[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Modeling a magnifier


----------
From:  wysock-at-ttr-dot-com [SMTP:wysock-at-ttr-dot-com]
Sent:  Monday, February 23, 1998 12:29 PM
To:  Tesla List
Subject:  Re: Modeling a magnifier

To Richard and the TCBOR gang:
I have only one thing to say about your post below.

"Here Here!"

Bill Wysock.



> From:  richard hull [SMTP:rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net]
> Sent:  Sunday, February 22, 1998 6:52 PM
> To:  Tesla List
> Subject:  Re: Modeling a magnifier
> 
> At 04:26 PM 2/21/98 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >----------
> >From:  Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz [SMTP:acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br]
> >Sent:  Friday, February 20, 1998 4:41 PM
> >To:  Tesla List
> >Subject:  Modeling a magnifier
> >Hi:
> >I was studying how to model a Tesla magnifier, and would like to hear
> >comments on my reasoning

<LARGE ECONOMEY- SIZE SNIP>

> >A conventional capacitor-discharge Tesla coil is composed by two resonator
> >LC tanks tuned for the same frequency, with the coils magnetically coupled
> >with a low coupling coefficient.
> >The lumped model for a conventional Tesla coil after the firing of the
> >spark gap, and before any breakout of sparks in the secondary, ignoring
> >resistances, is:

<BIG-TIME SNIP>

> >The higher coupling coefficient in the magnifier transformer is only a
> >consequence of the splitting of the secondary coil. 
> >What do you think?
> >Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz

Richard Hull Wrote:

> What is said is partially correct, but vastly over simplified when putting
> the things into practice.
> 
>   Theory and assumptions based on core knowledge from models, classroom
> speak, and thought experiments are abysmally easy because one is at extreme
> range,  (galactic distances), from having to touch anything - from having to
> really do anything - it saves one from the agony of grubbing around in the
> dirt with all the other down at heel folks who are struggling with the
> reality of things.
> 
> I and a few other s have wrestled with all these issues.  Tesla himself in
> 1899 noted in his own hand that the primary/secondary (driver)are tightly
> coupled for "transformer action" only in order to dump the maximum power
> into a system in the shortest period of time. 
> 
>  If one simply must insist on radio theory being brought into play on a high
> voltage power system and narrows the view to where it has to fit a known
> model then yes, the secondary and the extra coil are one single system.
> Still, that nasty old reality of experiment shows that the coupling
> coefficient as measured with the driver only does not treat it like it is
> part of a larger resonator.  It errupts with problems by itself as that is
> all the darned flux sees, ever!  The field collapses upon the driver
> secondary ONLY and not one line cuts the resonator/extra coil.  If we look
> at the thing as a combined broken resonator that is real nice, and the
> coupling coefficient plunges from this lofty theoretical view, but..........
> and a big but, the equally coupled, smoothly inducted two coil system
> doens't act the same at all from a number of standpoints.
> 
> Tesla saw this instantly.  The time of loading of the driver effectly
> isolates it from the resonator, not only magnetically but resonantly - (this
> is assuming the impeadances of the two units are matched and balanced in a
> number of very complex ways).  This is shown most boldly by the work of Lou
> Balint.  Our own work in Richmond has been in search of output voltage only
> and has not struggled with or concerned itself with power transfer or energy
> efficiency which does not seem to necessarily have anything to do with
> voltage output.
> 
> Radio theory is always concerned with power and energy transfer efficiency
> only.  They need RF amps, not volts.  They seek to transmitt data at great
> range....To lauch an idealized and perfect electromagntic waveform into the
> "medium"  We, on the other hand seek to just get volts and thwart the
> transmission of any RF energy.  The very signature of a good Tesla system is
> that it radiates almost nothing!  The RF (radio) theorists are much more
> concerned with the "M" of EMF.  Radio theory is a good place to hang one's
> hat while still on the side lines guessing and musing.
> 
> Both myself, Dave Sharpe and Alex Tajsek here in Richmond and Ed Wingate in
> New York have all testified to the FACT that a fast quench series roatry
> will make a tightly coupled k=.6 magnifier system perform very well, where
> as the equivalent coupled circuit two coil system falls on its face with the
> same gap!!  The series gap sees the k=.6 driver as, oddly enough, a k=.6 and
> not as a marvelously harmonious k=.28 equivallency!  Why?  We are still
> working on that, but it looks like Tesla was right.  The driver isolates at
> the instant of loading regardless of what rings up after the juices starts
> roaring through the "system".  The Corums see this but then link the thing
> to transmision line theory following resonator fill.  (back to radio).  I
> used to like their ideas because they saw the key factor of the driver
> ISOLATION, but now I must view the system as lumped in other respects
> following the work of Bylund and Balint.
> 
> All of us have a long hisotry of two coil system experience and since 1994
> the TCBOR has been exclusively mangifier assembly only with 13 different
> driver systems, some with up to 7 subvariants (reosnator updates each).  We
> do not just mindlessly assemble the same variants over and over, but by
> experimentation, improve with each new iteration and move forward with what
> is SEEN to WORK!  All of this, not from some magic equation or super model,
> but from the DOING.  All these efforts are chronicaled and are now out
> amongst the coiler population in the form of video taped evidence with some
> 60 different two hour taped reports issued since 1989.  John Freau, who has
> worked closely with Balint has now open up his taped archives to public
> scrutiny.  All tapes openly show patently stupid mistakes, blind alleys,
> etc., but also show total success which stems solely from the DOING
> 
> Those who do know by their DOING,...understand that regardless of whether
> the secondary/resonator/driver/extra coil is just a split resonator or not,
> it never, ever behaves as an equivalent single system in the eyes of the
> gapping system or the output capabilities.
> 
> Magnifiers are not a casually assembled system.  If they were, hundreds of
> coilers would be all overtop of them.  As it is, I can number on two hands
> the total number of living beings who I feel have a grip on the construction
> and the DOING of these systems.
> 
> I haven't enough molecules in my body, however, to equal the number of
> people who are willing profer advice from afar or on high.  If you must
> model, choose one and then build.  Don't sit there and build more complex
> models based on book knowledge given by physicists and RF researchers.  How
> many of those who wrote the theroy ever built stunningly performing Tesla
> systems? - two or three coilers?
> 
> Richard Hull, TCBOR
___________________________
Tesla Technology Research