[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [TCML] secondary variable frequency

Hi Phil,

FIFTYGUY@xxxxxxx wrote:
What if the "new cap" had a significantly higher capacitance than the existing equivalent capacitance of the secondary and topload? wouldn't the "new cap" then predominate?

No it won't. Ctotal (series)= (C1xC2)/(C1+C2). It always ends up a little smaller even with a huge cap (when in series). Just use C2 for your "added" cap value and make it as many magnitudes larger than C1 that you like. It will always be smaller.

This is one of the issues I'm mulling over in the "discharging a DC cap through the secondary" experiment... And even with a small cap of the same order of magnitude as the secondary and topload, the connection of the small cap to the bottom of the secondary must have a significance beyond just adding to the overall capacitance.
It's not adding to the overall capacitance. It's taking away from the overall capacitance. This is "capacitance" were talking about. Not inductors or resistors. If you want to add C to the secondary, go parallel with it. See Tesla's patents. Several patents show external C in parallel.

Could one run a "transmission line" from the topload to another toroid some distance away? And then use breakouts on this second topload to force it to act as the main discharge point?

Not sure. I doubt it. The transmission line would likely be the breakout point if of a 2 coil systems normal turns. Note in maggy's, the driver has only 200 to 300 turns. The extra coil is the high turn coil. If the driver had high turns, the transmission line would be a serious breakout problem.

Seems safer and easier than a magnifier configuration, but with all the spacing benefits. Plus easier to make and transport two separate small toroids than one big one.

What appears good in visualization is rarely true in reality (physics is the cause).

Take care,
Tesla mailing list