If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Registered Member #15
Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068
Just a question regarding frequency splitting within a two coil coupled system.
With two coupled coils, there is a frequency split which occurs that is depending on the coupling factor. The higher the coupling, the greater the frequency split. That we know. Now, with DRSSTCs, it has been stated that tuning the primary circuit to the lower frequency pole of the frequency split is beneficial for DRSSTC systems.
The question is, and its not as easy or straightforward a question as it sounds, is what exactly is occuring when you "tune" the primary to the lower pole of the split frequency. Firstly, as you decrease the natural resonant frequency of the primary circuit, the lower pole frequency will move as well, so you will never match the natural primary frequency with the lower pole frequency.
Does tuning the primary circuit lower in frequency (closer to the lower frequency pole) force the feedback to operate the DRSSTC at the lower pole frequency? To basically kind of fall in place?
Registered Member #30
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
I'm not telling, but you can buy my book that explains it for only $39.99 Ha-ha only kidding.
It's true that you will never match any of the pole frequencies with the primary frequency.
Now, as you change the tuning of the primary relative to the secondary, both pole frequencies move, and (this is the important bit) their relative magnitudes also change, as follows:
If you tune the primary to a lower frequency than the secondary, both pole frequencies move downwards. The magnitude of the lower pole increases and that of the upper pole decreases. (assuming the magnitude you're measuring is primary current: for secondary voltage the opposite is true.)
If you tune the primary to a higher frequency than the secondary, exactly the opposite happens. Both pole frequencies move upwards, and the primary current is heavier at the upper pole than the lower one.
Now, a simple feedback DRSSTC will operate at whichever pole has the highest loop gain. So the pole you end up operating on depends on whether you tune the primary above or below the secondary, whether you use primary or secondary base feedback, and whether streamer loading ever pulls the secondary below the primary, causing it to swap poles mid-burst. (I like to call that mode-hopping.)
In contrast to that, my PLL driver operates at whichever pole I tell it to, which made the whole puzzle that bit easier to unravel. I figured it out while designing and testing the driver, and tried explaining it to a bunch of other people, but I don't think any of them ever understood. I found that with this driver, I got best results operating at the upper pole frequency with the primary tuned lower than the secondary. That isn't possible with an ordinary feedback driver, unless you use secondary base current feedback.
Under extremely heavy streamer loading, both poles flatten out and the response looks like that of a 4-pole bandpass filter. It doesn't really matter which "pole" you drive at under those conditions.
Registered Member #15
Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068
Thanks. Okay, that makes more sense now. I did simulate it (see attached), so the upper pole's magnitude does increase when primary frequency is tuned higher than the natural frequency.
Registered Member #358
Joined: Sat Apr 01 2006, 06:13AM
Location: UCSB
Posts: 28
Now, a simple feedback DRSSTC will operate at whichever pole has the highest loop gain. So the pole you end up operating on depends on whether you tune the primary above or below the secondary, whether you use primary or secondary base feedback, and whether streamer loading ever pulls the secondary below the primary, causing it to swap poles mid-burst. (I like to call that mode-hopping.)
I'd agree with all that, if we were running steady state, but the whole point of the DRSSTC is to not be anything like CW :P
If you use primary feedback (which, I would argue is the best and safest way, since it is the only way to ensure you switch after the 0 crossing), you switch when the primary current crosses 0.
If you look at the primary current, it is not a single sine wave, there is some beating going on. If you do a Fourier transform, you'll find that it is oscillating simultaneously at both frequencies, and therefore, you are driving it at both frequencies at once (although they aren't driven equally).
If you tune the primary to a lower frequency than the secondary, both pole frequencies move downwards. The magnitude of the lower pole increases and that of the upper pole decreases. (assuming the magnitude you're measuring is primary current: for secondary voltage the opposite is true.)
Right, and the since the lower pole is bigger, the primary drives the lower pole more. It 'beats' less, but in the transient response, it is still exciting the upper pole.
I would call that "driving the lower pole", and I think this is Dan was looking for.
Say you had it set up so that the poles were nearly equal in magnitude (ie forming full notches) , but streamer loading pushed the balance a bit, it would just drive the other pole slightly more. There is generally not enough time for a full "mode hop" in a DRSSTC.
Registered Member #195
Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 08:27PM
Location: Berkeley, ca.
Posts: 1111
In my SSTC I can controle what ever frequency I chose. I noticed that if the tesla is sligtly detuned, eather pole becomes dominate. If it is detuned will the will the stremers be afected in amplitude if the frequency is set to the pole with the greatest amplitude? If the frequency is set to the center frequncy and boath poles are equal isn't more eficiant at F resonant because coupling is gratest?
Registered Member #15
Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068
Cool! Thanks for the comments again everyone. I did manage to take some measurements with a spectrum analyzer this evening on one of my DRSSTCs and was able to get a nice double-hump response and I did indeed verify that i could reverse the magnitudes off the upper and lower pole by adjusting primary tuning.
Registered Member #30
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
Woo! That's cool that you were able to get experimental results that agree with the theory. It's even cooler that you have a spectrum analyser
JimmyH: I like to think that burst lengths in a DRSSTC are long enough for it to be considered as "sort of steady-state-ish". To deal with the non-steady-stateness of things, I imagine that the drive from the inverter isn't a single frequency, but a band of frequencies, on account of the burst not being infinitely long. (The fewer cycles in the burst, the wider the band of frequencies.) Some of the energy in that band ends up exciting the other pole from the one you're trying to drive, and this is what causes any ripples in the envelope you might see, as the two modes beat against each other.
In the coil I have just now, with a high operating frequency, longish burst, and tight coupling, the unwanted mode hardly gets excited at all. There are no visible ripples or beats in the RF envelope. But I imagine as I build a bigger coil it'll need looser coupling to avoid flashovers, and a shorter burst length in terms of cycles, both of which will get the unwanted mode excited more. So I may need to learn how to drive both modes together, or it may turn out that my PLL driver can't do that and I need to use Steve Ward's design
It's interesting to note that Jimmy's original DRSSTC used a drive frequency midway between the two poles to excite both modes equally, and used the beating between them to his advantage, to get complete energy transfer like in a classical Tesla coil. But nowadays we seem to try and drive one mode much more than the other.
Registered Member #146
Joined: Sun Feb 12 2006, 04:21AM
Location: Austin Tx
Posts: 1055
It's interesting to note that Jimmy's original DRSSTC used a drive frequency midway between the two poles to excite both modes equally, and used the beating between them to his advantage, to get complete energy transfer like in a classical Tesla coil. But nowadays we seem to try and drive one mode much more than the other.
Actually, on my larger coils, im not detuning much at all (just enough to compensate for streamers)... in fact, now im using beats as the shut off point for my drive. The only reason i detuned was to eliminate notches so that i could constantly increase primary energy in order to get a bigger bang. But with the big coils, i found i can get plenty of bang energy in just a few cycles (maybe 7-9 cycles). So now i just tune it to notch and turn off the drive at that point. At high power, the notching isnt so apparent, but there definately is a drop off in primary current at the end. I gained much of this insight from my pspice simulations. As mentioned before, a notch indicates that secondary voltage (energy) is max, making it the most effective time to shut down the inverter. This tuning method has gotten me to 12' sparks now.
I think the optimal tuning depends a lot on the system itself. As ive said many times before, i think only small coils should need to use the "detuning trick" to get a bigger bang before notching.
Registered Member #358
Joined: Sat Apr 01 2006, 06:13AM
Location: UCSB
Posts: 28
[JimmyH: I like to think that burst lengths in a DRSSTC are long enough for it to be considered as "sort of steady-state-ish".
Well, it certainly depends on the coil. In my two DRSSTCs, there is a very clear beating going on, although for some coils that drive for many cycles, it may not be as apparent. Even those coils I would have a hard time believing are going to chose one pole, and then 'hop' to the next. Either way, ignoring the transient response is ignoring a huge part of it.
To deal with the non-steady-stateness of things, I imagine that the drive from the inverter isn't a single frequency, but a band of frequencies, on account of the burst not being infinitely long. (The fewer cycles in the burst, the wider the band of frequencies.) Some of the energy in that band ends up exciting the other pole from the one you're trying to drive, and this is what causes any ripples in the envelope you might see, as the two modes beat against each other.
It's not the fact that you have a short pulse that happens to have some energy in the other pole, it's due to the drive frequency being synched to the primary frequency(ies), so when the primary has energy in more than one frequency, it will drive both.
In the coil I have just now, with a high operating frequency, longish burst, and tight coupling, the unwanted mode hardly gets excited at all. There are no visible ripples or beats in the RF envelope. But I imagine as I build a bigger coil it'll need looser coupling to avoid flashovers, and a shorter burst length in terms of cycles, both of which will get the unwanted mode excited more. So I may need to learn how to drive both modes together, or it may turn out that my PLL driver can't do that and I need to use Steve Ward's design
Your PLL also puts out a fixed frequency, so you're going to see less beating for that reason also.
It's interesting to note that Jimmy's original DRSSTC used a drive frequency midway between the two poles to excite both modes equally, and used the beating between them to his advantage, to get complete energy transfer like in a classical Tesla coil. But nowadays we seem to try and drive one mode much more than the other.
What I think is interesting is that you get the same beating if you drive both poles equally as you do when you drive at the zero between them.
It's also worth noting that this approach is more difficult to transfer enough energy with. When my CT broke, I started tuning for max spark length (which happened to be the lower pole), rather than for the notch, and I got a big jump in max spark length. It went from ~50" or something to 74" just by changing the drive frequency, and eventually got up to 97" after playing with it more.
Registered Member #30
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
I think driving both poles equally is pretty much the same thing as driving the zero midway between them, for short transients at least? I guess it's not quite the same, since driving at the zero gives practically no output in the steady state.
I suppose it is possible for the feedback driver to respond to a pattern of zero crossings that actually contains two frequencies and reproduce the same two frequencies in its output, so both poles get driven. But I always saw that as a disadvantage, since the feedback might go funny at the notches.
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.