Re: conical secondaries (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:06:36 -0400
From: BRIAN FOLEY <ka1bbg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: conical secondaries (fwd)

Hi, please have a look here for more information.
http://www.electrotherapymuseum.com/2007/Argue/index.htm
about conical secondaries, cul brian f.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: conical secondaries (fwd)


>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:17:20 -0500
> From: David Thomson <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: 'Tesla list' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: conical secondaries (fwd)
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> > 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?
>
> I would think so.
>
> > With
> > the three geometries, the inductance will be very different
> > and hence the operating frequencies AND the voltage gains.
>
> The issue here is coil geometry, not equivalent inductances.  We are
> concerned as to whether a conical coil has different properties from a
flat
> spiral or solenoid geometry.  If the inductances and self capacitances are
> different for each equivalent geometry, then that proves the geometries
are
> different in operating characteristics.
>
> What would be the scientific rationale for forcing coil geometries to
match
> specific inductance values if we were looking for the inductance
differences
> (and hence operational characteristics) in the geometries?
>
> > 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.
>
> So what you are saying is that secondary coil geometry DOES make a
> difference in the output of a Tesla coil?  Thank you.
>
> > 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"?
>
> It is best in the sense that it is a perfect cone, not that it has any
> particularly advantageous uses as a secondary coil.  The issue here,
again,
> is to compare flat spirals, cones, and solenoids.  A cone that is too flat
> or to slender will approach the geometries of a flat spiral or solenoid
> coil.
>
> As a matter of interest, I happen to own one of Tesla's double coned
> secondary coils.  Both cones are exactly 6" in height and 6" in diameter.
> Tesla, it appears, was interested in this geometry, too.
>
> > 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.
>
> I would have presented the math that followed my observations and led to
my
> conclusion, but this has been determined to be off-topic for this list, if
> you recall.  This Tesla list gets highly agitated when alternate theories
to
> the Standard Model and Classical Physics are presented.  So it is fair to
> simply leave it that I had observed two manifestations of charges.  Also,
> others on this list were able to replicate these two different
> manifestations of charge in various other setups.
>
> Just because you and others choose to ignore the physics that quantifies
two
> different manifestations of charges does not mean they do not exist.
> Apparently, others on this list also recognize that flat spiral coils
> produce a thick white spark and tall solenoid coils produce a thin purple
> spark.  But, let's not go there as it is unnecessary for the project at
> hand.
>
> I predict a conical coil wound from the same amount of wire as a solenoid
> coil will produce a brighter streamer at about the same length (maybe a
> little shorter) as a solenoid coil will.  This would indicate a conical
coil
> stores more power than a helical coil.
>
> > 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.
>
> I guess that is the power of a prediction, then, isn't it?  I am stating
> quite clearly that it MUST be true a conical coil stores more power than a
> flat spiral or solenoid coil of equivalent size.  The logic for this
> prediction rests in the transition of the electron from one geometrical
> charge manifestation to the other.  However, I have calculated the best
> geometry for best secondary performance to be a coil of the trumpet shape
as
> discussed by others in this thread, as I have shown in my book.  The
trumpet
> shape arises as the result of a cylindrical damped wave.
>
> > Also, last time I looked, Energy could be stored, not Power.
> > Power is a
> > rate, dE/dt, and time derivatives don't store well.
>
> That's odd, the last time I looked, energy was a rate, too:
>
> E = hv
>
> If energy can be stored, power can.  But by "store" I'm not talking about
> turning off the system and having a static amount of power remaining in
the
> coil, I'm referring to the dynamic capacity of the coil to contain the
power
> while it is operating.  The increased capacity for power is due to the
lower
> impedance the electrons will experience when changing from current
> (magnetic) mode to potential (electric) mode.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/07
8:23 AM
>
>