RE: A photographic tutorial of Pancake Coil winding...with movies...(fwd)

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:54:18 -0500
From: David Thomson <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 'Tesla list' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: A photographic tutorial of Pancake Coil winding...with
    movies...(fwd)

Hi Bert,

> As a non-engineer, I know it must be difficult for you to 
> understand that what you are proposing simply doesn't make 
> sense on a number of levels. As Wolfgang Pauli said, it's 
> "not even wrong...".

I'm not going to complain about being a non-engineer.  In this case, it
seems to be a good thing.  All that really matters at this point is that we
clearly disagree.  You say longitudinal resonance in the third coil "isn't
even wrong..." and I say it is real and quantifiable.  This is good.  We
have a clear distinction between our points of views.  There is nothing
wrong with that.

> I define resonance for your 3rd coil as being the efficient 
> energy exchange between magnetic and electrical fields at the natural
> ("ringing") frequency of your coil and topload.
> 
> However, it sounds like you are defining "perfect resonance" 
> in a different manner than everyone else. 

Absolutely.  The clarity of our views could not be better stated.

> And, this is based 
> on what empirical evidence? From what I can tell, it seems to 
> be based on your theory of there being two types of charge, 

Absolutely correct, once again.  

> which in turn, seems to be supported by visual observation of 
> "gas burner" discharge. I see... not.

Absolutely wrong on this account.  The two types of charge were visually
observed in a different experiment.  The "gas burner" discharge demonstrates
longitudinal waves, not two types of charges.

> Here's something for you to try: Connect the base of your 3rd 
> coil (or ANY resonator) to a low impedance signal generator 
> through a small capacitor. This will mimic the capacitive 
> coupling that you propose occurs between the secondary and 
> 3rd coil of your system. How would you
>   experimentally determine the "longitudinal" or "perfect" 
> resonant frequency for your 3rd coil?

I did try this.  Only instead of using a wire wound coil, I used a copper
pipe.  I still got a current peak.  Now, unless you are saying the copper
tube is a waveguide (which you denied earlier), there is no way I can be
measuring fundamental (EM) resonance of the coil.  

> Perhaps. But, quite frankly it's more likely that you are 
> reading too much into a limited set of visual observations, 
> and then formulating underlying behavior and structure that 
> is not really there. Nothing that you have presented thus far 
> provides any evidence for the existence, or measurement of, 
> "electron acoustic resonance", or the proposed role of ion 
> acoustic propagation near your 3rd coil. And, I'm not really 
> sure I even know what these terms mean.

Once again, you have clearly delineated the difference in our views.  Let's
see how my latest coil turns out.

> Let's follow up your "waveguide" example. The speed of sound 
> in copper is 4760 m/s and 6420 m/s in aluminum (i.e., 34% 
> faster). 

Who said anything about the speed of sound?  You are talking about
oscillating the copper and aluminum molecules.  I'm on a completely
different page.  I'm talking about acoustically (longitudinally) oscillating
the free electrons associated with the copper and aluminum, not the
molecules of the pipes.  

> In your pipe experiment, how long was the wire connecting the 
> signal generator to the coil base, and what was the base 
> diameter? You may have
> (accidentally) formed a ringing series LC circuit (via the 
> inductance of the feed wire and the combined plate and pipe 
> capacitances). Also, were any other coils nearby?

There were no coils nearby and the pipe wasn't a coil.  The total wire
length from the frequency generator to the disc was about 44" (the wire
splits across two LEDs inside a plastic tube).  The disc is an uneven oval
piece of brass with a maximum diameter of about 2" and a minor diameter of
about 1.5".  

> I'll state it again - any electrical "waveguide" type 
> behavior for either of your pipes will not occur until you 
> reach frequencies that are over 1000X higher that you're 
> using. Period.

Cool, I'm good with that.  That means there can be no inductive coupling
between a pipe and coil.  The pipe is acting like a pure capacitor, which is
exactly what I need.

