[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: MASSIVE Coil
Tesla List wrote:
> Original Poster: "Dan Kunkel" <kunk77-at-juno-dot-com>
> Although I have no personal experience in operating a Magnifier Coil as
> of yet (it is a future project though), I have been led to believe that
> they are many times more effeicent than a standard 1/4 wave coil for
> several reasons...
>
> 1) Extremely tight coupling between Lp and Ls
This is good, because the time required for complete energy transfer
is reduced. But this is not so easy to achieve. The overall coupling,
including the effect of the third coil, must be high. The best
configuration is (~) equivalent to a conventional Tesla transformer
with k=0.6, what means that the primary-secondary coupling is higher
than this. See:
http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq/tesla/magnifier.html
> 2) Extremely low quench times (Tesla used a maggy with about 50,000 bps
> as I understand), this is to keep as much energy in the secondary as
> possible by reducing each bang size. For better quench you can wire a
> multiple gap in series with the rotary.
Just a consequency of the high coupling and small energy transfer time.
Otherwise the energy will oscillate between primary and
secondary-tertiary
systems many times, and will be wasted in the primary gap.
> 3) Tuning the secondary coil to the 1/8 wave (less voltage, but a lot
> more current), hence more overall power to drive the tertiary)
I don't see any importance (or even technical meaning) on this.
> 4) Tertiary is not bogged down at all by the flux from the Lp and Ls
There is no such a thing.
> 5)Tertiary is responcible for all the VSWR, not the secondary
All the three coils and their associated capacitances are important.
> Why would Tesla even bother building and operating these coils if he
> didn't think that there was some advantage? These after all were the
> coils he was going to use to send wireless electricity to power the
> world.
The theory of these devices was not completely understood at the
time of Tesla. His work about magnifiers was fundamentally empirical,
and his notes about the subject overlook many espects.
Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz