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

Modeling a magnifier


----------
From:  bmack [SMTP:bmack-at-frontiernet-dot-net]
Sent:  Saturday, March 07, 1998 11:59 AM
To:  Tesla List
Subject:  Re: Modeling a magnifier



> From:  Antonio C. M. de Queiroz [SMTP:acmq-at-compuland-dot-com.br]
> Sent:  Wednesday, March 04, 1998 1:52 AM
> To:  Tesla List
> Subject:  Re: Modeling a magnifier
> 
Antonio,
    The magnifier is a very interesting subject and somewhat of an 
inigma. Not the least of which being the difference between coiler's
empirical results and the CSN.  Tesla noted that all three systems
were the same resonance, but no one on the list (as far as I know) has
a magnifier working in this mode.  Perhaps there is an energy level and
geometry that that forces this?

More comments below:

> Jim McVey wrote (with subject : R Hull maggey question):
> 
> > 1) I memory serves, CSN along with posts on this list have the equlity
> > L1C1=L2C2=L3C3.  To me, this implies that the L1, L2 "driver" is a
stand
> > alone TC, only more damped by the coupling (assuming L3 is not
connected).
> 
> Assuming the model for the secondary/third coil:
> 
> +-----+--L3-+
> |     |     |
> C2    L2    C3
> |     |     |
> +-----+-----+
> 
  In a two coil system, the secondary is high Z when out of tune or
shorted,
impling a series tuned scenario. In the above 3 coil model using a "high
value"
for C2 will be minimum impedance when off tune.  A simple experiment 
will prove /disprove this.(JM)


> An interesting posibility is L2*C2=(L2+L3)*C3, with L1*C1 somewhere close
> to this (I didn't verify exactly what would be the best).
> With this relation, the combination secondary-third coil behaves exactly
> as the tuned two-coil system of a normal Tesla coil:
> 
  assuming that L2<<L3, this makes C3<<C2,  which defeats the ability
to hold off the breakout potential...or are you proposing an
alternative?(JM)

> +-----+     +-----+
> |     | <k> |     |
> Ca    La    Lb    Cb
> |     |     |     |
> +-----+     +-----+
> 
> La=L2; Lb=L2+L3; k=sqrt(L2/(L2+L3)); Ca=C2; Cb=C3
> 
> With high coupling between the primary and the secondary, all or most of
> the primary energy is transferred rapidly, essentially to C2-L2 only
before
> the spark gap is quenched. 
> After this, the energy oscillates between the two tanks,
> and periodically is entirely concentrated on C3, producing the highest
> possible voltage allowed by energy conservation (ignoring losses).
>  
> I don't know what more experienced coilers do, but the model indicates
that
> there is an optimum value for C2.
> 
   From a recent post by Ricahrd Hull, C2 is nothing more than Isotropic
capacitance of L2 and the oversized top turn forming a corona ring.
(very small compared to C3).(JM)

> > 3) In some of my own investgations,  Using very low energies, I've
found
> > that
> > the secondaries like to lump, rather than resonate independently such
that
> > L1C1=(L2+L3)*(C2+C3).  Is this what you experienced?
> 
> Did you observe some amplitude modulation in the secondary waveforms
after
> the opening of the gap? The greater the modulation, the higher is the
voltage
> obtainable at C3, according to the model.
>
   No, but then again I wasn't using a gap, mostly CW drive to observe
the resonant frequency.   You must be looking for the beat frequency
against L1C1  to obtain the modulation-right?(JM)

  

 
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz
> http://www.coe.ufrj.br/~acmq
> 
>