>
> Dick,
>
> The secondary is a logarithmic taper rather than a straight cone.
>
> The flare points downward toward ground, so the broad diameter is at the
> base and the smaller diameter is at the top near the topload. The reason
> for that choice is not cosmetic. I am trying to bias the resonator so the
> lower region better supports the strong current regime while the upper
> region and topload better support the strong potential regime.
>
> To lightning fun: if you are tight on time and funds, I think the best way
> to start is with a modest taper, not an extreme one. The most useful first
> comparison would be a trumpet secondary and a plain cylindrical control
> using the same topload family and roughly similar overall height and wire
> length. That gives a cleaner comparison than trying to optimize sparks.
>
> To Sulaiman: I agree with your corona concern. That is one of the reasons
> the experiment has to be run in a no-streamer regime. Once corona or
> streamers appear, the effective capacitance changes, charge leaks off, and
> the resonator stops behaving like the closed system I need for the
> comparison. So this is not meant to be a "big spark" project. It is a
> measurement project, much closer in spirit to Tesla's transmission side
> than the entertainment side.
>
> I also want to mention that I updated the Zenodo paper because I found a
> real issue in the earlier formulation and I did not want to leave it
> uncorrected.
>
> The old version described the top channel in the familiar form
>
> q = C_top * V_pk
>
> and used a magnetic proxy of the form
>
> Q = kappa * I_pk
>
> That was acceptable as a first bridge statement in ordinary electrical
> language, but it was not self-consistent in QMU. In QMU, capacitance is
> reciprocal to potential, so C_top * V_pk cannot directly serve as the QMU
> charge equation. Also, kappa * I_pk is only a current proxy, not an actual
> transferred charge.
>
> The revised paper fixes that in a cleaner way.
>
> The top electrostatic channel is now defined through the SI-to-QMU bridge
> as
>
> q_e_top^(2) = ccf * C_top * V_pk
>
> and the ground magnetic channel is now defined from the measured
> return-current transfer over the charging interval as
>
> q_m_gnd^(2) = ccf * int I_g(t) dt
>
> taken from the current zero crossing up to the same voltage crest. That
> leads to the extracted test relation
>
> alpha_extracted = C_top * V_pk / (8 * pi * int I_g(t) dt)
>
> The charge conversion factor cancels in the extracted ratio, which is
> actually an advantage because it means the test can be carried out with
> ordinary calibrated lab measurements.
>
> Another important correction is that the paper now separates total
> terminal capacitance from the metallic topload share. In other words, it
> distinguishes C_term from C_top. That was necessary so the experiment does
> not reduce to a trivial restatement of ordinary continuity using the same
> total charge on both sides.
>
> The updated paper also adds several practical safeguards:
>
> 1.
>
> transfer-function de-embedding for the voltage and current channels
> 2.
>
> a single defined ground-return path so the integrated current really
> means what it is supposed to mean
> 3.
>
> an explicit streamer/corona gate
> 4.
>
> intentional coupling sweeps rather than assuming coupling away
> 5.
>
> replication under more than one drive modality
>
> So the update was necessary because I found a dimensional inconsistency in
> the earlier draft and corrected it before asking anyone else to spend time
> or money on a build. The core idea did not go away. The paper is now more
> rigorous and more falsifiable.
>
> For builders, the practical message is still straightforward:
>
> -
>
> broad base, narrow top
> -
>
> smooth topload
> -
>
> no-streamer operation
> -
>
> measure voltage and ground-return current on the same cycle
> -
>
> compare trumpet geometry against a cylindrical control
>
> The updated paper is here:
>
> https://zenodo.org/records/18906297
>
> If anyone on the list wants to try a modest build or even just discuss
> practical measurement methods for C_top, V_pk, or the ground-return current
> channel, I would be glad to compare notes.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David W. Thomson
>
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list -- tcml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to tcml-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx