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

Re: More arc simulations

HI Richard, Bill Wysock, all,
                               In no way did I mean to imply that I 
was the great pioneer into discovering the points I mentioned in my
post on primary Q, secondary Q etc.  I acknowledge that TCBOR were 
pioneers in the practice of small C large L primaries (I hope I got 
that right!) and that Bill had an elevated primary design two decades 
ago. I meant no prior claim on any of those discoveries. To my 
knowledge I am the first to have done the paper analysis on primary
L/C ratios and voltage in the coiling community but that is *only to 
my knowledge*.  Others may also have done this although I have never 
seen seen it in any TC literature I've read.
     My initial personal research efforts were spurred by gaps between
things I *had* read in literature on TCs that was available to me and 
didn't stack up.

> Original Poster: Richard Hull <rhull-at-richmond.infi-dot-net> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla List wrote:     Acknowledgement: Mark Barton who used to be on this
list
> was the
> 
> > first coiler *I knew* who reasoned that a high Xp was a desirable
> > attribute. There were probably others I was not aware of. We jointly
> > investigated this a couple of years ago. Further experiments without
> > the gap showed a dramatic improvement in raw Q if the primary was
> > elevated considerably from the ground or mounted perpendicular to it.
> >
> > Malcolm
> 
> ..............................
> 
>   Malcom,
> 
> The TCBOR in tape #1 or 2 back in 1989 and 90 made a number of statements
> based
> on our work so it is on record before the internet was ever an item of note.
> 
> 1. Never build a coil low to the ground.  (losses increase)
> 2.  Always use a primary of larger inductance (5-6 turn absolute minimum)
> Note*
> doesn't apply to 20 foot diameter primaries.
> 3. Always use the smallest tank capacitor and the highest voltage possible
> within
> the limits of your power design goals.
> 4.  Always use a very high inductance secondary.
> 
> 
> By 1991 we had added the maximim that........" only the largest toroidal
sizes
> allowed large sparks to be produced and that our recommendation was that the
> toroid should dwarf the resonator."
> 
> I think I got on the internet back in 1995 or something like that.  I
screamed
> that then when this list was young.  I have re-iterated all these tips
> about 20
> times in numerous posts.
> 
>  It is nice to see that theory and intellectual reasoning is finally
> catching up
> to casual observations by experimenter/researchers of 10 years ago.  Not
> that the
> theory or math proves the observations.  Quite the other way around (as
almost
> always) - solutions and working systems forces the theorists to scurry
> about in
> search of reasons for seemingly disparate results found in working systems.
>  They
> just gotta' fill in those blanks.
> 
> Thus far, I haven't seen one of our old maxim's given the lie....Only
> supposedly,
> " rediscovered" afresh by each new wave of Tesla buffs lapping up on the
> shores
> of real experiment.  While it is true we offered generalizations which left
> many
> thirsty for a "model" or something they could simply "plug in values and
> turn the
> crank".  I still have not seen that happen to my complete satisfaction.
> Lots of
> great efforts and new "mathematical support" for old hard won knowledge,
> but no
> "plug in the numbers and spit out a killer system" programs.
> 
> I doubt that might ever occur because the math has yet to deal with Arcs in
> air
> and plasma dynamics at atmospheric pressures or the divergent
> characteristics and
> abilities of individual builders.
> 
> What we have is spice or Pspice or this or that model...monte carlo method,
>  etc,
> etc, and some "special reasoning" has shown that the old counter-intuitive,
> anti-RF engineering, emperical observations and results are not just a
lot of
> hooey.  The secret was that many would be theoreticians never really
> gripped the
> idea that spark was all we were after at any price!  Not efficiency, not the
> highest Q, not the highest terminal voltage, etc.  A lot of recent work
> posted on
> the net has shown, now theoretically, that large sparks, don't necessarily
> mean
> any or all of these optimum RF engineered conditions need be present to the
> ultimate figure inorder get fantastic sparks.
> 
> It is and has always been a matter of how to best transform energy into
> loss in
> the medium (air) and avoid at all costs..... RF radiation...... our
number one
> enemy.
> 
> A good 10KW coil will not be able to be picked up on a decent radio at its
> resonant frequency 1 mile away.
> 
> 
> Richard Hull, TCBOR
>P.S. The above in no way is meant to demean or nullify the 
> excellent work of
> late by any on this list, but to point out that the theoretical
> machinations are
> finally catching up to simple obsevation.  I have remained silent on much
> of this
> as I feel with two ears and one  mouth I should listen and learn about
> twice as
> much as I spew out or try to teach.  RH

I would be the last to *knowingly* lay claim to knowledge gleaned by 
those who had gone before me. I hope I offended no-one. I did feel 
that the points were worth reiterating and I also feel that it is 
about time that theory matched practise. I cannot see myself making 
any further useful contributions to the theory now. All that is left 
to do is build according to well established principles and see 
whether those principles are sound enough to break records.

Most Sincerely,
Malcolm