[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Can't just change one thing! (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:04:27 +1200
From: Malcolm Watts <MALCOLM-at-directorate.wnp.ac.nz>
To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
Subject: Re: Can't just change one thing! (fwd)
In light of John's post and the replies below, here are some queries
I would like answers to as this concerns some research I wish to do:
> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Michael Nolley <mhnolley-at-willamette.edu>
> To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> Cc: tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
> Subject: Re: Can't just change one thing! (fwd)
>
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Tesla List wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 01:08:44 -0400
> > From: Richard Hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net>
> > To: Tesla List <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> > Subject: Can't just change one thing!
> >
> > All,
> >
> > At the TCBOM (Tesla Coil Builders of Maryland) Teslathon last Sunday,
> > John Freau and I sat and talked about what we were doing and some of the
> > tests we have made in the past. This follows Johns recent post on the
> > small wire coils.
> >
> > We both laughingly admitted to ourselves that is is just about
> > impossible to change just one system variable of any kind over a decent
> > range in any tesla system. That is, to check for precise effects. We
> > can glean some basic info, but the other parameters of the system have
> > to track what we change. If we change one thing a little , then we are
> > ok, but let us move something over a full range of adjustment, and if we
> > are still trying to keep apples separated from oranges, the whole thing
> > falls apart. Make a big change in one thing and you must compensate
> > with a least one other variable and over an equally vast range, thus,
> > destroying any sense of uniformity in what the new effect or property
> > really relates to! If we try and "share the load" by adjusting several
> > variables only a little, we are really leaping into the fire. This is
> > especially true if we do indeed move the unknown over a wide range.
<from John Freau>
<snip>
> > Those who have really worked with coils know exactly what John and I
> > were frustrated and amused over.
> >
> >
> > Richard Hull, TCBOR
> >
> >
> Extremely interesting comment-- and I think I see the conundrum--
> it is a version of the usual butterfly-in-Bermuda banter, the effects of
> changing one aspect of a system may vastly alter the system itself and
> all of its assumed parameters, so that the resulting effect may not
> correspond just to the adjustment, but to all of the things it affects.
> This breaks down commonly held assumptions about the
> "separateness" of abstract terms which we may apply to the Tesla coil,
> and also any sense that there is a "theory" behind the event which may
> explain it completely. Am I in the ballpark? Agree, disagree?
> Mike
Here are several cases to be confirmed/denied:
(1) A change in ROC at the top. Can be done with differently shaped
terminals without the need to retune (if both add same capacitance
to the secondary)?
(2) Primary reactance comparison: I wish to explore behaviour of a 10
Ohm vs 100 Ohm primary with the same resonator. I can change the L/C
ratio in the primary, change the primary voltage to keep bang size
the same (which keeps Vo the same) and change k so that k in both
cases are the same? (OK - it does assume primary loss to be the same
in both cases).
(3) Resonator comparison: I wish to see the effect of resonator
impedance on output spark. I have two coils, same H/D (same
capacitance) but with different inductances. I can tailor Lp to
maintain tune and adjust k to allow for this. Reasonable?
(4) As for (3), but this time I will change Cp and Vp to maintain
same Ep and adjust k to be the same for both combinations. Can do?
Do list members consider it possible or otherwise to make such
changes to explore the effects of just one or two parameter changes?
Malcolm