is 
wondering what will come of it. Experience will tell the tale (of that  I 
have complete faith).

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list  wrote:

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 26  Jul 2007 15:55:09 EDT
>From: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
>To:  tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: 1/4 wave TC (fwd)
>
>  
>In a message dated 7/26/07 1:28:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,   
>tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
>.  Unpowered, the  
>resonant frequency of the secondary with no top load is  about  the same 
>as the 1/4 wave frequency of the wire length in the   secondary.
>.
>
>My intention with this coil was to build a  secondary  that would resonate 
>at the at the 1/4 wave frequency  of the wire length  used in the 
>secondary. Indeed, with no top  load, the overall excited  resonant 
>frequency of the secondary is  only slightly below the non powered  
>resonant  frequency
>
>
> 
>Hi Skip,
> 
>Have you  considered the following:
> 
>1) You have made a coil whose  resonant frequency has a quarter wavelength  
>that is equal to the  straight wire quarter wavelength, but as soon as you 
put  
>the  first bend in the wire, the "EM distance" between the two ends is no 
longer  
> that of the straight wire. Once you have put ~380 bends in it such  that 
the  
>straight-line distance in three dimensions from end to  end is  only ~19 
>inches, then that quarter wave number really  seems to lose any  
significance. 
> 
>2) As the streamers  form, they drop the resonant frequency of the  
secondary. 
>The  streamers themselves become a constantly growing and shrinking  
topload,  
>as they form, grow, disappear, and new ones re-grow. When there is  no  
other 
>topload, the percentage by which the streamers affect  the  frequency is 
>greater. Since, when anything is happening, the  frequency  is constantly 
changing, 
>what is the relevance of the  wavelength at which nothing  is happening?
> 
>Matt  D.
>


 



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour