Has anyone here seen this outfits work on 7(and more)-phase motor

technology (among other things):  http://www.borealis.gi/

They have locked in Delta Airlines (thru Boeing) who will will get

the first WheelTug-equipped 737s by late 2009.

Motor Trend editorial here:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/112_0901_flying_hybrids_technologue\
/index.html

They were working with Magnetek on mining equipment motive power

systems, but M-tek backed out (not invented here blinders were the

problem I understand)

Given technologies available today/soon (and the money to follow

through with it) which Tesla ideas would now be commercially feasible?

Thanks all.

This one's a first!    If blankets do it, why not VDGs or Tesla coils?

------------------------------------------------------
Last night I was in my son's bedroom pulling apart two polartec blankets.
The blankets had been washed and dried earlier in the day, but were
currently room temperature.  As I pulled the blankets apart, I gave a big
tug because I could tell that they were being held together by static
electricity. Amazingly a small ball of bright light, about the size of a
golf ball, jump out from the blankets, rotated in space for a second or
two and then jumped about three feet across the room and turned on my
son's desklight. I immediately yelled "Holy cow, did you see that? It even
turned on your light." My young son was not as amazed as I was with this
event. After reading about the dangers of ball lightning I think that I'll
turn up the humidifier and hope that this doesn't happen again.

Cathie <----@...>
Lincolnshire, IL USA - Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 10:35:16 (PST)
------------------------------------------------------

If anyone has done a workup on what it would take (equipment, time, $, etc) to
outfit a reasonable lab for recreating Tesla's experiments, I'd love to hear
your thoughts on the matter.

Occasionally i run across tidbits about teslas logic gating technology to create
secure radio technology and high frequency circuits but i fail to find any
information on the circuits he used im very interested in mechanical logic
gates. But im unable to procure very little about the information. Im wondering
if anyone has any information offhand i do understand logic gates and such. but
im more interested int he mechanical gating as tesla has done i would like to
hear or see some links or his logic gate devices or any experience shared would
be nice to so i can learn and recreate his work with logic gates

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, rlmarsh7 wrote:

> If anyone has done a workup on what it would take (equipment, time, $,
> etc) to outfit a reasonable lab for recreating Tesla's experiments, I'd
> love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Actually this gets into the central Tesla conumdrum ...WHICH experiment's
the critical one to replicate?

If you choose the wrong one, you become just another "Coiler" making long
sparks.  But I don't think you just want a tiny workshop for building yet
another hobbyist TC, right?

Or maybe we could build the entire Colorado Springs lab like Golka tried
to do, or like Greg Leyh's lightning lab in the desert, yet never figure
out what Tesla was actually pursuing?  Few million bucks, a custom-built
warehouse building and a small staff ...for just messing around?

It's like Faraday's experiments with threads and candle wax: choose the
right experiment and you'd transform civilization with a few bucks of
equipment, plus paying a couple of paychecks for a few weeks (or a year or
two at most.)  Choose the wrong one and the whole thing becomes
an excercise in vanity.   Physics research is to see what everyone else
has seen, but to think what nobody else has thought.

Wardenclyffe was the large version of the Colorado Springs experiment, And
CS was the longer-range "out in the farmlands" version of his NYC
experiment, which, like his polyphase motor, came from a single particular
'revelation' experienced years before.  Only this time it happened after
he'd been ripped off by asshats many times over.  What was was the
discovery?  He constantly hinted around to the press during inverviews,
but I'm pretty sure Tesla never acctually revealed it to anyone.  He *had*
to bury it in patents and articles for eventually establishing priority.
But this would be visible only in hindsight, and remain hidden until some
future court battle in when Tesla points and says "here, and here and
here, this is the invention in the public record."

In looking at the history of his work, note well that his unpublished
notes are crafted for outside readers in order to conceal and divert the
competition.  The guy constantly stated that he kept all his work in his
head, no?  Tesla notes are not notes, they are a prepared court case.
For example, the Earth Resonance discovery was a distraction, and it
happened *after* he'd been working at Colorado Springs for quite some
time.  Did he travel to CS thinking that he'd discover Earth resonance in
the future?  Of course not, he already had a secret discovery, and years
of experimental work developing it.  But Earth resonance sure was a
wonderful red herring for diverting all his contemporaries away from the
ideas he was actually pursuing.  To bad it diverted everyone today as
well.

So, replicating Tesla's discoveries is more Alchemy than it is corporate
R and D: it needs only free time and a vision.  (Go and take LSD like
Watson and Crick, and directly percieve the DNA molecule in great detail?)
Or without that vision, it needs an ability to see into Tesla's known
records to retrace his actual steps while rejecting each misconception he
carefully placed in our path.


(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, ne.x_us wrote:

> Occasionally i run across tidbits about teslas logic gating technology
> to create secure radio technology and high frequency circuits but i fail
> to find any information on the circuits he used

I'm pretty sure it's his patent for the radio controlled boat.  It has the
boat circuitry in detail, and I've heard that the boat used logic gates so
that he didn't need a huge number of transmitters and receivers.

     http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/tesla.htm#Patents



(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Hi Chris,

Let me preface this by saying that time does nor permit me to engage in
a long dialog on this. I'll briefly try to address some potential
conceptual errors you may have. My responses are interspersed below:

Chris Swinson wrote:
>
>
> I can build a Tesla Coil no problem, however I am trying to build one
> without resonance.
>

Not sure that you have a "Tesla Coil" then, since resonance is essential
to the energy transfer process between the primary and secondary of a
Tesla Coil.

> Now I can understand for example, 10% coupling will take 10 cycles to
> transfer energy from primary to secondary, and resonance provides the
> means to build up energy in the secondary coil.

If the coupling factor is 0.1, then energy transfer from primary to
secondary will actually take only about 10 HALF-CYCLES at Fo (i.e.,
about 5 cycles). If there were no system losses, all of the energy
initially in the primary LC circuit would be transferred to the
secondary LC system.

>
> however, what if you just wish to single shot and loose 90% of the
> energy, therefore not needing resonance ?

Then you'd merely be using the system as a loosely coupled pulse
transformer.

>
> Problem is single shot does not give voltage gain in the slightest.

With your particular setup, this might be true, but in general this is
not the case. If you are using a single pulse on the primary and a
loosely coupled TC secondary and toroid, the amount of energy you can
transfer to the secondary will be a function of k and the duration and
shape  (frequency spectrum) of the primary "pulse". If k = 0.1 and a
monopolar pulse, the maximum energy transfer will be about 10% of
primary energy. The maximum voltage output will then be determined by
the effective secondary inductance and capacitance. Depending on
secondary inductance (Lsec) and capacitance (Csec), the secondary
voltage can be less (high Csec low Lsec) or more (high Lsec, low Csec)
than that of the primary to provide voltage gain less than or greater
than 1.

>
> I read that XL=XC for resonance and as the primary and secondary are
> coupled then I would presume they should match also, but the primary is
> around 8ohms impedance and the secondary is about 27k. This is a
> mismatch and it could never work ?!

There's no restriction that primary and secondary surge impedance need
to be the same. TC primaries usually have an impedance in the range of
ohms to tens of ohms, and secondaries
>
> The only clue I can see, is that resonance overcomes the impedance
> mismatch ?

The combination of the primary and secondary being tuned and energy
coupling by transformer action does the trick. You can view the
primary:secondary transformer as being the impedance matching device,
while resonating primary and secondary systems permit you to accumulate
and store energy in the secondary over many cycles. Transformers alone
cannot do this. The combination is what makes energy transfer fairly
efficient, but it takes a number of cycles to complete.

>
> So without resonance there is simply no way for the primary energy to
> transfer to the secondary coil.

Not true. Pulse transformers can work very well without resonance. If
you reduce coupling, then a smaller fraction of the primary
electromagnetic field will link to the secondary. This reduces the
portion of energy that can be transfered (per unit of time), but does
not prevent a voltage gain of greater than 1 between secondary and primary.

>
> I built a test design, and primary can pulse up to 1.5KA, its all using
> pulse caps, copper bars, no way it can't pulse that current. I use a
> 36mhz secondary coil which should have a much higher voltage gain than
> normal TC secondary coils.

Primary waveshape and duration? What is a 36mhz secondary coil??

>
> Overall, my design should be sparking out a high output on just a few
> volts, but nothing happens at all.

Can't comment since I don;t understand your system.

>
> I can't see how I can match impedance without resonance (assuming that
> is the problem). I worked out if I lower my frequency to about 1mhz
> using about 20nF capacitor, then the impedance of the secondary should
> match the impedance of the primary and it *should* work ??
>
> However, how I work it out, If I ran my primary on 5hz (not 140hz) then
> the primary impedance should match the secondary at 36mhz.
>
> Though I really do not know if that is the problem, but there are
> several questions here which I really need someone to explain first.

I don't understand your logic or your computations, so I really can't
comment.

>
>
> Also, if my primary is 100khz, and my secondary is 100khz, its a normal
> TC design. Though 8ohms primary at 100khz and 27k at 100khz secondary...
> fact that if you are "out of tune" it simply does not work.

Well, it does work, but the energy transfer is not as efficient, and the
waveforms become considerably more complex. Most Tesla coils actually
operate with slightly different primary and secondary frequencies during
portions of their operation (ringup versus actual sparking). The
resonance points may peak at 100 kHz, but you can easily operate at
points that are to one side or the other of these peaks, just not as
efficiently...

> Though if
> you ran the TC primary at 50hz (Which most trigger at 50-100bps anyway)
> then the impedance would match the secondary, and the 100khz wouldn't
> even be a factor.. running the primary at 50hz and match the impedance
> to the secondary coil should work and it shouldn't need to be in tune.

??? I don't understand this. Break rate and operational frequency are
two different things.

>
> ok, to backtrack a little, being in tune allows the energy to be
> timed/pumped into the secondary.. but if you forget this and think
> single shot, they why would resonance even be needed ?!

No. However, if you are using some type of TC "resonator" as a
secondary, the effects of secondary resonance MAY come into play
depending on the shape and duration of your primary "pulse". Or they may
not. It depends on whether the frequency spectra of the primary waveform
will significantly excite any of the resonance modes of the secondary
(since there are many modes of resonance for a typical TC secondary).

>
> It would then bring you onto the idea I really cant get to work, in that
> a 50hz primary driving a high gain 36mhz coil (even though it would
> loose 90% energy over 10% coupling) should be able to equal a classic TC
> setup easily. and you wouldn't have to tune anything either. use
> undamped Q factor of the secondary coil.

If you only transfer 10% of the energy (at best), I can't see how this
can ever be superior to a typical Tesla Coil that transfers between
70-85% of its energy to the secondary. If Fsec >> Fpri, it's quite
possible that energy from the primary is being lost in the secondary at
almost the rate that its being transferred - hence no measurable output.

>
> A navy guy told me about doing this type of thing, but he really didn't
> explain anything at all.  It came about that dump as many joules into
> the primary coil as possible as fast as possible, use a high Q secondary
> coil, low coupling, and when you transfer say 50uF 10Joules into the
> self capacitance of the secondary coil (say 10pf) the voltage gain would
> be in the millions.  The math adds up for it with conservation of
> charge, but I just can't figure it out.

Sounds like he might have been referring to the operation of a pulse
transformer in a RADAR system which generates the high voltage pulse for
the magnetron.... but the details may have gotten scrambled.

>
> Only voltage I get on my coil is what is on the primary. Even a few
> primary volts should be ramping up to thousands of volts on the
> secondary coil. but its not doing that.
>
> About a year ago I got 2,000 volts output from 4V input, but I don't
> know what I did for that to work. and not been able to get anything
> anywhere near that again. So I presume it is possible for the design to
> work if done correctly ?!

Increase k, decrease pulse width of primary discharge to approach 1/2
period (of secondary Fo), reduce secondary Fo to more closely match
primary pulse width... let resonance work for you instead of fighting
it. OR, use a high coupling coefficient to create a simple step-up pulse
transformer. A line powered ignition coil driven from an SCR dimmer and
series capacitor is a good model for this mode of pulsed operation. No
resonance involved - just energy transfer via moderately coupled coils.

>
> I've asked just about every Tesla Coil builder out there, been though
> all the groups, nobody has a clue and these people have been building
> this stuff for like the past 100 years and nobody seems to have any idea
> how they work still ?!

Chris, I DO know how they work, as do many other folks. Although there
are many areas (such as spark generation, propagation, and coupling)
that still require more work, the operational theory and mechanism of
energy transfer and storage are quite well understood, and have been
confirmed through numerous experimental measurements. This includes the
distributed behavior or the Tesla Coil secondary resonator itself -
something completely resolved only about 5 years ago. Some good
information is here:

http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/tesla.shtml
http://abelian.org/tssp/

Seems most of the information is just copied over
> and over and it does not answer anything i want to know with my
> experiments :-(
>
> Anyone clear all this up ??
>
> Chris
>

I tried my best - good luck,

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
***************************************************

Hi Bert,

Thanks for your reply. I will print out also read later.

All the guy really said was discharge as many joules as fast as possible.
Loose couple to have natural resonance of the secodnary coil , 36mhz was 25
turns of copper tube (also his spec).

He said coupling should be less than 0.1k so the secondary does not "double
hump" the primary. The mutual inductance is 0.5uH so about as low as you can
get. if it was more, then the primary would "see" a higher inductnce and it
would limit the current pulse.

The pulse is a single discharge of a 65uF cap bank via an SCR  with
anti-parallel diodes to prevent negative swing (also his spec).

Discharge time approx 60uS.  if the pulse speed has to match the frequency
of the secodnary coil then what this guy has told me has been total garbage.
60uS is more like 25khz at a guess.

He said it was "un driven resonance". Only way I can understand that is if I
pulse the coil with my setup I can measure mhz range easily on my scope and
even have  image of it somewhere.

Really, I can only assume this guy is nuts then. He said its current which
does the work and high voltage is not needed. however in order to get fast
dvdt times it will need a moderate voltage of at least 1,000volts to even
overcome copper losses. Past that, a pulse width fast enough for mhz range
is going to be near impossible. Though he said the target was 40uS and use
as low capacitance secondary as possible and least resistance, in other
words high Q.

Though mhz range is impossible with solid state stuff so you are just
plotting back to SSTC work which has all well been done over the past few
years.

If the only way for it to work is to drive the pulse width fast enough to
drive the secondary coil frequency, then its pointless me spending anymore
time on this.

Over all thats all this guy said... I sure can't think of anyway it could
work, I have 100's of emails from him going on about this but he stopped
emailing me as in short I was too stupid to get it to work when he didn't
even explain it correctly in the first place.


I can replace my SCR with a IGBT, pulse very fast.. though the pulses will
be only a very low current.. again just back to a SSTC design then really.
Driving the IGBT at the secondary frequency.  No use going back down that
road again.


So other than a tight coupled design (car coil type config) and a fast pulse
of 100ns for mhz range or whatever, is that the ONLY 2 choices for this to
work ?

If thats the case then all this stuff is going in the bin tomorrow!

Chris



----- Original Message -----
From: Bert Hickman
To: tesla-experimental@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [tes-x] tesla coil resonance problems/questions





Hi Chris,

Let me preface this by saying that time does nor permit me to engage in
a long dialog on this. I'll briefly try to address some potential
conceptual errors you may have. My responses are interspersed below:

Chris Swinson wrote:
>
>
> I can build a Tesla Coil no problem, however I am trying to build one
> without resonance.
>

Not sure that you have a "Tesla Coil" then, since resonance is essential
to the energy transfer process between the primary and secondary of a
Tesla Coil.

> Now I can understand for example, 10% coupling will take 10 cycles to
> transfer energy from primary to secondary, and resonance provides the
> means to build up energy in the secondary coil.

If the coupling factor is 0.1, then energy transfer from primary to
secondary will actually take only about 10 HALF-CYCLES at Fo (i.e.,
about 5 cycles). If there were no system losses, all of the energy
initially in the primary LC circuit would be transferred to the
secondary LC system.

>
> however, what if you just wish to single shot and loose 90% of the
> energy, therefore not needing resonance ?

Then you'd merely be using the system as a loosely coupled pulse
transformer.

>
> Problem is single shot does not give voltage gain in the slightest.

With your particular setup, this might be true, but in general this is
not the case. If you are using a single pulse on the primary and a
loosely coupled TC secondary and toroid, the amount of energy you can
transfer to the secondary will be a function of k and the duration and
shape (frequency spectrum) of the primary "pulse". If k = 0.1 and a
monopolar pulse, the maximum energy transfer will be about 10% of
primary energy. The maximum voltage output will then be determined by
the effective secondary inductance and capacitance. Depending on
secondary inductance (Lsec) and capacitance (Csec), the secondary
voltage can be less (high Csec low Lsec) or more (high Lsec, low Csec)
than that of the primary to provide voltage gain less than or greater
than 1.

>
> I read that XL=XC for resonance and as the primary and secondary are
> coupled then I would presume they should match also, but the primary is
> around 8ohms impedance and the secondary is about 27k. This is a
> mismatch and it could never work ?!

There's no restriction that primary and secondary surge impedance need
to be the same. TC primaries usually have an impedance in the range of
ohms to tens of ohms, and secondaries
>
> The only clue I can see, is that resonance overcomes the impedance
> mismatch ?

The combination of the primary and secondary being tuned and energy
coupling by transformer action does the trick. You can view the
primary:secondary transformer as being the impedance matching device,
while resonating primary and secondary systems permit you to accumulate
and store energy in the secondary over many cycles. Transformers alone
cannot do this. The combination is what makes energy transfer fairly
efficient, but it takes a number of cycles to complete.

>
> So without resonance there is simply no way for the primary energy to
> transfer to the secondary coil.

Not true. Pulse transformers can work very well without resonance. If
you reduce coupling, then a smaller fraction of the primary
electromagnetic field will link to the secondary. This reduces the
portion of energy that can be transfered (per unit of time), but does
not prevent a voltage gain of greater than 1 between secondary and primary.

>
> I built a test design, and primary can pulse up to 1.5KA, its all using
> pulse caps, copper bars, no way it can't pulse that current. I use a
> 36mhz secondary coil which should have a much higher voltage gain than
> normal TC secondary coils.

Primary waveshape and duration? What is a 36mhz secondary coil??

>
> Overall, my design should be sparking out a high output on just a few
> volts, but nothing happens at all.

Can't comment since I don;t understand your system.

>
> I can't see how I can match impedance without resonance (assuming that
> is the problem). I worked out if I lower my frequency to about 1mhz
> using about 20nF capacitor, then the impedance of the secondary should
> match the impedance of the primary and it *should* work ??
>
> However, how I work it out, If I ran my primary on 5hz (not 140hz) then
> the primary impedance should match the secondary at 36mhz.
>
> Though I really do not know if that is the problem, but there are
> several questions here which I really need someone to explain first.

I don't understand your logic or your computations, so I really can't
comment.

>
>
> Also, if my primary is 100khz, and my secondary is 100khz, its a normal
> TC design. Though 8ohms primary at 100khz and 27k at 100khz secondary...
> fact that if you are "out of tune" it simply does not work.

Well, it does work, but the energy transfer is not as efficient, and the
waveforms become considerably more complex. Most Tesla coils actually
operate with slightly different primary and secondary frequencies during
portions of their operation (ringup versus actual sparking). The
resonance points may peak at 100 kHz, but you can easily operate at
points that are to one side or the other of these peaks, just not as
efficiently...

> Though if
> you ran the TC primary at 50hz (Which most trigger at 50-100bps anyway)
> then the impedance would match the secondary, and the 100khz wouldn't
> even be a factor.. running the primary at 50hz and match the impedance
> to the secondary coil should work and it shouldn't need to be in tune.

??? I don't understand this. Break rate and operational frequency are
two different things.

>
> ok, to backtrack a little, being in tune allows the energy to be
> timed/pumped into the secondary.. but if you forget this and think
> single shot, they why would resonance even be needed ?!

No. However, if you are using some type of TC "resonator" as a
secondary, the effects of secondary resonance MAY come into play
depending on the shape and duration of your primary "pulse". Or they may
not. It depends on whether the frequency spectra of the primary waveform
will significantly excite any of the resonance modes of the secondary
(since there are many modes of resonance for a typical TC secondary).

>
> It would then bring you onto the idea I really cant get to work, in that
> a 50hz primary driving a high gain 36mhz coil (even though it would
> loose 90% energy over 10% coupling) should be able to equal a classic TC
> setup easily. and you wouldn't have to tune anything either. use
> undamped Q factor of the secondary coil.

If you only transfer 10% of the energy (at best), I can't see how this
can ever be superior to a typical Tesla Coil that transfers between
70-85% of its energy to the secondary. If Fsec >> Fpri, it's quite
possible that energy from the primary is being lost in the secondary at
almost the rate that its being transferred - hence no measurable output.

>
> A navy guy told me about doing this type of thing, but he really didn't
> explain anything at all. It came about that dump as many joules into
> the primary coil as possible as fast as possible, use a high Q secondary
> coil, low coupling, and when you transfer say 50uF 10Joules into the
> self capacitance of the secondary coil (say 10pf) the voltage gain would
> be in the millions. The math adds up for it with conservation of
> charge, but I just can't figure it out.

Sounds like he might have been referring to the operation of a pulse
transformer in a RADAR system which generates the high voltage pulse for
the magnetron.... but the details may have gotten scrambled.

>
> Only voltage I get on my coil is what is on the primary. Even a few
> primary volts should be ramping up to thousands of volts on the
> secondary coil. but its not doing that.
>
> About a year ago I got 2,000 volts output from 4V input, but I don't
> know what I did for that to work. and not been able to get anything
> anywhere near that again. So I presume it is possible for the design to
> work if done correctly ?!

Increase k, decrease pulse width of primary discharge to approach 1/2
period (of secondary Fo), reduce secondary Fo to more closely match
primary pulse width... let resonance work for you instead of fighting
it. OR, use a high coupling coefficient to create a simple step-up pulse
transformer. A line powered ignition coil driven from an SCR dimmer and
series capacitor is a good model for this mode of pulsed operation. No
resonance involved - just energy transfer via moderately coupled coils.

>
> I've asked just about every Tesla Coil builder out there, been though
> all the groups, nobody has a clue and these people have been building
> this stuff for like the past 100 years and nobody seems to have any idea
> how they work still ?!

Chris, I DO know how they work, as do many other folks. Although there
are many areas (such as spark generation, propagation, and coupling)
that still require more work, the operational theory and mechanism of
energy transfer and storage are quite well understood, and have been
confirmed through numerous experimental measurements. This includes the
distributed behavior or the Tesla Coil secondary resonator itself -
something completely resolved only about 5 years ago. Some good
information is here:

http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/tesla.shtml
http://abelian.org/tssp/

Seems most of the information is just copied over
> and over and it does not answer anything i want to know with my
> experiments :-(
>
> Anyone clear all this up ??
>
> Chris
>

I tried my best - good luck,

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
***************************************************






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.48/2148 - Release Date: 06/01/09
06:09:00

OK Chris, If I get this right you are simply trying to create a very short pulse
of high voltage output from a low voltage source. I will dispense with why coils
ring and how the EM wave interacts with it.

Tesla did a similar experiment. In it he used a wire fuse to bridge the gap on
the primary. This was not the usual three coil Tesla configuration but simply a
primary and secondary if my memory is correct. I don't remember the wiring
schematic. Well anyway he would dump a massive charge through the primary and it
would blow the link (fuse) creating an incredibly short pulse of very high
energy. This was more of a coupling of alternating electrostatic potential than
one of alternating currents. I can't remember exactly but I think it was a
fairly tight coupled coil. Well he found out the pulse would sting everybody in
the room when triggered. It even passed through a Faraday cage. You should be
able to find the experiment in his writings. The book which I read of this
mentioned that it tended to dominate his interest from then on.

My speculation is that even though the coupling was tight, the current was very
short in duration, that there wasn't sufficient residual current displacement in
the secondary to allow for any significant ringing of the circuit. So unless you
are simply trying to make an ignition coil type circuit with a diode in the
primary to dump the ring then you will need a fairly high energy dump to repeat
Tesla's experiments.

Modern revised two coil systems are a far cry from Tesla's later coils. He used
fairly tight coupling (for a TC) in the Primary and Secondary but the real kick
came from the much more loosely coupled "extra" coil in his designs. There is a
lot of  misinformation and misunderstanding concerning true Tesla coils today.
Some would call todays coils a logical evolution, others might not.

I did a Google search of "The Dissipation of Electricity by Nicola Tesla" and
this was the first site that talked about it. It isn't exactly what I was
talking about but it should clarify.
  http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml

----- Original Message -----

From: Fred Huff

To: tesla-experimental@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 8:57 PM

Subject: [tes-x] Re: tesla coil resonance problems/questions

OK Chris, If I get this right you are simply trying to create a very short pulse of high voltage output from a low voltage source. I will dispense with why coils ring and how the EM wave interacts with it.

Tesla did a similar experiment. In it he used a wire fuse to bridge the gap on the primary. This was not the usual three coil Tesla configuration but simply a primary and secondary if my memory is correct. I don't remember the wiring schematic. Well anyway he would dump a massive charge through the primary and it would blow the link (fuse) creating an incredibly short pulse of very high energy. This was more of a coupling of alternating electrostatic potential than one of alternating currents. I can't remember exactly but I think it was a fairly tight coupled coil. Well he found out the pulse would sting everybody in the room when triggered. It even passed through a Faraday cage. You should be able to find the experiment in his writings. The book which I read of this mentioned that it tended to dominate his interest from then on.

My speculation is that even though the coupling was tight, the current was very short in duration, that there wasn't sufficient residual current displacement in the secondary to allow for any significant ringing of the circuit. So unless you are simply trying to make an ignition coil type circuit with a diode in the primary to dump the ring then you will need a fairly high energy dump to repeat Tesla's experiments.

Modern revised two coil systems are a far cry from Tesla's later coils. He used fairly tight coupling (for a TC) in the Primary and Secondary but the real kick came from the much more loosely coupled "extra" coil in his designs. There is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding concerning true Tesla coils today. Some would call todays coils a logical evolution, others might not.

I did a Google search of "The Dissipation of Electricity by Nicola Tesla" and this was the first site that talked about it. It isn't exactly what I was talking about but it should clarify.
http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.48/2148 - Release Date: 06/01/09 06:09:00

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Chris Swinson wrote:

> I can build a Tesla Coil no problem, however I am trying to build one
> without resonance.

