Re: Jonathon's 6" Coil (fwd) -> Streamer length to voltage (fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:42:02 -0700
From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Jonathon's 6" Coil (fwd) -> Streamer length to voltage (fwd)

Ok, thanks DC. That is quite a bit of primary peak bang current. What I 
was wondering is if you had measured the secondary base current: i.e., 
passing the bottom secondary lead wire on it's way to RF ground through 
a current loop, such as a Pearson loop with bnc connection where 1A is 
converted to 1V at the scope. Thus, we get secondary base current 
readings and top volt readings concentrically which we can then 
extrapolate much of the unknowns in the secondary waveforms before 
breakout, during breakout, etc..

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:27:54 -0500
>From: D.C. Cox <resonance@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Jonathon's 6" Coil (fwd) -> Streamer length to voltage (fwd)
>
>
>
>With a .05 uF Maxwell cap firing into a 3.5 turn, 5/8th inch OD copper 
>tubing, the peak pri current was 2,350 Amps.  Erms supplied by a pole xmfr 
>at 14.4 kV Erms.
>
>Resonance Research Corp.
>www.resonanceresearch.com
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 12:26 PM
>Subject: Re: Jonathon's 6" Coil (fwd) -> Streamer length to voltage (fwd)
>
>
>  
>
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:52:08 -0700
>>From: Barton B. Anderson <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: Tesla list <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: Jonathon's 6" Coil (fwd) -> Streamer length to voltage (fwd)
>>
>>Hi D.C.,
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I also used Terry F's antenna system to do voltage calibration at 8 ft. 
>>>We
>>>used a 200 kV steady DC power supply on the toroid to get the base 
>>>readings.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Your talking about the planewave antenna. Yes, calibration is a must in
>>order to correlate the scope readings to an actual value. Sounds like
>>you had a means of doing this accurately.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I really am convinced this is quite accurate.  There was nearly perfect
>>>correlations minus a percent for experimental error.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>It does sound accurate. The concern was correlating a spark length value
>>to a top volt value may not be accurate. For single point discharge
>>maybe, but when a coiler says I got "x length", he's almost never
>>referring to a single point discharge (just average free air spark
>>lengths over successive bangs).
>>
>>    
>>
>>><>but the electrostatic field voltage meter really does not load the
>>>system appreciably.
>>>      
>>>
>>Using the planewave is probably ideal. As long as it is a good distance
>>from the resonator it wouldn't load the system. The calibration for this
>>type of antenna is what is necessary and it sounds like you had the
>>means to do that. I use my planewave for measurements, but calibrating
>>it for top volts would be a challenge for me without the right equipment.
>>
>>By chance, did you happen to take base current measurements at the same
>>time that you did the testing? Paul might be interested in that data.
>>
>>Take care,
>>Bart
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>