> I'm specifically talking about three coil systems where the third
> > coil is seen as a capacitor (ion storage container) only.
> 
> Dave, it doesn't really matter whether you couple energy into 
> your 3rd coil inductively, capacitively, or via a direct 
> electrical connection as long as you do so at its resonant 
> frequency (Fo) or a higher harmonic. 

Once again, you have clearly stated the difference between our views.  I'm
saying there is a difference between EM resonance and electron longitudinal
resonance, you are saying there is no difference.  Ed has often stated the
same view as you have.  Now it is just a matter of me building the system I
think will prove you and Ed wrong.  What could be clearer?

> BTW, did you try drawing any sparks to ground from your 3rd 
> coil? Did the spark length reflect an exceptionally high potentials?

I did try to draw sparks, and it was quite painful (I normally use a
flourescent tube held in my bare hands).  The sparks had so much potential
in them they felt life threatening.  A grounded probe produced such a loud
pop I thought I was going to ruin my system.  It didn't take long before I
simply took a photograph of the system because there was nothing else I
could do with it as a "normal Tesla coil."  I even mentioned the apparent
lack of "Tesla coil features" in my notes of that day.

With the electrostatic field being easily felt eight feet into the room I'm
guessing the potential was near, or more than, a megavolt.  Those are hardly
the conditions a poorly tuned coil would produce.

> It's quite 
> evident that you have had little firsthand experience 
> observing or building Tesla Coils, and (especially) observing 
> various forms of high voltage discharges.

Once again, this clearly sets us apart in our views.  You cannot accept what
I am telling you because your training as an engineer does not allow it.  To
you, it is far easier to just write my work off as a failure, exactly as
your peers have written off Tesla's three coil work.  You cannot understand
the two different manifestations of charges (which I have quantified as well
as observed), and show no desire to learn of it.  The differences between us
could not be clearer.  This is good.

> > As Bart has shown, my system is highly efficient and sufficiently 
> > powered, so again, this meaningless diversion has no 
> > relevance to the discussion.
> 
> I don't recall Bart ever saying this. Quite the contrary, in fact.

You need to reread the posts.  Bart had modelled my system and raved about
its high coupling constant and short energy transfer time.  That is the
reason why our discussion took off so strong.

> >> In analyzing your system, I conclude that you are getting inefficient 
> >> energy coupling to the tertiary coil.
> > 
> > Your analysis is inadequate.  
> 
> Sigh... I've been attempting to provide a logical and 
> reasoned analysis that is based upon current coiling 
> knowledge that goes beyond mere hand waving... inadequate 
> though it may be.

Just give it a rest, Bert.  You are a good man and I'm not that bad of a
person, either.  We see things differently here.  It is not about opinion,
it is about science.  You have established clearly your understanding.  I
have clearly established my understanding and am building an experiment to
prove it.  Let's just wait for the results.

> If energy is only being stored in an E-field, what exactly is 
> "resonating" in your 3rd coil? 

Electrons.

> >> But your two coil analysis does not apply to a three
> >> coil system.  
> 
> But other available multiple coil analyses do apply. Do you 
> view three 
> coil systems as being mysterious and impervious to analysis? 

I do not view three coil systems as being mysterious and impervious to
analysis.  Do you consider my acousting analysis to be mysterious or
impervious to understanding?

> And the air around the topload doesn't really care about which method 
> you've use to excite the resonator. The air only "sees" the local 
> E-field gradient near the topload. And if the voltage develops an 
> E-field sufficiently high to initiate avalanche breakdown, it 
> will. Period.

I disagree.  What you are saying is true for EM radiating coils, but not for
longitudinally resonant third coils.  The physics are completely different.
In your analysis, you are looking at electromagnetic resonance.  In my
analysis, I am looking at both the electromagnetic AND mechanical resonance.
The mechanical resonance of electrons (ions) have uses beyond the reach of
electromagnetic resonating electrons.