This mode of operation seems to crop up in Tesla's stuff, but I've never
seen it discussed outright (or discussed by coilers, ever.  It seems to be
a taboo.)  Note that I have NOT built any of the following coils.

To step up a voltage, either you need two resonant circuits employing
"resonant rise" ...or for broadband without resonance, you need a
transformer with a stepup turns-ratio, or you need a tapered waveguide
which behaves as a transformer (as an impedance matcher.)

Simple example:  a standard cylindrical "extra coil" is an unterminated
waveguide, so if you remove any topload and feed the base a pulse with
1volt peak, the pulse should appear as a 2V peak as it reflects from the
open end.  Simple 2X voltage stepup because of line reflection.

Now, if instead you employ a conical coil as an "extra coil," and drive it
at the base with single pulses, what will you see at the unterminated top
conductor?  If the transmission-line impedance of the cone is higher at
the tip , then the cone will act as a line-matcher or stepup transformer,
so the voltage in the small-diameter end will be raised higher than 2X by
the geometry of the coil. (This of course would be obvious if we were
visualizing extra coils as being waveguides, where the cone is a sort of
tapered waveguide which can match a large-diamter cylinder-coil to a small
one.)

Now what happens with a pancake coil?  Probably the same as with a cone.
(And why was Nikola so in love with pankaces and cones, if they re so damn
hard to construct?  He probably visualized their voltage gain as
travelling waves propagated along them in single-pulse mode.)

I did make one test: I placed a tapered ground foil against a long
cylindrical secondary, then drove its base with slow pulses and measured
its output voltage at the unterminated end.  This secondary was desktop
size, 1"  diameter and about 30" long.  Without the foil, the output was
2X as expected, and with the foil the output was 8X.  So the tapered
ground foil was modifying the impedance, and the pulses were growing in
voltage as they travelled along the coil.

If Tesla was achiving odd glow discharges by creating very high-volt
pulses as brief as microseconds, then above is probably how he did it.

> So without resonance there is simply no way for the primary energy to
> transfer to the secondary coil.

Use a 3-coil magnifier, driving the TC secondary at the base?  The first
two coils are a simple broadband transformer, no tuning necessary.  With
air cores you can vary the coupling over a large range.  Some peole even
use ferrite ring cores.

> I've asked just about every Tesla Coil builder out there, been though
> all the groups, nobody has a clue and these people have been building
> this stuff for like the past 100 years and nobody seems to have any idea
> how they work still ?!

I've found, over and over, that if it doesn't make big sparks, then not
only is nobody interested, but I'll get a cold reception.

That's why I started this forum, of course.



(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty chem washington edu       Research Engineer
billbamascicom                  UW Chem Dept,  Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195                    Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700

Bill,

Thanks for that info, I did not even know about the cone coils operating
like that.

The magnifier really confuses me. I can understand the driver section acting
as a step up transformer, though I do not follow driving the base of the
coil.

The tuning point seems to be some combination of the 2 coils, overall, I
don't see the point in how people are building them.

magnifier would seem pointless at low voltage then ? if its a x2 voltage
gain, then you would need 100kv input for starters, which can be why the
driver section is needed to setup up first, but you would have to have a
really big step up in the first place. In fact it would need a normal 2 coil
design, then the extra coil base fed from that, but it would be using
resonance to step up the voltage not a tight coupled driver section ?!

Really the driver section would have to be a single turn, secondary coil
having many turns close coupled to step up the voltage as much as possible,
then have the extra coil for the x2 voltage ? but I know TC builders have
experimented with all this and never got anywhere.

Problem is also, if you use a lot of turns, you increase the primary's
effective inductance which limits the current though the primary. So less
current isn't going to give a very good step up.

So then the only way is to increase the discharge pulse power, provide a
slower stronger pulse and obtain greater step up. or loose couple the driver
section to prevent the inductance from the driver coil damping the primary
pulses, but then you will loose efficiency over loose coupling. so then you
are back to being forced to using resonance and back to a classic coil
design.

I also guess the pulse width has to match the extra coil's frequency also,
but this is the problem I have with me solid state design that its very hard
to pulse a lot of power fast enough.  Even if did manage it, the hole thing
will need to be "tuned" as the driver section will see the extra coil and
alter frequency.

But didn't tesla decide to just drive the extra coil direct rather than
having a secondary coil in the first place ? He seems to talk a lot of
different designs in CSN. I think he said you can either have a resonating
primary circuit or not, and then drive the extra coil.

When you talk about impedance, could you explain what happens turn per turn
? Does it start height impedance then go low, and how is that related to a
gain in voltage ?

I'm still trying to get my head around all these deeper details!

Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: William Beaty
To: tesla-experimental@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: [tes-x] tesla coil resonance problems/questions





On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Chris Swinson wrote:

> I can build a Tesla Coil no problem, however I am trying to build one
> without resonance.

This mode of operation seems to crop up in Tesla's stuff, but I've never
seen it discussed outright (or discussed by coilers, ever. It seems to be
a taboo.) Note that I have NOT built any of the following coils.

To step up a voltage, either you need two resonant circuits employing
"resonant rise" ...or for broadband without resonance, you need a
transformer with a stepup turns-ratio, or you need a tapered waveguide
which behaves as a transformer (as an impedance matcher.)

Simple example: a standard cylindrical "extra coil" is an unterminated
waveguide, so if you remove any topload and feed the base a pulse with
1volt peak, the pulse should appear as a 2V peak as it reflects from the
open end. Simple 2X voltage stepup because of line reflection.

Now, if instead you employ a conical coil as an "extra coil," and drive it
at the base with single pulses, what will you see at the unterminated top
conductor? If the transmission-line impedance of the cone is higher at
the tip , then the cone will act as a line-matcher or stepup transformer,
so the voltage in the small-diameter end will be raised higher than 2X by
the geometry of the coil. (This of course would be obvious if we were
visualizing extra coils as being waveguides, where the cone is a sort of
tapered waveguide which can match a large-diamter cylinder-coil to a small
one.)

Now what happens with a pancake coil? Probably the same as with a cone.
(And why was Nikola so in love with pankaces and cones, if they re so damn
hard to construct? He probably visualized their voltage gain as
travelling waves propagated along them in single-pulse mode.)

I did make one test: I placed a tapered ground foil against a long
cylindrical secondary, then drove its base with slow pulses and measured
its output voltage at the unterminated end. This secondary was desktop
size, 1" diameter and about 30" long. Without the foil, the output was
2X as expected, and with the foil the output was 8X. So the tapered
ground foil was modifying the impedance, and the pulses were growing in
voltage as they travelled along the coil.

If Tesla was achiving odd glow discharges by creating very high-volt
pulses as brief as microseconds, then above is probably how he did it.

> So without resonance there is simply no way for the primary energy to
> transfer to the secondary coil.

