[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Secondary Resonance LC and Harmonics
- To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Secondary Resonance LC and Harmonics
- From: "Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:53:34 -0600
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Old-return-path: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Resent-date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:53:40 -0600 (MDT)
- Resent-from: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
- Resent-message-id: <oK13h.A.Lj.k0DwCB@poodle>
- Resent-sender: tesla-request@xxxxxxxxxx
Original poster: jdwarshui@xxxxxxxxx
A dissenting opinion:
We have built 1/4 wave, 1/2 wave, 3/4 wave, full wave, 1.5 wave,
2wave, and 3 wave coils. All of them using wire length considerations.
Waves of E.M do in fact travel the length of the wire in an inductor
in its entirety. (It makes no difference if the wire is straight or
forms loops enclosing flux). When E.M. waves travel the length of the
wire both time and distance are manifested.
When LC is matched to wire length both the phase velocity and the
group velocity of the E.M. waves travel at C. When these conditions
are met we find that true standing wave resonance occurs along the
length of an inductor.
Under conditions of standing wave resonance we are guaranteed
positions along the length of an inductor where impedance goes to
zero. We have taken advantage of this perfect impedance matching to
create half wave coils where one side of the coil has a vastly
different inductance then the other side. Since both sides of these
half waves had their LC matched to the same frequency and both sides
were deliberately made with the same length of wire we had a viable
Aside from the issue of self capacitance, distinctions between a
straight wire and a wire wound around a cylinder have very little
meaning. A straight wire has inductance and when it is wound into
loops enclosing flux its inductance increases.
We can examine the classic equation for an air cored inductor: L = u
Nsqrd A / l
Multiply the numerator and denominator by 4pi we get:
L = u Nsqrd 4pi sqrd r sqrd / 4 pi l = u (2pi r N)sqrd / 4 pi l
Since 2pi rN equals wire length we can write:
L = u (wire length)sqrd / 4 pi l
Letting the solenoid height ( l ) equal the wire length, we find
that the classic equation predicts that the inductance of a straight
wire is simply:
Lstwire = u wire length / 4 pi
Furthermore classic description also predicts that exactly half of the
inductance of a straight wire resides within the wire itself.
We can view inductance as having a density. We can take a given length
of wire and wind it around a large barrel shaped form and get a good
inductor with a high inductive density. But the same wire around a
skinny pole makes a poor inductor with a low inductive density.
Skinnier yet and you get a straight wire with a minimum inductance.
The classic description of LC resonance exactly matches the
differential equations describing mass spring resonance. Normally
these equations are perfectly reasonable approximations. However they
do not describe node formation along the length of an inductor.
We turned to the energy equations of rope resonance derived by world
class Physicist/Mathematicians Jacob and Daniel Bernoulli to describe
node formation in an inductor. The potential and kinetic energies of a
rope in a normal mode are equivalent to mass spring resonance. The sum
of energy of both systems remains constant and the average is equal.
There are some differences between rope resonance and resonance along
an inductor. We cannot vary the velocity of waves along an inductor,
they are fixed at C under conditions of standing wave resonance. So as
it turns out, standing wave resonance in an inductor lacks a degree of
freedom found in rope resonance. Since inductors have an inductive
density we can model them as if they were ropes with a linear density.
I will stop this discussion right here as I am already late for work.
We have written extensively on this topic and this information can be
found on the Tesla Web-ring.
A note to the moderator. We posted a recipe for a 1.5 wave coil and
you deleted it. (because you disagreed with it!). You cannot suppress
the inevitable, our equations are as right as rain and eventually you
will find that you have actively engaged in the suppression of
Please repost our 1.5 wave coil specifications and let the scientific
community verify it's validity.
Respectfully Jared Dwarshuis and Lawrence Morris