> >> How did you conclude that a lack of streamers means a lack of 
> >> current? 
> > 
> > Because there was a strong electrostatic field around the coil, which
could
> > easily be felt by the skin eight feet away.  When you have that much
energy
> > locked up in potential and there are no streamers, it can only mean
there is
> > no (or very little) current available.
> 
> But, without any current or E-field measurements, this is sheer 
> speculation on your part. 

My body and senses count as a reasonable measuring device to a certain
extent.  Maybe you don't have confidence in it, but I do.  How often do you
feel strong electrostatic fields eight feet away from a poorly tuned coil?

> But, lets hypothesize that your 3rd 
> coil was indeed nearly "perfectly resonant". Does this mean that the 
> E-field around your system is DC (if so, is it positive or negative), is 
> it  oscillating, or is it something else? 

That is a good question.  I do remember it made the hair on my arms stand
straight out from four feet away.  I would have to measure the E field to
give you a direct answer.

> Does "perfectly resonant" 
> simply mean that the resonator is oscillating (in EM fashion) with no 
> breakout of any kind, or are you talking about some other 
> effects? 

It should be clear by now I'm talking about something different from EM
resonance.  Do some reading on acoustic resonance if you want to better
understand my view of mechanical electron resonance.  

> And 
> are the effect measurable and differentiable form classic EM 
> theory of operation?

If your statement about a copper tube not being able to function as a
waveguide at kHz frequencies is true, then yes, this effect is measurable
and differentiable from classic EM theories of operation.

> > If your model says you can analyze a three coil system by the physics of
a
> > two coil system, then it does not conform to the realities of coil
> > operation.  
> 
> Interesting. In my world, discharges don't care whether you have a 
> 2-coil or a 3-coil system. 

Once again, you have clearly differentially identified our views.  

> You apparently believe there is something 
> significantly different ... about a ... three-coil system 
> that makes it impossible to analyze with present day EM and circuit 
> theory, and this also results in completely unique discharges. And you 
> alone have uncovered deeper underlying reasons that (two forms of 
> charge, for example) that account for this. And, nobody else on this 
> list seems to be smart enough to recognize this "reality". Do I have 
> that about right?

That about sums it up, Bert.  Just sit back and relax with this.  It is
humorous that we can have such a clear difference of opinion.  But this is
exactly what science is all about.  Now let us prove our points with
experiments.  

> Well, I am at least delighted that you're beginning to recognize the 
> power of some of the design tools that were developed (over 
> many years of study and testing!) by Bart Anderson, Paul Nicholson, 
> Antonio Carlos M. de Queiroz, Mark Rzeszotarski, Terry Fritz, and others
on 
> this list. These tools cover primaries, isolated and imbedded resonators,
> and even N-coil capacitive or inductively-coupled "magnifier" type 
> systems. Most of these tools ultimately fall back on Maxwell's equations 
> and circuit theory.

Believe it or not, I am truly forever grateful for all the work done by all
experimenters on this list.  I seem to recall how several times people
thought something couldn't be done, and a year later it was common sense.
That is the nature of progress.  I hope to join your illustrious group of
pioneers in developing my own contribution to the science.

> Have you ever considered that YOUR speculations may be 
> inconsistent with reality?

I am always considering that.  

> Or, that some of the dumb, hard headed engineers, physicists, 
> and experimenters on this list might actually understand how 
> Tesla Coils and magnifiers work a bit better than you do?

I always consider that, too.  

But I also consider that nobody on this list actually believes we already
know all there is to know about physics.  What's more, I consider the fact
that a new discovery will be "new" because nobody believes it is real
science before it is discovered.  It is only after the theory is developed
and the experiments are done that everyone says, "I knew it all along."
"No, I didn't disagree with him, I was talking about something else." 

> I also suspect I'm merely wasting my time and Chip's 
> bandwidth on this "discussion".

Actually, I think this is a very productive discussion.  In this one email
we have clearly set ourselves apart and defined the issue.  The issue has
now been clarified for those who are wondering what it is we are squabbling
about.  

Let us wait for the experiments before continuing.  I have nearly raised all
the money I need to build the coil.  It should be ready in less than two
weeks, and possibly much sooner.

Dave