Use a 3-coil magnifier, driving the TC secondary at the base? The first
two coils are a simple broadband transformer, no tuning necessary. With
air cores you can vary the coupling over a large range. Some peole even
use ferrite ring cores.

> I've asked just about every Tesla Coil builder out there, been though
> all the groups, nobody has a clue and these people have been building
> this stuff for like the past 100 years and nobody seems to have any idea
> how they work still ?!

I've found, over and over, that if it doesn't make big sparks, then not
only is nobody interested, but I'll get a cold reception.

That's why I started this forum, of course.

(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/
beaty chem washington edu Research Engineer
billbamascicom UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
206-543-6195 Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.49/2149 - Release Date: 06/01/09
17:55:00

Chris, one thing important when dealing with information about Tesla and his
work. There is a lot of good information out there but it's all jumbled with
wacky stuff. The actual Tesla information is rather cryptic at times but eye
opening as well. I think Tesla means to be clear but he saw the universe in a
very different way than most scientist and liked to use his own labels for
things. To Tesla the world was alive with boiling energy and resonant
vibrations. He saw solid matter energized by the environment rather than
possessing it's own intrinsic source. Tesla was of the ilk of scientist who were
both artist and visionaries. Who peered into the cosmos as compared to other
scientist who are more like technicians and mechanics. I only say this in that
if you understand the man it helps explain his work.

As far as waves through the medium is concerned It might be noted that at
relatively low frequencies where current is allowed to build and flow that the
nature of the stress on space, the aether, Higgs bosons or whatever label you
want to use is quite different than the very short intense pulses where current
flow is virtually non existent. This might have some impact on your work.

----- Original Message -----

From: Fred Huff

To: tesla-experimental@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:03 PM

Subject: [tes-x] Re: tesla coil resonance problems/questions

Chris, one thing important when dealing with information about Tesla and his work. There is a lot of good information out there but it's all jumbled with wacky stuff. The actual Tesla information is rather cryptic at times but eye opening as well. I think Tesla means to be clear but he saw the universe in a very different way than most scientist and liked to use his own labels for things. To Tesla the world was alive with boiling energy and resonant vibrations. He saw solid matter energized by the environment rather than possessing it's own intrinsic source. Tesla was of the ilk of scientist who were both artist and visionaries. Who peered into the cosmos as compared to other scientist who are more like technicians and mechanics. I only say this in that if you understand the man it helps explain his work.

As far as waves through the medium is concerned It might be noted that at relatively low frequencies where current is allowed to build and flow that the nature of the stress on space, the aether, Higgs bosons or whatever label you want to use is quite different than the very short intense pulses where current flow is virtually non existent. This might have some impact on your work.

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.49/2149 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00

Chris Swinson wrote:
>
>
> I've never exactly understood this..
>
> though if you link to SCR's in series (or mosfets), and they do not
> switch at exactly the same rates, then would this actually damage the
> devices.

Yes

>
> What I mean to say is, if you have 100V rail, and 2 50V devices in
> series, if one device switch on first, then does the second device now
> see 100V or 50V ?

Worst case, the slower device would indeed see 100V. If it is only rated
for 50V it will likely fail, followed in short order by the remaining
device.

>
> I see some TC builders linking rows of IGBT's in series for a solid
> state spark gap, though they switch each device on one at a time, so if
> you have 10,000V supply, and 500V IGBT's, then surly the last IGBT to
> turn on would actually see the full 10,000volts ?!

I suspect you are referring to SIDAC/IGBT "spark gap" (or SISG) switched
coils. The SISG circuit was originated by Terry Fritz, previous
moderator of the Tesla Coil Mailing List (TCML). The SISG uses special
devices, called SIDAC's, combined with triggering circuitry and high
current IGBT's, to rapidly turn on once a threshold (triggering) voltage
is exceeded. The circuit must be powered from a rectified (but not
filtered!) AC source with a peak voltage sufficient to cause the SISG
switches to self trigger (similar to a spark gap in a classic Tesla Coil).

Once the combined switching voltage of the string of SIDAC's is
exceeded, they suddenly turn on ("fire"), which shortly thereafter turns
on the associated IGBT's. Since a SIDAC is across every IGBT, it
clamping action will limit the maximum voltage seen by each IGBT to a
safe level. preventing any from being overvolted. The SIDAC's allow the
IGBT's to turn on so that they can take over high current conduction.
Simply chaining IGBT's without the special clamping function of the
SIDAC's would cause the slowest IGBT's to fail, leading to cascade
failures of the entire chain. The overall circuit behaves like a solid
state spark gap - once the applied voltage exceeds the triggering
voltage (the sum of the SIDAC switching voltages), the chain of SISG
circuits suddenly turns on, looking like a short circuit. By cascading
identical SISG elements, a solid state "spark gap" of any desired
triggering voltage can be constructed. The IGBT's can be chosen for
desired current handling capability.

Once triggered, the SISG chain switches current from the tank cap into
the primary winding. Since diodes are connected across the individual
IGBT's (or are an internal part of the IGBT themselves) the circuit can
conduct current in the reverse direction, thereby allowing the tank
circuit to efficiently "ring". In most SISG coils, energy transfers from
P-->S-->P over many cycles. But, because SISG losses are low, overall
primary system losses are significantly lower than with a spark gap
switched coil. After a time delay (usually after the system energy has
decayed to nearly zero), the SISG circuits turns themselves off and are
then ready to switch the next time.

A thorough explanation of how the circuit works and one of the first
SISG coils can be seen here:

http://drsstc.com/~sisg/SISG.pdf
http://drsstc.com/~sisg/files/SISG-coil/SmallSISGCoil.pdf

Bert

>
> Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: Bert Hickman

To: tesla-experimental@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:36 PM

Subject: Re: [tes-x] question about linking SCR's in series

Chris Swinson wrote:
>
>
> I've never exactly understood this..
>
> though if you link to SCR's in series (or mosfets), and they do not
> switch at exactly the same rates, then would this actually damage the
> devices.

Yes

>
> What I mean to say is, if you have 100V rail, and 2 50V devices in
> series, if one device switch on first, then does the second device now
> see 100V or 50V ?

Worst case, the slower device would indeed see 100V. If it is only rated
for 50V it will likely fail, followed in short order by the remaining
device.

>
> I see some TC builders linking rows of IGBT's in series for a solid
> state spark gap, though they switch each device on one at a time, so if
> you have 10,000V supply, and 500V IGBT's, then surly the last IGBT to
> turn on would actually see the full 10,000volts ?!

