Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
tarakan2, Tue Aug 11 2015, 09:18PMI read a lot about Tesla and his transformer experiments.
The magnifying transformer theory sounds like something very difficult to understand.
It sounds somewhat pseudo-scientific if we try to analyze it.
What was magnified in the magnifying transformer, for example?
A lot of Tesla's descriptions of the high voltage phenomena appear to be poetic exaggerations of the phenomena that we encounter today.
But is it possible that Tesla attempted to describe something different than what we believe his greatest scientific breakthroughs were?
I started to reach the conclusion that Tesla physics is not understood to its depth.
Over the course of reading his papers, Colorado Springs Notes and looking at the patents, I started to understand what magnifying transformers may have been used for.
I figured that the secondary coil of the Tesla Transformer is a resonator. Like a bell.
And the primary of the transformer is like a clapper of the bell.
The clapper strikes, the bell resonates. When the clapper strikes again, if the bell is still ringing, the ringing is extinguished, then it rings again.
But construction interference is not possible in a bell.
The difference between the clapper and the spark discharge that drives the primary of the Tesla Coil is that the discharge occurs in a much shorter period of time.
Therefore if it is positioned correctly, in timing, relatively to the oscillation from the previous discharge in the Secondary Coil, there may be CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE.
This is what the "Magnifying Transfromer" may have been used for. It produced constructive interference and could accumulate large amounts of energy.
This accumulation of energy is due to the addition of electrical energy to the energyalready resonating in the coil.
It is similar to how child is pushed on a swing only at a specific time to make give more energy to the swing. Energy becomes potential from kinetic from potential with some losses.
Similar processes occur in the secondary transformer of the Tesla Coil as it oscillates, being an RCL resonator circuit in itself.
It is a mystery to me how Tesla accomplished this constructive interference using technological methods of his time.
I see that many hobbyists today build a Phase Lock Loop Tesla Coil. It is a Digital Solid State Tesla Coil that may exhibit some of the above qualities and support constructive interference without influencing the RCL charachteristics of the secondary through the circuitry itself, as it would happen in a simple transistor-driven high voltage circuit such as a Slayer Exciter?
After all why where PLL circuits developed in the first place?
Shortt-Synchronome -
- may not open in your browser.One limitation of the SSTC that I see is that the sharpness of the "clapper" impulse will not be as instantaneous with semiconductors as with a spark discharge.
Therefore I am trying to construct a Solid State Tesla Coil that uses PLL to determine when it is appropriate to fire the next impulse. It will still use a spark gap discharge device.
This Tesla Coil should not fire every time when construction interference is possible but only when the capacitor bank is full.
I want to build a Tesla Transformer specifically to achieve effects of constructive interference in the secondary coil.
There are many mysterious effects that surround Tesla physics that may be explained if it is possible to build such device.
To some extent I was inspired by this illustration that I found a long time ago and cannot remember where it came from.
FPGA - based PLL circuit is a little bit too difficult for me to build.
What do you think about the overall hypothesis?
Thank you.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
DekuTree64, Wed Aug 12 2015, 04:50AM
As I understand it, what is magnified is both voltage and current. As you say, it uses constructive interference to accumulate energy in the secondary. The voltage at the elevated capacity increases accordingly, as does the intensity of the current at the ground terminal.
Reading the patents (specifically, 645576, 649621, and 1119732), it sounds like there were three different ideas:
1. Connect two Tesla coils together by their toploads, transmitting high voltage power (low I2R loss) over a single transmission line. Pretty sure this was done at his lab in New York. Totally feasible, except for possibly some difficulty transforming the received power to low frequency AC or DC to run motors and such. But he may have been planning for devices to use high frequency or impulse current directly.
2. Create massive voltage at the elevated capacity, but without sparking. It would gradually ionize the surrounding air and create a conductive plasma column reaching up to 30000 feet where the air is thin enough to conduct at the voltages he was using. Power could be picked up by airplanes or by balloons floated up to 30000 feet. At least, according to his theory, which may be wrong because it was based on an experiment using a closed pipe of low pressure air. I don't think it was ever tested in open atmosphere.
3. Create massive currents going into the ground, to set up standing waves in the Earth, which could be received elsewhere by similar devices with large ground antennas. This is what he did at Colorado Springs, and apparently it worked.
Wardenclyffe may have been a combination of 2 and 3, but I don't think we'll ever know for sure. It's very confusing trying to figure out exactly what Tesla himself did, versus what his patents say he wanted to do, versus what other people say he did.
As I understand it, to get constructive interference you just need to have the same volume of "active metal" (accounting for skin effect) in the primary and secondary coils. And make the primary capacitor tuneable so you can fiddle it until it matches the capacitance of the secondary coil. Fine wire, litz wire, copper tubing, outer conductor of coax, and sheet metal are all good ways to minimize skin effect, so you can go by weight to get equal active volume. But I have yet to put this theory to practice myself...
