From: "Terrell W. Fritz"
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 18:01:50 -0700
Subject: Re: [TSSP] E-Tesla6.11
Hi Paul, At 02:22 PM 12/8/2000 +0000, you wrote: > >> It was only a two years ago when such things we deemed >> impossible by many and now it seems like we have been doing such >> calculations for 50 years without a second thought ;-)) > >Worrying really, since we're not doing anything fundamentally new in >this project - its just a thorough application of transmission line >theory, only a little more sophisticated than the standard analysis of >the uniform line as taught to undergrads. Beats me why nobody has put >this together before now. Maybe they have but I've not been able to >find it. I suspect the academic community shies away from things tesla >related due to the pseudoscience that the subject has collected over >the years. My theory there is that the people that know such things do it all day long professionally. Applying those "work" skills to a hobby is rare. It also takes something like the Tesla list to "suck in" the rare individuals who can do such things and support their efforts. The only other serious effort in this area is the work of the Corums. While "I" am not exactly a big supporter of some of their views, the Corums really tried hard to bring real engineering to TC analysis. They really drove that starting stake in the ground and challenged others to try an move it. However, the Corums are not really "supportive" of having "their" stake messed with. ;-))) The Internet is a big factor too. 10 years ago, finding 800 people that would have a clue to what you were trying to do would have been simply impossible! > >> It is a little scarry that your project showed such a dramatic error >> in the secondary profile in the 5 version of the program but >> reassuring that the results were simply made even more accurate when >> the error was corrected. > >Just goes to show that those fiddle factors can successfully hide some >big gaps in the physics. And if the answers didn't improve when the >factors were replaced, then that would suggest that compensating errors >are at work. In this case I think that the '5 profiles were covering >the lack of an appropriate effective inductance. Now of course, you're >still having to cover that gap with an Lfac, but at least the Lfac has >a well defined purpose and promises to be calculable in the not too >distant future. The empirical (a word I learned form John C ;-)) measurements that old profile was based on apparently took into account some of these issues automatically. > >> E-Tesla has gone through a lot of twists and turns so it should be >> on the right track as far as methodology goes. > >A few more to come, no doubt, but certainly on the right track. It's >the only program I could recommend to a coiler. > >> It has been 100 years now and not knowing the secondary voltage >> profile and other basic things has always struck me as ridiculous. >> We put a man on the moon over 30 years ago so we should be able to >> figure out the voltage of a large aluminum toroid 5 feet in front of >> us now... > >Yes, I encountered exactly this feeling when I sat down to design a big >CW coil. Not being able to cover the expense of trial and error I began >a thorough design but was immediately thwarted by the secondary >formulae - amazingly there weren't any - anywhere, except a few that >were obviously wrong or naive. I could find nothing with which to >calculate the Fres, input impedance, Q factor, and top voltage - all of >which are basic to any design. Thus began this project. > >> One little aspect "I" really will enjoy about the secondary profile >> thing, is that it was accurately predicted by computer modeling >> BEFORE that profile was demonstrated by measurement! > >Yes, nice that. What I like best is that the dv/dx profile also matched >very well, implying that the predicted current profiles are valid. In >particular the max current point being some way above the coil base, >that really surprised me when it came out of the simulator - hence the >need for your unequivocal measurements to prove that it wasn't just an >artifact. I must say that I was delighted that your V accuracy was >adequate to confirm this phenomena quantitatively. I am still a little humbled that it worked out so well. Especially when it was so embarrassingly simple to do! > >> I used to be prodded by the "seat of the pants" coilers who ridiculed >> people whose coils were made of electrostatic charges in little >> silicon gates made by Intel. So I get a always get a little thrill >> now poking them boys back ;-)) > >Sure, trial and error coiling is fun - and what else can you do without >a firm theoretical basis for design. But tradition is a poor substitute >for knowledge. > >> ... So don't screw up! :-))))) > >A good point that I'd like to make some comments on. Expect another >post to follow, Neat! Sort of the new Rosetta stone for secondary theory! Cheers, Terry > >Cheers, >-- >Paul Nicholson, >Manchester, UK. >--
Maintainer Paul Nicholson, paul@abelian.demon.co.uk.