I suspect you are referring to SIDAC/IGBT "spark gap" (or SISG) switched
coils. The SISG circuit was originated by Terry Fritz, previous
moderator of the Tesla Coil Mailing List (TCML). The SISG uses special
devices, called SIDAC's, combined with triggering circuitry and high
current IGBT's, to rapidly turn on once a threshold (triggering) voltage
is exceeded. The circuit must be powered from a rectified (but not
filtered!) AC source with a peak voltage sufficient to cause the SISG
switches to self trigger (similar to a spark gap in a classic Tesla Coil).

Once the combined switching voltage of the string of SIDAC's is
exceeded, they suddenly turn on ("fire"), which shortly thereafter turns
on the associated IGBT's. Since a SIDAC is across every IGBT, it
clamping action will limit the maximum voltage seen by each IGBT to a
safe level. preventing any from being overvolted. The SIDAC's allow the
IGBT's to turn on so that they can take over high current conduction.
Simply chaining IGBT's without the special clamping function of the
SIDAC's would cause the slowest IGBT's to fail, leading to cascade
failures of the entire chain. The overall circuit behaves like a solid
state spark gap - once the applied voltage exceeds the triggering
voltage (the sum of the SIDAC switching voltages), the chain of SISG
circuits suddenly turns on, looking like a short circuit. By cascading
identical SISG elements, a solid state "spark gap" of any desired
triggering voltage can be constructed. The IGBT's can be chosen for
desired current handling capability.

Once triggered, the SISG chain switches current from the tank cap into
the primary winding. Since diodes are connected across the individual
IGBT's (or are an internal part of the IGBT themselves) the circuit can
conduct current in the reverse direction, thereby allowing the tank
circuit to efficiently "ring". In most SISG coils, energy transfers from
P-->S-->P over many cycles. But, because SISG losses are low, overall
primary system losses are significantly lower than with a spark gap
switched coil. After a time delay (usually after the system energy has
decayed to nearly zero), the SISG circuits turns themselves off and are
then ready to switch the next time.

A thorough explanation of how the circuit works and one of the first
SISG coils can be seen here:

http://drsstc.com/~sisg/SISG.pdf
http://drsstc.com/~sisg/files/SISG-coil/SmallSISGCoil.pdf

Bert

>
> Chris

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.53/2154 - Release Date: 06/04/09 05:53:00

--- In tesla-experimental@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Swinson" <list@...> wrote:

  Fred,

  If a large slow pulse was to create some effect, I doubt it would be anything
us mortal people could cook up in our sheds. I have a lot of Tesla's writings,
lectures and such, I think those are the only real source of information, though
how much they have been edited along the way, who knows!  some books start of
rather factual and drift off into what seems pure fiction.  If disrupting the
aether is a better method than short sharp pulses that we all use today, then im
all for it, though just pump unlimited funds my way and I will gladly spend my
lifetime trying to work it out!


Reply.

First off I want to respect Bill's desire that this forum address non-coiler
Tesla inventions. But to answer what I think you're saying is that my meaning of
very slow transitions is in the normal RF Hertzian mode bands of  Tesla's day.
What he was proposing was more of a pulse train of non reversing nanosecond
intervals with as near vertical of rise and fall times as was humanly possible.
Trying to sort the grain from the chaff it seems he wanted to transfer the
charge without disturbing the electrons. It was his belief that he had obtained
this in his lab and in several writings I've read over the years he describes
the nature and usages of this energy.

Most coiler pages seek to create the biggest sparks through resonant
secondaries. This is quite different from giving the aether a swift "kick". In
some of his writings he speaks as if he believes electrons are imaginary
inventions of their creators, and in other works he talks about them as a
"contaminating" substance. It seems he believed that slow pulses entrained the
electrons in its flow. Whereas very short high intensity pulses allowed the
transfer of aether energy without dragging the electrons along in the flow. As
if this energy had very little inertia compared to the electrons and it was
possible to push a little of it out with each pulse while leaving the electrons
in place.

Tesla would often identify this animating energy that permeates all of matter as
"radiant" energy. He in no way used this term the way most do today. It's true
Tesla saw matter and energy much the way many see body and soul. Base matter
with animating radiant energy. If that seems a bit out there compared to the
real world, take a look at string theory to gain a sense of perspective.

Yup I know what I've said has drifted afield of the original question. It's just
that knowing what Tesla was really looking for opens a whole world of
opportunities.

Think of it like you think of aerodynamics. There is subsonic, transonic and
supersonic flow. It's all aerodynamics but some of the rules change the faster
you go. That's all. Don't let it bother you. Have fun. It's all just a matter of
degree in keeping up with the speed.

Fred.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Fred Huff wrote:

> First off I want to respect Bill's desire that this forum address
> non-coiler Tesla inventions.

The "Non coil" rule is there to keep Pupman stuff on Pupman.  This is
really a science list, not an engineering list.

If your goal is to build unconventional devices or to produce very
unexpected phenomena, violating our safe/sane assumptions, and push "the
unknown," and which draw angry responses or banning by the coiling
community, then this is the place.  But if your goal is to impress other
coilers, or to make coils with louder longer sparks, then that
conversation belongs on Pupman.

On "tes-lax" (heh,) the proper coil design will be ignored by fellow
coilers because the corona is so unimpressive and quiet.  But the same
wimpy corona will be fascinating to curious little kids, and it will make
physicists' jaws drop when they realize the implications of what they're
seeing.

:)


(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Chris Swinson wrote:

> The magnifier really confuses me. I can understand the driver section acting
> as a step up transformer, though I do not follow driving the base of the
> coil.

In resonance mode, voltage is stepped up via resonant rise, so in
resonance mode, a magnifier is not much different than a 2-coil device.

> magnifier would seem pointless at low voltage then ?

No, it would just seem pointless if you were doing single-pulse broadband
non-resonant operation.  No tuned circuits coupled together, that's weak
coupling.  To process single-pulse energy, the system has to be broadband,
since single pulses are broadband.  (And I mean single rectangular pulses,
no ringing frequency.  Ringing is a narrowband effect we'd want to
ignore.)

> if its a x2 voltage
> gain, then you would need 100kv input for starters, which can be why the
> driver section is needed to setup up first, but you would have to have a
> really big step up in the first place.

If a quick test of the crude magnifier coil alone gives 8X rise in single
pulse mode, then perhaps some careful design of a cone or pancake
magnifier would give much higher stepup.   Never built or tested, as far
as I know.

> Really the driver section would have to be a single turn, secondary coil
> having many turns close coupled to step up the voltage as much as possible,
> then have the extra coil for the x2 voltage ? but I know TC builders have
> experimented with all this and never got anywhere.

If it's really already been done (I mean broadband pancake shape driven by
giant single pulses,) then ... never mind!

But most TC builders are using resonance mode and striving for impressive
big sparks.  We already know how to make impressive big sparks just fine.

