Re: A photographic tutorial of Pancake Coil winding...with movies...(fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:15:02 -0500
From: Bert Hickman <bert.hickman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: A photographic tutorial of Pancake Coil winding...with
    movies...(fwd)

Tesla list wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:36:45 -0500
> From: David Thomson <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: 'Tesla list' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: A photographic tutorial of Pancake Coil winding...with
>     movies...(fwd)
> 
> Hi Bert,
> 
<snip>
> 
> 
> As an engineer, I know it must be difficult for you to understand electrons
> are not actually flowing as a current in the third coil.  There are only
> displacement waves in the electrons, themselves.  One electron bumps against
> the next electron in such a manner that it is identical to an acoustic wave.
> When the third coil is in resonance, both with the driver system and the
> coil's own geometry, there is absolutely no current flow, only a potential.
> 

How on earth did you ever reach this conclusion?

As a non-engineer, I know it must be difficult for you to understand 
that what you are proposing simply doesn't make sense on a number of 
levels. As Wolfgang Pauli said, it's "not even wrong...".

I define resonance for your 3rd coil as being the efficient energy 
exchange between magnetic and electrical fields at the natural 
("ringing") frequency of your coil and topload.

However, it sounds like you are defining "perfect resonance" in a 
different manner than everyone else. And, this is based on what 
empirical evidence? From what I can tell, it seems to be based on your 
theory of there being two types of charge, which in turn, seems to be 
supported by visual observation of "gas burner" discharge. I see... not.

> Why modern physics does not acknowledge such an easily observable and
> measurable phonomenon is beyond me.

Well, I can think of one very simple reason... your "interpretations" of 
what you see are inconsistent with reality.

"Gas burner" discharges are not unique to your particular system. They 
are also easily explained by gas discharge physics theory. These kinds 
of discharges have been seen by many experienced coilers in poorly 
performing/mistuned 2-coil systems. There's absolutely no reason to 
think that wouldn't also appear on poorly tuned 3-coil systems.

Although you personally may not be familiar with their appearance or the 
underlying physics that describe them, that does NOT mean that the 
entire body of existing scientific knowledge is wrong and needs to be 
completely rewritten. It DOES imply that you have some significant 
knowledge gaps that you try to fill with unwarranted speculation.

Here's something for you to try: Connect the base of your 3rd coil (or 
ANY resonator) to a low impedance signal generator through a small 
capacitor. This will mimic the capacitive coupling that you propose 
occurs between the secondary and 3rd coil of your system. How would you 
  experimentally determine the "longitudinal" or "perfect" resonant 
frequency for your 3rd coil?

If it is by looking for the first current peak (as you increase signal 
generator frequency), then you are simply measuring the fundamental (EM 
resonant) frequency of the coil and topload. Now, I think you said that 
this will lead to the "wrong" results for perfect resonance. If true, 
how would you measure the "perfect resonant" frequency of your coil?

<snip>

>> Not exactly - my conclusions are significantly different than 
>> yours, and they are consistent with observed behavior, with 
>> known Tesla Coil theory/practice, and with the known physics 
>> of air breakdown.
> 
> This would explain why you, Ed, Matt, and others cannot understand how
> Tesla's wireless power transmission system works.  You can only see the
> third coil in EM mode and not in acoustic mode.  Is there no small chance
> that your understanding is limited and that my understanding is an extension
> of your understanding?

Perhaps. But, quite frankly it's more likely that you are reading too 
much into a limited set of visual observations, and then formulating 
underlying behavior and structure that is not really there. Nothing that 
you have presented thus far provides any evidence for the existence, or 
measurement of, "electron acoustic resonance", or the proposed role of 
ion acoustic propagation near your 3rd coil. And, I'm not really sure I 
even know what these terms mean.

Let's follow up your "waveguide" example. The speed of sound in copper 
is 4760 m/s and 6420 m/s in aluminum (i.e., 34% faster). Wouldn't you 
expect that the resonant frequency of the aluminum cylinder would be 
about 34% higher than for an identical copper cylinder? If not, why 
not?. BTW, these velocities are only about 10E-5 the speed of light - 
your calculations showed a velocity about 100 time higher.

In your pipe experiment, how long was the wire connecting the signal 
generator to the coil base, and what was the base diameter? You may have 
(accidentally) formed a ringing series LC circuit (via the inductance of 
the feed wire and the combined plate and pipe capacitances). Also, were 
any other coils nearby?

I'll state it again - any electrical "waveguide" type behavior for 
either of your pipes will not occur until you reach frequencies that are 
over 1000X higher that you're using. Period.

<snip>
>> Corona initially appears as short bluish-violet tufts at 
>> points where the electric field gradient is sufficiently 
>> high. 
> 
> So it follows that a system with long bluish-violet tufts have a very high
> electric field gradient.  As I witness the countless coil photographs of
> long streamers, I notice the conspicuous absense of long bluish-violet
> tufts.  This indicates coils producing long streamers have relatively low
> electric field gradient, correct?

No, Dave, that does NOT follow. Quite the opposite. The progression from 
corona, to burst corona, to streamers, and finally leaders occurs at 
progressively higher terminal voltages, accompanied by correspondingly 
higher E-field gradients near the topload surface. Systems showing only 
long bluish-violet tufts are generating LOWER voltages and LOWER peak 
E-fields than systems that are generating streamers and leaders. OK?

> 
>> On systems with larger terminal 
>> capacitance, burst corona makes a distinctive "popping" sound 
>> with no corresponding streamer.
> 
> Are the systems you are referring to two-coil systems, or three-coil
> systems?  

They can occur on either type of system.

I'm specifically talking about three coil systems where the third
> coil is seen as a capacitor (ion storage container) only.

Dave, it doesn't really matter whether you couple energy into your 3rd 
coil inductively, capacitively, or via a direct electrical connection as 
long as you do so at its resonant frequency (Fo) or a higher harmonic. 
If, instead, you try to excite your resonator at a much lower frequency 
than Fo (as in your system), then you'll observe very poor energy 
transfer and low output - by any measurements you care to make. The 
behavior can be replicated with a poorly tuned 2-coil system as well.

BTW, did you try drawing any sparks to ground from your 3rd coil? Did 
the spark length reflect an exceptionally high potentials?

> 
>> Most experienced coilers have heard and seen burst corona 
>> (sometimes referred to as "gas jet" discharges), but they may 
>> not have recognized them as such. 
> 
> It is quite evident that the quiet and constant corona discharges from my
> third coil are not the burst corona phenomena you are discussing.  It is
> irrelevant to this discussion.

I understand that it seems that way to you, Dave. The "popping" sound of 
burst corona only occurs on systems that have larger toploads. On 
systems with undersized toploads and higher operating frequencies, they 
can instead make a hissing or light snapping sound that can easily be 
drowned out by the noise from your main spark gap. However, the 
underlying discharge phenomena are the same in both cases. It's quite 
evident that you have had little firsthand experience observing or 
building Tesla Coils, and (especially) observing various forms of high 
voltage discharges.

> 
>> Burst corona most typically 
>> appears in inefficient or underpowered systems, especially if 
>> they also have small toploads. 
> 
> As Bart has shown, my system is highly efficient and sufficiently powered,
> so again, this meaningless diversion has no relevance to the discussion.

I don't recall Bart ever saying this. Quite the contrary, in fact.

> 
>> In order to develop longer streamers and leaders, it is 
>> necessary to develop significantly higher terminal voltages, 
>> combined with significant topload capacitance. 
> 
> It is also necessary to have a net current at the top load, which will feed
> the streamer with ions.  

Actually it feeds electrons into, or absorbs electrons from, the 
surrounding air. But I think I know what you meant.

> You can have all the potential in the world, and if
> no ions are being emitted from the top load, there will be no streamers.  

How on earth did you reach this conclusion?

Air begins to break down whenever a field gradient of over 30 kV is 
present. Free electrons in the vicinity (from cosmic rays, ion 
recombination, etc.) can then initiate avalanche breakdown as they are 
accelerated by the E-field. As electrons collide with neutral air 
molecules, both positive and negative ions are also created, but these 
are merely a byproduct. They do not directly participate, or actively 
contribute, to the avalanche breakdown process. They are also 
accelerated by the E-field, but considerably more slowly since they are 
much heavier than electrons.

See the following for a quick refresher on avalanche breakdown in gases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_avalanche

> 
>> In analyzing your system, I conclude that you are 
>> getting inefficient energy coupling to the tertiary coil. 
> 
> Your analysis is inadequate.  

Sigh... I've been attempting to provide a logical and reasoned analysis 
that is based upon current coiling knowledge that goes beyond mere hand 
waving... inadequate though it may be.

You have consistently thrown back a patchwork of speculations that are 
ultimately based upon a very limited set of observations and 
measurements, none of which have been confirmed by other coilers. Whose 
analysis is inadequate?

> The electrostatic field around this coil was
> excessively strong, much stronger than any coil having 24" streamers.  You
> cannot see the energy because it is all stored in the E field, instead of
> supplying a current to produce useless streamers.  

OK.. The excessively strong E-field was measured in what manner? Have 
you tried to measure the E-field using a small antenna and O-scope to 
compare results with a standard coil?

If energy is only being stored in an E-field, what exactly is 
"resonating" in your 3rd coil? I'm sorry, but extrapolations from visual 
observations of "gas burner" discharges on a toilet bowl float on a 
mistuned magnifier are simply not sufficient to make your case.

> 
> The corona discharges seen on my system only indicate that tuning was still
> not perfect.  If the tuning had been perfect, there would have been no
> visible discharge at all.  All of the energy transferred via capactive
> coupling would have remained entirely in the third coil and only a very
> small amount of energy would have been needed to maintain the
> primary/secondary system.  This is exactly what Tesla claimed for his
> wireless power transmission system.

How do we distinguish "perfect" resonance from regular EM resonance? How 
is it measured? There has got to be more to it than poor tuning, lousy 
coupling, and insufficient output to cause breakout. Heck, merely using 
a large enough, smooth topload will easily kill all discharges. Is that 
sufficient?

> 
>> This results in low output voltage, with a small topload C, 
>> perhaps combined with a dash of low energy 1.3 MHz shock 
>> excited ringing - the system cannot progress beyond the burst 
>> corona stage.
> 
> There is no burst corona in my system, as evidenced by the lack of popping
> noises and the consistent output.

There's little noise because your topload is undersized, and it cannot 
rapidly "dump" much energy into the discharge. It's still burst corona, 
nonetheless.

> 
>> The above discussion reflects the hard-won knowledge and 
>> measurements of countless coilers, independent researchers in 
>> gas discharge physics, and my own direct observations of many 
>> systems. 
> 
> God be praised, Bert.  But your two coil analysis does not apply to a three
> coil system.  

But other available multiple coil analyses do apply. Do you view three 
coil systems as being mysterious and impervious to analysis? A high Q 
resonator really doesn't care whether you inject energy into it 
capacitively, inductively, by direct feed, or a combination. Any of 
these methods will get it ringing quite nicely if you time the "pushes" 
properly.

And the air around the topload doesn't really care about which method 
you've use to excite the resonator. The air only "sees" the local 
E-field gradient near the topload. And if the voltage develops an 
E-field sufficiently high to initiate avalanche breakdown, it will. Period.

<snip>
>> How did you conclude that a lack of streamers means a lack of 
>> current? 
> 
> Because there was a strong electrostatic field around the coil, which could
> easily be felt by the skin eight feet away.  When you have that much energy
> locked up in potential and there are no streamers, it can only mean there is
> no (or very little) current available.

But, without any current or E-field measurements, this is sheer 
speculation on your part. And it fails to match any measurements made by 
any coilers (yourself included). But, lets hypothesize that your 3rd 
coil was indeed nearly "perfectly resonant". Does this mean that the 
E-field around your system is DC (if so, is it positive or negative), is 
it  oscillating, or is it something else? Does "perfectly resonant" 
simply mean that the resonator is oscillating (in EM fashion) with no 
breakout of any kind, or are you talking about some other effects? And 
are the effect measurable and differentiable form classic EM theory of 
operation?

<snip>
> 
>> This is fundamental to, and easily 
>> demonstrated for, any kind of gas breakdown. If your model 
>> says otherwise, it simply doesn't conform to the realities of 
>> electrical discharges in gases.
> 
> If your model says you can analyze a three coil system by the physics of a
> two coil system, then it does not conform to the realities of coil
> operation.  

Interesting. In my world, discharges don't care whether you have a 
2-coil or a 3-coil system. You apparently believe there is something 
significantly different ("magical?") about a (your?) three-coil system 
that makes it impossible to analyze with present day EM and circuit 
theory, and this also results in completely unique discharges. And you 
alone have uncovered deeper underlying reasons that (two forms of 
charge, for example) that account for this. And, nobody else on this 
list seems to be smart enough to recognize this "reality". Do I have 
that about right?

Well, I am at least delighted that you're beginning to recognize the 
power of some of the design tools that were developed (over many years 
of study and testing!) by Bart Anderson, Paul Nicholson, Antonio Carlos 
M. de Queiroz, Mark Rzeszotarski, Terry Fritz, and others on this list. 
These tools cover primaries, isolated and imbedded resonators, and even 
N-coil capacitive or inductively-coupled "magnifier" type systems. Most 
of these tools ultimately fall back on Maxwell's equations and circuit 
theory.

More importantly, the predictions made by these tools have been 
confirmed by numerous real world measurements. They have been used by 
countless coilers to design new systems from scratch - with amazing 
accuracy. Thanks to Antonio, the theory for multi-coil resonant systems 
is now quite well understood. Antonio has published a number of papers 
on the subject in peer reviewed engineering journals.

You have clearly spent considerable time and effort attempting to 
rewrite the rules of physics so that they are more consistent with your 
perceptions of how the universe ought to work. Unfortunately, in the 
world of Tesla Coils, there's scant empirical support to support ANY of 
your speculations, theoretical predictions, or observations. And, based 
on some of the recent list communications, there are strong indications 
that you have profound misinterpretations and knowledge gaps regarding 
many fundamental areas of 2-coil and 3-coil operation, gas discharges, 
the roles played by ions (versus electrons) in breakdown processes, and 
the behavior of conduction electrons within metals.

Have you ever considered that YOUR speculations may be inconsistent with 
reality? Or, that some of the dumb, hard headed engineers, physicists, 
and experimenters on this list might actually understand how Tesla Coils 
and magnifiers work a bit better than you do?

No, I didn't think so.

I also suspect I'm merely wasting my time and Chip's bandwidth on this 
"discussion".

> 
> Dave
> 

Bert
-- 
***************************************************
We specialize in UNIQUE items! Coins shrunk by huge
magnetic fields, Lichtenberg Figures (our "Captured
Lightning") and out of print technical Books. Visit
Stoneridge Engineering at http://www.teslamania.com
***************************************************