And for powering, I'm not sure if Tesla was letting the capacitors fully discharge on every impulse, or quenching the spark gap. He definitely used various quenching methods in some experiments (read Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency), so I would guess that he kept doing it that way (not letting the capacitors fully discharge) for all the later work in Colorado and such.
I think I remember hearing that he used a mercury arc rectifier in Colorado, which I think would be like a perfectly quenched spark gap (allow one impulse to jump across, but no oscillation), but don't quote me on that.
DekuTree64, Wed Aug 12 2015, 04:50AM
As I understand it, what is magnified is both voltage and current. As you say, it uses constructive interference to accumulate energy in the secondary. The voltage at the elevated capacity increases accordingly, as does the intensity of the current at the ground terminal.
Reading the patents (specifically, 645576, 649621, and 1119732), it sounds like there were three different ideas:
1. Connect two Tesla coils together by their toploads, transmitting high voltage power (low I2R loss) over a single transmission line. Pretty sure this was done at his lab in New York. Totally feasible, except for possibly some difficulty transforming the received power to low frequency AC or DC to run motors and such. But he may have been planning for devices to use high frequency or impulse current directly.
2. Create massive voltage at the elevated capacity, but without sparking. It would gradually ionize the surrounding air and create a conductive plasma column reaching up to 30000 feet where the air is thin enough to conduct at the voltages he was using. Power could be picked up by airplanes or by balloons floated up to 30000 feet. At least, according to his theory, which may be wrong because it was based on an experiment using a closed pipe of low pressure air. I don't think it was ever tested in open atmosphere.
3. Create massive currents going into the ground, to set up standing waves in the Earth, which could be received elsewhere by similar devices with large ground antennas. This is what he did at Colorado Springs, and apparently it worked.
Wardenclyffe may have been a combination of 2 and 3, but I don't think we'll ever know for sure. It's very confusing trying to figure out exactly what Tesla himself did, versus what his patents say he wanted to do, versus what other people say he did.
As I understand it, to get constructive interference you just need to have the same volume of "active metal" (accounting for skin effect) in the primary and secondary coils. And make the primary capacitor tuneable so you can fiddle it until it matches the capacitance of the secondary coil. Fine wire, litz wire, copper tubing, outer conductor of coax, and sheet metal are all good ways to minimize skin effect, so you can go by weight to get equal active volume. But I have yet to put this theory to practice myself...
And for powering, I'm not sure if Tesla was letting the capacitors fully discharge on every impulse, or quenching the spark gap. He definitely used various quenching methods in some experiments (read Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential and High Frequency), so I would guess that he kept doing it that way (not letting the capacitors fully discharge) for all the later work in Colorado and such.
I think I remember hearing that he used a mercury arc rectifier in Colorado, which I think would be like a perfectly quenched spark gap (allow one impulse to jump across, but no oscillation), but don't quote me on that.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
tarakan2, Wed Aug 12 2015, 05:32AM
I agree.
According to what I found out, the primary didn't have much to do with the resonance in the secondary.
It was a clapper that rung the bell and had to have either a damped or an over-damped oscillation in it.
If primary "rang" like the secondary, than it would have taken energy out of the secondary.
I am growing very skeptical about the mass of copper in the primary and mass of copper in the secondary statement.
Maybe there is a reason behind it but I haven't seen any math supporting it.
I am not a physicist. I am a dropout engineering student.
All I am trying to do is to test the historical scientific hypotheses.
I saw a documentary where a historian tried to repeat Newton's alchemy experiments that should have lead to the creation of the philosopher stone.
By measuring the way secondary self-frequency drifts as it is energized with more power (voltage to current back to voltage) this system can be used as a measuring device.
Maybe as a bounty hunting metal detector. But at this point I want to see if Tesla thought in this direction.
And yes, Tesla Coil secondary is by far a not stable RCL circuit. As it ionizes air around itself, as it oscillates the self-frequency of the coil drifts around. And this is where the magic is hidden.
Tesla Transformer could self-tune itself to the environments it was used in. A new set of measuring devices may be born if we measure how, when and why Tesla Coil frequency floats around.
This effect is described by our crazier associates in the Tesla - themed free energy research. I had achieved this "self - tuning" effect in my experiments before. (not with Tesla coils)
I don't know how to describe it in more scientific terms. Two near-identical Tesla Secondaries will still be slightly different in their self-resonance frequency if not for this self-tuning quality.
The size of the coil in the Wardenclyffe tower relative to the output was rather small. There had to be construction interference.
tarakan2, Wed Aug 12 2015, 05:32AM
I agree.
According to what I found out, the primary didn't have much to do with the resonance in the secondary.
It was a clapper that rung the bell and had to have either a damped or an over-damped oscillation in it.
If primary "rang" like the secondary, than it would have taken energy out of the secondary.
I am growing very skeptical about the mass of copper in the primary and mass of copper in the secondary statement.
Maybe there is a reason behind it but I haven't seen any math supporting it.
I am not a physicist. I am a dropout engineering student.
All I am trying to do is to test the historical scientific hypotheses.
I saw a documentary where a historian tried to repeat Newton's alchemy experiments that should have lead to the creation of the philosopher stone.
By measuring the way secondary self-frequency drifts as it is energized with more power (voltage to current back to voltage) this system can be used as a measuring device.
Maybe as a bounty hunting metal detector. But at this point I want to see if Tesla thought in this direction.
And yes, Tesla Coil secondary is by far a not stable RCL circuit. As it ionizes air around itself, as it oscillates the self-frequency of the coil drifts around. And this is where the magic is hidden.
Tesla Transformer could self-tune itself to the environments it was used in. A new set of measuring devices may be born if we measure how, when and why Tesla Coil frequency floats around.
This effect is described by our crazier associates in the Tesla - themed free energy research. I had achieved this "self - tuning" effect in my experiments before. (not with Tesla coils)
I don't know how to describe it in more scientific terms. Two near-identical Tesla Secondaries will still be slightly different in their self-resonance frequency if not for this self-tuning quality.
The size of the coil in the Wardenclyffe tower relative to the output was rather small. There had to be construction interference.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
DekuTree64, Wed Aug 12 2015, 08:19PM
Hmm, I don't think I've seen math on the equal weight rule either. It may indeed be bogus. I assumed it was a primitive way to match the resonant frequency of the primary system and secondary system, but actually I'm not even sure that resonance matching is the goal. Especially since, as you say, ionizing the air would probably throw the frequencies out of whack right away.
Reading about the SSTC and DRSSTC that people build nowadays, it does sound like it works better if the primary and secondary have the same resonant frequency, but also that it's not absolutely necessary. This page says the primary is driven by feedback from the secondary, so that probably helps mitigate the effects of frequency changing.
But SSTCs are designed for making streamers, whereas Tesla's devices were designed for power transmission, so SSTC theory may not be applicable to replicating the original devices. It's still confusing what exactly the objectives are when building a true Tesla transformer. Match resonant frequency of primary and secondary, or not? Does the equal weight rule have some significance beyond being a primitive way to match the frequencies? And how exactly is it driven? If by magnetically quenched spark gap, how is the timing controlled? Does it just happen naturally by inductive feedback from the secondary to the primary causing a voltage spike that causes the spark gap to fire? Or is it more complicated than that?
Eric Dollard, who is the only person I know to replicate power transmission through the ground, says the trick is not to go theorizing and making 'improvements'. Just build it exactly like Tesla says. There's tricky stuff going on, which the mindset of modern physics blinds us to, so trying to theorize about it without reconstructing the mindset of the 1890's may be futile. But I've watched his lectures and read his books, and his descriptions don't seem to match up with how Tesla's patents describe it (which seem more in line with modern theory). And the patents don't have enough detail to build it exactly like Tesla says. Thus, I remain confused and indecisive on how to build my own coil.
DekuTree64, Wed Aug 12 2015, 08:19PM
Hmm, I don't think I've seen math on the equal weight rule either. It may indeed be bogus. I assumed it was a primitive way to match the resonant frequency of the primary system and secondary system, but actually I'm not even sure that resonance matching is the goal. Especially since, as you say, ionizing the air would probably throw the frequencies out of whack right away.
Reading about the SSTC and DRSSTC that people build nowadays, it does sound like it works better if the primary and secondary have the same resonant frequency, but also that it's not absolutely necessary. This page says the primary is driven by feedback from the secondary, so that probably helps mitigate the effects of frequency changing.
But SSTCs are designed for making streamers, whereas Tesla's devices were designed for power transmission, so SSTC theory may not be applicable to replicating the original devices. It's still confusing what exactly the objectives are when building a true Tesla transformer. Match resonant frequency of primary and secondary, or not? Does the equal weight rule have some significance beyond being a primitive way to match the frequencies? And how exactly is it driven? If by magnetically quenched spark gap, how is the timing controlled? Does it just happen naturally by inductive feedback from the secondary to the primary causing a voltage spike that causes the spark gap to fire? Or is it more complicated than that?
Eric Dollard, who is the only person I know to replicate power transmission through the ground, says the trick is not to go theorizing and making 'improvements'. Just build it exactly like Tesla says. There's tricky stuff going on, which the mindset of modern physics blinds us to, so trying to theorize about it without reconstructing the mindset of the 1890's may be futile. But I've watched his lectures and read his books, and his descriptions don't seem to match up with how Tesla's patents describe it (which seem more in line with modern theory). And the patents don't have enough detail to build it exactly like Tesla says. Thus, I remain confused and indecisive on how to build my own coil.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
tarakan2, Wed Aug 12 2015, 11:02PM
I want to focus on the self- tuning resonant circuit that uses the principle I described. The "bell" that can accumulate positive interference and add waves of resonating electricity.
Eric Dollard is an interesting character, like Terence McKenna or Timothy Leary, except for DIY research physics. He is a very successful researcher in the Tesla Physics/ Free Energy world. I would rather focus on my little piece of the puzzle that may answer all the questions that surrond Tesla physics.
I am willing to pay someone to build such device for me.
The options to build this device are:
To wind a big coil, bigger than one meter tall and work with kiloherz requencies and TV PLL or Arduino microcontroller-like devices.
Or to wind a smaller coil and to use Field Gate Programmable Array-based FPGA circuit to do everything inside one IC. However it is difficult to engineer such high frequency board in homegrown environment so I would stick to the former. Plus Tesla worked with lower frequencies himself.
It would be nice to have it all computer controlled. Tesla had a long life to tinker with analog circuits. I want a faster answer about interference inside the Tesla Coil.
tarakan2, Wed Aug 12 2015, 11:02PM
I want to focus on the self- tuning resonant circuit that uses the principle I described. The "bell" that can accumulate positive interference and add waves of resonating electricity.
Eric Dollard is an interesting character, like Terence McKenna or Timothy Leary, except for DIY research physics. He is a very successful researcher in the Tesla Physics/ Free Energy world. I would rather focus on my little piece of the puzzle that may answer all the questions that surrond Tesla physics.
I am willing to pay someone to build such device for me.
The options to build this device are:
To wind a big coil, bigger than one meter tall and work with kiloherz requencies and TV PLL or Arduino microcontroller-like devices.
Or to wind a smaller coil and to use Field Gate Programmable Array-based FPGA circuit to do everything inside one IC. However it is difficult to engineer such high frequency board in homegrown environment so I would stick to the former. Plus Tesla worked with lower frequencies himself.
It would be nice to have it all computer controlled. Tesla had a long life to tinker with analog circuits. I want a faster answer about interference inside the Tesla Coil.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
Uspring, Thu Aug 13 2015, 02:20PM
tarakan2 wrote:
Uspring, Thu Aug 13 2015, 02:20PM
tarakan2 wrote:
Therefore if it is positioned correctly, in timing, relatively to the oscillation from the previous discharge in the Secondary Coil, there may be CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE.Secondary oscillations die out in a few 100us. Spark gap firing periods are around a few ms. The relative phase between consecutive shots doesn't matter much.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
loneoceans, Thu Aug 13 2015, 07:54PM
The primary circuit does take energy out of the secondary. That's what coupled resonant circuits do. After the initial secondary ring-up, if the spark gap does not quench by then, energy is transfered to the primary coil. The overlaping beat frequency depends on the coupling and geometry of the two systems. The primary resonant frequency has very much to do with the secondary.
Modern electronic coils use feedback systems to track this changing frequency and switch the transistors accordingly. This is understood and required for conventional SSTCs to work. Likewise tuning a spark gap coil primary lower achieves the same effect in principle. Don't make the mistake of simply looking at the primary or secondary circuit in isolation. They are a coupled system, like two pendulums hanging together from a separate line. Also, the entire driven oscillation occurs when the spark gap is conducting. The bell clapper analogy isn't accurate.
Finally as Uspring said, the relative phase between firings doesn't matter since each event is independent. Your goal of "acheving effects of constructive interference" is already what a normal Tesla Coil does on an RF cycle to cycle scale.
loneoceans, Thu Aug 13 2015, 07:54PM
tarakan2 wrote ...
According to what I found out, the primary didn't have much to do with the resonance in the secondary.
It was a clapper that rung the bell and had to have either a damped or an over-damped oscillation in it.
If primary "rang" like the secondary, than it would have taken energy out of the secondary.
According to what I found out, the primary didn't have much to do with the resonance in the secondary.
It was a clapper that rung the bell and had to have either a damped or an over-damped oscillation in it.
If primary "rang" like the secondary, than it would have taken energy out of the secondary.
The primary circuit does take energy out of the secondary. That's what coupled resonant circuits do. After the initial secondary ring-up, if the spark gap does not quench by then, energy is transfered to the primary coil. The overlaping beat frequency depends on the coupling and geometry of the two systems. The primary resonant frequency has very much to do with the secondary.
DekuTree64 wrote ...
Reading about the SSTC and DRSSTC that people build nowadays, it does sound like it works better if the primary and secondary have the same resonant frequency, but also that it's not absolutely necessary. This page says the primary is driven by feedback from the secondary, so that probably helps mitigate the effects of frequency changing.
But SSTCs are designed for making streamers, whereas Tesla's devices were designed for power transmission, so SSTC theory may not be applicable to replicating the original devices. It's still confusing what exactly the objectives are when building a true Tesla transformer. Match resonant frequency of primary and secondary, or not? Does the equal weight rule have some significance beyond being a primitive way to match the frequencies? And how exactly is it driven? If by magnetically quenched spark gap, how is the timing controlled? Does it just happen naturally by inductive feedback from the secondary to the primary causing a voltage spike that causes the spark gap to fire? Or is it more complicated than that?
Reading about the SSTC and DRSSTC that people build nowadays, it does sound like it works better if the primary and secondary have the same resonant frequency, but also that it's not absolutely necessary. This page says the primary is driven by feedback from the secondary, so that probably helps mitigate the effects of frequency changing.
But SSTCs are designed for making streamers, whereas Tesla's devices were designed for power transmission, so SSTC theory may not be applicable to replicating the original devices. It's still confusing what exactly the objectives are when building a true Tesla transformer. Match resonant frequency of primary and secondary, or not? Does the equal weight rule have some significance beyond being a primitive way to match the frequencies? And how exactly is it driven? If by magnetically quenched spark gap, how is the timing controlled? Does it just happen naturally by inductive feedback from the secondary to the primary causing a voltage spike that causes the spark gap to fire? Or is it more complicated than that?
Modern electronic coils use feedback systems to track this changing frequency and switch the transistors accordingly. This is understood and required for conventional SSTCs to work. Likewise tuning a spark gap coil primary lower achieves the same effect in principle. Don't make the mistake of simply looking at the primary or secondary circuit in isolation. They are a coupled system, like two pendulums hanging together from a separate line. Also, the entire driven oscillation occurs when the spark gap is conducting. The bell clapper analogy isn't accurate.
Finally as Uspring said, the relative phase between firings doesn't matter since each event is independent. Your goal of "acheving effects of constructive interference" is already what a normal Tesla Coil does on an RF cycle to cycle scale.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
tarakan2, Mon Aug 17 2015, 04:22PM
Where "magnifying transformers" pseudo-scientific exaggerations then?
When spark occurs, should the primary coil be in the Damped or Over-damped state?
If we are exciting the Secondary Coil with a discharge of electricity through the Primary Coil and the discharge has a shape of a Dirac impulse:
Is it the Voltage over Time that has the shape of the Dirac impulse or the Current over Time? Current?
Since the vertex of the Dirac Delta Function is an infinitesimally small event, is timing of this event still important for the constructive interference to take place?
In a traditional Tesla Coil, the spark gap fires when there is a demand for energy in the primary due to the arrangement of "two pendulums"?
Does this mean that when the spark takes place it necessarily causes waves to sum in the Secondary Coil?
Can Secondary be "force-fed" electricity in such way that we don't have to wait for the oscillations to decay beyond a certain point to add a new impulse?
I decided that I want to build a Phase Lock Loop Tesla Coil for my experiments.
I am thinking about this beauty right here.
Not all transformer specifications are mentioned. The isolation power transformer is a little bit complicated for me to build/buy/find.
Thank you.
tarakan2, Mon Aug 17 2015, 04:22PM
Where "magnifying transformers" pseudo-scientific exaggerations then?
When spark occurs, should the primary coil be in the Damped or Over-damped state?
If we are exciting the Secondary Coil with a discharge of electricity through the Primary Coil and the discharge has a shape of a Dirac impulse:
Is it the Voltage over Time that has the shape of the Dirac impulse or the Current over Time? Current?
Since the vertex of the Dirac Delta Function is an infinitesimally small event, is timing of this event still important for the constructive interference to take place?
In a traditional Tesla Coil, the spark gap fires when there is a demand for energy in the primary due to the arrangement of "two pendulums"?
Does this mean that when the spark takes place it necessarily causes waves to sum in the Secondary Coil?
Can Secondary be "force-fed" electricity in such way that we don't have to wait for the oscillations to decay beyond a certain point to add a new impulse?
I decided that I want to build a Phase Lock Loop Tesla Coil for my experiments.
I am thinking about this beauty right here.
Not all transformer specifications are mentioned. The isolation power transformer is a little bit complicated for me to build/buy/find.
Thank you.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
loneoceans, Mon Aug 17 2015, 05:27PM
Well you have to define what you mean when you refer to 'magnifying transformers', as well as show what 'exaggerations' you are referring to. From what I've seen it seems like different people have different interpretations of what constitutes a magnifying transformer, and depending on which specific design topology being referred to, each have different claims.
Are you specifically talking about Tesla's original 'magnifying transformer' as he described, and the claims that he personally made (what exactly are they?). However Tesla did sometimes seem to make claims which may not have been verified by experiment.
loneoceans, Mon Aug 17 2015, 05:27PM
tarakan2 wrote ...
Where "magnifying transformers" pseudo-scientific exaggerations then?
Where "magnifying transformers" pseudo-scientific exaggerations then?
Well you have to define what you mean when you refer to 'magnifying transformers', as well as show what 'exaggerations' you are referring to. From what I've seen it seems like different people have different interpretations of what constitutes a magnifying transformer, and depending on which specific design topology being referred to, each have different claims.
Are you specifically talking about Tesla's original 'magnifying transformer' as he described, and the claims that he personally made (what exactly are they?). However Tesla did sometimes seem to make claims which may not have been verified by experiment.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
tarakan2, Mon Aug 17 2015, 07:20PM
I am sorry for updating my above post and not reloading the page to see if I got a reply. I just want a PLL Tesla Coil to play with. I found some mystifying things in HV experiments that I cannot explain.
tarakan2, Mon Aug 17 2015, 07:20PM
I am sorry for updating my above post and not reloading the page to see if I got a reply. I just want a PLL Tesla Coil to play with. I found some mystifying things in HV experiments that I cannot explain.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
tarakan2, Mon Aug 17 2015, 08:45PM
Does spark gap discharge faster than semiconductors would allow?
Does it produce a sharper Dirac Delta Function?
tarakan2, Mon Aug 17 2015, 08:45PM
Does spark gap discharge faster than semiconductors would allow?
Does it produce a sharper Dirac Delta Function?
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
tarakan2, Fri Aug 21 2015, 03:03AM
Does anyone have any data on the other transformer in the SSTC Tesla Coils I mentioned above? I know that winding a transformer (no, not the Tesla Coil itself) is where I will get stuck. How do I wind that safety 1:1:1 transformer? Thank you.
tarakan2, Fri Aug 21 2015, 03:03AM
Does anyone have any data on the other transformer in the SSTC Tesla Coils I mentioned above? I know that winding a transformer (no, not the Tesla Coil itself) is where I will get stuck. How do I wind that safety 1:1:1 transformer? Thank you.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
Ash Small, Mon Aug 31 2015, 01:08PM
My thoughts on this go as follows:-
Tesla's coils were designed to oscillate without peoducing streamers, streamers 'waste' energy in heat and light. Presumably the secondary will oscillate for longer (ring down) if energy is not wasted peoducing streamers.
Presumably the 'copper mass' bit is to do with copper losses, Ohmic resistance. It makes sense for these to be balanced in primary and secondary.
What Tesla was trying to do was minimise losses. Balancing the copper losses on each side seemed important to Tesla.
With no streamers air may be ionised on each oscillation, but this 'ionisation energy' is returned to the system on each oscillation due to the lack of streamer losses.
I'm guessing that the 'mercury rectifiers' he used were ignitrons. These, I think, would minimise losses in the primary 'gap', thus transferring more energy to the secondary.
His goal was to 'store' energy in the secondary RLC tank circuit until it was 'tapped off' by whatever he wanted to power, we all know his lab was lit wirelessly, but his ultimate goal was to power his 'flying machine'.
His 'minset' was different to ours, he wasn't interested in producing streamers.
Ash Small, Mon Aug 31 2015, 01:08PM
My thoughts on this go as follows:-
Tesla's coils were designed to oscillate without peoducing streamers, streamers 'waste' energy in heat and light. Presumably the secondary will oscillate for longer (ring down) if energy is not wasted peoducing streamers.
Presumably the 'copper mass' bit is to do with copper losses, Ohmic resistance. It makes sense for these to be balanced in primary and secondary.
What Tesla was trying to do was minimise losses. Balancing the copper losses on each side seemed important to Tesla.
With no streamers air may be ionised on each oscillation, but this 'ionisation energy' is returned to the system on each oscillation due to the lack of streamer losses.
I'm guessing that the 'mercury rectifiers' he used were ignitrons. These, I think, would minimise losses in the primary 'gap', thus transferring more energy to the secondary.
His goal was to 'store' energy in the secondary RLC tank circuit until it was 'tapped off' by whatever he wanted to power, we all know his lab was lit wirelessly, but his ultimate goal was to power his 'flying machine'.
His 'minset' was different to ours, he wasn't interested in producing streamers.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
tarakan2, Tue Sept 15 2015, 07:44PM
That is what Eric Dollard is talking about.
I am trying to replicate one of his experiments, actually. No. no "free energy". Just physics omitted from textbooks. Thats it.
tarakan2, Tue Sept 15 2015, 07:44PM
Ash Small wrote ...
My thoughts on this go as follows:-
Tesla's coils were designed to oscillate without peoducing streamers, streamers 'waste' energy in heat and light. Presumably the secondary will oscillate for longer (ring down) if energy is not wasted peoducing streamers.
Presumably the 'copper mass' bit is to do with copper losses, Ohmic resistance. It makes sense for these to be balanced in primary and secondary.
What Tesla was trying to do was minimise losses. Balancing the copper losses on each side seemed important to Tesla.
With no streamers air may be ionised on each oscillation, but this 'ionisation energy' is returned to the system on each oscillation due to the lack of streamer losses.
I'm guessing that the 'mercury rectifiers' he used were ignitrons. These, I think, would minimise losses in the primary 'gap', thus transferring more energy to the secondary.
His goal was to 'store' energy in the secondary RLC tank circuit until it was 'tapped off' by whatever he wanted to power, we all know his lab was lit wirelessly, but his ultimate goal was to power his 'flying machine'.
His 'minset' was different to ours, he wasn't interested in producing streamers.
My thoughts on this go as follows:-
Tesla's coils were designed to oscillate without peoducing streamers, streamers 'waste' energy in heat and light. Presumably the secondary will oscillate for longer (ring down) if energy is not wasted peoducing streamers.
Presumably the 'copper mass' bit is to do with copper losses, Ohmic resistance. It makes sense for these to be balanced in primary and secondary.
What Tesla was trying to do was minimise losses. Balancing the copper losses on each side seemed important to Tesla.
With no streamers air may be ionised on each oscillation, but this 'ionisation energy' is returned to the system on each oscillation due to the lack of streamer losses.
I'm guessing that the 'mercury rectifiers' he used were ignitrons. These, I think, would minimise losses in the primary 'gap', thus transferring more energy to the secondary.
His goal was to 'store' energy in the secondary RLC tank circuit until it was 'tapped off' by whatever he wanted to power, we all know his lab was lit wirelessly, but his ultimate goal was to power his 'flying machine'.
His 'minset' was different to ours, he wasn't interested in producing streamers.
That is what Eric Dollard is talking about.
I am trying to replicate one of his experiments, actually. No. no "free energy". Just physics omitted from textbooks. Thats it.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
Thomas W, Tue Sept 15 2015, 09:35PM
Keep away from Eric Dollard, he is a nutcase on the level of Deepak Chopra
I have had the unfortunate experience of meeting a person obsessed with Eric Dollard, he, like Deepak uses scientific terms to make up nonsense.
Let alone what he claims on -his own website- is enough to throw up warning signs.
Not to mention this is in the realms of Pseudoscience that should not be discussed here.
Thomas W, Tue Sept 15 2015, 09:35PM
tarakan2 wrote ...
That is what Eric Dollard is talking about.
I am trying to replicate one of his experiments, actually. No. no "free energy". Just physics omitted from textbooks. Thats it.
Ash Small wrote ...
My thoughts on this go as follows:-
Tesla's coils were designed to oscillate without peoducing streamers, streamers 'waste' energy in heat and light. Presumably the secondary will oscillate for longer (ring down) if energy is not wasted peoducing streamers.
Presumably the 'copper mass' bit is to do with copper losses, Ohmic resistance. It makes sense for these to be balanced in primary and secondary.
What Tesla was trying to do was minimise losses. Balancing the copper losses on each side seemed important to Tesla.
With no streamers air may be ionised on each oscillation, but this 'ionisation energy' is returned to the system on each oscillation due to the lack of streamer losses.
I'm guessing that the 'mercury rectifiers' he used were ignitrons. These, I think, would minimise losses in the primary 'gap', thus transferring more energy to the secondary.
His goal was to 'store' energy in the secondary RLC tank circuit until it was 'tapped off' by whatever he wanted to power, we all know his lab was lit wirelessly, but his ultimate goal was to power his 'flying machine'.
His 'minset' was different to ours, he wasn't interested in producing streamers.
My thoughts on this go as follows:-
Tesla's coils were designed to oscillate without peoducing streamers, streamers 'waste' energy in heat and light. Presumably the secondary will oscillate for longer (ring down) if energy is not wasted peoducing streamers.
Presumably the 'copper mass' bit is to do with copper losses, Ohmic resistance. It makes sense for these to be balanced in primary and secondary.
What Tesla was trying to do was minimise losses. Balancing the copper losses on each side seemed important to Tesla.
With no streamers air may be ionised on each oscillation, but this 'ionisation energy' is returned to the system on each oscillation due to the lack of streamer losses.
I'm guessing that the 'mercury rectifiers' he used were ignitrons. These, I think, would minimise losses in the primary 'gap', thus transferring more energy to the secondary.
His goal was to 'store' energy in the secondary RLC tank circuit until it was 'tapped off' by whatever he wanted to power, we all know his lab was lit wirelessly, but his ultimate goal was to power his 'flying machine'.
His 'minset' was different to ours, he wasn't interested in producing streamers.
That is what Eric Dollard is talking about.
I am trying to replicate one of his experiments, actually. No. no "free energy". Just physics omitted from textbooks. Thats it.
Keep away from Eric Dollard, he is a nutcase on the level of Deepak Chopra
I have had the unfortunate experience of meeting a person obsessed with Eric Dollard, he, like Deepak uses scientific terms to make up nonsense.
Let alone what he claims on -his own website- is enough to throw up warning signs.
Not to mention this is in the realms of Pseudoscience that should not be discussed here.
Re: Mysterious Tesla Coil theory of operation and the experiment I am preparing.
Ash Small, Wed Sept 16 2015, 09:19PM
Is he stealing my ideas?
I just want to make it clear that I've never read his stuff and certainly don't endorse anything he says ( I mean Eric Dollard, not you, Tom )
Ash Small, Wed Sept 16 2015, 09:19PM
Thomas W wrote ...
Keep away from Eric Dollard, he is a nutcase on the level of Deepak Chopra
I have had the unfortunate experience of meeting a person obsessed with Eric Dollard, he, like Deepak uses scientific terms to make up nonsense.
Let alone what he claims on -his own website- is enough to throw up warning signs.
Not to mention this is in the realms of Pseudoscience that should not be discussed here.
tarakan2 wrote ...
That is what Eric Dollard is talking about.
I am trying to replicate one of his experiments, actually. No. no "free energy". Just physics omitted from textbooks. Thats it.
Ash Small wrote ...
My thoughts on this go as follows:-
Tesla's coils were designed to oscillate without peoducing streamers, streamers 'waste' energy in heat and light. Presumably the secondary will oscillate for longer (ring down) if energy is not wasted peoducing streamers.
Presumably the 'copper mass' bit is to do with copper losses, Ohmic resistance. It makes sense for these to be balanced in primary and secondary.
What Tesla was trying to do was minimise losses. Balancing the copper losses on each side seemed important to Tesla.
With no streamers air may be ionised on each oscillation, but this 'ionisation energy' is returned to the system on each oscillation due to the lack of streamer losses.
I'm guessing that the 'mercury rectifiers' he used were ignitrons. These, I think, would minimise losses in the primary 'gap', thus transferring more energy to the secondary.
His goal was to 'store' energy in the secondary RLC tank circuit until it was 'tapped off' by whatever he wanted to power, we all know his lab was lit wirelessly, but his ultimate goal was to power his 'flying machine'.
His 'minset' was different to ours, he wasn't interested in producing streamers.
My thoughts on this go as follows:-
Tesla's coils were designed to oscillate without peoducing streamers, streamers 'waste' energy in heat and light. Presumably the secondary will oscillate for longer (ring down) if energy is not wasted peoducing streamers.
Presumably the 'copper mass' bit is to do with copper losses, Ohmic resistance. It makes sense for these to be balanced in primary and secondary.
What Tesla was trying to do was minimise losses. Balancing the copper losses on each side seemed important to Tesla.
With no streamers air may be ionised on each oscillation, but this 'ionisation energy' is returned to the system on each oscillation due to the lack of streamer losses.
I'm guessing that the 'mercury rectifiers' he used were ignitrons. These, I think, would minimise losses in the primary 'gap', thus transferring more energy to the secondary.
His goal was to 'store' energy in the secondary RLC tank circuit until it was 'tapped off' by whatever he wanted to power, we all know his lab was lit wirelessly, but his ultimate goal was to power his 'flying machine'.
His 'minset' was different to ours, he wasn't interested in producing streamers.
That is what Eric Dollard is talking about.
I am trying to replicate one of his experiments, actually. No. no "free energy". Just physics omitted from textbooks. Thats it.
Keep away from Eric Dollard, he is a nutcase on the level of Deepak Chopra
I have had the unfortunate experience of meeting a person obsessed with Eric Dollard, he, like Deepak uses scientific terms to make up nonsense.
Let alone what he claims on -his own website- is enough to throw up warning signs.
Not to mention this is in the realms of Pseudoscience that should not be discussed here.
Is he stealing my ideas?
I just want to make it clear that I've never read his stuff and certainly don't endorse anything he says ( I mean Eric Dollard, not you, Tom
)Print this page