Re: conical secondaries (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:14:07 EDT
From: Mddeming@xxxxxxx
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: conical secondaries (fwd)

In a message dated 6/16/07 1:06:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007  10:39:16 -0500
From: David Thomson <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Tesla  list' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: conical secondaries  (fwd)

Hi Gary,

Probably the best way to test my observations  would be to build three coils,
each with the same wire length, wire gage,  and same number of turns for each
of a flat spiral, solenoid, and conical  coil.  
 
Aren't observations corroborated and theories tested? With the three  
geometries, the inductance will be very different and hence the operating  
frequencies AND the voltage gains. It can be shown that, for equal lengths  of equal 
size wire, the inductance of a maximized spiral exceeds that of a  maximized 
solenoid by a factor of 1.011 x T, where T is the number of turns per  inch.[1] 
This means that the spiral would have the highest terminal voltage, the  cone 
next and the solenoid lowest under conditions of max inductance, which  seemd 
contradictory.
 

The best  cone design would be
a height equal to the base diameter, or nearly  so.
 
Is there any basis for knowing, a priori, that this  cone with a base  angle 
of 63.44 degrees is "best"?
 

Then it  would be a
simple matter of choosing a constant top load and variable power  supply.  I
predict the conical coil will handle more power than either  the flat spiral
or solenoid coils.  I doubt it would increase the  spark length by much, but
the spark will be brighter and more robust in a  conical coil than in a
solenoid coil.  Since the specific application  here is a very small coil,
the conical coil could make the difference  between being able to see the
streamer or not seeing the streamer for a  given coil size.

BTW, my observations are based upon the two different  manifestations of
sparks I observed and spoke of earlier.  A flat  spiral coil produces a
thick, white arc indicating maximized current.   A solenoid coil produces a
thin purple spark, indicating maximized  potential.  
 
 
Aren't conclusions based on observations rather than observations based on  
observations? In journalism, history, English, etc., it's common to  
interchange or confuse conclusions with observations for literary or  dramatic effect. 
Science tries harder not to do so. 
 
"A flat, spiral coil produces a thick, white arc," is an observation.
  "...indicating maximized current." is a conclusion.
likewise,"  A solenoid coil produces a thin purple spark," is an  observation
 "...indicating maximized potential." is a conclusion.


The  solenoid coil is too narrow at the base to accommodate a flat  spiral
maximized current, and a flat spiral has no height at the terminal  to
accommodate a solenoid maximized potential.  The conical coil  accommodates
the high current and high potential both, thus allowing more  power to be
stored in the coil per coil size.


The hypotheses should always be stated in the subjunctive, not in  
declaratives. Assuming the first two statements are correct, ie. that the  conical 
voltage IS higher than a flat spiral's and a conical's  current IS higher than a 
solenoid's, to assert that therefore
 
V(cone) X I(cone) > V(solenoid) X I(Solenoid)
or that
V(cone) X I(cone) > V(spiral) X I(spiral)
 
is IIRC, an invalid extended syllogism. The assertion MAY be  true, but 
obviously doesn't have to be.
 
Also, last time I looked, Energy could be stored, not Power.  Power is a 
rate, dE/dt, and time derivatives don't store well.
 
 


Dave

David W. Thomson  



[1]  "Maximizing Inductance of Solenoid and Flat Spiral TC Secondaries" M. D. 
Deming  Nov. 2002



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.