I'd rather have a device which covers the surface of any conductive object
(including humans) with a uniform glowing plasma, no streamers visible.
Or gives everyone painful stings during each pulse!  :)

> Problem is also, if you use a lot of turns, you increase the primary's
> effective inductance which limits the current though the primary.

In a tight-coupled system the inductance of the coils vanishes.  It acts
as a matching transformer, so the capacitor only sees the extra coil
impedance (though the transformer divides that impedance by its step-up
turns ratio.)   It's like audio systems, not like radio transformers.


> So then the only way is to increase the discharge pulse power, provide a
> slower stronger pulse and obtain greater step up. or loose couple the driver
> section to prevent the inductance from the driver coil damping the primary
> pulses, but then you will loose efficiency over loose coupling. so then you
> are back to being forced to using resonance and back to a classic coil
> design.

Loose coupling shouldn't work at all for single pulses, since it
essentially becomes tight coupling only when driven at resonance
frequency.  That's why loose coupling gives large wattage at resonance.
FOr single pulses wo/resonance, you'd want tight coupling in order to
transfer the cap discharge energy into the system.

> I also guess the pulse width has to match the extra coil's frequency also,

Maybe only a rough match.   Tight matching only works with a resonant
system, not with single rectangular pulses wo/ringing.

> but this is the problem I have with me solid state design that its very hard
> to pulse a lot of power fast enough.  Even if did manage it, the hole thing
> will need to be "tuned" as the driver section will see the extra coil and
> alter frequency.

You should be trying to operate far from the driver section's resonance,
otherwise it's just a conventional TC and not a single-pulse sytem.


> But didn't tesla decide to just drive the extra coil direct rather than
> having a secondary coil in the first place ?

That should work fine.  The first two coils of a magnifier are acting like
an AC HV pulse power supply.  So just use any HV power supply to pulse the
extra coil, including a charged capacitor, plus an inductor to ground so
the potential on the extra coil goes down as well as up.  Wouldn't a
tight-coupled matching transformer between the energy storage capacitor
and the extra coil make things work better?  With tight coupling, the
inductance of the transformer coils is irrelevant, and the transformer
starts behaving like a transformer: broadband impedance matching, no
inductance of its own.

> When you talk about impedance, could you explain what happens turn per turn
> ? Does it start height impedance then go low, and how is that related to a
> gain in voltage ?

I didn't try any measurments.  Don't the small-diameter cylindrical coils
have much higher impedance at the base, less L and C per turn, acting more
like a piece of straight wire?  So a cone or pancake should act like a
step-up transformer if it's driven from the wide edge, and voltage
measured at the center.



(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Here's a hilarious archive from the IG-nobel prize people, the A.I.R.


   http://www.youtube.com/user/ImprobableResearch

Hello, Tesla gods, What do you think of this Tesla remake ? Tariel Kapanadze
claims he's built a OU device that can drive 5kW.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxa_G4X8Y7k&feature=related

You can see the circuits at
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.msg189074#msg189074

He has stepped up to a 100KW setup here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CRkDySQCSM&feature=channel_page


Thanks.
Harish

I was sitting in the hotel bar, so I got a blank piece of paper and
wondered if I could come up with any cool random brainstorms.  My
subconscious should be cooperative, it being symbolic New Years eve and
all.  Nothing for awhile.  T-shirt printed with "My 15 minutes are up."
Sell glass skulls on eBay, replica of quartz Mayan skull.  The usual crap.

Ah, but then...  an Extra Coil is a waveguide, right?  A waveguide with
slow EM waves.  Each turn has significant capacitance to its neighbors,
but less pF to farther turns.  WHAT IF EACH TURN WAS SHORTED?!!  What if
the "coil" wasn't a stack of single-turn inductors hooked in series, but
instead was a stack of rings?  It would still be a waveguide, though the
resonant freq might be very high.  Cooooooool!!!  Build a TC where the
secondary coil is a long stack of aluminum washers on a plastic rod,
separated by plastic sheets or nylon O-rings or something.  The bottom
ring is the primary coil.  Or just hook the lowest ring to high voltage
RF.  Bizarre, eh?  Bend some thin PCB into a cylinder, solder the edges,
then slice many circumferential slots to form a stack of rings.

But maybe it's too weird to work.   It might only be a microwave
resonator, not VLF.   Hmmm, and maybe I already had this brainstorm
before, wrote it down and forgot about it.   Ehn.   Now I'm depressed.

Oh well, my brainstorm of last week was cool: wind a tiny baby 25-turn
Extra Coil about an inch long and half-inch diameter, then look at it with
the spectrum analyzer (HP Network Analyzer.)  Yep, there's an obvious
series of absorption lines, roughly 1,2,3,4x fundamental.

     97.7 MHz
    210.2
    303.2
    384.6
    461.7
    555.7
    669.2


Next, wind a bunch of them, hook them all to the same drive terminal, and
see if a "wave complex" multiple peak pattern is caused by close coupling
between N coils.


(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

See:

     http://vimeo.com/11441736
     http://myinventionsthemovie.com/


Note: i've seen in various texts that Tesla mentions the "bulbs in the
ground" being run by molecular impact, not by current through the bulb's
filament.  This makes sense; it's basically the "lightbulb in the
microwave" demonstration.

If the e-field near his lab is strong enough to light a fluorescent tube,
then it might be strong enough to ignite the near-vacuum gas in an
incandescent light bulb.  In that case the gas glows, the filament heats
up and glows even brighter, but the filament supports also heat white hot
and glow.  It's very similar to TIG welding where the incandescent hot
metal surface could be much brighter than the glowing gas of the arc.

Also, if he managed to phase-lock onto one of the shifting Earth
resonances, then the RF e-field near his lab would not drop off as the
inverse square of distance like a normal antenna.  Instead it's all inside
a driven resonant chamber, so there would be a miles-wide circular
antinode having a diameter of 1/2 wavelength (it drops off as
1/cos(2piK*r) rather than as 1/r^2.)  Cosine falls off slowly over
distance!  For top Shumann resonances around ~15KHz, the e-field would
have fallen down to half maximum at...  3.33KM from his antenna!  (For
lower resonances it's even wider, but lower amplitude of course.)  The
pattern is shaped as a bullseye centered on the transmitter, so at 5KM the
15KHz field drops to zero, then it climbs back up to lesser antinode
maxima at rings of 10KM, 20KM, etc.

And of course a similar pattern would appear at the opposite point on
Earth: out in the Indian Ocean between Madagascar and Australia.  Maybe it
creates glowing pinwheels on the ocean surface?!!



(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

The Giant ray of Death
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HgejSCHRi8

Excellent talk on Tesla's timeline


Tesla:  Spirit, Work, Vision

    Intro  (10 min)
    http://www.van.at/track/set01/track01.htm

    Part 2-4  (15, 18, 12 min)
    http://www.van.at/track/set01/track02.htm



(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci