Re: Sync vs. async - was Re: [TCML] 3 phase sync.

[bturner@xxxxxxxx]

Gary -

The classic quench gap (multiple stacks of discs on top of each other)
does extinguish after the first loss of primary oscillation and takes a
higher level of re-ionizing voltage. Rotary gaps can be quenched via air
blast, etc. I am using 1/4" pure tungsten rods for the fixed electrodes,
and 3/16" pure tungsten for the rotary ones with a decent air blast into
the electrode proximity area. I have them on a 10" diameter rotating at
3600 rpm. Approximately 158 feet per section of velocity. Gap proximity is
approximately 1/4" + 2(3/16") = .625" of angular vicinity. At 158 ft/sec
that is roughly 0.32mSec.

Granted, I am quite sure it's not quenching at the first notch, but also
fast enough to keep a major portion of the secondary energy 'trapped' (3-4
ring cycles). The Corum Brothers did a bit of a dissertation on this way
back in the early 1990's. Matching dwell time to the first 'notch'
radically increases energy transfer. This CAN be mechanically realized
with either incredibly large diameters or with the use of two
counter-rotating sychronized gap rotors (toothed belt-drive) which will
cut the dwell in half for a given RPM. (A LOT safer...!)

Ooops, I confess to a suddenly noticed typo - my Cp is 0.06uF, NOT 0.6uF.
So, with a 4-turn flat primary with a mean diameter of 18" has a very
small Lp since the system resonates at approximately 200KHz with a 5"x20"
toroid. Granted, with a lower Fr (higher Ls and Cs - say, an 8"x30" toroid
-) I may gain an extra 12-18" of discharge length, keeping the same
primary and gap arrangement. However, the system runs like a freight train
(and damn near as tough!) and I can't complain about the intensity of the
discharges as it stands...

OK, yeah the 100' discharges are likely mythical. However, the power
levels Tesla generated were nothing to sneeze at.


- b



> Hi Brent,
>
> A couple of comments on your post, interspersed below:
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:50 PM, <bturner@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Higher break rates don't equate into longer discharge lengths. Given
>> that
>> the primary circuit isn't swamping out the transformer (saturating) a
>> higher BPS results in simply more bangs per second from the secondary,
>> ie;
>> transfer of greater energy OVER TIME.
>>
>> In my 'medium-size' coil system, I have 0.6uF and originally ran at
>> 120BPS. Got 6 foot discharges that nicely wandered around. I upped the
>> BPS
>> to 240 and the discharges did not increase in length, but became FAR
>> more
>> energetic.
>>
>> Most recently, a gap re-design produced 600BPS(!). Of course the power
>> draw (or suck??) went up, but the discharges, though still only about 6
>> feet in length, are FAT, NOISY and HOT. White-hot! And my transformer is
>> only 1:100 ratio, meaning 12Kv output voltage.
>>
>> If we step back and think about it for a moment, that's why Tesla had
>> such
>> a high BPS in the Magnifying Transmitter - High Cp and low Hp equals
>> FAST
>> field build and collapse which couples a lot more energy, which makes
>> sense as the 'secondary' was merely a high-current signal source for the
>> extra coil.
>>
>> It's also important to note that the gap dwell time plays a BIG role in
>> energy transfer as well. Long dwell in low Z systems is detrimental due
>> to
>> a portion of the magnetic field being lost BACK through the gap.
>> Ideally,
>> dwell is such that the gap duration *JUST* cuts off when the resonant
>> rise
>> in the secondary peaks. Since my system has only 4 turns in the primary,
>> and approximately 240 turns in the secondary, it is a relatively high Q,
>> low Z system. So a short gap time and high BPS then allow a helluva lot
>> of
>> energy to be coupled to the secondary.
>>
>> I was under the impression that gap dwell time had little to do with
> primary/secondary dynamics and coil performance, except for situations
> when
> the dwell is so long and Cp is so small that multiple bangs occur per
> presentation.  But since your Cp is a beefy 0.6uF, that shouldn't require
> a
> short dwell time to prevent re-ignition.
>
> I'm also unclear on what you mean by "a portion of the magnetic field
> being
> lost BACK through the gap".  It sounds like you're describing secondary
> energy transferring back to the primary tank following the first (or
> subsequent) notch(es), but I'm not sure that one can alter when a gap
> quenches simply by minimizing RSG dwell time.  Are you suggesting that you
> can force first-notch quench just by having a suitably short dwell time?
>
>
>> Crude math approximation revealed approximately 18 joules(!) of peak
>> discharge energy occurring at 600 times per second. Given the uS rate of
>> secondary discharge duration, that worked out to something like 18MW(!)
>> of
>> peak secondary impulse energy. (And I sit on top of THAT...)
>>
>> No wonder Tesla was able to coax 100+ foot discharges off the top of the
>> 'Transmitter'. (Also no wonder why if I'm not careful, a power-arc will
>> literally throw me off the table.)
>>
>
> Now now, we've been down this road before - let's stop propagating this
> myth.  I thought we were all in agreement that the oft-cited 100+ foot
> figure was not at all based in fact.
>
> Regards, Gary Lau
> MA, USA
>
>
>> - brent
>>
>> <snip>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>
>


_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla